Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George F. Kennan

George F. Kennan
Another article I found quite helpful, especially with all the citations. JBurnham 14:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) ***It would also be quite helpful to include Kennan's various positions (ambassador, etc) as well as the fact that he is a writer in the first sentence. As it is, you have to read to the entire intro to find out exactly what he did. I would rewrite the first sentence as "George F. Kennen, (dates) American writer, political critic and ambassador known as "the father of containment" and a leading figure in the Cold War." After reading the intro, I must say I'm still not exactly clear on what Kennen did beside being a political critic and ambassador. You mention that he left the State Department in 1950, but what did he do at the State Department? That's not stated in the intro. Ganymead 20:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Object for now. The lead section is quite overwhelming at 5 paragraphs, four of them long--that should be cut down to about 2, perhaps 3. Meelar (talk) 16:18, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Better? JBurnham 16:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. Lead could still be more concise, but I change my vote to support. Meelar (talk) 17:50, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Ganymead 04:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This should clear up the above. JBurnham 21:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Object There needs to be a proper "references" section per Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus comment above. Paul August &#9742; 20:39, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Minor object, should this quote: if were are really all-powerful, and could hope to get away with it. I very much doubted that this was the case, read we are? There are 4 inline links to webpages that should be turned into footnotes. I think that external links to 10 obituries is a bit excessive. The book section should be called biblography or publications so that it is clear that those books were written by Keenan--nixie 00:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) --nixie 00:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * See The only objection I did not resolve was the four inline links. I'm holding off on that since there seems to be a reason for including some as inline references while others as footnotes. The references to print material are in the footnotes. The references that can be found online are the inline citations. IMO the more inline links to webpages, the easier it is for the reader. JBurnham 10:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with JBurnham on this. Meelar (talk) 19:13, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think its best to apply one system to everything, but I'll remove the objection if more people support. --nixie 05:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Minor object . No references. I see them in Notes, but this is not proper formatting. After this is formatted properly, I will likely support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The very last edit changed the formating. I changed it back to "References and notes," so this should no longer be a problem. JBurnham 21:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * What I'd like is to see a REFERENCE sections, listing books with their ISBN numbers and such, as per Cite sources. I am not objecting anymore, but I can't support until this section is properly created. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * All right, I support now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. My only reservation about this is that I feel that the Lead lacks punch but this concern is not strong enough to merit any objection. --Theo (Talk) 14:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That's probably my fault, since I modfified the original lead. Let me know how I can fix that. JBurnham 15:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I have been bold and copy edited the lead myself. I may have deleted information that is not covered in the main body of the article (although I believe that the lead should summarise material that is covered in more detail later) so do check it and insert the lost details into the appropriate parts of the body.  I would do it myself but I am off to bed. --Theo  (Talk) 00:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. The prose flows much better now. I don't see any problems, BTW. JBurnham 02:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, although the prose could use tightening up in places. --Scimitar 20:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support An important article for the main page. (Though I could have been less gutless and included more on some of his controversial recent work when writing this article.) 172 06:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)