Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nancy Reagan/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Nancy Reagan

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Casliber (talk | contribs) at 03:36, 23 October 2007 (struck redudnat bit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Nancy Reagan

previous FAC withdrawn

Self-nomination. This article is well written and fully covers the life of one of America's former first ladies. It is factually accurate and up-to-date, as Mrs. Reagan still frequently attends major functions. The article is very well cited, as well. There have not been any recent edit wars, thus making the article stable, and images are presented throughout. Overall, this GA is deserving of FA status. Happyme22 18:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - even though I'm way left I was impressed with how her hubby turned out. I'm just starting to plough through now I think looks much better now but the lead needs a little work. I combine paras 1 and 2 but that doesn't solve the problem - some of the sentences are repetitive - I would have thought listing actress and First Lady in first few sentences - para 1. Then Para 2 -expand actign, screen guild, marrying RR, para 3 - "Most remembered for...(first lady stuff).." and launch into it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC) ::First up, stubby paras need combining. I'd replace the first sentence of para 2 in lead with - Nancy was actress.. (and describe span of acting career) and then append whole 2nd para onto stubby first sentence which sticks out oddly.[reply]

  • I disagree with the usage of "was" there. She became an actress in 1940. Do you mean describe the acting career in the lead? I suppose I could add a bit more about that int he lead. Happyme22 22:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::Early life is a bit spartan and a bit stubby; anything that can be added to flesh it out a little would be helpful. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - a lot more details added with quotes from her, cites and all. Happyme22 03:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::ditto with First Lady of California, 1967–1975. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 10:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

  • I've tried very hard to find out a lot about her time as FL of Cal., but it is much harder than you think. What we have is just about everything published about her time as FL. I'll try to keep looking, though. Happyme22 22:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only problem with that is the link you gave me is to a 'members only' section, and others to the LA Times and SF Chronicle are as well. Those can't be used as sources unless I find the material from somewhere else... I'll keep looking, though. Happyme22 04:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they certainly can be used as sources; there's no requirement that sources be available online to everyone, or even online at all. Books, for example. I've added this item. However, I left out the bit about not attending meetings, since she had only been on the commission for three months at the time of this article. Wasted Time R 13:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done This sectionis taken care of. Happyme22 23:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
in Cold War, conjured the notion makes it sound delusional.
 Done Happyme22 22:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
also, the use of shrewd here: Raisa too hard to converse with and somewhat shrewd - is this right? I'm not sure shrewd works with a negative connotation unless the implication is she was much smarter than nancy and the latter knew it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Happyme22 22:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Later life, Mrs. Reagan, repeating rumors of supposed sexual relations.. - with whom is needed for the last bit, the context is transitive I think and needs an object.
 Done Happyme22 22:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway there are some bits to get started on. The prose is ok, and I tweaked a bit. but others will probably pick up a few things. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the tasks. Would you now consider supporting? Thanks, Happyme22 03:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. The sections on her early life and acting career are very weak and need a lot of content work.
    • Since her place of birth is a subject of contention on the Talk page, it needs citing.
 Done Happyme22 22:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citing missing on several other statements in 'Early life'.
 Done I think you will be happy with the section now. Happyme22 03:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Occupation of Kenneth Seymour Robbins?
 Done Happyme22 03:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Siblings? If only child, should say so.
 Done Happyme22 22:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Happyme22 22:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Early life' keeps referring to "Nancy". Was she known as Nancy as a child, despite being named Anne Francis? If yes, should say so. If not, should call her Anne, since that's what she was then.
 Done Happyme22 22:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Her name was legally changed to just "Nancy Davis", no middle name? Just checking. Wasted Time R 01:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assuming the latter, any reason she picked "Nancy" for a stage name?
 Done - see above Happyme22 00:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Nancy Davis was her legal name, then it wasn't a stage name at all - this part still doesn't make sense to me. Wasted Time R 01:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - After doing some research, it seems that was an incorrect statement: she didn't have a specific stagename, rather she was adopted by Dr. Loyal Davis. Happyme22 03:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good student? Any honors in high school? Played sports?
 Done - she says she was an average student. Happyme22 03:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems to have had a bumpy early life. How did she view it? Happy, sad? Relationship with second father? You can quote her autobiography on this, and perhaps other biographers.
 Done - Again, I think you will be happy with the early life section now. Happyme22 03:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Nancy Davis" should be bolded, as it was her professional name and is an article redirect target.
