Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hillary Rodham Clinton/archive2: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 201: Line 201:


'''Oppose''' This article is,in my opinion,a great example of blatant contravention of Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles|ownership policy]]. Time and time again, over the past many months, several of the article's primary contributors have teamed up to insult,dismiss and chase away dozens of would be editors while trashing the AGF policy in the process. This ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Hillary.27s_eye_colour_is_fake:_she_wears_blue_contact_lenses the first 8 comments]) is just the very latest example of such behavior. [[User:Mr.grantevans2|Mr.grantevans2]] ([[User talk:Mr.grantevans2|talk]]) 23:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
'''Oppose''' This article is,in my opinion,a great example of blatant contravention of Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles|ownership policy]]. Time and time again, over the past many months, several of the article's primary contributors have teamed up to insult,dismiss and chase away dozens of would be editors while trashing the AGF policy in the process. This ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Hillary.27s_eye_colour_is_fake:_she_wears_blue_contact_lenses the first 8 comments]) is just the very latest example of such behavior. [[User:Mr.grantevans2|Mr.grantevans2]] ([[User talk:Mr.grantevans2|talk]]) 23:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
:This oppose does not engage [[WP:WIAFA]]. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
:This oppose does not engage [[WP:WIAFA]], or the [[WP:FAC]] instructions (you must present issues with the article content relative to [[WP:WIAFA]] that are actionable; i.e., can be fixed). [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:44, 24 April 2008

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Toolbox

previous FAC

Support I feel that this article has improved so much since last year that it should be featured. It's already has "good article" status, but I think it's a great article. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article stats:

Wasted Time R 1427
LukeTH 656
Tvoz 199
K157 137
StuffOfInterest 74
Ohnoitsjamie 51
Gamaliel 50

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please Withdraw. This is a drive-by nom. As the #1 contributor to this article, I am not prepared, and do not wish, for it to go to FAC at this time. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Can't be withdrawn. I will try to do some impromptu fixup work on it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw - I agree, as another major contributor. Tvoz |talk 01:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Quirky has never edited the article, but Quirky did follow the WP:FAC instructions:

Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination.

