Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States/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 by SandyGeorgia 16:56, 27 June 2009 [1].
- You may be looking for a different FAC: see fixing old issues in FAC archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): GeometryGirl (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it satisfies all the FA criteria; it has also not been a FAC in the last two years. I'll do my best to deal with objections, but expect others to help me. GeometryGirl (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are not a significant contributor. Have the significant contributors been notified? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They have been notified more than five days ago on the talk page. See here. GeometryGirl (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User talk page notices are better. More to the point, have they signaled that they want to go forward with the FAC? FAC instructions say: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination. " Notification is not the same as consultation. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably significant contributors have the article on their watchlist. Moreover, the significant contributors are so plentiful that I figured a central notice/discussion on the talk page was more appropriate. After almost a week no reply was made to my prompting. I therefore - boldly - added the article to FAC, taking the lack of response as a lack of resistance to FAC. GeometryGirl (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. GeometryGirl (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably significant contributors have the article on their watchlist. Moreover, the significant contributors are so plentiful that I figured a central notice/discussion on the talk page was more appropriate. After almost a week no reply was made to my prompting. I therefore - boldly - added the article to FAC, taking the lack of response as a lack of resistance to FAC. GeometryGirl (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User talk page notices are better. More to the point, have they signaled that they want to go forward with the FAC? FAC instructions say: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination. " Notification is not the same as consultation. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose at this stage. Although it has 200 references, whole swathes of it are completely unsourced, including some bits that are contentious and need to be sourced. I appreciate the 'There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article' policy, but it's not a blank check to make uncited claims and there are multiple controversial points with no references. The entire Cold War and protest politics section (arguably the most sensitive part of the entire article) doesn't have a single reference, and nor, for example, does the rather dubious statement that "The leadership role taken by the United States and its allies in the UN–sanctioned Gulf War, under President George H. W. Bush, and the Yugoslav wars, under President Bill Clinton, helped to preserve its position as a superpower" (a statement which isn't backed up in the linked "more information" subtopics, September 11 attacks, Iraq War, and Late 2000s recession – none of which have much to do with Bush Sr, Clinton, or the Gulf War). I appreciate an article of this size is hard to keep clean, sourced and neutral, but there just seem to be too many "well, everyone known that" assumptions such as "Superman, the quintessential comic book superhero, has become an American icon" (again, unreferenced and not mentioned in any of the linked subarticles). – iridescent 16:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: To avoid cluttering up the FAC, very long list of minor-but-need-to-be-fixed issues listed here. – iridescent 19:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Although very good in many parts, there are significant problems, apart from referencing, there are some very important omissions.
- Native Americans are scantily covered, with little mention of their controversial treatment, land rights, disposession, and claims of genocide.
- The section "Foreign relations and military" contains no reference to controversial areas of US foreign policy, including alleged interference in other countries - support for dictators, overthrow of democratic regimes, military interventions, etc. These are important matters with respect to the United States relationship with much of the world, and need to be properly covered.
- The USA's use of energy and its contribution to global pollution, as well as its position on global warming, should be covered.
- The Lead does not fully summarise the article as WP policy advises. There is virtually nothing about cultural influence, health, or education. Xandar 21:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Even though the art has 200 refs, there are numerous unsourced sentences. Also 4 refs aren't working Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 23:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not there yet. This one's been in and out of FAC like a revolving door. A bit premature. Apart from the verification issues discussed above, here are a few observations from the top, suggesting that work is needed throughout.
- The term "(the) United States" appears an awful lot in such places as the lead. Better to ration where it's easy; for example, "and led to the end of legal slavery in the United States" --> "and led to the end of legal slavery throughout the country". Another synonym you might occasional deploy is "the nation", where it's obvious you're referring to the US. And why not use U.S. after first spelling-out in each section or para, where not in the vicinity of other country names (as CMOS seems to insist on)?
- You'll hate me for saying this, but "is retained in the idiom "these United States." – dot after the closing quotes on WP (dodges hail of cream tarts).
- Italicise the with the term as term (it's part of the nominal group).
- "The short form United States"—I think it should be pointed out that the the is required when a nominal group, and is often not used when the term is an adjective ("there were United States citizens on the flight"); and USA can't be used as an adjective, can it (?), and is less common nowadays ... You might also point out that outside the US, the dots are often not used in the abbreviation. The etymology section is interesting, including how it has changed.
- "Acres"—what are they? Each one needs a metric equivalent (ha, not sq. km). Tony (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.