Wikipedia:Peer review/Ronald Reagan/archive4

Ronald Reagan
Hi there. I made the mistake last time of closing up this peer review too early, so here it goes again! I'm looking for anything you think is wrong with the article, or could use improvement. Please be honest, and list everything you think should be reviewed. If we ever want Reagan's article to become a Featured Article, these peer reviews are very important. All comments are welcome, and thanks so much for taking the time to do this! All My Best, Happyme22 00:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutralize the POV

 * The lead is much too long and detailed. We need a high level overview of why Reagan was significant in American history.
 * The general tone of the article is very flattering, as if written by a Republican operative. There was much controversy surrounding the Reagan administration.  This controversy needs to be given the same close attention as his accomplishments.
 * The writing has many parenthetical statements, including actual parenthesis statements and statements set off by commas. Consider simplifying some of these sentences to improve readability.
 * The legacy section is pure fawning and needs to be completely rewritten. Shouldn't this be more even handed and cover the great increase in national debt that resulted from Reagan's tax, budget, and economic policies, for example?  This should cover the good and the bad, not just the good.  Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 15:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The length of the lead is fine, especially given the length of the article. Quadzilla99 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The lead is way too long and dense. It hasn't a hope of passing with the FA article reviewers at its present length. Three medium sized paragraphs should be a maximum.-- Z leitzen (talk)  00:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The length of the lead is perfectly fine - it is not too long. See WP:LEAD. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think its too dense, Sandy. The paragraphs are too long for me and it is not the clear concise lead outlined in the guidelines. Four smaller paragraphs would be an improvement and would aid reading for old fogies like me. I also don't think you should have to scroll down to continue reading the lead, which I do. It would be better fitting into the opening screen.-- Z leitzen (talk)  21:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey guys. See what I did with the lead, and let me know what you think right under this statement. I slightly shortened it down, and I think it's more to the point now. Happyme22 05:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a little bit better for me, Happyme22. Good luck with getting the article towards featured status, it's a massive subject, riddled with controversy so you'll need it!-- Z leitzen (talk)  14:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Majoreditor
Overall comment: it's a decent article. Some specific thoughts on how to improve it:


 * appears in introduction
 * Legacy section could be better written - it's clunky in places and is the weakest part of the article.
 * I don't agree with Jehochman 's comments that the article reads as if it were written by a Republican operative.
 * "Reganomics" section has some statements which need citation. Majoreditor 01:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Specific ideas for the legacy section:
 * Wordsmith the first paragraph in the section, eliminating passive voice. Re-work the third sentence; it's choppy.
 * The section would benefit from more quotes and observations from U.S. and world leaders who have commented on Reagn's legacy.
 * I'd add in a short paragraph from critics on his legacy to ensure balance.
 * Once again, I think the article is in good shape overall and needs just a little additional work. Majoreditor 12:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

biography or hagiography?
What this article needs is a good deal more than work on minor issues like passive voice; it needs to be rewritten by someone who has not been drinking the Kool-Aid. There is a distinct lack of objectivity which makes this entry highly problematic. Overall, the article reads like a hagiography penned by one of Karl Rove's staffers, and does not belong in a database that purports to be encyclopedic.

