Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nancy Reagan/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Nancy Reagan
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:25, 4 November 2007.

Nancy Reagan

edit
previous FAC withdrawn
Nom restarted (Old nom) Raul654 04:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this nomination has been restarted. 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. I urge you to support. Thanks, Happyme22 04:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - very nearly there. I just feel the lead lets it down a bit - the stubby 2 sentences and then a sort of long chronological bit - I thought of combining 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 acting, screen guild, marrying RR, para 3 - "Most remembered for...(first lady stuff).." and launch into it. Lead is much better - I just noted, can we expand a little on relationships with children in last para of Marriage and family at all? I'm noting other little things, we're getting there. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Check out the current lead and see what you think. Happyme22 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC) I have expanded the para; pls take a look. Happyme22 17:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problem - the new lead introduces a fact that's not in the body - "her parents separated sometime before her birth" whereas the body says "While her parents divorced in 1928, they were separated for some time before then." What exactly is it, and in the body we need a cite. Wasted Time R 13:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - I've solved the problem, and cited it with her autobiography. Happyme22 22:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem - the lead says "Amidst the Cold War, Nancy aided in softening relations between the Soviet Union and America by suggesting Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev and her husband form a personal relationship." But the body doesn't really discuss this much, instead talking about Nancy and Raisa. More needs to be said about Nancy's views on the Cold War and the Soviet Union and negotiation-vs-confrontation, arms control, summits, etc., and about whether she influenced her husband in this area. When the conservative "Let Reagan Be Reagan" movement came about, was Nancy one of the targets? Wasted Time R 20:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
have removed the sentence all together per this discussion, as well as User:Arcayne's comments at the bottom of this page. Happyme22 01:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per last nomination.
    • Please see WP:MOSBIO for the appropriate way to reference the subject of the article. 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." The article should refer to her only as Reagan, after the first time where her entire name is used.
This is the text of the old nomination (linked above) regarding this point. I am placing it here for Raul to decide. Happyme22 02:27, 24 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]
The following is no longer copied from the previous FAC. Happyme22 04:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Tvoz, Wasted Time R, Casliber and Happyme22 on this one; the naming issue here should be a case of WP:IAR in order to help distinguish mention of Nancy from Ronald throughout the article. If we look at Hillary Rodham Clinton, we find a similar situation, and following the manual of style to force that article to always refer to her as Clinton will just be confusing; we often need to know which Clinton. I submit that the consensus here is to ignore this rule. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree. Happyme22 04:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, however, I object to referring to her as simply "Nancy", as the article does in multiple places, and to referring to her as "Davis", which is a recipe for confusing readers. Karanacs 15:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would cure any "Davis" confusion by changing the lead to specifically state her acting name in bold: "As Nancy Davis she was an actress in the 1940s and 1950s, appearing ...". Since "Nancy Davis" was her professional name that she kept after marriage, not just her pre-marriage name, I think it merits the explicit bolding. Wasted Time R 15:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is bolded in the lead: "Nancy Davis Reagan was..." - I think Sandy mentioned something along the lines of it already being bolded in the old nomination, therefore it doesn't need to be. Frankly, I'll add it in if there's no rule against it. Happyme22 22:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That bolding doesn't make it clear that she was known as "Nancy Davis" as an actress. I've changed the lead now to illustrate what I mean, see what you think. Wasted Time R 13:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. I'm very glad we were able to solve this in a clean, diplomatic manner haha. Happyme22 01:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use more active verbs. Instead of "took on a championing role", use "championed", etc
    • 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.
      • See what you think of: "The new china, a White House renovation, expensive clothing, and her attendance at the royal wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana, gave her an aura of being "out of touch" with the American people. This and her taste for splendor inspired the derogatory nickname 'Queen Nancy.'[2]" - this is how it is currently presented in the article, and I for one find nothing wrong with it. Plus, I'm almost sure it was coined by the media (or a newspaper/magazine columnist), but after researching on Google the most I could find what we already have. Happyme22 04:53, 24 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
      • They should definitely not be combined, as they are two completely different parts of Mrs. Reagan's life. Also, I think the protector section is just fine where it is; "Just Say No" was meant to go in between the two, because the protector section is general, not specific, so it can be said toward the end of the section. It's difficult to understand, I know, but please go with me on this one. Happyme22 22:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • For a reader who doesn't have a lot of in-depth information on the subject, this layout just didn't make as much sense. Why not have the more general information about being a protector come when you first talk about her protecting her husband in the hospital? The two sections seem very interlinked to me...Ronald Reagan was shot, Nancy protected him in the hospital and continued to do so when they returned to the White House. Having an unrelated section in the middle threw off the flow for me. Karanacs 02:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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.

