Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inauguration of Barack Obama/archive1


 * 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 by SandyGeorgia 03:30, 7 March 2009.

Inauguration of Barack Obama

 * Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) ., 

I am nominating this for featured article because it has really turned into a detailed account of an important event. I created this page and nursed it along for several weeks as an article of modest quality and breadth. joined the fray as the event drew near and after the article hit the main page via WP:ITN it attracted. These two editors really policed the article and cleaned it up while it was highly trafficked. I was almost AWOL during the main page rush. However, these yeoman editors really helped shape the broad contributions from the public so that the article took shape as a high quality article. As things have quieted down, I have cleaned up the article to take it to WP:GA and done additional cleanup in hopes of WP:FA.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from 
 * The following ref name is used more than once for different references.
 * wbz/>
 * Are you sure. I only see one ref that is used about a half dozen times.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you're right.-- ₮RU  CӨ   02:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Dabs need fixing.
 * I thought I had gotten all the dabs. Apparently there were two instances of that last dab and I only corrected one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a couple dead external links found with the tool in the toolbox. -- ₮RU  CӨ   00:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll get to those tonight. I am going to go make dinner and watch Desperate Housewives.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It took a while to find replacement refs for the 8 or 9 deadlinks, but I am done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. Ref formatting, external links, and dabs are found up to speed.-- ₮RU  CӨ   15:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please review some MOS issues; numbers and units should have hard spaces in between them (10&amp;nbsp;a.m.) and watch logical punctuation ("Air and Simple Gifts", not ""Air and Simple Gifts,"). There are also WP:ACCESS breaches (no images left-aligned directly under third-level headers or below), and WP:DASH fixes needed ($150-170 million should have en dash in the range) Dabomb87 (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There remains one malplaced image that I don't know how to move it within compliance. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I got most of the nbsps with these edits.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from 
 * "...and watch logical punctuation ("Air and Simple Gifts", not ""Air and Simple Gifts,")...."
 * I'm perplexed as to why editors here are still having an ongoing discussion about the proper placement of the comma in quoted passages, something that I also follow as a professional writer. Take a look at the information from the The Columbia Guide to Standard American English here, Online Writing Lab site at Purdue University here and here, in addition to a tutorial from New York University here. A few weeks ago, another editor went through the article and inverted the position of the commas and periods beside the ending quotation mark and placed the comma and period outside the ending quotation mark. I corrected the position in this case by putting the commas and periods inside the quotation mark where it belongs. I'll take a look at the article within the next day or so to determine what needs to be addressed, if anything.  → Lwalt ♦ talk 13:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PUNC of the MOS, "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation. This practice is referred to as logical quotation; it is used by Wikipedia both because of the principle of minimal change, and also because the method is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing." Dabomb87 (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will let the professional writer and the WP MOS expert hash out commas.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already said what I need to about writing. Any primary, reliable source that covers "logical punctuation" in a book or an online source? No mention of logical punctuation in any of my books that I used over the years (Chicago Manual of Style, The Elements of Style by Strunk, Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (used this one for graduate school) for starters rather than relying on Wikipedia as a primary authority?  → Lwalt ♦ talk 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Chicago does indeed mention the alternative style that Wikipedia adopts (they say it was established by The Oxford Guide to Style) as perfectly legitimate in "the kind of textual studies where retaining the original placement of a comma in relation to closing quotation marks is essential to the author’s argument and scholarly integrity". But as others state, if you take issue with something in the MOS, discussion belongs on the MOS talk pages. Budding Journalist 17:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point, Lwalt, which is that we are supposed to use Wikipedia's own standard on this and other matters of style - it may be the American standard to have commas and periods inside the quote, but it is not what the Manual of Style here uses, and that's what we follow.  In fact I personally prefer the Wikipedia "logical punctuation" approach as well - whatever it might be called - because, for example, if the original quote did not have a period or a comma, it should not be inside the quote, as that is misleading.  By the way, I believe this idea of always putting punctuation inside quotes wormed its way into American usage manuals because of nineteenth century type-setting concerns, not because it made any sense.   And I am a professional editor and writer (and American) too, so I guess we don't all agree - not that my, or your, credentials in this should have any weight in the argument.  What we can agree on, however, is that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style, and we should follow it, and/or argue it out over there, not in the individual articles.  Tvoz / talk 22:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What Tvoz said—also, if you have a beef with the Manual of Style, feel free to take it up there, but please don't try to push your point of view here. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources issues: Karanacs (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The references are not consistent - some newspapers not italicized. some contain publishers and others don't (don't really need them for large newspapers); sometimes newspaper linked, sometimes not; some non-newspaper refs are italicized and should not be
 * Cleaned up refs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are several primary sources being used (including a press release). Surely, this information was in a secondary source somewhere?