Then the bolding should be worked into the lead section. It definitely qualifies as a "synonym", as she made a bunch of movies with it. Perhaps, "As an actress, Nancy Davis appeared in eleven feature films," something like that. Wasted Time R 01:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Happyme22 18:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 'Acting career' section is way too brief! The article gives the impression that she's only meaningful as the wife of Reagan, and that her own career can be quickly glossed over.
 Done - expanded, and I think you will like it a lot more. Happyme22 05:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This section used to be somewhat longer, with material that I and others contributed. What happened? Look at a revision from over a year ago, such as [2] It needed work too, of course ...
 Done - see above
    • Year that she appeared in Lute Song?
 Done Wasted Time R 13:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Year that she signed the MGM contract?
 Done Happyme22 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What kind of roles did she typically play?
 Done Happyme22 05:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What was critical reaction to her? Some quotes from some reviews at the time would be good. For example, The New York Times said regarding Shadow on the Wall, "Nancy Davis is beautiful and convincing as the serious psychiatrist ...",[3] regarding The Next Voice You Hear, "Nancy Davis [is] delightful as his gentle, plain, and understanding wife",[4] and regarding Night Into Morning, "Nancy Davis does nicely as the fiancee who is widowed herself and knows the loneliness of grief".[5] Why not include appraisals like these?
 Done - Those I can't site correctly, for the URL does not work. I've found some others, though. Happyme22 05:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are also still in the NYT paid archives section; I will add them, since you can't. Again, we can and should use such sources; they are especially valuable because they are reviews done at the time, and are uncolored by reviewers' feelings about the later Nancy or Ronald Reagan. Wasted Time R 14:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Wasted Time R 14:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did she retire voluntarily from acting, or were there no longer parts being offered to her? Did it coincide with her contract running out?
    • What was her reaction to her acting career? Frustration that she didn't become a bigger star? Or happy with what she did do?
    • There should be a Filmography at the end of the article.
  • The only one I would disagree with is adding the filmography at the end. President Reagan, also a former actor, who's article I got to FA, played in 50-some movies, and he does not have a filmography at the end. Happyme22 22:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Happyme22 05:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First Lady articles generally suffer from viewing the subject solely through the prism of their husband. Here's a chance for this article to escape that in part, but the chance needs to be taken. Wasted Time R 13:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those comments. I think you will like the article's current state. Woud you consider supporting? Happyme22 23:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - not in order, sorry:

  • Usually we don't use "Mrs." in the text - need to decide where it should be "Nancy", where "Davis", where "Nancy Reagan", where just "Reagan", although that can be confusing.
I found ways to eliminate it throughout - think it reads more encyclopedically (if that's a word) now. Tvoz |talk 08:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree that a filmography should be added - see Fred Thompson, for example, assuming it hasn't disappeared from there.
  • Well, I still disagree with that one, but added one underneath the "Later life" section. Your Fred Thrompson is a good point, but what about President Reagan? Something like 52 or 53 films? That would just clog up his page horribly; yes, Nancy only has 11 films, but I still think it is unnecessary. But you guys are the experts haha! Happyme22 05:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - added Happyme22 23:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Overall controversial" [First Lady] is awkwardly phrased.
  • I don't see how that is worded oddly. It provides a very, very brief overview of reaction to Nancy as FL.

Happyme22 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe it's too brief - the word "overall" bothers me, as I'm not sure what you mean - I think it may be a good place to use a few more words of explanation. Or - just take out "overall" and make it "Though a controversial..." - what does "overall" add? Will look at all of your other updates. Tvoz |talk 04:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Happyme22 05:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about her strained relationship with her children and stepchildren - I think it was more than Kitty Kelley asserting that.
 Done - paragraph added Happyme22 22:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you aren't familiar with American politics, this would be confusing: "crossed party lines and urged President Bush to support embryonic stem cell research" - take a few words to explain
 Done Happyme22 22:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After being briefly hospitalized in 2005 upon falling during a trip to the United Kingdom,[53] Nancy was among those who attended the National funeral service for Gerald Ford two years later in the Washington National Cathedral." If the hospitalization was brief and in 2005, what connection does it have to Gerald Ford's funeral in January 2007? And was that 2 years later? Only if the hospitalization was in the first few days of 2005. More like a year and a half - but this needs re-working anyway.