POV problems
From a brief look this article is quite POV. You make it seem like he ended the cold war and wanted an end to nuclear weapons - this is quite untrue and even the titles of the books that you cite for this show their strong POV. "Ronald Reagan quietly worked to make the world safer from the threat of nuclear war and earnestly desired the abolition of all nuclear weapons." sounds like something from his campaign brochure. You should not take these out of course, but instead you should be attributing these words to specific writers or groups of writers.--Konstable 09:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We did address the phrase "Reagan worked quietly to make the world free from nuclear war" to certain writers, including John Lewis Gaddis, Paul Lettow, Lou Cannon, Richard Reeves, and Reagan himself (see the phrase in front of the sentence). I agree with you, the "he worked quietly" phrase had to go, and it now says "he worked to...." Any better? -- Happyme22 05:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead does not mention much criticism and has some factual inaccuracies:
 * "confronted communism and the Soviet Union" - assumes that there was communisim in the Soviet Union (a very popular media-created myth) and that the Soviet Union was doing something worth "confronting" - which is quite debatable. (Later on this same story is mentioned more accurately: Reagan escalated the Cold War with the Soviet Union and Reagan's foreign policies were criticized variously as aggressive, imperialist, putting the world at risk of nuclear war)
 * Reagan's supporters credit him with hastening the collapse of the Soviet Union - which is just nonsense... do they really? Serious educated supporters with something to back up their claims?  I find this hard to believe.  A couple of seconds with Google print, first hit found me this - a British scholar: "the end of the Cold War had little or nothing to do with US strategies".  And the collapse of the Soviet Union is a different story altogether which was spurred by interior issues - it is not another name for the end of the cold war (as I think someone may have made the mistake quoting that source, or otherwise the source is rubbish).

--Konstable 11:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit
Hello again, Happyme22. I am giving the article a thorough peer-review in the hopes that we can work together to make it an FA because I agree wholeheartedly with you that the Reagan article should reach that level. I just want it to be done well. I am posting the first part of my peer-review. I will finish it up later.
 * During Reagan's administration, America's economy and morale improved after a period of stagflation and high interest rates. - You should try to be as specific as possible (the economy did not improve for everyone and not everyone was happier, for example).
 * ✅ Added more precise, cited claims about economic accomplishments, working on morale. Kaisershatner 15:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think all we need to add is the fact that the econmy did not improve for everyone. The lead is already long, and I don't think we should get so detailed. Details in the lead don't encourage the readers to read the article, for they see it there, as stated in WP:LEAD. -- Happyme22 02:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Made a second attempt- I'd prefer more specific assertions about the economy and moved 95% of that into the footnotes, adding only a few words. Kaisershatner 14:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "is credited" by whom? Awadewit 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Following an attempt on his life early in his presidency, Reagan implemented controversial large tax cuts, resulting in economic growth and a significant reduction in inflation and unemployment, but also rising federal deficits. - This sentence makes it sound like there was a connection between the assassination attempt and these policies - was there?
 * ✅ Agree. Separated these sentences for clarity. Kaisershatner 15:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In foreign affairs, Reagan rejected détente and actively confronted communism and the Soviet Union. - This is a little confusing - you cannot personally confront an ideology and the Soviet Union was not run using communism per se. It is all much more complicated than that.
 * ✅ Changed to rejected detente/described USSR as Evil Empire; I think that makes the point that Reagan broke w/the 1970s foreign policy pretty clear.Kaisershatner 15:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He rejected détente and confronted Communism, famously portraying the USSR as an "Evil Empire" and bolstering anti-Communist movements worldwide, [5] Reagan negotiated with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev to shrink both countries' nuclear arsenals and help bring a peaceful end to the Cold War. - the "Evil Empire" remark was largely considered a gaffe; it is hard to see the logic in the sentence - how did his efforts to bolster anti-Communist movements (that is, wars in places like Afghanistan) help him negotiate with Gorbachev to bring about a peaceful end to the Cold War? Awadewit 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Reagan's supporters credit him with hastening the collapse of the Soviet Union, and helping to bring down the Berlin Wall. - It is good that you say his supporters, but what about the other side? I am pretty sure that there are people who say that Reagan had nothing to do with it, that the Soviet Union would have collapsed on its own anyway.


 * The "Early life" section is choppy; there are one-sentence paragraphs and the early paragraphs are listy.


 * In Dixon, Reagan attended Dixon High School, where he developed a gift for storytelling and acting. - You need to demonstrate that he was "gifted" otherwise it is POV.


 * I have added some "fact" tags. In general, I would say that this article needs more citations.
 * I agree. Happyme22 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Are there any reviews of Reagan's more famous films that you could include? Was Reagan considered a good actor or not by the critics at the time? Reagan spent around 30 years in Hollywood. That whole section seems a little truncated.
 * ✅ Finding it difficult to locate contemporary reviews of his acting online (subsequent ones are colored by political POV), but added one. The NYT archive is searchable, but they tend to say v little about his performances other than the one I added.  Added citation about his popularity. Kaisershatner 17:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why did Reagan divorce Wyman? There should be more information on this relationship. Also, is there any way to more seamlessly integrate the stories of his marriage into the narrative? This section is a little listy as well.