Karanacs 14:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This needs vigorous copyediting/sub-editing, preferably by someone unfamiliar with it. I don't think it's badly written, just that it has become over-worked (often a labor of love). Examples:

  • In the lead, there's an abrupt jump from First Lady to She became an actress in the 1940s. (Why not link with Born in 1921, or similar).
 Done - I've added about her early life in the lead. Thanks for that. Happyme22 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Early life, there's strange capitalization of Uncle and Aunt. Why not just say "by her aunt and uncle, Virginia and Audley"?
 Done Happyme22 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • it's a long-winded and repetitive in places: After the adoption, her name was legally changed to Nancy Davis; although her given name was Anne Frances, she had commonly been known as Nancy since her birth. Perhaps: After the adoption, her name was legally changed to Nancy Davis (she had been nicknamed Nancy since birth).
 Done - I've corrected this specific example. Happyme22 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another example: She did not like living in Sacramento, which lacked the excitement, mild climate, and social circle that she was used to from the Los Angeles area. Perhaps: She did not like living in Sacramento, which lacked the excitement, mild climate, and social life of Los Angeles.
 Done - I've changed this specific example. Happyme22 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many constructional awkwardnesses: a judgement to [with] which her husband readily agreed; [she] oversaw personnel, monitored her husband's schedule, and gave occasional press conferences; of 4,370 pieces of a new scarlet, cream and gold state china service [a new 4370-piece scarlet, cream and gold state china service] (we don't really need to know the colors, do we?); President Reagan and three others were struck by gunfire [shot?].
I can see how her buying the china means it's new, so we were just stating the obvious. But I find nothing wrong with the others. Featured articles are supposed to have engaging and exciting prose: changing "struck by gunfire" to "shot" just takes the formality down a notch. The colors of the china are also good info; although they were not directly involved in the disagreement the china itself generated one of the biggest controveries of the early '80s. Happyme22 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, thanks for your comments. Happyme22 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Struck by gunfire" sounds like an accident. If you want this to be engaging and exciting, you'll have to find a different form of words :)) And, frankly, the colors of the china are trivia :)) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the colors of the china should stay in — they, combined with the photos, help establish her color sense (which is a little lurid, if you ask me). Wasted Time R 15:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not bothered either way (my concern was the convoluted construction) though I take your point about luridity :) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 17:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have worded it differently: I've placed "delibertley" in front of "struck by gunfire" to get rid of any possible confusion. Better? Happyme22 18:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a lot of persuading that using four words instead of the obvious one - "shot" - is an improvement. This is, I'm afraid, a good example of the complicated writing I expressed concerned about. I'm not saying that this is a bad article (it's not) but if you prune it vigorously it will be infinitely better. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 19:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if it really makes that much of a difference, I'll change it back. Happyme22 21:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Happyme22 21:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdent) You've clearly made a sincere effort to address the concerns I raised and I really appreciate that :) I still think that this needs going through by a disinterested copy-editor. The writing remains a bit clunky in places and the flow could be better. You'll probably ask me for examples; I'll provide them as examples; you'll then fix the examples and think you've fixed the article. I really want to support this article but cannot until it's copyedited. Sorry, --ROGER DAVIES TALK —Preceding comment was added at 06:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least you are opposing for a legitimate reason. I asked User:LaraLove two days ago to give the article a copyedit, and she said she would the next day, but hasn't. Oh well. Happyme22 06:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is organized very well, very well written and informative, However I do feel there are some minor things that should be addressed:
  • The following two passages are used more than once in the article and I feel they are redundant:

It was Nancy Reagan who suggested the notion that Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev and her husband, Ronald Reagan, form a personal relationship with each other before discussing nuclear affairs during the Cold War

While President Reagan was in the hospital recuperating, Nancy slept with one of his shirts to be comforted by the scent

  • I don't quite understand the part about the hospital visit by Strom Thurmond. Could it be elaborated?