 * I would avoid http://www.wowowow.com/post/diane-feinsteins-inaugural-remarks-astound-179736?promo=news if at all possible
 * I moved this to the external links.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a few references without publishers listed (current 38 -The Frigid Fingers)
 * There was some debate on the proper way to account for or exclude publisher information with me proposing one way and User:Tvoz proposing another. I think his way of excluding most information is now considered the prevailing method on WP.  I imagine he may reformat the refs in accordance with his philosophy now that this has been resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have got this resolved now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Current ref 37 (Millions witness moment), doesn't have newspaper listed
 * fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Some oneline refs don't have access dates
 * I think I got em all with these edits.
 * The Huffington Post is a blog - is it considered a reliable source?
 * It is 2009 and many reliable sources are now formated as blogs. Instead of posting static articles, WP:RS post articles followed by interactive blogs. Now, this issue is addressed on a citation by citation basis in general, I believe.  Thus, the four Huffington articles now in the article need to be evaluated against the facts that they back up.  For something like the inauguration schedule, it is a reliable source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A second post reference is in a paragraph describing the various perceptions of the speech and it is balanced out by several other sources in the same paragraph including the NY Times and LA Times. I think it is a reliable source here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the factual Kennedy colapse, it is a RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily on censorship, it would not be a RS, but in this instance the story is from a news agency. It literally replaces the same story by the same other from another source that is now a deadlink.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes www.pic2009.org. a reliable source?
 * It is in fact the official website. Are you contesting whether it is a primary or secondary source or have you just never heard of it?  For certain types of facts the official website is a WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose by karanacs. I have concerns about the article's organization. I think there is some missing information and that a lot of what is here is too detailed for inclusion. Image placement is also an issue, and the prose needs a lot of work. I've listed a very few of the prose (and detail) problems that I see - that is by no means comprehensive, and by no means covers all the broad prose issues I see in the article. This needs an excellent copyeditor who is experienced in the FA criteria.
 * Several sections are essentially lists. Where at all possible these need to be in prose.
 * There a quite a few of those, but there is absolutely no reason why an article must be completely in prose. Lists are concise and easy to read. It is much nicer to have a bulleted list of balls than "Obama went to this ball, which was for these people. Then he went to that ball there, which was for people from these states." and so on. Reywas92 Talk  22:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of vague wording. For example, in the lead, The inauguration celebration began on January 17, 2009 with a train ride from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. - this doesn't tell me who took the train ride or where they went or why (seems like a weird thing to do).  Even in the body of the article, the train ride is described for a whole paragraph before it is mentioned that Obama was actually on the train
 * I think I have taken care of this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Be aware that prose is generally better when the sections begin with the focus on the article topic, not the section topic. For example, instead of "We Are One," the inaugural concert celebrating the Obama inauguration, was held on January 18, 2009, it is much better prose to provide a good transition from the previous section with focus on the topic of the inauguration - (something like)The day after Obama arrived in Washington, D.C., an inaugural concert, "We are the One", took place at the Lincoln Memorial.
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * the presidential motorcade - is that correct usage, since he wasn't president yet?
 * Corrected.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Use precise wording wherever possible - with troops (and family members) who were recovering from wounds  - I doubt the family members were recovering from wounds, but that is how the sentence reads.
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Jonas Brothers" needs a "the" in front of it.
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Lots of potentially unnecessary detail:
 * Do we need to know about the first part of Lincoln's train ride, since that wasn't re-enacted? Do we need to know how many stops Lincoln made, since Obama didn't appear to stop in the same places (or same number of places?  Do we need to know that the FAA had restrictions on airspace around the events (isn't that fairly standard now?)?  Do we care what exact time the train stopped at the train station?