✅
 * After working with UC Regent Edwin Pauley to crack down on anti-war protesters at UC Berkeley, he was re-elected in 1970 - You imply that because he "cracked down" on anti-war protestors, he was re-elected - is that right? Also, you might want to explain what he did - explain the "crack down."
 * During the People's Park protests in 1969, he sent 2,200 state National Guard troops to the Berkeley campus of the University of California. In a speech in April 1970, he stated, "If it's to be a bloodbath, let it be now. Appeasement is not the answer." - You might explain the context of this event for people unfamiliar with the history. (Also, whenever you have a direct quotation like this, you should immediately give the source.)


 * The second paragraph of "Governor of California" is choppy; it needs to flow better.
 * I would say that the whole first section of "Governor of California," the first three paragraphs, for example, are still choppy. They need transitions or need to be combined into two paragraphs. We need to see the relationship between them. Awadewit 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say that the whole first section of "Governor of California," the first three paragraphs, for example, are still choppy. They need transitions or need to be combined into two paragraphs. We need to see the relationship between them. Awadewit 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As of 2006, no other clemency has been granted to a condemned person in California. - I'm not sure what this is trying to prove.
 * There weren't any more executions in California until 1992, but as Governor he signed a new death penalty status in 1974. - This is irrelevant; Reagan wasn't governor during this time. It is only relevant that he signed a new statutue in 1974. Awadewit 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There weren't any more executions in California until 1992, but as Governor he signed a new death penalty status in 1974. - This is irrelevant; Reagan wasn't governor during this time. It is only relevant that he signed a new statutue in 1974. Awadewit 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Reagan was forced by court order, including the landmark Lessard v. Schmidt ruling in Wisconsin, to begin dismantling of the public psychiatric hospital system, proposing that community-based housing and treatment replace involuntary hospitalization, which he saw as a violation of civil liberties issue. - Please provide context for this issue for readers unfamiliar with the history.


 * Reagan was the first governor to use a corporate business jet for official travel. California received one of the first Cessna Citation jets manufactured. His pilot, Bill Paynter, changed his Democratic voting registration to Republican within six months of meeting Reagan. Paynter often told listeners the Reagan on TV was the same Reagan in person, a man who walked his talk. Reagan claimed that he would often ask his flight crew if it would be any inconvenience to change the published flight schedule because he did not want to keep his support staff from being with their families and any family planned events. - This paragraph seems unnecessary.
 * ✅ deleted. Happyme22 23:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In 1976, Reagan challenged incumbent President Gerald Ford, a moderate. - a moderate what?
 * ✅ rewritten.Kaisershatner 14:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Poor management of expectations and an ill-timed speech - It is not clear what "poor managements of expectations" means


 * During his Presidency, Ronald Reagan pursued policies that reflected his optimism in individual freedom, promoted individual liberty domestically, and pursued freedom abroad. - The source that this is based on seems questionable and the entire sentence is hagiographic.
 * Is there more to the hostages being set free right after Reagan became president? Was it just a coincidence?
 * Reagan later famously told his wife, "Honey, I forgot to duck" (borrowing Jack Dempsey's line to his wife). - explain context for readers unfamiliar with it


