Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inauguration of Barack Obama/archive4


 * 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:33, 20 February 2010.

Inauguration of Barack Obama

 * Nominator(s):, ,  22:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because its last FAC closed with no clear actionable issues and the article has improved modestly since.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 15:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is very good, except that it's missing for File:Barack Obama inaugural address.ogv; please add some for its JPEG rendition using the alt parameter that was recently added to listen . Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What is involved in adding alt to a .ogv file, which is an audiovisual file?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Use listen with its new alt parameter. Please see the listen template's documentation. Eubulides (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have tried this. My point was more about the fact that since a blind person can hear the audio is what I have done correct, or is there more to and audiovisual file?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The alt text is for the JPEG image, not for the AV file. I . Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Those are the best nitpicks I can come up with. The first one is the most important. Mitch 32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 22:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I thought originally, when reviewing this article, my review would be skewed due to my opinions of Obama. However, after reading the article from end-end and skimming it, I think this article deserves my support. I give you guys a lot of credit for working so hard. Just a couple of nitpicks:
 * 1) Citation 23, the first use of the NY Times, should be the only reference wililinking NY Times. Check same for the rest.
 * It is my understanding that redundant links are not applicable to the footnotes. In the text we assume that the reader has read the article from the beginning and would have checked the link upon the first usage of a term. However, we do not assume that a reader reads all the footnotes.  Thus, it is acceptable and probably helpful to repeat links in footnotes.  We do not assume that a reader of footnote 26 read footnote 23.  Thus, when he does a mouseover on the footnote, we want the link to be readily available for him.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have seen it in policy, and I've made it important. Mitch 32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 01:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not seen it in policy and have discussed it at FAC before. All my FAs use redundant links even the two already promoted this month. Where is the policy?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's not worth pursuing this more, but for the record, WP:LINK and other MOS pages do not have specific guidance for overlinking in references, and in recent discussions, there has not been consensus to disallow the repeated links. Therefore, as long as the linking practice is consistent (which it is), this is a non-issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I would love to see a pic of Bush and the Obamas departing the area and the Bushes leaving on Air Force 1. Those would be very useful
 * www.flickr.com offers no pictures of Bush on January 20, 2009. I would not know where else to find one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (On a sidenote, Bush left Washington on Marine One, not Air Force One.) P. S. Burton  (talk)  01:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Resource Exchange - try here. Mitch 32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 01:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:George_W._Bush_in_Marine_One.jpg P. S. Burton  (talk)  02:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added it here and in Presidential transition of Barack Obama.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I would switch Viewership and the unofficial events' order to where the unofficial ones come after the official.
 * I am not sure I understand the suggestion since the Unofficial events section follows the Viewership section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, why Events -> Viewers -> Un. Events? I would switch Unofficial Events to be right after the planned ones. Mitch 32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 02:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I got it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(Comment by moved from User talk:TonyTheTiger actual diff) The congressional committee released the full schedule of the January 20 inaugural events on December 17, 2008. The inauguration schedule referred to the President‑elect as "Barack H. Obama", even though Obama specified previously that he wanted to use his full name for his swearing-in ceremony, including his middle name Hussein, in "follow[ing] the tradition, not trying to make a statement one way or the other".[7]