 * Reworded to take out extraneous facts. Aaron charles (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is too much to give a listing of everyone who participated in the We are the One concert - that is just a wall of blue. Can we distill it down to just a few?
 * Are you just hating on us for finding a lot of details. If someone wants to know about the inaugural events, this article tells them.  Everyone who partook is a notable person and we are listing them.  If it were two hundred people, I might see your point.  We are dealing with a couple dozen names of people who readers of this section probably want to know.  I could not imagine that a reader would want to read about a concert and not know who performed.  If you read the Oscars article you will find the names of each presenter, if you read about an athletic team you will see entire rosters.  This section needs the detail that causes the blue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved list of celebs to separate article. Aaron charles (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Do we care what exact time he left Blair House?
 * Many accounts of events that week give details of times. I will remove this one though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there is too much detail on what people did for the service day - this section could be distilled easily down to one paragraph (maybe two) without losing any meaning, just unnecessary details.
 * is it important on what date the full schedule of the swearing-in ceremonies was announced (and notice that there ought to be a hyphen there)
 * Do we need to know, here, that Cheney was in a wheelchair and why?
 * This was a news story that was widely reported. In addition, Cheney is an able bodied person who was disabled temporarily. It is very different than say reporting that Dorothy Height was in a wheelchair.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Lots of repetition within sentences/paragraphs. This makes the prose harder to read.  For example, Obama called for a national day of service on this day,[19] and he described the day of service on the holiday as a natural observance: - "day of service" repeated
 * I fixed the example.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How were the 40 American citizens selected to participate in the events? Who selected them?
 * I do not know the selection method, but I have added that they were 16 Americans with stories and their families. I have provided links to three of the stories.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a few too many images. It makes the first 2/3 of the article look way too crowded, and the images thus lose their effect.  Also, in the Summary section under Inauguration events, there is a lot of white space between the first two paragraphs, which I suspect is caused by the image placement.
 * There are a lot, but for an article of this size I don't think it's too many. A picture's worth a thousand words, this was a highly publicized event. Reywas92 Talk  22:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * LOTS of repetition within the Inauguration ceremony section. First there is a summary section which tells us everything that the article plans to talk about next.  Then the next section is essentially a prose re-telling of the summary.  The individual pieces of the events that require more detail are then explained again in their own sections.  That's overkill.
 * Need to have a citation after each quotation. Not the case at all in the section on the inaugural address.
 * The full text of the address is accessible in the section. Putting that many citations for address quotes would be an unnecessary cluttered distraction. Aaron charles (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a lot in this article mentioning the theme. Is there any more detail on why this theme was chosen?  I suspect there is a lot that could be added for this.
 * As a guy who lives in Obama's Chicago neighborhood and an Illinoisan, I happen to know that this year was Abe Lincoln's 200th birthday. I do not know if there is truly a connection between the Lincoln commemoration the phrase "A New Birth of Freedom" and Obama in the press.  I will look it up.  BTW, the phrase a new birth of freedom is associated with Lincoln because it is part of the last of the ten sentences of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * other notable balls  - what made them notable?
 * Isn't the fact that they are widely reported in the press sufficient for WP purposes? That is afterall the usual basis for notability.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Stranded ticket holders with access to radios or cell phones with Internet reception were able to listen to the inaugural ceremony on those devices -is there something special about this that I don't understand? anyone with access to radios or cell phone with internet reception should have been able to listen in, right?
 * To be honest, when I read this addition, I was kind of thinking the same thing. I removed it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * May need to review WP:ELLIPSES - I don't think the article is using them correctly
 * Article mentions Of the top 10 media markets in terms of viewership, but then only lists 8 of the markets
 * I don't think the Viewership section needs to be subdivided. The two subsections are both short.
 * Are there any measurements of the television viewership outside the US?
 * How did you choose which countries would be represented in the International section? For example, there is no information on Mexico, nothing in Africa except Kenya.  What about reactions in the Middle East/Israel?  (and the Europe section is just an unconnected list)  What about Australia (a large English-speaking country) and India (extremely populous)?
 * I think it would make more sense to begin the article with a short section on background. This could include the fundraising information (which really needs to be at the beginning), as well as more details on the theme, and possibly some of the information strewn throughout on what is normal during the inauguration ceremonies.