 * This situation painted a new picture of Reagan for many Americans. - what kind of new picture? Could you expand on the air traffic controller's strike? put it into historical context?
 * and inflation dropped even more significantly (plus wages fell) - you might want to explain what happens when people's real wages fall (since the seventies, there has been no increase in real wages, as you know)
 * You might outline the ideological leanings of the Cato Institute for the reader. Awadewit 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You might outline the ideological leanings of the Cato Institute for the reader. Awadewit 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Stockman's claims are considered by most to be untrue - by most what? historians?
 * Although there is some disagreement over how much Reagan's policies contributed to the unequal distribution of the benefits of economic growth among the rich and the poor, supporters would argue that by dealing skillfully with Congress, Reagan obtained legislation to stimulate economic growth, curb inflation, increase employment, and strengthen national defense. He  embarked upon a course of cutting taxes and Government expenditures, refusing to deviate from it when the strengthening of defense forces led to a large deficit. In 1986 Reagan obtained an overhaul of the income tax code, which eliminated some deductions and exempted millions of people with low incomes. At the end of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression. - what would his critics say? Perhaps something like: the recession that hit America right after his presidency during the presidency of Bush was not unrelated to Reagan's policies (particularly because Bush continued many of Reagan's economic policies).


 * Yet, most Americans still consider Reagan's economic strategies successful and are thankful for "Reaganomics". - sounds hagiographic - what does the source say exactly? By the way, just because Americans think Reaganomics was successful does not mean it was. That is why it is important to have the views of scholars and economists.


 * A few notes on sources (I will expand these later):
 * *You use Nancy Reagan's autobiography as the sole source for the 1976 election. There are far more reliable sources for that election. Nancy Reagan is not an expert on that issue; she has a very one-sided view. See WP:RS.
 * You often say "critics say" or "analysts say" without citing them. I have added some tags for a few of these statements, but you must say who these critics are.
 * The first two paragraphs of "Reaganomics" uses an obiturary and Reagan's autobiography as its sources. Again, these are not the best sources for economics-related information since there is a plethora of books and articles on Reagan's economic policies.
 * The first two paragraphs of "Reaganomics" uses an obiturary and Reagan's autobiography as its sources. Again, these are not the best sources for economics-related information since there is a plethora of books and articles on Reagan's economic policies.


 * There seem to be a lot of pictures of celebrations. Perhaps you could find some other images as well?


 * I would recommend a thorough copyedit for this article once you have revised it. There are some awkwardly worded sentences, contractions, problems with emphasis, incorrect diction, etc. Many of the sentences begin with "Reagan;" there should be more variety. I would be happy to help if you want me to. Awadewit 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Awadewit. I want to work with you, not against you in trying to get Reagan's article to be a Featured one. I'm glad that you are giving us your thoughts in such detailed form, which really helps. I would love it if you could help us out, if you find the time. Again, I look forward to working with you. Thanks, Happyme22 14:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

More comments

 * Critics charged that the policies did little to actually reduce the availability of drugs or crime on the street, while resulting in a great financial and human cost for American society. - you need to cite statements like this✅
 * The decrease was reported by all national, independent measures including the University of Michigan's National High School Seniors survey, the National Parents Resource Institute on Drug Education, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse's National Household survey. - you need to cite these✅
 * Critics pointed out that the conservatives justices were equally activist, but showed sympathy to corporate America. - cite please
 * In the "Invasion of Grenada" section, you focus on the military operation. I would cut that down significantly and explain the political context for the military operation. I do not believe that the Americans were "hostages" in the sense that you imply.✅
 * Reagan's Second Term consisted mostly of Foreign Affairs. - odd statement
 * saying "I was there"; he was in a film unit in Hollywood that processed raw footage they received from Europe for newsreels, but he was not in Europe itself during the war. This incident has often been used to describe Reagan as either confused or lying about his role in WWII, but no claims have been confirmed - I'm not sure what you mean by "no claims have been confirmed" - he was either lying or confused because he was never in Europe at that time
 * "The Cold War" section jumps around a lot; it should flow better.
 * "The end of the Cold War" seems to conflate too many ideas: nuclear disarmament, free markets and Reagan's aversion to communism. These threads need to be disentangled.
 * "The Close of the Reagan Era" seems unnecessary.
 * These convictions of personal responsibility, individual freedom, and the goodness of people guided Reagan's policies as president. - this is highly dubious since politics is all about compromise and making sure one's campaign contributors are happy (no matter which side of the aisle one is on)
 * When Ronald Reagan died in June 2004, he left behind a nation that had been revitalized, and a world free of nuclear war. - The world was never in the throes of a nuclear war and even after Reagan's presidency both the US and the USSR had tens of thousands of nuclear weapons with which to wage a possible nuclear war.
 * Ronald Reagan has become the iconic image of today's Republican Party. Republican politicians frequently call on the philosophies of Reagan when making speeches, or voting on bills.  - example would be nice
 * He has become a hero to many of them, and to many ordinary Americans - what does the source say? Might be hard to prove that Reagan is a hero to "many ordinary Americans."
 * The "Legacy" section should probably include less about his popularity and more about his political legacy.
 * On FOX News Channel's show, "Hannity's America," (hosted by conservative Sean Hannity) there is a segment titled "What Would Reagan Do?" The segment looks at issues facing the world today, and compares them to the ones President Reagan faced during his Presidency. - Frankly, this should not be listed as an "Honor" next to having ships and airports named after one. It is a rhetorical device used by Fox News, it is not an honor.
 * The "Honors" section is disjointed and contains informatin that should be in the "Funeral" section.
 * Why aren't the "Awards and Honors" sections combined?


