Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Franklin D. Roosevelt/archive1
Not self-nom. I think the article is comprehensive and well-referenced, and it provides a lot of good information. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. It does seem comprehensive, and well-referenced, but that last point is there... it provides a LOT of good information. I think it might be a good idea to trim the article down using summary style, and move the deleted information to sub-articles linked from the main one. On the other hand, I don't really have suggestions for exactly WHAT to remove, so this isn't a vote, but just a thought/general suggestion. Fieari 02:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. At first glance, it looks to be a decent and informative article. However, there's a few glaring style and technical issues that need to be dealt with, as they'll prevent this article from reaching featured status regardless of how solid the content itself is.
- References: You ought to write an article using in-text references. Although there is no set standard as to how it should be done, the most popularly used ones are Harvard style, footnotes, and embedded HTML links. The use of {{inote}} is also surfacing and can be acceptable. Personally, I'm a fan of using {{ref}} tags for footnotes. Whatever the case - they have to be there.
- Copyright Status: Image:FDR Wheel Chair.jpg does not have a copyright tag on it. Often, users upload their own photos and release them under, for example, a {{GFDL-self}} tag. However, we can't assume that's what Boshtang wanted when he uploaded the photo. Find a copyright tag, or remove the photo. Image:FDR0415.JPG could use a update to its copyright status as well; it's using a now deprecated Fair Use tag.
- Length: The suggested article length is 32 KB, and this article is 85 KB long. While that's no reason to oppose a candidacy, there's some sections in here that could undoubtedly use summary style better. The New Deal has it's own article - insert a main article tag under the subheading. Pearl Harbor has an excellent article - do the same thing. With someone as important as FDR, I know it's virtually impossible to trim things down like this, and I certaintly wouldn't want to remove entire sections and place them elsewhere. It might do better to trim off a little bit of the fat, however. -Rebelguys2 03:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Object. Article is definetly too big. Pushing it below 50 Kb does not seem like an unreasonable objection as per the idea of summary style. The amount of references cited is also completely overwhelming. I count 57 in total and not a single footnote (I usually complain about too many of them). It's also unclear exactly what "Secondary sources" actually means. Have these sources been used to reference the article or just to reference the "Primary sources"? If all have actually been used directly for writing the article, there's definetly too much double-referencing. If not, remove the ones that aren't needed to support facts in the article. Making a short "Further reading" might be advisable to keep a list of the more relevant sources.
- When/if providing the article with notes or inline citations, please keep in mind that the idea is not to reference every single fact statement in the article, but rather only that which is obscure or controversial. So what Roosevelt did and didn't know in advance about the attack on Pearl Harbor is controversial and should most likely be footnoted, pointing out that he was born in Hyde Park or that he had polio should not. / Peter Isotalo 11:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Looks good to me. WikiFanatic 00:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose It's not sourced. Sure, there is a list of books and papers at the end of the article, but how are we to know what statements in the article they apply to, if any? Everything needs to be properly sourced --footnoted. Also, informatin is being censored. For example, I noted in the article that FDR ordered private gold of Americans to be turned in for paper money (under threat of imprisonment) and a couple people are deleting it. People are deleting whatever tarnishes the Roosevelt myth. Sourcing, and RESPECT for sourced information would help. RJII 16:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
