Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ronald Reagan/archive5


 * 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 18:01, 19 June 2007.

Ronald Reagan

 * previous FAC

Ronald Reagan has come a long way since its last FAC. The prose is much more compelling and brilliant, it fits all of the FA criteria, has proper images placed throughout, and is neutral. I urge you to support Reagan's FA candidacy, for this article is ready. Happyme22 05:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * The first two paragraphs of the "Second term, 1985–1989" section could use some cites. January 21, 1985 was sure a cold day, but I don't believe it was the coldest on record in Washington, D.C.  I'm quite sure the coldest temperature was recorded on February 11, 1899.
 * Cites needed for "Reagan's foreign policies were criticized variously as aggressive, imperialistic, and were derided as "warmongering".[citation needed] Critics denounced his opposition to Fidel Castro's government in Cuba and claimed that he was ignoring human rights around the World.[105][verification needed]" in "The Cold War" section.
 * Section on Reagan's death could use more cites. (e.g. "In the thirty-four hours that it lay there, 105,000 people filed past the coffin, paying their respects.") These cites may be in the subarticle, but wouldn't hurt to include cites in the main article for details like this.  Also, for the attendees.
 * The section on "Alzheimer's disease" seems to focus too much on his 90th birthday, and not give enough discussion of Alzheimer's. For example, how Nancy Reagan became an advocate for stem-cell research, which she feels has some promise for Alzheimer's treatments/cures.  Also, his impact on increasing awareness of the disease, etc.
 * Overall, the article looks good (well-written, well-referenced, etc), but with a few things that ought to be addressed. --Aude (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your comments. Happyme22 14:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see why we need the unfree image Image:AP04061107162.jpg, especially when there's this free one. ShadowHalo 12:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Four unfree images in an article about a U.S. president is bad. This is completely decorative.  What does this tell us about his religious beliefs and philosophy?  That he thinks cake and kissing are important?  I'm also skeptical about using Image:REAGANLIBRARY94.jpg this; surely Ronald Reagan Presidential Library has added some public domain picture of him since 1994.  ShadowHalo 12:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the one pic about the Reagans at the Reagan Library cannot be found at the Reagan library website, nor anywhere in the LOC or NARA. I will continue looking for free use pictures, but ones of Reagan in his later years are rare. I also disagree that the one of President Reagan in 1996 is completley decorative. It shows Ronald Reagan in his later years, and pictures like that are pretty hard to come by. I think it should stay, as well as the ones of the Reagan's on their wedding anniverary (which is one of, if not the, last known pictures of Ronald Reagan, because his Alzheimer's progressed). The stamp ceremony one might actually be free use now that I think about it, because it came from the USPS, a government agency. Again, thank you for your comments, and I will work to address some of the issues. Happyme22 14:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The USPS is not quite a government agency, but is an "independent establishment of the executive branch". Look on their website. There is a copyright notice at the bottom, and the website is .com not .gov  The stamp ceremony image is definitely not free use, and I don't think it's necessary in the article.  The photo from his funeral is replaceable. --Aude (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I checked the source of the stamp pic, and it said that it was taken by a member of the USPS, and you say that's not free use, huh? Dang... I think that some sort of photo should go where the blank space is next to the chart/data table in the "Legacy" section, however -- one that deals with his legacy, and I think this is a good photo. I replaced the Image:REAGANLIBRARY94.jpg with a pic of Reagan presenting the first ever Ronald Reagan Freedom Award to Mikhail Gorbachev at the Reagan Library in 1992 which is a free use PD pic. I also swapped a fair use with a free use in the "Death" section, leaving 3 fair use pics in the article. Happyme22 22:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the article could do without the stamp pic. Just make the right align the table, which would also eliminate the white space.  As for the funeral picture in the article now, the licensing is not correct.  The source is a high school, which in turn credits the photo to AP Photo/Bryan Chan, Pool.  Fair use photos are especially not allowed on Commons, so it will be deleted.  In the article, there is a link to commons:Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan which has plenty of acceptable images to select from. --Aude (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are now two fair use photos in the article. Happyme22 16:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article still reads as a Reagan hagiography. And the reaganomics section lacks references to authoritative peer-reviewed journals.