  • Haha it's funny you would say that. Here is my discussion with User:Tvoz from the old nomination before Raul restarted it:
"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)
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)
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)"
  • Here's the background, and I've tried my best to give some background without describing in great detail one single event. I don't know much more I can do; feel free to take a whack at it if you wish. Best, Happyme22 22:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for stem cell research is not just the "Democrat position" since it has been supported by many Republicans like Rudy Giuliani and Bill Frist. I think this should be corrected.

Just some minor things but overall a very good article and certain to be featured.--Southern Texas 21:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, and I believe I have addressed your minor concerns (with the exception of the Strom Thurmond one, but please read what I have written). Best, Happyme22 23:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is conflicting info on Nancy's Birthplace. One says Illinios and the other says Flushing, NY
 Done - problem fixed. Thanks for that. Happyme22 18:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually - I was checking on the spelling of the hospital name: the hospital I assume she was born in is Sloane Hospital for Women, a maternity hospital, spelled with an "e" (it's not Sloan-Kettering), and it seems to have always been located in Manhattan (see here and here). Maybe her parents/mother lived in Flushing when she was born - I don't know - but if we specify hospital, we should say where it actually was, so I changed the text accordingly - perhaps your source says otherwise? Tvoz |talk 07:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks LordHarris! Happyme22 18:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve and Support and Comments - I am little concerned that the tone of the article seems to be a little less than neutral but, as was mentioned before, these articles tned to be labors of love. Sticking points with me:
  • I think that the Lead statements about Nancy's involvement in the Cold War are largely incorrect and misleading: "Amidst the Cold War, Nancy aided in softening relations between the Soviet Union and America by meeting with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev's wife, Raisa." The section that discusses this indicates that the relationship between Nancy and Raisa were little more than cordial and that nancy eseentially found her exasperating. I think it should be removed entirely;
  • the use of 'leaked' in reference to the astrology stuff. I seem to recall a version where it was 'revealed', which seems more neutral;
  • In the second paragraph of the Acting career section, I think that noting that her reference to MGM as 'Metro' could be alleviated for the reader not familiar with the film industry. I'd use something like "Joining Metro [Goldwyn Mayer] was like" to reference the previous reference to MGM;
  • I think that the external links would be served by adding the links to the articles of her husband and both children, as it would seem natural to contain a navigation to their articles.
  • Er, I think the MOS said something about not adding wikilinks that are already linked in the article in "see also" or "external links" sections. Here's quoting from WP:GTL:" A 'See also' section should ideally not repeat links already present in the article..." Happyme22 02:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Arcayne. Happyme22 02:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! Happyme22 03:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange. Why were all the old comments from this FAC removed on 10/23/07? It says it was restarted but why not continue? It wasn't like the FAC was rejected and a new one started. The current one was just reverted away! Mrs.EasterBunny 01:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea! Raul restarted the nomination for some reason. Happyme22 05:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I've been away from the article for a little while, so I've given it a re-read with fresher eyes, and made a few tweaks and word adjustments to the text. But I have a few questions for you:

  • in lede - not clear what "After contributing to his presidential campaigns..." means. Obviously you don't mean financially, but it might be misconstrued that way. Why not leave out the phrase and start with "She became First Lady"? Alternatively: change "contributing to" to "working on" or just leave off "contributing to". (This is clearer after reading the section below, but people read from the top so lede needs to be clear.)
 Done Happyme22 17:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't decide on this one: "Lou Cannon believes this was an overstatement," should it be overstatement or understatement?
 Done - I've reworded this one, hopefully it's clearer now. Wasted Time R 13:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much. Tvoz |talk 07:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance of a picture to illustrate "the Gaze"? It would be worth a thousand words, as they say - anyone who doesn't know what you mean would get it instantly with a photo.