 Done - it's better. Happyme22 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mrs. Reagan was seen around the world during the six-day state funeral for her husband." is an odd way of putting it - the funeral was seen around the world (on tv) - I don't know what this sentence is adding to the narrative.
 Done Happyme22 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Earlier that year, Nancy Reagan and her husband were jointly awarded the Congressional Gold Medal " - earlier which year? 1993 or 2002? If 2002, the paragraph has to be rearranged.
 Done Happyme22 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Amidst the Cold War, Nancy aided in softening relations between the Soviet Union and America, mainly leader Mikhail Gorbachev and President Reagan, by suggesting they form a personal relationship." -sentence does not read right
 Done - It reads better now. Happyme22 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was FL of California for 8 years and that's all we have to say about what she did during that time? Seems kind of light.
 Done - thanks to Wasted Time R. Happyme22 23:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • her "conservative fashions"? I don't know what that means -
 Done Happyme22 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Strom Thurmond hospital story seems to be coming in out of left field and given a lot of prominence - was there more to it?
 Done - The story was meant to show nancy's protection of the president during his recovery; I 've moved it down into the "protector" section. Happyme22 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still have trouble with this sentence - why are we singling out Strom Thurmond as someone Reagan needed protection from? is it that she tried to bar all visitors from his room or was there something about Thurmond? Tvoz |talk 22:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the full text from Presidential Courage: Brave Leaders and How they changed America 1789-1989 (2007) by Michael Beschloss, page 284:
"In despair, Nancy Reagan wrote in her diary, 'Nothing can happen to my Ronnie. My life would be over.' That evening at the White House, she slept with one of his shirts to be comforted by the scent. When Reagan opened his eyes at the hospital, he beheld the bettle-browd face of Senator Strom Thurmond., who had bluffed his way past the Secret Service detail, claiming he was the President's 'close friend.' Nancy Reagan had Thurmond thrown out of the room."
  • A side note: we might consider adding that quote from her diary to express how she felt in her own words. Anyway, I did some research and found this from an interview with Max Friedersdorf, Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs from the Miller Center of Public Affairs:
"I went over to GW hospital, and went up to the President’s room, and Jim was outside the room with Mrs. Reagan and her secret service agent there and Jim said, 'Max, I want you to stay here until I tell you to leave.' I didn’t understand. Mrs. Reagan was all upset, of course. He said that Senator [Strom] Thurmond had come over to the hospital and had talked his way in, past the lobby, up to the President’s room—he’s in intensive care, tubes coming out of his nose and his throat, tubes in his arms and everything—and said that Strom Thurmond had talked his way past the secret service into his room and Mrs. Reagan was outraged, distraught. She couldn’t believe her eyes.
He said, 'You know, those guys are crazy. They come over here trying to get a picture in front of the hospital and trying to talk to the President when he may be on his deathbed. You stay here until I tell you to leave. If any Congressman or Senator comes around here, make sure the secret service doesn’t let anybody up, even on this floor.' So I stayed there for about three days, four days, until he came out of intensive care."
It seems Thurmond wanted media attention, and Nancy was outraged so she threw him out. Although not a very famous event, I think it's a pretty notable one. Happyme22 23:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I love this, and think it definitely belongs in the article, but with more explanation than was there originally - it was too telegraphic and the meaning didn't come across. I think we can afford the extra words here to explain this incident - not the whole story necessarily (although could be spelled out more in a footnote), but about her emotional state due to the shooting and outrage at Thurmond's presumptuous insinuation into the room - this story captures her protectiveness as well as her strength in having him thrown out. It's perfect, really, and does what these articles always need - personalizes it while still remaining encyclopedic. It just needs to be explained a little clearer. Tvoz |talk 07:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Great! I love it too. I added it with some more background in the protector section. Please take a look. Happyme22 17:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the price is too copious" - do you mean the price is too high? "Copious" is the wrong word
 Done - I also don't understand this: "Just Say No is too expensive to be taught as a school course or club. "
see if that's better Happyme22 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's me, but I still do not understand what Critics of "Just Say No" and the American war on drugs argued that the program was too expensive to be taught as a school course or club. means. WHat program are we talking about, and why would it be expensive to teach? The anti-drug advertising campaign overall was expensive, perhaps, but what does that have to do with a course or club? Maybe if you can explain here what you're getting at, it could be reworded. At present I just don't get what you're say8ng. Tvoz |talk 01:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - It's understandable that you didn't understand it because the critics don't have a good argument haha! In all seriousness, I reworded it and guarentee it makes more sense now. Happyme22 06:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • or this: "previous to discussing world and nuclear affairs during the Cold War." How was it "previous"? Also "world and nuclear affairs" is kind of awkward