--BMF81 10:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Hagiography" without examples is not an actionable objection. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But it could potentially mean its POV, right? — Wackymacs 18:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not without an example. Happyme22 21:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Prose should be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." - Far from that standard in my opinion. e.g. "Reagan was originally a Democrat, a supporter of the New Deal, and an admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and in the late 1940s, Reagan was a visible speaker defending President Harry S Truman, but his political loyalties soon shifted to the Republican Party"
 * Spelling mistakes - that should be the first thing an editor checks before nominating.
 * "Thanks in large part to the enthusiastic Republican campaign and Reagan's coattails, twelve Democrats were defeated in Senate races" - Coat tails is a hard concept to prove, so it suprises me that we are invoking it - especially so since we are doing it without any references.
 * '"Reaganomics" and the economy' has some extremely clumbsy sentences. Further, there does not seem to be a logical structure - for example the overall record of Reagan is described in several places. It should describe the state of the economy when he was sworn in, the major policy changes he enacted, negative effects, positive effects and finally a sample of judgements of his overall economic performance from suitable sources.
 * "Both his Supreme Court nominations and his lower court appointments were in line with Reagan's philosophy that judges should interpret law as enacted and not "legislate from the bench". By the end of the 1980s, a conservative majority on the Supreme Court had put an end to the perceived "activist" trend begun under the leadership of Earl Warren. Critics pointed out that the conservative justices were equally activist, but showed sympathy to corporate America" is an incredibly simplistic summary of judicial activism and there is no citation that Reagan appointments "put an end" to it.
 * "Reagan's administration was also criticized for their slow response to the HIV-AIDS epidemic, until the illness of movie star and national icon Rock Hudson became public news in July 1985, by which time over 10,000 Americans had been diagnosed with AIDS, and over 6,000 had died" - Another clumbsy sentence. Also, what point is being made here? So Reagan is responsible for every AIDS diagnosis including those made before he was even president? What effect did Rock Hudson have on policy?
 * I have corrected/removed several statements in the Cold War section that made no sense.
 * I'm just scratching the surface here. These problems are from a very quick glance. Mark83 19:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank You for your comments. I have addressed a few of them, but could you please provide an example of a "clumsy sentence" in the Reaganomics section? It would only help us to fix the problem. Happyme22 22:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You've made some changes, I think it looks better. The first sentence still bugs me (I don't know if I am right) "When Ronald Reagan entered office, the American economy faced the highest rate of inflation since 1947 and double-digit unemployment, as well as high interest rates, were considered the nation's principal economic problems." It just doesn't read right to me. What about "When Ronald Reagan entered office, the American economy faced the highest rate of inflation since 1947 and double-digit unemployment. Those, along with high interest rates, were considered the nation's principal economic problems." Mark83 22:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * About the removal of the Supreme Court paragraph - I think it should be included, but should be cited and should be more analytical. Though better out of the article until corrected. Mark83 22:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, well I kind of like how your sentence reads also. I'm going to replace the sentence. I also agree with you on the Supreme Court paragraph. Anything else you can think of that could use some work? Happyme22 00:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm Australian and have never heard this name. I think an explanation just before this would make the prose run better. cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 21:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Midwestern "small universe" made a lasting impression on Reagan "where I learned standards and values that would guide me the rest of my life," he said. "I learned that hard work is an essential part of life – that by and large, you don't get something for nothing – and that America was a place that offered unlimited opportunity to those who did work hard." - this sentence has alot of quoted material with minimal comments around it. I think it'd be better rephrased as text in the third person without quotes. cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 21:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