Well the article's kind of hit it's limit with photos.... I suppose your thinking about a pic such as the one to the right; again, the article has a lot of images and this would seem to not fit in well chronologically-wise. Happyme22 01:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YES, definitely include this one! "The Gaze" is what many people remember most about her. You can replace "Nancy Reagan hosts the First Ladies Conference on Drug Abuse at the White House in 1985" with this one, since they're from the same year and the following 1987 "Just Say No" photo covers her drug awareness activities already. Wasted Time R 02:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't replace the Drug Abuse conference one with it, but moved that one up and put this one underneath it. Now about the caption; should it mention anything about "the gaze?" As of now, I have nothing about it. Happyme22 02:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I'd love to see the words "the Gaze" in the caption - which ties it to the text and as Wasted said, is what many people think of when they think of her. Tvoz |talk 07:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "The Gaze" to the caption; we need to tell the readers that this is what the text is talking about. Wasted Time R 12:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last sentence of "campaign trail" is weak.
 Done - There had been an earlier discussion about this, so I've removed the last sentence altogether. Happyme22 17:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last sentence of first paragraph re china: I think it needs a transition from "Although" to "it was ordered" to explain why it was controversial - how about something like "the purchase raised eyebrows because it was ordered at a time when the nation was undergoing an economic recession." , or some such phrase without repeating "controversial"
 Done Happyme22 17:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last sentence of "protector" section: "In his 1988 memoirs, Regan publicly released the fact that Reagan consulted an astrologer, resulting in embarrassment for Nancy." - did you mean "Reagan" (presumably Ronald) who consulted an astrologer, or Nancy? If him, leave as is; if her, have to change sentence - could just change "Reagan" to "she", or change "Reagan" to "Nancy" and the later "Nancy" to her".
 Done Happyme22 17:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these help. Tvoz |talk 08:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tvoz. Happyme22 17:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved again. Hoping for the copyedit to smooth it a little more and I'll be ready to support. Tvoz |talk 07:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One other comment re 1st graf in lede: comsider removing second sentence altogether: do we really need it in lede at all? Not everything in article has to be summarized into the lede, and it would read better (also avoid the problem of confusing her with her actress mother in 2nd sentence with the "As Nancy Davis she was an actress" - which "she"? That's why you had "herself", but it was kind of awkward.) Tvoz |talk 08:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Karanacs. Separa 16:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC) This person's edit summary was more informative: oppose: referring to her as "Nancy" is really shoddy writing - unfortunately, far too abundant across WP![reply]
Please read the debate above; concensus decided to ignore that rule. Is it really logical to refer to Mrs. Reagan everytime as "Reagan?" That can be easily confused with her husband, Ronald Reagan. Anyway, consensus decided to ignore that rule, per WP:IAR. Thus, your opposition doesn't really do much. Happyme22 22:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • On the basis of not fulfilling 1a, 1d, 2a
  • "her parents divorced soon after her birth" why in the lead? It's common for people to get divorced.
But we are talking about Nancy Reagan, not other people. This comment doesn't help the article. Happyme22 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer the question. Please re-read. Leranedo 08:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she herself was an" why not simply "she was"?
 Done by User:SandyGeorgia --Happyme22 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be done if you have sound reasons to disagree. Leranedo 08:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any interest in creating a Legacy section? 'cause you should if you want this to be quality.
I suppose we could, but frankly it's not one of my main priorities. Happyme22 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should. Leranedo 08:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Born in New York, her parents divorced soon after her birth; she grew up in Maryland, living" This feels so cramp and crowded. How about something like "her birth, growing up in Maryland, she lived.."
This comment doesn't seem to help the article. Happyme22 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to you seems to help the article. Please fix the issue I pointed out. Leranedo 08:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "decision to replenish the White House china. She championed recreational drug prevention" break in flow or very sharp and sudden shift, may cause temporary confusion.
 Done by User:Tvoz --Happyme22 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above. Don't get it done if you disagree. Leranedo 08:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "considered her major initiative as First Lady" attribute this to a source, such as in "according to etc." or however else you like to phrase it.
This doesn't is not supposed to be sourced in the lead, plus that's poor writing. It's well sourced later in the body. Happyme22 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said to cite it via citation. I stated to sourced it via attribution as it's quite a vague claim (considered) to make so early on. "or however else you like to phrase it" Please re-read. Leranedo 08:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This comment doesn't seem to help the article; Nancy's their mother... Happyme22 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again? Nothing seems like anything to you. "Nancy's their mother..." is not a good reason. Are you insane? One can said "Reagan is their father," and yet it's not in that FA article for very good reasons. What kind of reasoning is that!? JUST FIX IT! It's not too difficult, but it appears you like being difficult. Leranedo 08:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to arrange the Cold War section to start the section with her? The section isn't even on the cold war and shouldn't be titled Cold War.