 Done - try that. Happyme22 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sources " In 1983, Reagan, along with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and philanthropists Barbara and Marvin Davis, appeared as herself in an episode of the soap opera Dynasty to underscore support for the anti-drug campaign." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - It's been fixed. Thanks for the notices. Happyme22 00:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few more comments: I tweaked the language in a few places for consistency in tense, and to remove some awkward phrasing here and there. See what you think. Another thing I noticed in going through it again is the abrupt jump from Nancy Davis' consulting with Ronald about a SAG matter to their wedding - can you add something about their courtship? Also, did she have any confirmed previous relationships? She met him when she was 30 - reliable bios and/or her autobiography might have something about that and it would be appropriate in this article. Tvoz |talk 08:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts on the abrupt jump from meeting Ronnie to marrying him? And what about reliably sourced former relationships if any are known? Tvoz |talk 07:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've filled in the courtship period between their meeting and marrying a bit. As for other men before, I found an interview where she acknowledges dating Clark Gable, so I added that. More than that, I dunno ... knowing what's out there, this gets into WP:BLP territory pretty quickly. Wasted Time R 15:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because of misuse of naming throughout the article. Please see WP:MOSBIO. After the first time a person is referred to by their full name (can be once in the lead and once in the article), only the surname should be used. Therefore, the subject of this article should be referred to as "Reagan" not as "Nancy", "Davis", or "Nancy Reagan." To avoid confusion, her husband should be referred to as "Ronald Reagan" or "Ronald." I think this might have been mentioned above, but the article should refer to her only as Reagan, after the first time where her entire name is used. This is per WP:MOSBIO. Karanacs 14:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to partially agree and partially disagree. There shouldn't be any just "Nancy" references, except perhaps when she was a small child. But there should certainly be "Davis" references; that was her name before marriage, and her professional name after it during the balance of her acting career. To refer to her as "Reagan" during the 'Acting career' section would be crazy; WP:MOSBIO certainly blesses references to stage names, which "Davis" effectively became after her marriage. Regarding later sections, you're right about the guideline, but as someone experienced in writing First Lady articles, there are really times when it helps to use "Nancy Reagan" or "Hillary Clinton" or whatever to avoid likely reader confusion. Wasted Time R 15:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you should definitely make note of her stage name, but it is not necessary to refer to her by that surname only in the article. She is best known as Nancy Reagan, and Reagan is the surname that should be used. Many women are married, and they are referred to in articles by their married surname even before the article reaches the point where the marriage took place. Karanacs 16:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wasted Time R here - although a few "Nancy" references don't actually bother me, I have a problem with them all being converted to Reagan because that tends to be confusing vis-a-vis Ronald who is commonly known just as "Reagan". Using "Nancy Reagan" is preferable to confusion. WP:MOS itself acknowledges that it doesn't have to be slavishly followed - common sense should prevail. Tvoz |talk 22:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above statement. Happyme22 23:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People who are reading this article as specifically interested in Nancy Reagan, and, as most biography articles (at least the FAs) refer to the subject by his/her surname, they should not be confused that Reagan = subject of article = Nancy Reagan. As long as the article is careful to use "Ronald Reagan" when referring to him, as it does, then it is fine. Karanacs 14:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking under WP:MOSBIO#Subsequent_uses_of_names Nancy is like Royalty in a way, also, using her surname throughout undermines the prose and makes it jar from time to time. 'Nancy' was more unique and instantly idenitfiable as to which subject was being talked about whereas 'Reagan' was always ambiguous. I don't think it is as simple as that given how many times then 'Ronald Reagan' has to be written out. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Let's decide on which one; and decide quick! Happyme22 23:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy Reagan is like royalty????? The issue with royalty is that many of them don't have last names or are never referred to by their surname. Ronald Reagan will always need to be written out in this article to mitigate confusion, but there is no reason to write out Nancy Reagan, especially when policy says to use the surname. Karanacs 14:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more comments:

    • Some sentences should be rewritten to focus more on her rather than her husband. For example, instead of "Ronald Reagan was Governor of California from 1967 to 1975, making Nancy the First Lady of California." it could say "Regan was First Lady of California from 1967 to 1975 while her husband served as Governor." (or something along those lines)
Happyme22 00:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to be changed... Karanacs 14:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the FL of Cal. section. Happyme22 14:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This same issue is in the lead--that's where I first saw it. Please fix there as well. Karanacs 14:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - I think I finally have got it. Happyme22 15:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use more active verbs. Instead of "took on a championing role", use "championed", etc
    • You don't need to include the years of birth/death for her parents.