also maybe 'final' can be worded better (?)


 * (divorce)..following arguments about Reagan's political ambitions - this needs embellishing. As it is it tells us very little.


 * In Early political career it is not clearly explained why he switched sides.






 * Comment. Remove "The Reagan Cabinet" table for it doesn't add to the article.--Svetovid 08:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? All the other President pages have them--I'll do it if you say so... Happyme22 16:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't have access to reference 2 (Walsh, Kenneth (1997) p. 95) and I'm confused about the sentence it references. "derived from supply-side economics, "Reaganomics" consisted of large tax cuts, moderate deregulation, and increases in defense spending,[2]" The sentence suggest defense spending was part of the economic policy. Am I wrong to thing that's nonsense? I would argue that Reagan was going to increase defense spending to combat the Soviet threat no matter what, i.e. regardless of his economic policies. It seems to me to sort of a post hoc analysis - massive defense spending increases after he stated and began to enact his economic goals, therefore defense spending was a tool in reaching these economic goals. Mark83 12:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, all the book references are listed at the bottom in the "References" section. According to Mr. Walsh, defense spending was a policy of Reaganomics. I don't know if he was correct, and I don't really care if the phrase stays or not, but that's whatthe book says on page 95. Happyme22 16:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I know all about the references - perfectly acceptable. When I said I don't have access I meant just that - not that it was incorrectly referenced. I still believe that to be incorrect, but I am not arrogant enough to argue with a published author!! Mark83 18:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Initial Comments I'm going through the article doing a bit of editing hopefully to improve the article, albeit only slightly. Anyhow, don't have enough time to go through the whole thing now, but here are some comments before I forget. Will go through the rest of the article at some point later on.
 * "Shortly after the beginning of his term, Reagan tested the Presidential waters in 1968 as part of a "Stop Nixon" movement which included those from the party's left, led by then-New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller." Shouldn't that say "from the party's right"? I think Nixon wasn't much liked by the right wing of the party as he was a more liberal Republican.
 * I guess it should be right. Happyme22 06:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "The 1980 presidential campaign, led by William J. Casey, was conducted in the shadow of the Iran hostage crisis." I don't understand the mention of Casey.
 * In the section on the election of 1980, the article just jumps into Reagan's campaign and attacks on Carter. Maybe it could say something about how he gained momentum in the party since his last bid and then his decision to run, and then move on to his campaign for the nomination and presidency.
 * I'm going to sound like a Wikipedia-idiot here (which I am), but the section on his governship is underlined and seems to encompass the '76 and '80 campaigns (which are not underlined, so I assume this means they are subsections of the governor of California section). I think they should be moved into their own section. Sorry if this is confusing: I have no idea what the terminology for these things is.
 * Regarding Nancy and Ronald's relationship section: it jumps too quickly from when they met to when they engaged. To paraphrase the article: "They met in this place. They engaged here and married here." It just seems too sudden for my tastes. Perhaps add something like, "it was love at first sight," or something, to at least give the impression there existed chemistry between them.
 * Oh hey, I agree with you there, but there wsa some stuff like that, and somebody wanted it gone for being too "weasley" and "POV"....Happyme22 06:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of the info in Early Political Career is already mentioned in previous sections, while the section on Marriages mentions some things (like the assassination attempt), which have yet to be mentioned. I wonder if that section could be moved to the end or near the end of the article? Nathanalex 04:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your comments. Happyme22 06:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Further comments
 * "The top personal tax bracket dropped from 70% to 28% in 7 years" What does this mean? Is that the tax rate for the highest bracket?
 * In the Reagonomics section, there is a mention of GDP growing after the recession, and then a few sentences later, it mentions the rate of growth of the GDP. Perhaps these could be merged into a single sentence?
 * In Lebanon and Grenada section, there is mention of the Lebanon attack and then the Grenada invasion, and then concludes with further mention of Lebanon. I think the last bit about Lebanon should be moved up.
 * "Reagan appointed a non-partisan, three-man Tower Commission to review the Scandal." Should it be 'the' instead of 'a'?
 * "but the unlikelihood that the technology could ever work led opponents to dub SDI "Star Wars,"" Didn't everyone call it that, and not just opponents?
