I don't know how to correct this problem myself so I am posting it here in the hopes that someone else can fix it. When I searched for "Barack Obama" on the main page, it brought me to the "Antichrist" page - aparently someone's idea of a joke. I couldn't actually get to the page until I searched for him in French and redirected the page to the English site.
I am recommending this article for Featured Article review because I feel that:
This is not a well-written article per criteria 1(a). The prose it neither compelling nor brilliant. In fact, it's far from it. It's incredibly dry and dull. The writers pair up dry and dull short sentences in an uneven fasion with sentences sporting convoluted structures that in many instances are potentially confusing to readers with a low grasp of English because of the addition of tangental information (esp. through excess prepositional clauses).
The lead is terrible, does not completely summarize the article, and doesn't conform to WP:LEAD per criterion 2(a).
Way too many sections and paragraphs with only one or two sentences...bad form, and also a sign that this article does not comply with 1(b). Can't comprehensively treat a subject with one or two lines.
Criterion 1(e) no longer is the case. This article is no longer stable, and is subject to POV edit wars, most likely due to the rise in Obama's prospects for the White House. I think that the article being locked temporarily remedies this, but, is antithetical to the Wikipedia spirit.
The only thing this article has going for it, in my opinion, is that it is well-referenced.
Also, I have not been able to locate a log for this article's FA candidacy in order to compare the current version with the version that was raised to FA status and to see what issues were raised then (if there isn't much difference). Would someone please direct me (and future reviewers) to a log of this article's previous FAC discussion?
For the above reasons which render this article to its current, pitiful state, I oppose this article's continued inclusion among the Featured Articles, and unless these issues are remedied, I will support its removal from FA status.—ExplorerCDT 18:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is the FAC, listed correctly on the article talk page. I looked into this article a few months ago, requesting that it be cited (which it was), and it was in very good shape. When the article passed FA, it wasn't cited - it has since been cited, so the older version wouldn't be entirely relevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I've been watching the article for almost a year now, I suppose, though mainly to keep POV and vandalism out. User:HailFire has done a tremendous amount of work on the article to get it referenced, among other things. My main concern at this time, however, is that the article has not been particularly stable lately, and I suspect it will get even more volatile in the next few months and years (regardless of whether Obama runs in '08 or not, but obviously moreso if he does). I would be on the fence for now if it were listed at FARC; I'd really like to see if it becomes more or less unstable soon. · j e r s y k otalk · 19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the majority of the problems arise from "recentism" (except the lead, which does need expanding). It's obviously well-cited, and a lot of editors have been doing great work keeping the vandals/POV pushers at bay. However, at the moment, it's kind of a hodgepodge of facts...I'd definitely be willing to roll up my sleeves and help rework it. There's no reason why a run for the presidency would make it unstable though. We just have to be on guard for more "recentism", as I would imagine random folks will want to keep adding the latest minute detail they caught on CNN or read online. Gzkn 00:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I think any well-referenced article is worth saving, and would hesitate to de-feature an article only on (temporary) stability issues, since there are other ways of dealing with that. If you're willing to work on it, I think it's worth it. The lead definitely needs improvement, but referencing is generally good - I can spruce up the ref formatting once you're done. (Sheesh, the things we do in the name of NPOV bipartisanship.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The referencing is the only reason the article is worth saving. I wish I could help more, but I need to be inspired by the subject, and Obama doesn't really move me to work on the article extensively. I'll do what I can though in terms of copyediting. —ExplorerCDT 01:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)OK. Just a note that User:HailFire, one of the major contributors to the article, is on a Wikibreak (userpage doesn't seem to indicate when s/he will return...hopefully it's short!), so we'll be working down a man/woman. I'll get started on the lead. Gzkn 01:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Ignore any ref problems, and I'll spruce them up when you're farther along. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm almost halfway through checking refs, and this is sick - not a single marginal source yet, very reliable sources, very good referencing. This is better referencing than 75% of what comes through WP:FAC these days. I'm mostly adding last access dates, wikifying the dates, and checking the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
RE:refs: Yeah, Obama article watchers are pretty quick to remove unsourced and dubious info. I've expanded the lead; how does it look now? Gzkn 03:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Everything I've seen in the article looks to be in better shape than most of what comes through (and passes) FAC these days. I should enlist HailFire to help review refs. Let's get Tony to look at the prose. I'm done with the refs - I found a few very minor date errors, and added last access dates on web soruces and some obscure news sources, and corrected a couple of wayward titles - I wish most FACs would have referencing in such good shape - one dead link, all reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I've read the first third: it's well written indeed, except ... why not merge some of the stubby paragraphs? Tony 04:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep -I'm going to start working on that. Reworked early life and career a bit. Tvoz | talk 22:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Status? I'm going to be traveling and might not get back to this article, so unless someone comes up with a new problem, I'm OK with closing this without FARC - I don't see anything that warrants defeaturing or further review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Did you read the article before posting your observation? The marijuana reference has been there for a long time. Also, if you have comments about the content of the article, they more properly belong in Barack Obama - this is a more technical discussion of the piece in terms of its FA ststus. And please sign your comments with ~~~~ Thank you. Tvoz | talk 01:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I feel that my objections have been remedied or assuaged, and thus withdraw them and I especially like how the one/two sentence subsections have been reworked in the "Senate Career" section. Bravo. I think we can close off this FAR as a success. Thank you to you all...you have done work that has done Wikipedia proud. —ExplorerCDT 01:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
WEll, the lead could be improved upon certainly, but I have no other problems with the article, so I'd vote to keep it featured. I assum this is not a vote though.--Wizardman 17:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I move for closure of the FAR, citing this reference version. The article lives and breathes, but it has a community of tireless people behind it who are dedicated to keeping it FA quality and have repeatedly proven so over the last hours, days, and weeks. Do I hear a second? --HailFire 00:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
No FARC was ever opened on this article, so there's no reason to close, really. This FAR will be archived with time, I believe, and the article seems to have passed FAR with commendations. Well done, all involved. · j e r s y k otalk · 19:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.