Relationships would be more appropriate for its content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leranedo (talk • contribs) 05:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? Happyme22 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean what? Leranedo 08:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "initiative as First Lady. However, it was revealed in 1988 th" what kind of transition is this? again make flow smooth
see above Happyme22 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"what kind of transition is this?" and hopefully you know what flow is, or do I need to explain that as well? Do you know English? Leranedo 08:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As Nancy Davis, sh" "Under maiden name Nancy Davis" is more precise writing. Not everyone who reads this will know about her. Don't write like everyone knows who she is.
No no no: she wasn't married then, so saying Davis was her maiden name at that time period is factually incorrect. Happyme22 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you stupid!?! just wondering seriously, def. maiden: "An unmarried girl or woman." Leranedo 08:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not purposely take "Are you stupid!?!" out of context. Leranedo 22:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nancy Davis Reagan (born Anne Frances Robbins on July 6, 1921)" should follow "Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004)" meaning add her death date.
Still alive?? Wow. Huh, I must have been thinking that other person. Thanks for clarifying. Leranedo 08:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She's not dead! How could she have a death date? Happyme22 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holy god! You're unable to tell that this was clarified already.
  • Check captions. they should have a period if full sentences. if fragments you don't need which you know
 Done - Thank you. Happyme22 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, you've done something... finally!
I seriously meant this comment, as you appeared primed on avoiding the points. Leranedo 22:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their relationship was anything but the friendly, diplomatic one between their husbands, however; N" or just something along the lines of "Their relationship was not friendly and diplomatic."
Changing this wouldn't seem to help the article; it just removes detail. Happyme22 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And which detail would this remove? Leranedo 08:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would make it sound like she ran for president. Happyme22 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, find something to change it to. "On the campaign trail" makes it sound like she's on the campaign trail to run for president. Using your broken thought of reasoning. Leranedo 08:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Reagans retired to their Bel Air," Topic is on her, so it should be "She along with here family" or something along those lines. I do not believe it should start with "The Reagans" as the article should be focused on her.
Her family was all grown up. It was just she and Ronald Reagan. Happyme22 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SO MAKE THAT CLEAR TO THE READER. Does one even need to ask? Do not assume everyone is going to interpret "The Reagans" the way you do. That would be bad writing.
  • Inconsistency: In some section "Nancy Reagan" is used multiple times, while in others it starts with Nancy and that is used. Read the next point relating to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leranedo (talk • contribs) 05:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nancy devoted most of her" Addressing her as Nancy is not encyclopedic. How about "Nancy R." or simply "She". I'm consensus and have not decided to ignore that rule, but we can find alternatives. Though in the end Nancy will suffice if not overused. Going by Nancy Reagan at the start of the section and then using She sounds fine to me.
Ok I can see that, but you alone are not concensus. Please read the debate farther up. Happyme22 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, obliviously. See previous on Inconsistency.
  • "Nancy devoted" devoted?? biased and not NPOV term.
I disagree - "devoted" as a verb in this context is correct, appropriate and not POV. It means "To give or apply (one's time, attention, or self) entirely to a particular activity" which is exactly right. Tvoz |talk 06:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Feeling or displaying strong affection or attachment; ardent" Agreed that it is appropriate; nevertheless, it is POV and a NPOV term. Others may not think it the term is appropriate, and that would be their POV. Leranedo 08:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's as an adjective. Please read what I wrote above which is the definition of "devoted" as a verb, which is how it is used here. It is not POV or biased, it is descriptive. Tvoz |talk 08:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accuracy check #1: Yes, my mistake, a verb - "give entirely to a specific person."
Accuracy check #2: It's descriptive POV, but POV nonetheless. And of course an article can and at times should and need to have POV. POV does not necessary mean that it is biased, and I did not state it was in my reply. It's descriptive POV, but POV nonetheless, as devoted, the term (be a verb or adjective) gives positive connotations, especially given that the sentence finishes, "her time to caring for her ailing husband." Indifferent and impartial of it being sweet and warm, not a NPOV term. Leranedo 08:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just stumbled upon this and liked it: "the cold neutrality of an impartial judge." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leranedo (talk • contribs) 09:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "death ten years later on June 5." some readers like to see the year explicitly stated.
