Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive6

< Wikipedia:Featured article review | Barack Obama
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 Gimmetrow 03:36, 10 March 2009 [1].

Barack Obama

edit
The content components of are that it is:


  • (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
  • (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
  • (c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
  • (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
  • (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
    — Wikipedia:Featured article criteria

Regarding each of these criteria:

  • (a)The prose remains well-written, even brilliant, and it should have no problem with this requirement.
  • (b)Here begins some of the issues. Related to the neutrality issue below, concerns have been raised that there are possibly significant influences in Obama's life that have not been adequately described in this article, for whatever reason. Those concerns need to be addressed, either through showing how they are incorrect, or by enhancing the article.
  • (c)I do not believe there are any inaccuracies in the article; the issues seem to be ones of omission, not comission.
  • (d)While there are those who believe much of the brouhaha is due to right-wing political mongering, it appears that enough significant concern about the presence or absence of various pieces of information exist that there is serious concern about the article's neutrality.
  • (e)This article currently is anything but stable, resulting in its needing a full-protection lockdown.

As such, albeit the last FAR was in December, enough new issues and instability has arisen that requires us to reconsider this article's featured status until such point as the appropriate issues have all been addressed. -- Avi (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I'm thinking it is a bit premature for a FAR/FARC. The current brouhaha that has resulted in the lockdown is certainly a result of "right-wing political mongering". Prior to the WorldNetDaily article and it's appearance on Free Republic, Drudge, and Newsbusters the article was extremely stable in regards to the content. Especially since the last FAR/FARC back in December. If it weren't for the WorldNetDaily article and the resulting invasion of SPAs, the article wouldn't be in full lockdown. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. At the moment, the article clearly meets all the listed criteria listed above with the possible exception of stability, which is always difficult to achieve in an article as highly-trafficked as this one. Trying to review this article's FA status while under siege from the WND/Drudge crowd is unwise at best, and I recommend this FAR be postponed until "normal service" is resumed. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. The fact that there are significant issues with the article is neither mitigated nor enhanced by the political leanings of those people bringing or defending said attacks. Wikipedia needs to keep itself above politics and focus on its core policies and guidelines. Regardless of who in the peanut gallery is clamoring loudly, there are issues with the article that level-headed people can admit to, and these should be addressed in order for the article to maintain its FA status, or the next step needs be taken. -- Avi (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "significant issues" you describe are your opinion, and the opinion of some far-right folk who have failed to read any of the consensus-building discussions in the article's extensive talk page archive. If you have concerns, this is a completely inappropriate way to highlight them and an abuse of process. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "significant issues" are also matters that antedated the December review. They were all discussed at great length of the talk page, and the results are archived and indexed. The consensus is certainly not immutable, but whacking away at it tabula rasa isn't helping. Nothing has really changed since December. PhGustaf (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • FAIL Definitely not a balanced article. There is no weight given to controversies or criticisms. It reads like a press release. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fails FA criteria - Exactly what ChildofMidnight said. There is nothing balanced about this article, to say nothing at all of stability. I find it worthy of note that articles about prominent right wing politicians are a dumping ground for any bit of criticism that can be dug up, while the same people doing that will remove criticism from left wing politicians pages under the guise of WP:UNDUE. This should never have been FA'd to begin with. Trusilver 20:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC) While there is a very definite double standard in the way that Wikipedia portrays people of a certain US political party compared to how we portray those of another certain US political party, the problem is systemic and not confined to this article. Trusilver 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please review the WP:FAR process. The FAR step is to review the article for areas of possible improvements, it is not where a "Pass/Fail" or "Keep/Remove" decision is made. The FARC step is when Keep/Remove decisions are made and that is generally done at least two weeks after a FAR is requested and only if the Featured Article Director, or his delegates, have determined that the requested improvements have not been addressed. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. I'd much rather see the problems addressed and the article stay as an FA than go through an FARC, but there are issues. -- Avi (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And now is not the time to bring them up, Avi. You're just prolonging the wikidrama created by the WND article. At least wait a few weeks until the invasion has ended and the discussion can be done productively. I will also point out that the handling of Wright and Ayers in the current article is exactly the same as it was in the last FAR.[2] --Bobblehead (rants) 21:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that the article as it stands now fails (d), (e), and arguably (b). The fact that any news organization, no matter what their bias, can point out common knowledge things that are seriously missing or underrepresented from a Wikipedia FA is a black eye. Yes, there are links to the controversies articles that contain a more detailed view, but that doesn't make up for the fact that the article, as it stands now, intentionally marginalizes serious controversies regarding Obama using WP:UNDUE as if it were more important than WP:NPOV and WP:V. This is clearly not our best work. Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worldnetdaily can hardly be called a "news source" and is not a reliable source for the purposes of any biography article. Anyway, it's important to remember that this is an encyclopedic biography we are discussing, not a current news article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed with Bobblehead; bad timing on this FAR. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Bobblehead and others on this - in light of the screed published today, I think this FAR is ill-timed, as the need for temporary full protection is likely traceable to that. Overall, I think article probation has handled disruption well and there has not been full protection since well before the election, other than pre-emptively on election day and Inauguration Day. Let things settle down after the flurry of drive-bys ends and see how we're doing then, when any discussion here with neutral observers who truly do want to improve the article can be more productive. Tvoz/talk 21:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Bobblehead and Tvoz. I wonder if there is also an underlying reason behind this FAR/FARC that is not stated. I also agree that this FAR is ill timed. Before the WND article was written, the article was very stable with few people have had any problem. As soon as the WND article came out, people have come out of the woodwork to attack the article, yet not bringing anything new to the age old election controversies. When they could not get their edits into the article they resorted to edit warring and rants. Brothejr (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Nothing in the FAR guidelines covers "inconvenient times to start an FAR". Stability alone precludes this article from featured status and to be bluntly honest, it probably will not achieve stability during Barack Obama's presidency, plain and simple. I mean, please, any article about someone who is in the news not on a daily basis but on an hourly one is NEVER going to be stable. Trusilver 21:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. This article enjoyed stability for months until Klein manufactured this controversy. Don't forget that this is the Obama BLP, not an article about his presidency (which will necessarily be more volatile). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scjessey hits the nail on the head - this is a biography of Obama's whole life, and while new information could always come to light that would have to be accommodated, the basic structure and content of his life are well-established and not at all in the news on an hourly, or daily, basis. The article was promoted in 2004 to FA and has maintained its FA status and quality through 5 FARs, the brutal primaries and election, and has done so right up until now, when this WND piece was published. There will be time to re-visit this, if really deemed necessary, once things quiet down again, which they always have. Tvoz/talk 22:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have looked over the history of this article, and I find it be be far from stable. However, what do you propose would be a better method of adressing the article than an FAR? Do you feel that some time should pass before an FAR, or do you propose no FAR at all? Trusilver 22:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Bobblehead that this is a misplaced FAR. This FAR seems to have been initiated more to make a point in recent editing conflicts than out of any genuine long-term concern for the way the biography is written. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fail - Quoting Andrew Levine from W's featured article review, ". . . spectacularly fails the all-important stability criteria. Even if this page was never targeted by vandals and POV-pushers -- which it is, probably with more consistency than any single article -- the subject will for several years yet occupy a highly visible position of power, during which time his well-publicized deeds will surely invite massive rewrites and reorganizations on a weekly or even daily basis. " Oldag07 (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What constitutes an "unstable" article in regards to a FAR has changed drastically since GWB's FAR three years ago. McCain's article was promoted to FA in the height of the campaign because it was realized that the "instability" of the article is limited to a single section of the article and even then, the changes will only be minor. The presidency article is the one that is going to be changing constantly, not the main article. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that we can agree, the presidency section should have this {{Current section}} attached to it. That being said, I am still not convinced that this page will not be going though massive rewrites, and edits. Oldag07 (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad FAR, based on a fake controversy generated by a lone website as to the perceived neutrality of this article. It's neutral to the all mainstream editors, or else concerns would have been raised by someone else other than a lone far-Right website. The website itself, as seen at WorldNetDaily#Claims about Barack Obama would not be considered a dispassionate, neutral source for use in this. As such, I fail to see how any reporting from them being excluded here could be a consideration in any WP:NPOV concerns about this article. It would be akin to giving Jack Thompson disproportionate weight in any neutrality dispute about Video game, in contrast. This is the same website that alleges our President is a Soviet mole.[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88439][3] rootology (C)(T) 22:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a mainstream editor, with close to 7,500 edits, who voted for Obama. 22:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Fail Very unstable article and plagued with problems about NPOV. Ejnogarb (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fail Pass Farce. I'm not sure how clear it's has to be made that this is not a vote on the featured status of the article. Personally, I don't think the article has any issues except possibly regarding breaking information that compromise the featured criteria. As for whether it's appropriate for an article of the currentness and profile of a US President to ever be a FA, I think that merits a judgement from the FA Director. As it is, the article does a great job of what's required of it. Bigbluefish (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia is supposed to be factual, right? The following information is the verifiable truth:

He served alongside former Weathermen leader William Ayers from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and also from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation. Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1991. Ayers was the founder and director of the Challenge.

Why did you scrub it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.181.189.54 (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think it was scrubbed? Did you see any scrubbing or are you parroting something you heard somewhere? Wikidemon (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ecx2) The term "scrub" was used in this Fox News article, which is based almost entirely on the "some people say" premise. It even starts out with the phrase "Critics noted..." szyslak (t) 23:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silly. Apparently a half-dozen new accounts were created by readers on the WND smear sheet after that publication did its latest attack on Obama. When these accounts were unable to stick in irrelevant and libelous material in the article itself, they decided that they would try to remove the (very stable) article from FA as a sort of schoolyard "I'll take my toys" tactic. For such a high profile article, this is amazingly stable and well-written, and this FAR is 100% misguided. LotLE×talk 23:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is debatable of an article about the president of the united states, especially one in his first term can be "amazingly" stable. Oldag07 (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous - Do we unfeature ever article that is fully protected? Obviously this article will be subject to the recurring drive-by edit warring. Doest that make it unstable? ... don't be ridiculous. Grsz11 23:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Barack_Obama/archive6&oldid=1138476554"