 * "and dropped several agreements being negotiated with the Soviets, hurting them financially." This is kind of vague.
 * Should there be a mention of the Able Archer exercises in the Cold War section?
 * There are times when President is capitalized and sometimes not. I edited so that when it refers to president like 'he was president', it's a lower case, but when it is like 'President Bush', I left it capital. I have no idea what the actual protocol on this is.
 * Anyway though, it's an interesting and enjoyable read. Hope the FA passes. Nathanalex 00:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your comments. You have really helped this article. Happyme22 02:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Too many picutures? I have a widescreen display and to me the page looks cluttered. I would imagine in a standard size screen the balance has swung too far toward image inclusion at the expense of readability.
 * Suggestions for removal:
 * Image:REAGANHAY.jpg - in the reference section. Not supporting a point or section. Doesn't convey anything that is not included in other Ronald/Nancy pics.
 * Image:AP04061107162.jpg - I'm reluctant to include this. I'll just give my POV: Is a picture of a man's wife heartbroken at his funeral an important part of his biography? Of course. However I think that bond is pretty apparent already at this point of the article. Also, for my taste, the picture is a bit intrusive.
 * Image:USSRONALDREAGANgoodshot.jpg - The fact that a US Navy ship has been named after the man is yet another worthy honour. However is a picture necessary? If so, a better quality would be good - even higher res version contains "choppy" edges.
 * Image:REAGANSMO.jpg - Purely decorative. Look at the surrounding pics - really important and/or historical. In contrast this is a pretty standard pic of a pretty run of the mill occurence.
 * Image:RRNRREAGAN.jpg - Decorative? Just to see him in a tux?? Mark83 23:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your comments. I agree, and will remove some of them. Happyme22 02:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Four of the five images you listed have been removed, and I agree that the page looks better already. Happyme22 22:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Please update the obsolete image tags. DrKiernan 17:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The tags have been updated. Thanks for letting us know about them. Happyme22 17:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose sorry but even before I dig into deep details of this page I have a couple of issues:
 * The intro is not neutral. It basically has nothing but support for Reagan (though the rest of the article does contain opposing views), and even lets his own words describe him.
 * While not adopting the best approach to it, a user on the article talk page did point out a major issue that has not been addressed in this article. While you may disagree with it, these are major points and there are indeed plenty of sources quoting this view (just google it, second hit I got was this which you may agree to be a more credible source rather than the activist website quoted on the talk page). Excluding this violates the 1 (b) comprehensiveness requirement if not neutrality.
 * --Konstable 11:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added a paragraph in the "Iran-Contra affair" section describing some of the harsh feelings that the Central Americans had. I have also removed the first sentence of the second paragraph in lead which I agree was POV, and I should have removed it a long while ago. I replaced the phrase with a sentence from the United States page: "The election of Ronald Reagan marked a significant rightward shift in American politics." Is there anything else you notice that I can address? Happyme22 21:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Like him or not, Reagan was one of the most important presidents in US history. The article does a good job of covering his life in a neutral light, and is an enjoyable read on top of it. Nathanalex 22:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't be offended if I say you don't seem to be fully interpreting Featured article criteria - especially since I have little experience of FACs. However in terms of article quality liking him or not is totally irrelevant and his importance is totally irrelevant. An FAC can meet all the FA criteria without the subject being important or liked!! Your later comment about neutraility is more criteria based and one I agree with. As for "an enjoyable read" - that's subjective. My first was an infuriating experience (for an article described as 'brilliant') given the amount of problems, however Happyme22 has improved it a lot recently, perhaps I should read it fully again! Mark83 23:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you misinterpreted my comment. I'm not saying support because I think he is important, it was more of a general comment about the subject matter. As for liking him, personally I have no feeling one way or the other. But yes, please do take another look, as the article has improved since I first looked at it (not to say it was bad before then). Also, all your comments from above appear to be addressed. Nathanalex 01:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well thank you both very much. If there's anything more, please let me know. Happyme22 17:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.