Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive5


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 17:30, 2 December 2008.

Barack Obama
Notified: WP Biography, WP USPREZ, WP US Congress, WP Politics, User:Meelar, HailFire and User:Tvoz.

previous FAR (12:56, 19 September 2008)

It pains me to say this, but this article does not meet the featured article criteria for the following reasons: As I say, it pains me to do this, but after 2 hours and 30 minutes, the most visited article on Wikipedia's problems were not solved, and FAs should be of a higher quality than this. Den dodge  Talk Contribs 19:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1a - well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard
 * The article fails this criterion because it has a maintainance tag at the top of the '2008 presidential Campaign' section complaining about proseline
 * In addition, the massive amount of information added/changed after he won an election makes the article inconsistent, slightly repetitive, and some parts are badly-written and out-of-sequence.
 * 1C - factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate
 * The article is lacking citations for many claims.
 * With an article that is policed like this one, stick a tag anywhere you feel a citation is needed and it will very likely appear.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The reflist it has causes visual problems for some users. Den dodge  Talk Contribs 16:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To a lesser extent 1e - stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process
 * The article has been placed on article probation - does that reflect stability?
 * 4 - Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)
 * This article (even though summary style is used) is too long, both for easy reading and for fragile connections.
 * Comment The way I understood it, the article was placed on probation not because there are a lot of edit wars going on, but to enable administrators to get rid of SPA's and POV-pushers who are behaving in such a way that in normal circumstances, it would be nearly impossible to find a "legitimate" (so to speak) reason to ban them from the article. (e.g. they go to 2RR; don't revert the same thing, but always pecking away at the consensus version, etc.) J.delanoy gabs adds  20:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * True as that may be, a few too many vandals and trolls have been blocked for my liking, and the article content changes rapidly (since he recently won an election). It's also a bit long for my liking - my laptop can barely handle it! Den dodge  Talk Contribs 20:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Only a few are listed there, but vandalism and disruption isn't a stability issue. Previous FARs have shown that there is no actionable stability issue, and it's logic that following the election of Obama, the article is substantially modified. The prose issues in the election section can be addressed on the talk page. It's still featured quality, but needs some time to assimilate the recent events. Cenarium  Talk  00:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The prose for that particular section can be cut-and-slashed down to between three and five paragraphs, with a retrospective view - the rest should go into the sub-article. - New content will surely come once his term begins. - Mailer Diablo 21:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Aww, I suppose it was inevitable. FAR is simply not going to be able to handle Obama. I dunno what to do. Marskell (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment about article the lead paragraph needs more citations, i'ved tagged a couple places with the citation needed tag. - -' The Spook (TALK) (Share the Love with Barnstars) 21:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:LEAD says that content mentioned in the lead section, which is then cited throughout the article, doesn't require as much emphasis on citations. So I wouldn't be too sure about that. — Do U(knome)?  yes...or no 21:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I would agree that FAR might not be able to handle an article like this. I believe the whole system of featured articles is just not built to consider articles such as this one. This will be the recipient of constant editing for the foreseeable future. Maybe in oh, ten years, it may settle down to a stable state, when new information, both cited and uncited, is no longer being added. Further, my understanding is that a featured article need not maintain stability at all times, but that it shows that stability and agreement is possible during FAC and FAR.--Patrick «» 22:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, LukeTheSpook, for pointing out the citation issue - I, too, notice it is a problem now you mention it and have addded it to my list of concerns at the top. Patrick, I agree that the FA criteria were designed to prove that stability was possible - unfortunately, it isn't on this article, and probably won't be for a while. Den dodge  Talk Contribs 22:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The issue of how Obama's racial background should be described, what issues are involved with his self-identification as an Afro-American, the status of the latter group in U.S. society, the attitudes of various ethnic groups in the U.S. towards the idea of "mixed race" --- all these issues have broader implications aside from how they impinge on Obama's story. Although I too have contributed a bit to the discussion, I now feel that in the main article this issue should only be briefly touched upon, but with a clear reference (blue intratextual hyperlink?) to another article in Wikipedia which goes into more detail on these inter-related subjects. What I don't appreciate is some high-handed Wiki-whiz hiding my Talk-Page contribution(s) inside some "archive", in effect deciding without general consultation which material should or should not be left in open view for those who come to read the Talk-page. The disposition of comments and suggestions from individual Wiki-editors should rely on informed consent in order to maintain a civil and harmonious atmosphere. Efforts should be spent on acceptable, orderly placement of contributions, not on hiding them inside "archives".Jakob37 (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Procedural Close Pending Cleanup I agree that there are some minor tweaks that can return this article to FA standards. It was set to probation, just like the other 3 major nominees, due to a mix of vandalization and "overlove" during wone of the most unique elections in many of our lifetimes. That does not mean that, like the last FA challenge, it has the grounds to be removed from FA, it merely means that the repair todo list must be swiftly documented, and immediately enacted upon consensus. Duuude007 (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't close this before we've had time to gather consensus. Nobody has expressed a strong opinion yet. Den dodge  Talk Contribs 17:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Typically I would do this myself, but since there is so much activity surrounding this article, I'll just comment and let the regular editors decide. The multiple-column reference list at the bottom malfunctions on many articles. The bottom of the article is cut off and the FA star disappears at the top. I would urge editors to stick with reflist by itself, and not use any multiple columns. I would direct editors to read this to become familiar with the problem. --  Veggy  ( talk ) 03:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added it to my list of concerns - I can't do it myself as my connection's not too good right now. Den dodge  Talk Contribs 16:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments on the various points raised:
 * This article, like almost all FAs, has a two column reflist, there is occasionally a problem with reflist with three of four columns, but it's not the case here.
 * The prose had recently to be modified due to external events indeed, some concerns have been raised and resolved and if you have any, please be specific.
 * I don't see any citation problem, the citations in the lead have been properly removed in accordance with WP:LEADCITE.
 * There is no actionable stability issue as I said and previous FARs concluded, vandalism and disruption is not a stability matter and articles must obviously be modified when external events with importance on the subject arise.
 * Length has been discussed many times and consensus is roughly that indeed it's quite long compared to other articles, but it can't be helped, and some similar articles have about the same length (Bush, McCain). Cenarium  Talk  00:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Cenarium's comments seconded. Duuude007 (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to get around to a copy edit within the next 24 hours. &mdash; Ceran ( dream / discover ) 01:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It alarms me when I look at the top of the page and see that so few of the projects on the article's talk page have been notified of this discussion. Surely, you understand that this might be the most important WP biography to WP:CHICAGO and WP:ILLINOIS as well as WP:USPE and a few others.  The article continues to be vigilantly watched for current news and vandalism.  I would probably prefer a two-column reflist to the current three-column one.  I think the article is excised properly for forked topics.  I think the article adheres to WP:WIAFA, and it continues to be an example of the best of WP, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see, the reflist is, so on most configurations, it's a two-column, but it may be a three-column on certain configurations. It can be changed to  .  Cenarium  Talk  15:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't think many editors are even taking this FAR seriously. It seems this article has an FAR every month, and as mentioned above many editors don't even know anything about it. To me this is one of the finest FA biographies we have on wikipedia, and it is used as an example for so many wikiprojects. So after a few more minor fixes, I would doubt that this review would have to continue. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 03:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, I don't see any FAC issue with this article, there is almost no activity, so I suggest a close. Also on the reflist, it should be noted that the (n>2) caused problems in certain configurations, however the  did not. The comments above did not assert that there were a problem in this article, so there is no issue.  Cenarium  Talk  23:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.