Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive9

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 12:32, 17 June 2012 [1].

Barack Obama

Featured article candidates/Barack Obama

Notified: All WikiProject talk pages that the article is listed under, lot of individuals so havent done specifically but i can i further requrested

I am nominating this featured article for review because FAC requirements indicate an aricle should be complete, but this is ritually censored by, i presume, regular page watchers who keep out information that is reliable and sourced. Previously i tried to add a "Crticism" section but it was removed on the grounds of OSE that "Bush doesnt have a criticism section". Whatever that may mean, its still an incomplete article. RS is RS regardless of the information being disliked as that is CENSORSHIP. In criteria 1b is clearly devoid here.

Further a whole lot of POV (in praise, mostly) and the obvious ("on Obama's orders" -- of course it is, he is president. EVERYTHING should be mentioned "on his orders" then) is added. Considering he has his own wikiproject a whole bunch of fans may come along to "support" but we should be careful of vote counting.

Also i tried adding the page title to the SUBSARTICLE template and all these obama templates (misnamed) came up, sorry but i dont know how to rightly replace it)Lihaas (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lihaas, I'm not seeing the required talk-page step described at the top of WP:FAR, but given the length of those archives I might have missed it; could you provide a diff? Also, is this an issue that requires an FAR, or one better suited to some type of dispute resolution? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating an article for a FAR because it doesn't have a criticism section is pretty ill-advised. These sections are strongly frowned on (especially in BLPs), and it's unlikely that the article would have passed its FAC if it included such a section. This review should be closed, I think. Nick-D (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional closing note - Due to the lack of talk page notification (I couldn't find one and per Nikki's comments above, neither could she), I am closing this review. Lihaas, this is something to take first to the talk page of the article. Dispute resolution may also help, and be a better venue than FAR. Dana boomer (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.