The article should say what the conclusion was. What was used, H or Hussein? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Disappointed. And I've only looked at the top.
 * 44th, 56th, 200th? My head is spinning; well, I can work out what it means, but many readers won't be able to.
 * Do we need to explain that some presidents have had multiple inaugurations for having been reelected in the WP:LEAD (44th vs 56th)?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The opening is very wordy; for example, do we have to repeat "President of the United States" fully for a second time?
 * I was hoping my co-author who is a professional editor would come by and take care of this.  I have addressed the specific complaint. I did not attempt further general changes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope my co-author's efforts were satisfactory.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Compared with, not to, is better for contrasts.
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The first photo looks like a theme-park entrance: undignified. Isn't there a better one? Or perhaps it looks better when bigger? It nestles uncomfortably with the first subsection title.
 * I am not a image buff, but I thought that was a fabulous photo. I resized it a bit.  I am not sure what you mean by nestles uncomfortably.  I guess you don't like the fact that the subsection header is forced right.  I am not sure what policy is on issues like this.  I am willing to compromise on location.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would pipe to "the election campaign", to make it clear it's not to the common term "election".
 * What link are you talking about?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "The District of Columbia City Council used the occasion to help bars and restaurants increase sales by staying open around‑the‑clock to provide hospitality services to the hordes of people planning to attend the inaugural festivities." Roundabout sentence; wrong meaning at start—they didn't use the event to do what they'd always wanted to do (that's the sense). 24-hours should not be hyphenated—it's not a double adjective like "24-hour" parking.
 * Is it better now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Invitation and ticket photos: pass me a microscope. Can anyone read a single word on them? Much bigger, probably vertically arranged. Tony   (talk)  11:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it better now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment – Throughout the article, I see en dashes in places such as "President–elect", "inauguration–related", "re–administered", etc. I've never known such terms to require dashes instead of the usual hyphens. Has this been tightened at FAC lately and I missed it, or should an effort be made to change these? Any of the MoS people here know if these are correct?  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 01:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * These seem to have been addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment I notice that refs 106–108 are not formatted, and all go to the same web page. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone added those late. I have merged and reformatted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment. The article contains invalid HTML as per its W3C validator report; can you please fix this? Eubulides (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the report is having a problem with the section title beginning with a quotation mark. Is this against MOS or just a problem that shows up on this report?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a MoS thing; it's a W3C thing (the W3C outranks the MoS :-). You're right about the quotation mark; see Help:Markup validation . Eubulides (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the quotations.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that test looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment Check the toolbox; there are a few dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I started on these. It takes a while to find suitable alternative citations.  I will do some more tomorrow or Monday if my co-authors don't drop by.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I got the rest of these.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ruhrfisch - I peer reviewed this some time ago and think it has improved considerably since. I promised to look at the previous FAC and did not get to it then, so here I am. Given the length of the article I will start my comments now, but do not expect to finish them all in this session. OK, I have commented through the end of the "Pre-inaugural events" section and will continue tomorrow. Looks pretty good, leaning support but need to read the rest of this as carefully (and it is a long article). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two direct quotes in the lead, per WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:LEAD I think they need references.
 * I removed the quotes on People's Inaugural Ball and the other quote is just the name of theme that is explained in the main text. This article is written with an uncited LEAD. All facts are consistently uncited in the LEAD and cited in the main body.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I will not object if this is uncited, but others may disagree Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I also wonder why "People's Inaugural Ball" is in quotes, but Neighborhood Inaugural Ball is not (also in the lead)
 * fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggested rewording The committee opened for the first time the entire length of the National Mall as the public viewing area for the swearing-in ceremony [for the first time], breaking with the tradition of past inaugurations. or it could also be For the first time, the committee opened the entire lenth...
 * I prefer the latter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * First paragraph in Joint Congressional Committee section needs a ref
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Would this read better as "from" instead of "to" Emphasizing a change to [from?] business as usual, the committee set stringent guidelines for campaign contributions ...
 * Correct and it actually changes the meaning to the intended one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph of the "Train ride: Commemorating Lincoln" section seems like it could be tightened - I can try this if you want.
 * You know I always like it when you copyedit my work since you are better at it than I.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried it - I changed "everyday" Americans to "everyday Americans" (both words in quotes) as one source referred to them that way and it seemed to read better - I realize other sources call them "everyday" Americans. More comments later, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a bit confused by these two statements "...the oath for Biden was followed by the first playing of four ruffles and flourishes and the anthem "Hail, Columbia".[70]" and then "The oath for Obama as the new President was followed by a 21-gun salute by members of the armed forces, along with the first playing of four ruffles and flourishes and the march "Hail to the Chief"." My guess is that it was the first playing of four ruffles and flourishes for each of them, but I think this needs to be clarified. The second sentence needs a ref too.
 * Response: Edited both sentences regarding the oath and honors that followed for Obama and Biden.
 * Biden - sentence mentions the honors that start about 0:58 in this clip.
 * Obama - sentence mentions the honors that start about 0:44 in this clip.
 * Both clips come from the Associated Press video library. → Lwalt ♦ talk 22:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Other than that I am satisfied with the article - I have read the whole thing carefully and made several copyedits to tweak things, but I think it meets the FAC criteria. Good job, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * PS I reviewed all of the images and media files and they all have free licenses - most are US Government works, and the rest are freely licensed. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I conducted the GAN review for this article, so I've already long ago reviewed the sources and the prose. The article would have had my support then (I don't know how I was so oblivious to past FACs!) but now that the article has been so improved since then, I feel even stronger in voicing my support. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment wouldn't "Presidential inauguration of Barack Obama" be a clearer title? He has had other political post inaugurations. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: Support An integral element missing to this article is why this was such a notable event, why it attracted the audience it did, which was a combination of the first black president the US has ever had, and the great sigh of relief that Bush was finally leaving. The raucous celebrations that took place throughout the world upon the Obama's elections were credited to both of these causes. I think the article should start with a brief overview of the campaigns and the results of the election, including a description of the running in the streets and honking of cars etc., that occurred in many locations on election night, plus the incredible problems Obama took on from the previous administration. This ties in with the new day themes of his speeches on the train rides and why he would address crisis issues in the inauguration speech. I think it's notable that Bush was the first president since Jimmy Carter, who surprised the Secret Service by walking from the Capitol to the White House, by not walking since his limo was pelted by eggs from parade attendees. As the first black president, there were some serious concerns about Obama's safety if he decided to get out and walk, which he did. Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Moni, I understand your interest in greater context. However, given the degree to which Obama topics are all so specialized, does all that context belong here.  There are separate extensive articles for Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 and Presidential transition of Barack Obama. Furthermore, past reviews have sort of complained that this article is a bit too extensive.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but the lead and the entire event surrounds the throng of people, the high price of tickets, the large global audience...for a presidential inauguration? As if Obama's just another president? Well he is, but he's also the first black president and the result of a massive political shove to the previous 8-year administration. I think these issues, with the political tone of his speeches in light of the 2 wars and the near-depression he inherited are integral to the article. An immense amount of pressure was placed on Obama to fix everything, to be the panacea for Americans and this came out ceremonially in his inauguration. Can you update this sentence: No one from the crowds at the swearing-in ceremony and parade was arrested as of 6:00 p.m. EST on Inauguration Day --Moni3 (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how much context should really be added here, but I have added a small section. Tell me how much more you would like to see.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice job. I tweaked it a bit. I struck my oppose. If it gets promoted, consider adding bit details that connect the Why's: first African American president received a tremendous effort by other African Americans to witness the inauguration in person and on television; general enthusiasm from Americans tired of the previous administration and Obama's speeches of change and crisis, combined with the 2 wars and the economic crisis handed to him. I remember watching NBC on election night when Brian Williams announced Obama as the winner, following Williams' almost immediate cautions of the daunting tasks ahead. As Obama's reputation has waned, it is worth it to note that his reputation has waned not from a decent president, but the superdude who could save us all from wars and scandal and a battered international reputation. No one could live up to what people wanted from Obama right as he was elected and inaugurated. --Moni3 (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.