 * The lead does not do an adequate job of summarizing the article. It contains no information on public response
 * There isn't a lot of information on response to the various events. I'd like to see a little more interpretation, or coverage of some of the "big stories" like that Yo-Yo Ma didn't actually play, that Aretha was dissatisfied with her performance, etc.  That doesn't need a lot of coverage, but there's not much there now.
 * I found that much was made of Aretha having performed at MLK's funeral and that she wore a customized hat. I did not find notable coverage about her ownn dissatisfaction.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of overlinking. Feinstein is linked way too many times.

There is discussion on User talk:SandyGeorgia regarding publisher. Generally, I include the publisher and link it if it goes to a different article from the work. They obviously give different information if they are different enough to have separate articles. Thus, I include The New York Times Company as the publisher regardless of whether the work is The New York Times or the Boston Globe. There does not seem to be consensus one way or the other on this matter, but that is what I have done. User:Tvoz has been removing such publishers from this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally don't care if the publisher is in there or not, it just needs to be consistent. Sometimes in this article's references it is included, and sometimes not.  2/3 of the references to one newspaper may have it, while the other 1/3 of the references to that newspaper don't.  Karanacs (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I had not seen this discussion when I posted on Sandy's talk page - but as I said elsewhere I'm going by Template:Cite news and logic - the fact that there's a separate article on The New York Times Company is not, in my view, a reason to add that parameter to the references.  There's no added useful information to be gained by noting that The New York Times is published by The New York Times Company.  The article on The New York Times undoubtedly goes into that, and it's not particularly relevant to the tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles that use Times articles as sources.  It's slightly more significant, perhaps, for The Boston Globe to indicate that it's owned by the Times, although I'm not particularly in favor of including it there either.  This field is more useful when we're talking about more obscure papers that are a part of a larger network of papers, like McClatchy as the template page mentions or Hearst, etc., which would not be apparent by the name of the paper and is not well-known.   I agree that consistency should be the goal, but that doesn't mean we should add publishers to all of the places we don't have it, any more than adding location which is only used when it would otherwise not be obvious.  We should, however, be consistent each time we reference a particular paper that we always do it the same way.  I asked on the article talk page for some consensus among editors to have some guidelines on how to do it.  Tvoz / talk 22:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reference style discussion moved. It is now posted at Cent at Talk:Inauguration_of_Barack_Obama.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, I only provide the company name if it is different from the publication name or if the publication is not well known. I agree though that consistency is the most important issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. A whole section devoted to "Missteps in administering the oath" seems a bit UNDUE to me. It should be easy enough to summarize that into a single paragraph. Kaldari (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply It is a two-paragraph sub sub section of an event that was widely reported in the press. Given the widespread press coverage of the mistake by leading news agencies it is given a proportional amount of space in the article.


 * Comment — I recall a large amount of controversy about the way ticket-bearing spectators were turned away from the cordoned-off area. I think you really need to mention the problems endured by the crowd at the event in order to give a comprehensive view of the event. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This issue was already covered on the talk page, see Talk:Inauguration_of_Barack_Obama. There is a sentence in the article which states "Amid the massive crowds who arrived at the U.S. Capitol to attend the inaugural ceremony, approximately 4,000 ticket holders were unable to gain attendance to their designated areas because the security gates were closed at the start of the ceremony, leaving many of them outside of the U.S. Capitol grounds."Aaron charles (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support This is a very good, well-reference article that I feels has all important information and it presented with images very nicely. Reywas92 Talk  20:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments
 * Some of the citations in the Lede can be removed or moved, per WP:LEADCITE
 * The WP:LEAD should either be fully cited or fully uncited. I have to add refs to the third paragraph.  This seems to be attempting a fully cited version.  Removing refs is not appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is "Kids' Inaugural: We Are the Future" in quotes?
 * I thought the name of a concert, like the name of any show or stage performance should be in quotes. Judging by We Are One: The Obama Inaugural Celebration at the Lincoln Memorial, maybe this is incorrect.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 7:00 p.m. EST →→ 7:00 p.m. EST makes more sense to me. Mostly all readers will understand p.m. and the 12-hour clock, but not all will get the Time Zones of the United States, or even know that DC is in the ET.