and query the article talk page several weeks ago, where as far as I can tell, no one objected. We put the instructions in place to avoid precipitous noms, not to encourage article ownership. As far as I can tell, Quirky complied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think it serious, so I didn't bother to object. Guess that was a mistake. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query Is it withdrawing or not? Ealdgyth - Talk 03:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(whimpers) 360 references? Yikes. Tomorrow I'll look at the sources. I don't think I can do it tonight after a day spent traveling on cramped airplanes Ealdgyth - Talk 03:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article clearly is in violation of MoS length policies. Length guidelines, even after reduction, show the article over 15k above where it should be. The responder below refuses to cut a lot of information that is not encyclopedic and refuses to make the article concise. The responder below also refuses to pursue further splits of the page which are needed. Much of the information reads as trivia and the notability seems to only be from the fact that it is "Hillary Clinton" doing such things. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have reservations about such an article. If she becomes President, if she doesn't, etc, her page will dramatically change to reflect that. With such, there can be no guarantee to the standard of the article. I believe that when it says "stable" as part of the criteria, that it means that there wont be major changes, which are inevitable for such individuals. Also, most of the information needs to be put on its own page. Furthermore, articles over 80k are way too long and excessive. This article needs to be trimmed down a lot before it can be readable. There is just too much information. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The readable prose size is 59Kb, within article size and FA guidelines. The overall large physical size of the article is due to the many references, which alas are needed. Just about every single statement in here, no matter how innocuous, has been challenged at one time or another, hence the heavy citing. A secondary issue along the same lines is the article's use of the "cite" template, whose current implementation is notably inefficient in several aspects. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that total size should be taken into consideration. I use dialup quite often. The page took forever for it to load to me. Sorry, but it is way too long. The Presidential campaign, for example, needs its own page. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has its own page, Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008. What you see here is just a summary. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are there more than three paragraphs devoted to that topic? Isn't that just a tad excessive? The main article link is there for people to read about the topic. That is a good area to start cutting the article length. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some trimming and excess cite reduction of the presidential campaign section, and have it down to four paragraphs. But it would be wrong to reduce it too much. The campaign has had many significant twists and turns, and has brought out some of the motifs that run through the article, such as the role of Bill in her life. Any way you look at it, this campaign has been a major development in her biographical evolution, and readers should not have to go off to the separate campaign article to glean that. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you are wrong about the manual of style - Wikipedia:Article size
  • "which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose"
  • ""Readable prose" is the main body of the text, excluding sections such as: * Footnotes and reference sections ("see also", "external links", footnotes, bibliography, etc)"
  • You are going to have to cut the page to about half before it can be considered in compliance with the manual of style. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Summary style. This applies also to her Presidential campaign article, which is far too excessive in length. Just because it has made the news, does not mean that it needs an encyclopedic page. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is "6,000 to 10,000 words", and the size tool says this is 9,580 words. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, at 59Kb, this article wouldn't even make the Top 10 FA articles in size list. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out above, references count as readable text. This is well beyond reasonable. I would suggest you look at the "text" number, because that is what the MoS is refering to, which is 70k. This page even causes my computer to freeze when copying parts or other such things. Its unwieldy and does not meet MoS. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the expansions of the cite template that are giving your computer problems; per the size tool, the page generates 148 kB of HTML for prose, but 284 kB of HTML for references, twice as much. Anyway, I accept that you'll oppose the FAC; from your perspectives (including a disinclination of FA for active bio figures), you are right to do so. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it wrong to cut down a campaign that has its own, majorly large page, devoted to it, based on putting every possible news mention listed? This is an encyclopedia, not a list of every single event. Most biographies lack day to day activities. People will come here looking for a short history, not details and detail that don't really contribute to understanding her. If you really like Hillary, you would try to put out the information that is most important to her in a simple way so that people can see that and then pursue the other paths if they are interested in such things. Instead, excessive length could be viewed as propagandistic and turn people off. And I haven't opposed anything. This is a comment. Not a support or an oppose. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just got to a computer with faster internet and processing power. The print size of the page would be 17 pages. Thats almost double what is recommended for pages to be. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The recommended high end is 10 printed pages for readable prose, which this is; the last 7 pages are all references, external links, and the templates at the bottom. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)'[reply]
