Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive7

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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 23:34, 16 March 2010 [1].

Barack Obama

Featured article candidates/Barack Obama

Notified: Meelar, Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics

This article was made a FA 5 years ago when the standards were more lax. It doesn’t meet the standards anymore and needs work.

The prose is not engaging nor of a professional standard. I see that there have been attempts to cut out verbose language but this results in edit wars and no improvement in prose. Attempts to remove repetitive phrases, which is routinely done in other articles, has been unsuccessful. Maybe a FA review will encourage prose improvement instead of resistance to improvement.

The article is not comprehensive. There are major issues that are not covered and minor issues that are covered. Attempts to prioritize issues, which would result in all the major issues covered, just results in edit wars with the loudest side resistant to any article improvement. I see that this was suggested in the talk page but no action taken.

Another suggestion was made, yet an editor said it was suggested a long time. With no improvement, it looks like the article has been lax to fix problems. For example,

I'm actually pretty neutral about whether it should be there or not. It seems the old 12-member wording was there forever, until someone placed a ^{[citation needed]} tag on it, so that might mean a long-standing consensus of relevance. Or long-standing apathy. I think some indication of the type of firm he chose adds to the article, and my main goal here was to maintain existing content while adding verifiability. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Shows that there is neglect of article after 4 years.

It is well researched in part but poorly researched in other parts. His Illinois Senate career is described as “bi-partisan” but this sounds like campaign literature. A well researched effort could describe his tenure in a neutral fashion. There are also other un-referenced sections and some references are not reliable sources, according to the WP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard comments.

It is not neutral. There are edit wars even for neutral issues with more editors supporting edits that are favorable to the article’s subject.

It is not stable because it is constantly under edit wars. Many are not civil, both editors advocating edits favorable to Obama and negative to Obama.

There is material that is unrelated to Obama’s biography. Some of it is about U.S. history but there already exists an article about the United States.

Lead skips around chronologically.

Sentences like “He returned in August 2006 in a visit to his father's birthplace, a village near Kisumu in rural western Kenya” serve no purpose, at least in the context they are presented. Again, technical requirements fulfilled (reference) but lousy prose.

Some facts are have no citation. The sentence might have a citation but some facts within the sentence are unverified.

Some phrases are redundant, like unanimous bipartisan. Is there unanimous non-bipartisanship? No, only if it is a one party state.

Outdated facts, such as $787 billion stimulus package (it is in the mid $800 billions). Factual errors like this shouldn’t remain uncorrected in this article which has so many editors contributing. Part of the problem is that some editors are extremely resistant to article improvement and tag-team revertion has been suggested to happen. There is a lack of constructive discussion or something that results in bad writing.

Questionable inclusion of sentences like “Various economists have credited the stimulus package with helping to create economic growth.” When various economists have faulted the stimulus package. There doesn’t have to be a debate about the stimulus package but unobjective, one sided reporting does the article a disservice.

Many sentences are tacked on. “On September 24, 2009, Obama became the first sitting U.S. President to preside over a meeting of the United Nations Security Council.” has little to do with the topic of the section, foreign policy. A good summary of Obama’s foreign policy is lacking.

Some paragraphs are a collection of poorly related sentences. One paragraph is simply two sentences stating “Obama is frequently referred to as an exceptional orator. During his pre-inauguration transition period and continuing into his presidency, Obama has delivered a series of weekly Internet video addresses.” This is simply bad prose because the second sentence has little to do with the first sentence. There are many ideas to expand on the orator. His use of the teleprompter. Other politicians’ gaffes when they tried to say that he’s a good orator (like Biden saying he’s articular and good looking or Reid saying he doesn’t talk with a Negro dialect). Or op-ed pieces saying he is a good speaker but lack’s memorable phrases like JFK. One can dislike one or two suggestions but the current paragraph is simply bad prose.

Some text is miscategorized, like an award (Nobel Prize) put in an image section.

