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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:12, 1 May 2008

Hillary Rodham Clinton

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 1527

LukeTH 656

Tvoz 227

K157 137

Restart: old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think all of the MoS, sourcing, citing, etc. issues raised in the nom before restart have been addressed. I believe the article shape is appropriate and the article will be stable unless and until she is elected president (unlikely to happen as it stands now), at which point we would deal with it accordingly. In general I believe the article merits FA status. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The image issues originally posed were addressed. I'm not sure about Image:Hillary Clinton first lady portraitHRC.jpg, as a work merely commissioned by the federal government might not necessarily be properly considered a "work of an employee of the Executive Office of the President of the United States", as it's tagged (the source website disclaimer asserts the artist retains copyright). I, however, don't have sufficient information (i.e. I don't know of the statute defining "employee of the EO") to make a firm assertion one way or another. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EXCELLENT POINT! This is NOT a work of an employee of the Executive Office. This picture needs to be replaced in the article and the copyrighted image removed from Wikipedia. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just about every First Lady article I've seen includes their official White House portrait. Why is this one considered different? Or do they all have to go? Wasted Time R (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I all depends how those are used, how they were acquired, etc. Those who were before the advent of film have little other way to illustrate their image and most of those copyrights ended a long time ago. Others may have been works of a government employee and, therefore, are public domain. Others still may simply have not elected to maintain their copyright on the images. I don't know specifics about the others, but this one needs to go IAW Wikipedia policy. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a long discussion of this issue from a couple of years ago at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/US government portraits. Resolution was unclear, but none of the portraits they were talking about have been deleted, as far as I can tell. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this discussion is going to continue (which is certainly fine), let's take it to the talk page so the FAC is kept to comments germane to this article. Analysis of other images is getting too tangential. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Image has been deleted from commons. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per previous. I also strongly object to this nomination being restarted. There were many oppose !votes on the last one that will likely not be included again. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Images in this article do not meet sizing requirements IAW WP:MoS. Please fix.~~ — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fixed Granted, the removal of the image sizing for the gallup polls makes them virtually unreadable and may actually be exempt from the MOS per my interpretation of WP:MOS#Image size. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the MoS "other cases where a specific image width is appropriate include (but are not limited to) images with extreme aspect ratios, detailed maps, diagrams or charts" exemption is why I was using the fixed px size for all the charts. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No icons per WP:FAC instructions, please. There was a time when I bothered pointing out MOS size issues, but FAC (unfortunately) has been apathetic and dismissive in the past. Indeed, images with particular detail, dimensions, etc. which would be impaired at 300 pixels or less are exempt. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur completely with pixel sizing as stated by WTR, but please use the UPRIGHT switch for portraits where applicable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, re-fixed so the Gallup polls are back to the original px size. The upright switch is being used in all instances where the image would benefit from the switch. The only MOS issues I found were the lead image being smaller than 300px and the soon to be deleted portrait had a px size and was not using upright. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me! — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see hsitory for this comment.