 * The "Coinage" section does not deserve its own section - this repeats information given before. Condense! This is already a long page.

Awadewit 17:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

More comments on sources: It is not clear to me why the editors, who have access to a solid bibliography on their own page, have chosen to use such unreliable sources. I will keep adding to this list as I have the time.
 * The primary source for the "War on Drugs" section is an interview with Mary "Angie" Hammock. You need to tell the reader who this person is and why they are a reliable source (in a quick google search, I could not find her, which is disturbing). I would also advise you to have a mulitiplicity of sources. I have never read that drug use actually declined in America; it simply changed form. So, I question Hammock's account.
 * For the "Invasion of Grenada," you refer the reader to a 97-page pdf document written by a government employee. This is a primary source. Secondary sources are more reliable.
 * Remembering Ronald Reagan "Remembering Ronald Reagan". Retrieved on 9 June 2004. - I'm not sure why you are using this source (a later speech by a congressman remembering Reagan) to quote Reagan's "Time for Choosing" speech. Can you not find a copy of the whole speech?
 * "I Hope You're all Republicans". Retrieved on 14 April 2003. - About.com is not a reliable source.
 * Hart, Robert (2 June 2004). NYT's apologies miss the point. Consortium News. - This source does not prove your point about the Iran-Contra scandal. It is also an opinion piece that is primarily about the Iraq War.
 * A Tale of Three Countries: The Iran Contra Affair. Retrieved on 9 March 2007. - It is not clear what you are referencing here since there are many pages about the scandal linked to this page, but if you are referencing the summary of the Iran-Contra affair, it is written by a librarian at the Central Rappahonnack Regional Library. There is plenty of information on the Iran-Contra affair written by scholars that is available.
 * "SDI: The Next Generation". Retrieved on 15 March 2007. - This is from Fox News. We could enter into a long debate on the reliability of Fox News. I am willing to go there if you are. Awadewit 17:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow! I didn't know that there were so many things that need to be worked on! Again, you really sound like you know what you are doing, and any time you find to help us edit this article would really be appreciated. I look forward to working with you. Happyme22 22:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on Reagan, I am just a good researcher. Like I said before, I would advise the editors of the page to read the books on their bibliography and then revise the page. Many of those sources look much more reliable than the ones they have currently cited. Awadewit 00:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