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of the "Martin Luther King, Jr. Day: National day of service" section needs rewriting. There are five instances of the word "day", outside of Obama's quote. "The eve of the inauguration day, January 19, 2009, fell on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, a federal holiday recognizing King's birthday." seems fine, but the next sentence, "Obama called for a national day of service on this day,[19] and he described the day, which fell on the date of the King holiday, as a natural observance:" repeats some of the same.
 * Revised. Aaron charles (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "and reflect — it's a" -- WP:DASH There should be no spaces either side of an emdash
 * Corrected. Aaron charles (talk) 08:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As Obama had requested previously, Roberts ended the presidential oath with the phrase "so help you God" -- Nope, not according to Refs 48 and 49, anyway.
 * I do not see the alternate explanations in Refs 48 and 49? Ref 54 from CNN is a clear source, even from the title "Obama has asked to say 'so help me God' at swearing-in" Aaron charles (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They were refs 48 and 49 when I looked. Now they're 53 and 54. 53 doesn't say he asked to say "So help me, God". 54 does, but neither state that he requested Roberts say "So help you God?", which is a question. By my understanding, Obama was supposed to repeat what Roberts said, and Robert's shouldn't have asked, but also stated "So help me God". Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure where you are going here? Is it a third flub by Roberts for the oath? No. It's not officially part of the oath. He said it like it is often said in court. The blogs had fun with this. Like the Huffington Post: "[Roberts] posed, 'So help you God?' as if he were interrogating Obama about whether he does believe in God. Maybe that was just a nervous outcome of Roberts' earlier gaffes. But the courtroom cross-exam Q-and-A tone of it rang unhappily on the ear." I do not think it is important for this Wikipedia article to get into this speculation, but the United States presidential inauguration article would make a good place to note the history of the phrase in presidential oaths. Aaron charles (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The article states. As Obama had requested previously, Roberts ended the presidential oath with the phrase "so help you God" No. He didn't request Roberts ask "so help you, God?". He requested that the phrase "so help me, God" be added to the endo of his oath. "So help me, God" and "So help you, God?" are different. One he requested. One he didn't. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks. Aaron charles (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The box for the video of the inaugural address needs a bit of editing. There's no music, so the image of the speaker with musical notes should be switched out for the one used elsewhere in the article. There is also no need for the Problems listening to this file? See media help. note, as that appears earlier. It can be turned off using a field of Template:listen
 * This is a bit biassed, but I think that File:Barack_Obama_inaugural_address.ogv should be used with File:Barack Obama inauguration speech 2009.ogg, the audio-only version. It's a file that I recorded, edited and cleaned, and uploaded, and it is also a WP:Featured sound. Featured media should appear in articles, apparently, and when I had it promoted, it did appear in this article. It has since been removed.
 * I am not versed in the coding of .oggs and .ogvs. Please feel free to make any change you feel improves the article in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically ogv is a video file, and ogg is an audio file. I'll add the audio in. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The song title, Pick Yourself Up, should be in double quotemarks
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The article needs some good copy editors to scrutinise the prose. "The state-controlled China Central Television did a live broadcast" is one thing that jumped out at me, but I also noticed other sentences that didn't read as well as they could.
 * Since most city/state links are, you should do the same with Arlington, Virginia and
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "1-175 INF" →→ "1–175 Infantry"
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a lot of issues with the references, which may creep into what has been discussed above:
 * The date format used in the references should be the same as that of the prose. Currently the prose uses the US DF mmmm dd, yyyy, whereas the refs alternate from the same DF, to the Commonwealth format of dd mmmm yyyy and even the ISO yyyy-mm-dd.
 * Ref 3 states it is "undated" -- is this usual? I thought the field should just be left blank.
 * Refs 1, 3, 20, 31, 66, 67, 68, 82, 87, 124 should be attributed to the United States Congress Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies
 * Are you saying you believe they should be the author or the publisher?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * websites like CNN.com, MSNBC.com, FoxNews.com, whitehouse.gov, Salon.com, Bloomberg.com, and CTV.ca should not be italicised, nor should television networks (CNN, FOX News) or organisations (U.S. Department of State, UPI, Agence France-Presse, Nielsen Wire, )
 * I think I have gotten these.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Got some more. Tvoz / talk 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ref 98: Should "The New Nation" be italicised? Is it the title of a newspaper? I also noticed it wasn't linked. Is there no article?
