Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ronald Reagan/archive6


 * 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 21:04, 31 July 2007.

Ronald Reagan

 * previous FAC nominations: 1 3 4 5

Ronald Reagan is finally ready for FAC. This article has come a long way, has been edited by a number of good people, is a currect good article, and is updated. It follows the MoS, and complies with all the criteria for FAs. This article is ready. Happyme22 04:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Comment - yeah, nearly there - I read this before and it reads better now. Still a couple of very minor prose issues that'll be easy to fix. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * After Reagan's "Time for Choosing" speech, California Republicans became impressed with his political views and charisma.. - "became impressed"? -umm, how about "California Republicans were impressed with Reagans political views and charisma after his "Time for Choosing" speech and nominated him for..."




 * to cease the unrest -rep with "quell", "stop" or "deal with"


 * Thanks so much for you suggestions. Happyme22 01:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - could use some more work with neutrality. I tried to work a little bit on the legacy section, but it still seems more like a listing of "look at all these great things people have said about Reagan" than "here is a balanced assessment of Reagan's presidency by historians."  I actually would like to see that section expanded, because I imagine a lot of interesting things have been said pro and con about the impact of the Reagan presidency on America and the world, and because I imagine those are things readers besides me want to know about too.  I also think it might be nice to have an overarching "political philosophy" section (or similar) that could be merged with the religion section, which is now inexplicably nested under later life, even when it discusses his childhood.  That would also be useful for readers looking for a general overview of what reagan was all about.  Calliopejen1 07:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for you comments. I will ponder those changes, and see what I can do. Happyme22 01:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Check consistency, for one thing, some solo years are linked and some aren't. I believe you're NOT supposed to link solo years.Sumoeagle179 02:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I'll get on that. Happyme22 00:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - reluctantly, for this is in general a great article about a key figure of recent decades. However, as argued here, the current lead is too simplistic, omits crucial facts and thus fails MoS compliance. This is the lead for which I am arguing and while I can accept tweaking of it, I regrettably cannot in good conscience vote to promote the article with the current lead. Biruitorul 03:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a legitimate reason to oppose the article, for the current lead is written how WP:LEAD suggests. Happyme22 22:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The crucial section on reaganomics is badly written, not neutral and poorly sourced. It's poorly referenced since it mostly draws from primary sources (raw government data), or from unreliable sources as the Heritage Foundation; the best of the scholar/academic literature must be used instead. It is not neutral because the two paragraphs devoted to "economic data" are divided in "facts" and "criticism"; the first presents mostly apparently favorable aspects (the "facts"), and the second discusses the non favorable ones (marginalized as "criticism"). (oh, I'd never expected that from a Reagan fanboy :). In the end, it is a "pick and choose" list of confusingly related data, and lacks the perspective of a writer that has broadly studied the whole subject (reviewing the main reaganomics article would be a good exercise for this).--BMF81 11:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Does the section sound more nuetral now, or am I missing the point? Happyme22 23:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Support A well-done, neutral article, that provides the facts and preserves the legacy of Ronald Reagan.--Southern Texas 00:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with BMF81 on the need for a better treatment of the criticism of Reagan's economic policies. David Stockman's views, in particular, should probably be taken into account since he was a very prominent critic at the time (and had inside knowledge). Haukur 17:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We originally had a quote criticizing Reagan himself by David Stockman, but chose, by consensus,to replace it with one by Don Regan, fmr. Chief of Staff and Sec. of the Treasury, for the quote by him seemed to focus more on Ronald Reagan himself, and that's what we were aiming for. Happyme22 22:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Regan quote isn't bad but I think it's weird to omit the juiciest part of it: "From first day to last at Treasury, I was flying by the seat of my pants." Have you read The Triumph of Politics, by the way? I strongly recommend it. I couldn't help but feel sympathy for Stockman, a somewhat naive ideologue who gets stuck in a world of compromising congressmen, "lemon socialism" and public relations. Haukur 23:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Does the section sound more nuetral now, or am I missing the point? Happyme22 23:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you have indeed made improvements but I still see some problems. I'm especially concerned with this sentence: "The policies were derided by some as "Trickle-down economics," due to the facts that the combination of significant tax cuts and a massive increase in Cold War related defense spending caused large budget deficits, the U.S. trade deficit expansion, and contributed to the Savings and Loan crisis, as well as the stock market crash of 1987 (known as "Black Monday")." First of all "derided by some" is not great writing but I'd be willing to let that slide. I think the major problem is that you're trying to condense too much into a single sentence and the causal relation gets tied up in knots. The large budget deficits and the trade deficit (etc.) were criticized in themselves not because they had necessarily anything to do with "Trickle-down economics". Indeed, some people who did believe in trickle-down economics (even if they didn't necessarily use that term) were critical of the deficits and the "trickle-down" philosophical criticism didn't necessarily refer to the deficits. My paragraph is probably even less clear than the one I'm criticizing but I hope you grasp what I'm trying to say :) Haukur 23:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose per above criticisms. -- CJ Marsicano 18:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment At well over 100k, and having so many extremely specific sub-articles related to Reagan, it's rather questionable whether this is an article of FA-quality focus or a genuine exercise in summary style. And before anyone even tries, let's not get into a bunch of hair-splitting of what "article size" actually means. Keep in mind that the attention span of most people have not changed just because certain technical limitations have. Peter Isotalo 14:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Prose size as measured by Dr pda's script, per instructions at WP:SIZE that recommend a max of 50KB, is 51KB; size is within guidelines. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - While this is a great article, and I felt it deserved a GA pass, it needs some work for FA status. After just a quick read through I noticed the ""Reaganomics" and the economy" section needs a thorough copyediting. Chupper 03:54, 31 July 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.