More comments on sources.
 * Several of your sources are not cited properly which makes it impossible to locate them. For example, what is "Regan, Donald T.. "For the Record"."? or "Hammock, Mary "Angie". Interview. ""Interview with Mary 'Angie' Hammock"."? Where can I find these?
 * Gorby Had the Lead Role, Not Gipper "Gorby Had the Lead Role, Not Gipper". Retrieved on 10 June 2004. - You have to have an account to get this story. Also, again a news story is not the best source for this issue.
 * White House Explains Reagan Church Habits White House explains Reagan Church Habits. Retrieved on 6 March 2007. - This article does not support the claim you are making.
 * Reagan Dies-National Review". Retrieved on 9 March 2007. - This article is written by a screenwriter and is a personal opinion piece reflecting on the screenwriter's politics and his experiences at Reagan's funeral. This is not a reliable source for what you are claiming.
 * The only reason that I used this source was to get the name of the funeral home that Reagan was taken to after he died. Is there anyway to specify that that's why I used the source? -- Happyme22 02:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * America Mourns: Ronald Reagan dies at 93". Retrieved on 19 March 2007. - Fox News
 * The only reason this source was used was to specify the events of the funeral, to say that people waved to Nancy Reagan, and to say that he was eulogized as a great president. It wouldn't be wise to find another source that says exaclty that (I mostlikley will not find one), just because it's from Fox News. The source says what was needed. -- Happyme22 02:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Reagan Laid to Rest". Retrieved on 24 March 2007. - Fox News
 * The only reason this source was used was to quote President Bush. It's not wise to switch sources just because it's from Fox News. -- Happyme22 02:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ludwig von Mises (2007). "Supply-Side Gold Standard: A Critique" (English). Vronsky and Westerman. Retrieved on 21 March 2007. - Looks like it might be self-published. Does not appear to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Awadewit 00:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to start off on a bad note, nor do I want to get in an argument, but Fox News is a news channel (the most popular cable news station). I don't always agree with Fox, but I definetly consider it reliable, just like CNN and CBS, and so forth. I don't think there's anything wrong there. If you read the article, there is nothing that talks about politics, or issus to disagree on. It talks about Reagan's funeral, and there's really no debate there. Would you rather I cite CNN? That would be POV, in favoring one news station. What do you suggest using as a source, other than Fox? -- Happyme22 03:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because Fox is the most popular news channel does not make it reliable. Also, Fox has a strong ideological tilt to the right (just watching their channel for a few days can demonstrate this - almost all of their commentators and news anchors are conservatives); that is why it is less reliable than other news channels. Ideally, you should find this information in a printed source like a carefully-researched book or a major newspaper (such as the New York Times or LA Times) because those media are fact-checked more carefully than any news channel (Fox or otherwise). You might want to watch the documentary Outfoxed; it details the ideological leanings of Fox and shows you how it is not "fair and balanced." I believe it is available on google video. Awadewit 15:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get into an argument, so let's leave it at that. I'm working to implement many of your suggestions (if you go up, you'll see that I have crossed out the ones that have been implemented). I think that the "Radio and film career" section should be cut down, and not so much like a list. What do you think? -- Happyme22 00:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you mind changing the strike-outs to check marks? ✅ That way I and other later readers will still be able to easily read the original peer review. Also, I kind of feel like you are altering my statements by striking them out. I did not strike them out but it could be interpreted that way by later readers. Thanks. Awadewit 20:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Awadewit, I initiated the strikethroughs, not Happyme22. My apologies; I see the checks work better.  I have also been working to address your highly detailed criticisms, which are almost all very good points, and the corrections have improved this article immensely.  This may not be the correct forum for a debate on this subject, but IMO there should be no objection to the use of Fox News as a source of factual information about Reagan.  Clearly, it has a right of center editorial bias, but the alternative news sources you mention have editorial biases of their own.  I would agree that if Fox is used as a single substantiating source that "Everyone loved Reagan!" it would be suspect, much as CNN or CBS would be unreliable sources if they asserted a widely negative view of Reagan.  Editorial viewpoints should be sourced in a balanced way to avoid deviating from neutral point of view.  However, on questions of fact I am not aware that Fox News is a deprecated source for Wikipedia.  Otherwise, as I have said, your criticisms are very well targeted and have helped to improve the article immensely.  Keep it up!  Thanks.  Kaisershatner 02:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kaisershatner. All I got from the Fox Article was a quote by George Bush, and the statement that people waved to Nancy Reagan during the funeral. Kaisershatner has hit it right on the mark. Feel free to keep adding suggessions, and we will work to fix them. Thanks, Happyme22 19:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)