Uh, this is not a new FAC since you actually deleted the old one, but kept the same name (another problem I have with this "restart" nomination you and Raul seem to do whenever a discussion gets long...why not close the previous nomination as failed and then start a new one so all the discussion remains?!). I have no problem starting over, but if this is a new FAC, then where is the old one? Why is this not attempt #3?
My objections were perfectly actionable, but you deleted them. Quite frankly, I am quite disturbed by this aggressiveness and deleting of others' comments. I'm not saying it should have passed. I'm not saying it shouldn't have passed. But you shouldn't delete anyone else's comments period. Again, I have no problem starting over, but the previous discussion should not have been removed as it gives an improper view of the discussion.
Not to harp on it too much, but please restore the old discussion and make it accessible to all. I have no objection to someone else making the nomination (including you or Raul), but this was not the same article that was nominated by QuirkyandSuch. You restarted this and deleted the old stuff. Please restore. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The old FAC is clearly linked and bolded at the top of this page. This is a new FAC; current opposes should be actionable and based on the current article. If you want to discuss the method that Raul has always used to restart FACs, please take it to the talk page so this FAC isn't disrupted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Raul has always done it this way doesn't make it right. For those interested further discussion is contained here: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Restarts. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comment "Article is not stable by any means. It is currently semi-protected. 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." was never addressed by anyone. I even proposed a solution for it with no feedback. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response here not addressed: "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]
To the contrary. I don't think it is stable now (see my comments above). I also do not believe it will be stable for the foreseeable future. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Once again, the article is fit to be featured and fulfills all of the requisite criteria. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - In my view the article merits FA status at this time. The FAC process has helped us clean up some inconsistencies in references and other such details. The article is widely watchlisted and closely monitored, and I believe it is within FA guidelines for stability, length, references, comprehensiveness, neutrality, accuracy, and quality of expression. It is easy to navigate, is set up logically, and utilizes sub-articles as needed; the images illustrate different stages of her life effectively. I believe we will be able to maintain its integrity and quality no matter what turn her career takes, as has to happen for all FAs about active subjects. Tvoz →talk 00:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Article is inherently unstable as subject is currently running for president of the United States. Let us at least wait to see if she becomes the nominee. If she were to actually win and become the first female president of the United States, her page would change drastically. Awadewit (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, fails 1e (stability). As we get closer to the elections the article will change significantly and chances are we'll be back in FAR in three months time. -- Naerii 03:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on stability. I had a look again to see if the article currently has stability issues. There's an amusing incident of a vandal correcting a typo in their own incoherent string of profanities, but apart from that just good old fashioned incremental improvement. Here is one diff which shows the many improvements made since 21 April (the day before it was nominated) and here is another diff showing the changes over the previous month or so, when the article was developing due to ongoing primaries. I see no evidence of instability here.

I'm not sure why the crystal ball-gazers continue to believe that "it may become unstable at some point in the future" is an actionable objection. I sincerely hope Awadewit is wrong when she suggests that the "page would change drastically". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source or fan site. Most of the material that would go into an encyclopedic article on a newly elected president is already there: her background, history, politics etc. The lead would need to change a bit, and the campaign section would evolve and shrink to maintain its focus, and there would be a new section on her presidency, which would evolve with reliably sourced coverage of that presidency. It won't necessarily be easy to maintain a high quality article in the face of such ongoing events, but all the evidence I have seen, both in the recent edit history, and in all my interactions with the article, is that the main editors of this article are well up to the job. Geometry guy 17:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 ::::::Okay, re-fixed so the Gallup polls are back to the original px size. The upright switch is being used in all instances where the image would benefit from the switch. The only MOS issues I found were the lead image being smaller than 300px and the soon to be deleted portrait had a px size and was not using upright. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 19:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 :::::::Fine by me! <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">[[User:BQZip01|<font color="white">'''—&nbsp;''BQZip01''&nbsp;—'''</font>]]</span>&nbsp;<sup>[[User_talk:BQZip01|talk]]</sup> 19:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_candidates%2FHillary_Rodham_Clinton&diff=209348012&oldid=209311163 see hsitory for this comment].
-:: This is a new FAC; ''per previous'' isn't actionable.  Please state actionable objections per [[WP:WIAFA]] ''based on the current article'', so nominators can address them.  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 :::#Uh, this is not a new FAC since you actually deleted the old one, but kept the same name (another problem I have with this "restart" nomination you and Raul seem to do whenever a discussion gets long...why not close the previous nomination as failed and then start a new one so all the discussion remains?!). I have no problem starting over, but if this is a new FAC, then where is the old one? Why is this not attempt #3?
 :::#My objections were perfectly actionable, but you deleted them. Quite frankly, I am quite disturbed by this aggressiveness and deleting of others' comments. I'm not saying it should have passed. I'm not saying it shouldn't have passed. But you shouldn't delete anyone else's comments period. Again, I have no problem starting over, but the previous discussion should not have been removed as it gives an improper view of the discussion.