In short, part of the article is good. But there are too many areas of poor prose and sloppiness. Was it needed is a professional writer who can work without editors with strong opinions stepping in and challenging every change. Some other presidential articles don’t have the traffic as this one so really good writers can work on it. Unfortunately, this article is not very good, just a hodgepodge of sentences linked together. When I look at the article, I see 10% written in an anti-Obama fashion, 40% written in a pro-Obama fashion, 25% written including undue weight details, and some important missing facts. I do not intend to keep criticizing the article, just ask that people improve the article so that it is to FA standards. It will be very hard because even some minor statements have resulted in huge fights, just look at the talk page. I am not going to be drawn into such fight. Maybe those who have edited the article should step back for 60 days and there be a call for new editors to fix this to FA first. I don't know any other way to fix the article without having a huge fight. A UT professor (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the "explanation" on the user page, a new user 2 minutes into existence is here calling for a featured article review? Sorry, but this isn't passing the smell test, as we have seen this type of "I'm new here" approach by socks many, many, many times in the past on this article. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so I have added my name and your name to a checkuser request. This is a common tactic. When you have nothing logical to say, accuse someone of being a sock. The netural and better way would be to think of ways to improve the article, like those listed above. A UT professor (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But your argument is still wrong; the article has had six reviews since it was promoted. I suggest you read them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is obviously edit warring. This means that one requirement is not satisfied. There are many suggestions in the archives of that article and some logical ones are shouted down. I do realize that you, SandyGeorgia, have the power to call any article a FA. However, it is a shame that it is in the current state. Some new editors who are truly netural could vastly improve it. I will recuse myself from that task. Just because it had six reviews doesn't mean that every improvement or shortcoming has been discussed. A UT professor (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that you don't appear to have read the previous FARs, and it would be helpful if you would redact and shorten your nominating statement, since the article clearly has been reviewed multiple times since it passed FAC five years ago. See WP:TLDR and focus on what issues you want addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The necessity of reverting vandals, socks, and other assorted WP:NPOV violators does not automatically destabilize a featured article. There is no altercation going on in the Obama article on the scale of, say Climatic Research Unit hacking incident; that is what is meant by "unstable". Tarc (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most constructive response would be to try to improve it, not make accusations about others.A UT professor (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main points: edit warring even for the most innoculous of suggestions - no is the usual response; poor choice of inclusion topics (major topics omitted, minor/undue weight stuff included; some references are flawed and unreliable (just a few, like Who's Who), miscategorized stuff (like the Nobel Prize under image), biased phrasing (like taking Obama's side in calling him professor rather than a neutral side of just saying he is Senior Lecturer, which is quite an honor); some wrong facts (like wrong numbers, close, but not correct); not very good prose (look at time honored presidents, like Jefferson and Washington); use of weasel words like "bipartisan" (just proves the editor can read a reference but selection of the word must under rigorous review to insure neutrality - in this article, just some carefully selected references are pieced together, which is not good prose). There is certainly enough interest and enough editors to do it right, so we should. This is NOT an anti-Obama rant - I voted for the man, but not this article. I already see there is fighting and I will not fight anymore. If you want grade inflation, let it be. Give this the title of "Best of the best FA"? That's like telling poorly performing students "have self esteem, hold your head high, you are the best." Let's work together for article improvement. A UT professor (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This summary is just a summary. How about putting things in chronological order (one of the suggestions in the long version, above). The constructive editor says "let's do it". The edit warrior keeps arguing. When the history of the U.S. is written, you don't write about the Vietnam War, then the War of 1812, then the construction of the Panama Canal, then Watergate, in that order. A UT professor (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're off on the wrong foot, and you're going to have a month or three of a stalled FAR. Stop typing, read the old FAR, read some other FARs on the page, understand the criteria, and then please try to re-write the long mess above to something organized and digestible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avi's #6 is the best written one. There were several opposes to FA. Some of the people opposed to improvement are biased editors. The faults of the article are many. Even though the nomination is long, someone who really wants improvement just has to go down the list and improve each point. I do not intend to fight so I think the conclusion will be that the edit warriors will insist on their FA and they will retain it. This is really too bad. A UT professor (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the comments in this thread come close to justifying a FAR. The article itself, though obviously not perfect, is in pretty good shape, better than most featured articles. I suggest a speedy close. Eubulides (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Close this FAR ASAP. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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