Stop this right now. I have quoted directly from MoS, and there are NOT 7 pages of references. Stop it. Its almost double of what it is allowed to be. You cannot excuse this any longer. This page needs to be trimmed dramatically. FAs must abide by MoS guidelines. This is one of the most important guidelines. If you refuse to acknowledge this, I will be forced to oppose you based on your unwillingness to follow MoS. Having an article this size is severely inappropriate, especially when her career isn't yet to its highest peak. Trim the first lady section. Trim the senate section. Trim the campaign section; you do not need a section for her senate campaign and for her senate experience. Make this look like an encyclopedia, not a blog listing links to every possible news article. The notes among the footnotes are excessive. They need to be reduced. Some of it is just trivia, which does not belong in such an article. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate your tone, and I don't intend to reply to you any further. Cast your "oppose" and be done with it. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My tone? You are showing severe uncivility and ownership problems over an article that clearly is in violation of MoS. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the guidelines Wikipedia:Article_size#References for how to find the text size, it reads at "This page is 65 kilobytes long." Thats 15k too much. Note, when you follow that format, there is no HTML, there are no pictures, and there are no ways to excuse the extra 15k. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That page says "Estimate", but using Dr. PDA's page size tool, gives "Prose size (text only): 59 kB (9540 words) "readable prose size"" for this article. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His estimation tool is clearly wrong then. I uploaded just the text and hit previous. It puts it over 65k. I can hit save and revert it if you do not believe me. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it correct on the number of words though? And I'm not sure there is a hard and fast number for anything. I honestly don't care one way or the other, but I don't feel that 65K is that awful either. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ms Word had a different listing for the amount of words also. I think that counter goes off of syllables and not actual words. The size I originally checked at was the 166k version (which was 65k readable) and the recent 163k is 64k readable. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava, I believe the problem that you are having is that you are including the section titles and reference links (but not the references themselves) as part of the readable text. I've removed all of the section titles and reference links here and I'm only getting 59k of readable prose. I'm also getting 9,675 words using MSWord's word count. As far as the printable pages, there may be a difference of tools in getting the different page count for printable pages. Using word I'm getting 18 pages, but if I use the printable version link on the HRC article I'm getting 17 pages total with 10 of those pages being readable text and 7 of them being references, templates, etc. The main cause of the difference seems to be that the printable version shrinks to fit the page, so smaller text means smaller printable page. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to MoS, section headings cannot be discounted, and there are not 5k worth of section headings. I have put forth the proper, MoS sanctioned "readable prose" according to the guidelines and published it on the page followed by a revert. It clearly says 64k. This cannot be mistaken. Furthermore, this is not the end of her career, so the page must be dramatically shortened to accomodate future aspects. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS does not say that section headings should be included either. But as far as there being 5k worth of section headings, you are correct, there is 1k worth of section headers. There is 5k worth of Reference numbers. After I removed the section headers there was 64k of text according to Wikipedia, but when I removed all of the reference numbers from the text, it dropped down to 59k. I've added the section headers back into the size test here. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree with Ottava, although I'll note that Barack Obama is a Featured Article. I think that FA needs to avoid giving an impression of favoritism (has this been discussed elsewhere to develop clear guidance/consensus?) If it's determined that HRC cannot be featured for reasons of stability then we should probably remove Obama as well. If, however, it's the case that the HRC article is simply not featured quality and the Obama article is, that's different. But looking over Barack Obama cursorily just now, I'm not sure one could make the claim that it's particularly high-quality or has been sufficiently stable. --JayHenry (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that Barack Obama recently underwent a FAR, which was closed as neither "keep" nor "remove" because the article is basically high-quality but is undergoing some edit warring at the moment due to the election. There was no real consensus about whether the article met the "stability" criterion, or whether the "stability" criterion makes allowances for temporary fluctuations. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have noted elsewhere that I have reservations about all biographies of living people who are involved with many major projects, especially a Presidential campaign. I think that FA is supposed to be one of the markers of the best Wikipedia pages, and that would mean they would change very little over time. The nature of politics has such pages change constantly over time. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realize it seems to be this way, but in reality this article is a biography of her entire life, and does not change much (not counting vandalism and obvious bias edits) even during this campaign. The last paragraph in the "Presidential campaign" section grows a bit when new primaries or major campaign developments happen; that's about it. Most campaign developments go into the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 daughter article and most new Senate developments go into the Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton daughter article, not here. So this article is a lot more stable than you would think. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And as for the possibility of her becoming President and the article undergoing a major overhaul, that's very unlikely at this point. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to disagree, because the article of her life would shrink as other things become more important or other details are revealed. Think of Bill Clinton's profile if there was one pre Monica and one after? It would rewrite a lot of stuff, or call into question a lot of previous comments. New information puts a whole different context upon all of the old information. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article, because of its subject matter, is inherent unstable. We should at least wait until after the primaries are over and the Democratic nomination has been decided before we even consider this FAC. If Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee for president, this article will become even more unstable. If she becomes the President... Her article is basically news at this moment. (Yes, I know Obama is an FA - if I had seen that FAC, I would have opposed it on the same grounds.) Awadewit (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding stability, pls see this past talk page thread and the stability criterion, which is:

1 (e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day, except for edits made in response to the featured article process.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And becoming a President would mean that contents change day to day. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That talk page thread hardly represents a community consensus on this issue. It is my opinion that nominating an article on an ongoing news event clashes with the desire for stability. It is regrettable but inevitable. Awadewit (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing news event? What's going to change? The vast majority of the article, detailing her life and her career, will not change aside from a tinker here and there. As for her presidential campaign, I think we've got so many people carefully watching and manicuring the article that we'll be able to keep it both up-to-date and stable. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If she becomes the nominee, that entire section will have to be expanded. If she becomes president, the section on her career will change dramatically. That is why I said let us at least wait until we know who the Democratic nominee is. If you look at the articles on other US presidents, their pages are dominated by their presidencies. Awadewit (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then we'll cross that bridge when we get there. But for right now, it's extremely speculative. This article, as it stands, is featured article quality. If future events change that, then we'll adapt. But we shouldn't prevent perfectly good articles from being featured just because of what might happen. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not wild speculation. Waiting a few months to establish how stable this article is going to remain won't hurt anyone and will only benefit the article. The campaign will be over. If Clinton becomes the first female president of the United States, the focus of this article will change dramatically. Awadewit (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With respect to length, I believe this article is well within the bounds of normal length for world leaders. See Template:FA Reagan, Template:GAstarBush, G.W., Template:GAstarClinton, B., Template:GAstarStephen Harper, Template:GAstarRice, C., Template:FAGrover Cleveland, Template:FAFord, Template:FA Roosevelt, F., and Template:FARoosevelt, T..--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 08:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the main editors don't think it is ready for FAC, why would we argue with them? Plus, as noted above, it won't be stable for some time yet. Yomanganitalk 10:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's going to change? The vast majority of the article, detailing her life and her career, will not change aside from a tinker here and there. As for her presidential campaign, which is limited to just a few sentences in the lead and one section, I think we've got so many people carefully watching and manicuring the article that we'll be able to keep it both up-to-date and stable. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarification relative to previous precedent to withdraw noms: Unlike the Sea Otter nomination, which was withdrawn because the principle editor argued it was not yet comprehensive and some sources were not yet included, neither of the principle editors have argued here that the article is not ready for FAC. They argued that "As the #1 contributor to this article, I am not prepared, and do not wish, for it to go to FAC at this time." and "I agree, as another major contributor." This does not conform with the previous precedent set that an article can be withdrawn when the principle editor explains that it's not yet comprehensive or not ready. Unlike Sea Otter, in this case, the nominator queried the talk page about nominating; no reasons were given then or have been given here that the article is not ready for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've struck my Oppose, as the principle editors seem to be engaged with the FAC. I can't support as I haven't read it, but if it is still hanging around here when I get back from my break, I'll look through it. Yomanganitalk 00:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I have concerns that the nominator has imposed undue hardship on the primary authors, who appear to have put in an incredible amount of time into this article with thousands of edits, but who are also unable or unwilling at this time to prepare the article for FA (and I don't blame them). I don't believe the nominator is able to respond to the demands of the FAC process. However, I don't believe the nomination should be withdrawn because the subject is a presidential candidate. I don't envy the job of maintaining the article as an FA if she is elected, but her biography remains relatively stable until further developments. And there is a daughter article addressing her presidential candidacy. I don't know whether to wish you folks luck or not. --Moni3 (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