 * Refs 38 and 130 need full attribution. Date, work, publisher, author
 * There are inconsistencies in attribution: "Cable News Network" vs "CNN", "MSNBC" vs "MSNBC.com"
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 23 should be attributed to "WUSA", not "WUSA9.com"
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 32 should be attributed to "United STates Marine Corps, not "USMC.mil"
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 34: ".."
 * The title has ellipses. What is your point?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 36 is missing everything
 * I added a date and see no author.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 50 needs correct attribution
 * Replaced the source with working link for better article and included full citation Tvoz / talk 20:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 51 shows only Microsoft as the publisher of MSNBC.com
 * (Now ref 52) - no "publisher" field generally used for MSNBC.com Tvoz / talk 20:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * fields should be used for Ref 7, 36, 45, 63 (64), 75, 78, 79, 85, 101, 125, 163
 * Most of these don't match anything needing location, at these notes or nearby -clarify please; also note that location= field needs the cite news format not cite web, so those had to be fixed; fixed others not listed here too  Tvoz / talk 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 216 is missing part of the quote. It stops at "and"
 * No note 216 - please clarify Tvoz / talk 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah -think I found what you were referring to (at note 137) - should have been part of the text in any case - fixed. Tvoz / talk 02:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ref 161 has some odd bolding issue
 * Looks ok, must have been caught in another edit. Tvoz / talk 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes the following reliable sources:
 * 
 * An academic expert ranks pretty high in most people's books. Ad-free, also.Aaron charles (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 
 * Most of the staff have good journalism credentials: Aaron charles (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 
 * Agree, weak source.Aaron charles (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 
 * Agree, weak source.Aaron charles (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 
 * A better source needs to be found for this one! Aaron charles (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 
 * Agree, weak source.Aaron charles (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is a newspaper source, although I think the text is kind of insignificant. Tvoz / talk 22:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That's all I have for right now. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I noticed many problems in the format of the refs as well and have been working on getting them into better shape - hope others will join in the effort to fix them, especially those who added some of the citations that are being questioned.  Tvoz / talk 23:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll try to get address some of these myself, too. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments I have reservations about the prose and what the article chooses to focus on based on what I've read so far (not much).
 * "The inauguration celebration began on January 17, 2009 with a train ride by the President-elect and a party of family, collegues and guests from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania commemorating Abraham Lincoln's inaugural train ride." Problematic sentence for a few reasons. It's a bit long and awkward, especially with the embedded list with "commemorating Abraham Lincoln's inaugural train ride" tacked on at the end, far removed from what it's modifying. Also, this train ride is left unexplained. We're giving where it starts but not where it ends. People unfamiliar with the inauguration will just wonder if this was just a short, ceremonial train ride that didn't actually go anywhere.
 * * Revised . Aaron charles (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ? I'm not seeing any change. Budding Journalist 15:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I thought this was referring to the section "Train ride: Commemorating Lincoln" That's what I revised last night. That other sentence/paragraph does need to be revised. Aaron charles (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Revised now. Thanks. Aaron charles (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Still somewhat long and awkward; the "tribute" problem is still there. Budding Journalist 23:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Official events were held" What does official mean in this context? Was the train ride unofficial?
 * Actually, yes, somewhat unofficial, as the train ride was organized by Obama's team, not the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.
 * Then this should be explained somehow rather than leave readers hanging with the ambiguous "official". Budding Journalist 15:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "On January 17, 2009, Obama began a tribute and partial reenactment of Lincoln's train ride by holding a town hall meeting with a few hundred supporters at the 30th Street Station in Philadelphia before embarking on the train ride.[10][11] The 2009 inauguration activities began with a train ride to pay tribute to Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth President of the United States and, like Obama, a former Illinois politician, by partially re-enacting Lincoln's 1861 train ride to Washington, D.C. in commemoration of Lincoln's ride" Lots of needless repetition. Note the orphaned "tribute" at the beginning.
 * Revised. Aaron charles (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the detailed description of Lincoln's train ride really necessary?