The lead should not constantly mention dates. Anyone with half a brain who can do kindergarten arithmetic can add 10 to 1994. Happyme22 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This lead doesn't even have as many as others FAs. Again, "some readers like to see the year explicitly stated." Only brainless people fail to see that. Having the date is also precise writing. Leranedo 08:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 2007, Nancy Reagan has continued to stay active in politics particularly relating to stem-cell research." sentence can be made better.
What? This comment doesn't seem to help the article. Happyme22 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AGAIN!!? To hard to make it better??
  • On external link, White House profile should be first. Add more links. 3 is too few. very very lacking
I had already gone over those from the Al Gore article. It's understood that it should be minimized but to such a limit as three is far too low. It can be better than fine and acceptable. I have passed many article that are fine and I never take pleasure in doing so. This article, among those I oppose, deserves better.
On the Al Gore point, there is nothing wrong with having his personal site as an external link. "Links normally to be avoided." That doesn't mean completely. Leranedo 08:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please at least try to stay on topic here... Happyme22 23:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to first replier. Please improve the external links. Leranedo 08:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, Leranedo removed a post of mine, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Leranedo#Moving_comment
What in the Good Lord's name are you talking about? Happyme22 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How clearer can I be... Leranedo 08:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to say. These comments, with the exception of maybe two or three, are not productive, don't help the article, and worsen the prose. You are objecting, yet you have pointed out maybe three minor things can be fixed; all the rest will either hurt the article or remove good details! Raul would be a fool to consider this objection. Happyme22 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read everything above because you are apparently very lost. Leranedo 08:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You must be seriously drunk or something... Happyme.. you must be kidding me. Leranedo 08:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appear to be the one that's drunk; I even consider that a personal attack. Happyme22 14:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really thought you were drunk as you appeared oddly clueless. Leranedo 22:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick browsing of Special:Contributions/Leranedo and User talk:Leranedo reveals that this Leranedo character has taken on a mission of being difficult and quarrelsome on many FACs ... I wouldn't spend any time further responding to he/she/it. Wasted Time R 10:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Wasted Time R. Again, Raul would be a fool to consider this objection. Happyme22 14:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Directed toward Wasted Time R): Hmm, spiteful. Perhaps your wikiname describes you well. Leranedo 22:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come now, I'm maintaining my oppose as it is valid. Leranedo 22:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop Leranedo. You personally attacked me (ex:"You must be seriously drunk or something... Happyme.. you must be kidding me") as well as Wasted Time R (ex: "Hmm, spiteful. Perhaps your wikiname describes you well"), and try to justify it (ex: "Let's not purposely take "Are you stupid!?!" out of context"). There is no need for this. Happyme22 23:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • The infoblot at the top really digs down into trivia. The signature should be up there? Put it in as an image further down. Why is her [present] "occupation" given as "First Lady of ...", when it's not. And it's announced already a come up. Her spouse was, not is, Ronald Reagan; this is an example of how infoblots can distort information, partly for the unwitting reader. You'd think Reagan was president now. Was are "Relations"? Be specific or leave it out. An infobox is meant to provide the fundamentals, not adornments or info for the sake of filling the space. How much of it is repeated in the main text, anyway?
The signature is an option in that infobox (it's called an infobox), so we logically placed it there and I disagree that it would help the article by placing it further down. She was First Lady of the USA, and nothing on Template:Infobox_Officeholder says it has to be a "present" occupation; the same goes for spouse. Relations mean people she is related to, and we have displayed her children's names. Happyme22 02:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need to adhere consistently to the MOS (Criterion 2). That includes logical punctuation, as part of WP's overarching principle of not tampering with quoted material. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_marks.
Can you please point out an example? Happyme22 02:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the English-language WP, do we really need to link "English"? There are other trivial links, too, which should be weeded out to avoid unnecessary blue spattering all over the text. Keep the links to the high-value ones. People are more likely to follow them, then. Tony (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't hurt this specific article at all. Happyme22 02:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Nancy_Reagan/archive2&oldid=1138467487"