    • Need a citation for the last two sentences in On the campaign trail section
    • "and the derogatory nickname "Queen Nancy" was created." who created the nickname? If you don't know, it might be better to reword this.
    • Need a citation after Ronald Reagan's quote to her about ducking
 Done Happyme22 03:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The last part of this sentence doesn't seem to make sense to me: "The phrase soon proliferated through the popular culture of the 1980s, was eventually adopted as the name of club organizations, and formed in schools in which young people pledged not to experiment with drugs."
 Done - reworded slightly. Happyme22 00:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, but I still don't think it's quite right. It leaves some confusion as to whether schools formed clubs with that name or schools just used the phrase for pledges. Karanacs 14:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - try that. Happyme22 14:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need a citation for her being the first First Lady to address the UN General Assembly
 Done Happyme22 00:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would move the section on her husband's protector to just below the assassination attempt section (or combine the two), as they are related
    • "A now-infamous incident was that " -> this can go away and just leave the sentence.
 Done Happyme22 00:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need a citation for this "In his 1988 memoirs, Regan released the fact that Reagan consulted an astrologer, resulting in embarrassment for Nancy."
 Done Happyme22 22:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need to wikilink the full date(s) in image captions
 Done Happyme22 00:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last image still had an unwikilinked date. Karanacs 14:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Happyme22 14:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use named refs to get rid of duplication in the reference list (for example, 34 and 35 are the same)
 Done Happyme22 00:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Newspapers in citations should be properly italicized. You can use the {{citation}} template with newspaper= instead of publisher=
 Done Happyme22 03:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no ISBN for Michael Beschloss's book
    • I don't know that the picture of Nancy Reagan kissing her husband's casket qualifies under fair use. The image is not essential to the article, as it has others that show the Reagan's together. I think the picture should be removed.
  • The image is the only copyrighted fair use one on the page, has a fair use rationale, and it is meant to show two things: (1.) Mrs. Reagan during the funeral, and (2.) the Ron and Nancy's deep relationship outlined in the "Marriage and family" section. Happyme22 22:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it has a fair use rationale doesn't mean it should qualify as fair use. Obvoiusly, cameras were not banned at the funeral, so there might be other images available. Furthermore, there are other pictures in the article that show their deep relationship. I don't think this qualifies. Karanacs 14:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs 14:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Happyme22 14:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46 still doesn't have its author information cited (although I noticed you changed the publisher, which is good because it makes it more accurate!) Karanacs 14:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - sorry, about that; I misread your comment. Happyme22 22:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - The classbrain has been removed, and A-1 is being used as a book review of My Turn. I don't think there's anything wrong with that one. Happyme22 22:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article should be extra good since it is prone to nomination from pro-Reagan people. This is not an accusation that the editors are pro-Reagan. The later life part sounds a little like a diary. Some sentences could be improved, like "She was briefly hospitalized in 2005 upon falling during a trip to the United Kingdom,[64] and attended the National funeral service for Gerald Ford two years later in the Washington National Cathedral" Are they related statements? The infobox says "in office" but that's not quite right probably because the box is copied from the politician's infobox. It's more of an "ex officio" since you get called First Lady if you are married to the President. Mrs.EasterBunny 17:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No- The article is biased in favor of her and portrays her in a white light. It needs to be balanced out. Article is not ready. Learnedo 20:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The article appears well written, reference, accessible and informative. I paid close attention to the presidential section and was glad to see that a section existed on her protecting her husband in the white house. I am currently reading the Triumph of Imagnation on RR by Richard Reaves, in which there are several pages about her actions after RRs assasination and subsequent difficulties with whtie house staff, in particular the schedule and her influence from an astrologer. I didnt however notice any references from the book in the article (although the paragraphs were referenced) I thought a written source might be better. Perhaps these could be incorporated? LordHarris 09:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Nancy_Reagan/archive2&oldid=166440218"