 * Revised. Aaron charles (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "During the tour, Obama recited his trademark rejoinder "I love you back" in response to enthusiastic crowds." Rather than give unspecific trivia such as this (what crowds are these? along the train route? at stops?), how about describing more substantive happenings? For example, a description of the major topics of his speech "to a crowd of around 40,000 people" might be appropriate, rather than just saying that he spoke.
 * "More than 40 American citizens " This suggests that Obama, his family, his staff, the press, etc. are not. Budding Journalist 01:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * added "everyday" as stated in reference. Aaron charles (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely we can do better than "The 41 were composed of 16 invited citizens who had special stories and their families." to describe how they were selected. "Special stories"?? And are four separate references really necessary to back up this claim?
 * three of the refs are to particular stories. I think detailing the stories would be a bit much, so I linked to them with footnotes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I wasn't asking for a detailing of the stories if that's what you mean (not sure); a) the sentence is not well-written b) what the heck does "special stories" mean? A concise description of the selection process would do wonders.


 * Also quite concerned that the article does not discuss the preparations for the inaugural (1b). When did planning start, who all was involved, what did the process entail, etc. Budding Journalist 15:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose 1a, 1b. Sorry, but I don't think this is ready. The article does not adequately cover the preparations for the event as I alluded to above. The prose is pedestrian in some places, and overall, it just lacks a narrative flow; the page in many spots reads like a collection of facts rather than a compelling, encyclopedic article. To pick one section at random: Ceremony: "A New Birth of Freedom":
 * There's no flow whatsoever between the first three paragraphs. First paragraph gives exact times of events, so I figured i was in for a chronologically-organized section. Then all of a sudden, the second paragraph addresses the theme (with mountains of repetition and elementary prose). The third leads with "The program by the congressional leaders included"; what the heck is "program by the congressional leaders"?
 * "which was both pre-recorded and performed live synched with the recording by" so confusing. Surely there's a better way of describing this.
 * "Despite the fact that the performance was described as "classical-music equivalent of lip-syncing", NPR described it as "a transporting moment that moved many with its beauty and calm." NPR? No, NPR's Anya Grundmann. "was described as" <- missing a subject. What's notable about her opinion here?
 * Can we please avoid three uses of "the fact that" in two sentences?
 * "Other participants included the " Participants in what? And surely we can organize this section better than just giving a list of participants?
 * "Vice President-elect Biden took his oath first from Associate Justice John Paul Stevens." An artful transition from the previous paragraph that ended with the mention of Rev. Lowery's benediction, which occurred after Biden's oath. No context for "first", so readers unfamiliar with the inauguration will wonder what that means (first from Stevens, and second from whom?).
 * Other random spots for improvement:
 * "Domestically, the inaugural address was received with mixed reviews in which conservatives had reservations about the message of rebuke toward the outgoing administration and liberals had a favorable take." Try breaking up this long un-punctuated sentence: "Domestically, the inaugural address received mixed reviews—conservatives..." Weak use of "has". The rhythm of the sentence is broken by the unbalanced length of the comparison; either flesh out what liberals admired or cut down on the explanatory prose for conservatives.
 * "Chief Justice John Roberts administered the oath of office to Obama, while Michelle Obama held the Bible that was used in 1861 by Abraham Lincoln at his first inauguration." Think about your audience. Will readers unfamiliar with U.S. Presidential inaugurations have an adequate picture in their minds based on the prose? I'd be willing to bet that many of those readers will be wondering why the Michelle Obama is holding a Bible...
 * "Obama had previously asked to include "so help me God" after the oath." Again, audience. This might make sense for political junkies, but those unfamiliar with the matter will just wonder why this matters.
 * "Obama's address did not have memorable sound bite phrases." Wow. Never knew that "memorable" could be stated as fact.
 * "Instead, he used traditional references to connect his new administration with the nation's history in a speech that was understated deliberately," Can't make heads or tails of what this is trying to say.
 * "The speech reinforced words " how exactly does a speech reinforce words?
 * Interesting that the analysis of the speech is largely one expert's opinion in Tulane University's official news publication. Is this indicative of the scholarly assessment of the speech? Or did editors just choose this one at random to compose this section? Budding Journalist 23:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This article has not had a peer review, and the extensive comments indicate that one is in order: with the backlog at FAC, it should not be used as peer review. I recommend following the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 to locate editors you might invite to participate in a peer review to better prepare the article for FAC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.