All other links worked and checked out fine for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks very much ... for the deluge! ;-) I'll let QuirkyAndSuch handle the first pass on these ... Wasted Time R (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Way to unstable, wait untill the primaries are over to nominate. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 16:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's going to change? The vast majority of the article, detailing her life and her career, will not change aside from a tinker here and there. As for her presidential campaign, which is a relatively small chunk of the article, I think we've got so many people carefully watching and manicuring the article that we'll be able to keep it both up-to-date and stable. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Article fulfills all the criteria, and the stability issue is a non-issue and a red herring. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The size issue I feel is unfair in this case, because of the relative importance of the article. There are many articles over the Wikipedia guidelines that are much larger than this article. Wikipedia has many guidelines, but there are always exceptions, and they need to be made democratically by editors that review individual cases. I feel that due to the importance of this article it can be larger (with prudence of course) than the average article about something such as Pokemon or Britney Spears. I think that's fair.

I also feel that this article is very stable, just as stable as featured article Barack Obama. And because both articles are of equal stability and equal quality I feel that to dismiss one but feature the other would be allowing bias to get into the FA nomination process.

I should also note that although I am not a contributor I am familiar with the content, and had thoroughly thought about whether or not to nominate before proceeding. I had also asked in the discussion pages about the nomination and had no editors challenge me. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, MoS is fair for some people, but not fair when it comes to an article you want to promote? These articles aren't for you. They are for the larger community. The guidelines are there to promote respect for the larger community. It is disrespectful to them to have such a lengthy article. That goes for all articles of such length. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - article is way too long and excessive. This article does not need to grow but be trimmed down a lot before it can be readable.BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article is not stable by any means. It is currently semi-protected and an edit war seems to be the culprit. With over 500 edits in the past 40 days, many not related to this FAC, I feel this is a perfect example of an unstable article. Regarding length however, we should be talking about "readable prose", not merely the size of the page. References should be encouraged, not discouraged. As for the comment about seven pages of references, I have no idea what printer, what size font, or what size paper you are using, but mine printed out at just under three pages. Perhaps your settings aren't so good? In short, This article fails stability. This cannot be fixed by anything other than time...WP:DEADLINE. — BQZip01 — talk 13:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI:

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, — BQZip01 — talk 13:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. There is precedent for an article failing FAC because an important event was likely to happen to the subject within a few months. The second nomination of Harry Potter failed in part because it was nominated several months before the release of the seventh novel in the series despite the fact that the article was otherwise stable at the time. (nom here) Karanacs (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please corrrect me if I'm wrong, since I know zero about Harry Potter, but in that case, the final book—the subject of the article—wasn't even released, while in this case, we have a bio of a person; all BLPs are dynamic. People die, get married, get into scandals, accomplish new and different things, etc.; do we reject a FAC because any BLP will change when the person marries, dies, has any life transition? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That article was on the series as a whole (not just the seventh book). If the article had been nominated at a time when the release date of the last book was unknown, people wouldn't have opposed on stability; the problem was that we knew the article would need to change on a certain imminent date. For an ordinary BLP, there's no imminent indication that something worthy of being mentioned in the article is going to happen. For Clinton, well, will the article really need to change much after the Convention? I can't quite make up my mind on what I think of stability to presidential candidates, which is why I'm not !voting on this one. Karanacs (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Potter clarification :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Article not likely to be stable anytime soon. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precrime deparment? This article has been discussed at GAR a couple of times, and the meaning of "stability" has been subjected to much debate partly as a consequence. Those opposing this article because they believe it will become unstable once the presedential elections take place this fall are effectively creating a FAC precrime department. The question is whether the article is stable now. If it gets promoted and becomes unstable at a later date, take it to FAR. Unless you want precrime to become a valid objection as part of the FAC process, you need to provide arguments and evidence that the article is inherently unstable now.I've reviewed this article and its edit history in depth several times, and have not found any such evidence. Geometry guy 21:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article is,in my opinion,a great example of blatant contravention of Wikipedia's ownership policy. Time and time again, over the past many months, several of the article's primary contributors have teamed up to insult,dismiss and chase away dozens of would be editors while trashing the AGF policy in the process. This (the first 8 comments) is just the very latest example of such behavior. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This oppose does not engage WP:WIAFA, or the WP:FAC instructions (you must present issues with the article content relative to WP:WIAFA that are actionable; i.e., can be fixed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/archive2&oldid=207991341"