Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry S. Truman/archive3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 21:28, 30 August 2007.
- See previous noms at: previous FAC 1 and previous FAC 2.
Several editors have recently worked hard to improve this article on President Truman, a two-term US President during two wars. Per Dr pda's script the prose size is 58k; and the article size is 108k, about the size of the FA on Gerald Ford. Rlevse 11:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The lead gives a good overview of his time in office as President, but nothing before or after. Shouldn't the lead sum up his whole life? In my opinion, it'd be nice to devote a short paragraph on what he did leading up to the presidency. Also, perhaps you could have a "Selected bibliography" section that's fleshed out with at least a few comprehensive sources, instead of providing just a link to Bibliography of Harry S. Truman (if I recall, I believe those Main Article templates are only supposed to be used when you actually have content in the section as a summary of the so-called Main Article). 69.202.41.119 01:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Put the primary bibiography bits back in. We cut the whole thing and made a separate article when cutting file size. Added to lead too. Thanks for the input.Rlevse 02:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It's good article. (P.S. is this vote a violation of WP:ILIKEIT? Only in a featured form, and not a deletion form?) MalwareSmarts 02:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it would be, since you think it's a good article, as opposed to liking it because it's about Harry Truman. --RandomOrca2 03:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support have to agree, this is very good. Sumoeagle179 09:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support BRILLIANT Luxurious.gaurav 05:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I wish I could leave some feedback as to how to improve this, but I don't think I personally could improve it. It seems to be about just right the way it is, and other editors clearly agree with me. MrPrada 14:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The idea that 58k of prose is now some kind of acceptable standard is rather disconcerting. Attention spans among readers haven't increased two-fold in the last few years just because technical limitations are less restricting, and focus is still supposed to be a criterium worth respecting. Peter Isotalo 04:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with suggestion Fantastic article with especially nice depth in the pre-presidency life of a man who's article could so easily get dominated by his presidential life. My only major question here is could the lead be shortened? Especially noticeable in the middle paragraph the lead goes into so many specifics about so much it becomes really a full subsection in itself. Also, tiny thing, but shouldn't the 1952 election simply be a subsection of his Presidency, following in the style of Gerald Ford and 1976, since it was an election he took part in (for at least a short time) as the sitting president? Staxringold talkcontribs 19:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The death numbers ("around 110,000 people were killed in the two bombings") for the Atomic bombings are presented as undisputed fact. They also don't specify whether these were deaths that occurred by the end of 1945 (normally how they are counted), or some other measure. For Hiroshima, the number estimated is 140,000 (+/- 10,000) by the end of 1945. [1] [2], [3] For Nagasaki, the number is 70,000-74,000, by the end of 1945. [4] [5], [6] So, the combined total given in the article appears to be off by ~100,000. More difficult is estimating the number who died since 1945, due to A-bomb related illnesses, with widely varying figures among many sources. I would leave those figures out of this article and let them be discussed in the main article on the Atomic bombings. --Aude (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FIXED. removed raw numbers.Rlevse 10:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.