Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive10

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 Nikkimaria 20:51, 22 October 2012 [1].

Barack Obama[edit]

Featured article candidates/Barack Obama

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

I am nominating this featured article for review because...

1. There has been a very extensive discussion for FAR. Even someone who opposes FAR wrote "A review would be welcome, but only after the seas are calmer. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC). An administrator wrote "I think an FAR would be very beneficial, especially given the visibility of the article. The purpose of FARs is to discuss possible improvements "without declarations of "keep" or "delist"', with the aim "to improve articles rather than to demote them" (see WP:FAR). —Eustress talk 18:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

2. This article is far different from the article of 2004.

3. Others have commented about why it does not meet the criteria.

4. As far as not meeting the criteria, my own experience is about the religion section. We all know he is a Christian. However, it is going overboard to have 3 paragraphs about his Christianity as other Presidents don't have this. There could be a reason, that is because he has been accused of being a Muslim. There are many sources to back this up (the fact that the false accusation has been made -- I gave the Washington Post citation). A simple mention that there has been accusation, then follow it with a condensed Christian description would be fine. Yet to have this current version (which tries to convince the reader of a point) violates criteria 1(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and

5. Violation of criteria: (e) 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.

Even the discussion on the talk page about having a review is met with fighting and try to shut up the discussion by closing it up into a box.

If we improve the each section of the article like I just proposed, then it will be a fantastic article.

Someone mentioned that a lot of editors will attack Obama, the man, in this process. This can be controlled by trying to keep on subject. As far as being close to the election, we could finish before November, which is 3 months away. We are not that slow.

In the interest of disclosure, I voted for Obama and have an Obama magnet on my car but basically want a better article, not one that is overly pro or overly against the man.

George Tupou VII (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

technical details-notifications done

main contributor:Hailfire

editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article: Meelar

WikiProject: WikiProject Biography

Comments by Wikidemon

The editors on the talk page recently rejected a FAR, and I don't believe this is a good time for it. The article talk page has recently undergone some tendentiousness on the topic, and this latest renomination doesn't seem to address any of the shortcomings of the last nomination and could itself be perceived as an aggressive contravention of other editors' actions. Certainly, we haven't done the first step, to discuss the issues and suggestions for improvement on the talk page or even identify the problems. The one issue identified above, the religion section, can readily be addressed by editors on the talk page. The issue that others have mentioned, creating a preferred point of view more negative towards Obama than a perceived pro-Obama current point of view, is not something that FAR can achieve (nor is it a good way to approach an article). The article is stable (any edit wars basically restore the status quo). That's perhaps one of the issues, that it gets stale because editing is somewhere between incremental and gridlocked, and does not keep pace with world events. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, we have single purpose accounts and IPs who are hell-bent on unhatting closed discussions and attacking the article by trying to get it delisted from FA status. This is a misuse and abuse of the Featured Article Review process. None of the "problems" cited by the filer are actual "problems" at all, this is just the same run-of-the-mill "this article doesn't criticize the subject enough" stuff that we see as the US moves closer to election time. Please close this, sanction the filer, and we can get on with normal editing work. Tarc (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John

Currently this article fails to meet, by 2012 standards, 1a; it is easy to find poor writing throughout the article; indeed, most of it is really badly written. It would need a top-to-bottom rewrite to pass this criterion.

Examples

- "Regarding tort reform, Obama voted for the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which grants immunity from civil liability to telecommunications companies complicit with NSA warrantless wiretapping operations." (Why "regarding"? It looks tacked on.)
- "During both the primary process and the general election, Obama's campaign set numerous fundraising records, particularly in the quantity of small donations." (Why "numerous"? It would be better to list the specific claims that the references support.)
- "In his first few days in office, Obama issued executive orders and presidential memoranda directing the U.S. military to develop plans to withdraw troops from Iraq. He ordered the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, but Congress prevented the closure by refusing to appropriate the required funds." (Did Congress prevent the closure by refusing to appropriate the required funds in the first few days of the subject's term? That's what it looks like it says.)

Three of many instances which I regret to say would fail a basic-level school essay, let alone a Featured Article on Wikipedia.

Currently this article also fails to meet 1d. This is inherently harder to potentially fix, given the strong feelings that arise about the subject, and the somewhat toxic editing environment this has led to. Again, the list that follows is not intended to be exhaustive but is merely a sample.

Examples

- Economic policy We have "The Congressional Budget Office and a broad range of economists credit Obama's stimulus plan for economic growth." yet it is also quite easy to find critical views of Obama's package. While there is no space at present for any such critical material, we do currently manage to have a long and generally very positive quarter-by-quarter commentary on the unemployment statistics. The graph that supports this section is also somewhat ridiculous, as has been discussed in talk already.
- Foreign policy The Iraq War and War in Afghanistan sections need updated as they include language like "...scheduled the withdrawal of combat troops to be completed by August 2010, decreasing troops levels from 142,000 while leaving a transitional force of 35,000 to 50,000 in Iraq until the end of 2011" and "On December 1, 2009, Obama announced the deployment of an additional 30,000 military personnel to Afghanistan. He also proposed to begin troop withdrawals 18 months from that date [i.e. by May 2011]" The War in Afghanistan, Israel and Osama bin Laden sections collectively include no, zero, mention of any negative aspects to the sub-topics they explore. As though there had been no controversy at all about the drone attacks, relations with Pakistan, relations with Israel, and the targeted killing of a foreign leader, as though these events had been as bland and routine as William Howard Taft's admission of New Mexico to the Union. In fact, it is extremely easy to find good sources for valid criticisms of all of these areas of policy, without going into fringe territory. That the article at present does not do so is a regrettable omission.

I could go on, and may bring other examples for improvement so that this article could become a genuine 2012-era FA. At present, sadly, it is not. --John (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mark Arsten

Comments from Mark Arsten: I copyedited the first few sections a couple months back and though they were in good shape. Looking at the rest of the article, I'm inclined to agree that an FAR would be a good idea. Probably won't need to be delisted, though.
A few 1a issues are present, notably including Wikipedia:Proseline issues in "Domestic policy".
It seems like there's lot of Human interest story, here, particularly in the last few sections. He's quoted for 8 sentences talking about his faith, we learn about his favorite and second favorite football teams, some trivia about the Bears' 1986 championship, his thoughts on his youthful image, his visiting Irish cousins in 2011. I would expect there to be some of this, but it seems like some more significant aspects of his presidency are crowded out.
There are only 5 sentences about his relationship with Israel. Only two about the 2010 midterms, which don't quite capture the tone of the cited coverage [2]. I think there's too little about these topics, but also, 2 or 3 sentences is probably too small for a subsection.
I don't see anything about Drones, which have been a pretty notable part of his military strategy. I also see there's no mention of the Tea Party, which was a pretty notable response to Obama. (I don't think we should include much about them, but to totally ignore them seems like it's going overboard.) Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disappointingly, it doesn't seem like the article has been improved since this FAR began. While a lot of respect is due to those who have kept this article presentable, legitimate unresolved issues remain. As a fairly active FAC reviewer, I am reasonably confident that this article would not pass FAC in this state. Since it doesn't appear that any effort is being made to remedy the issues pointed out here, I suggest this be moved to FARC. Mark Arsten (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regretfully, I agree with the above. To allow this article to continue to carry the star devalues the whole concept of Featured Articles. --John (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wiwaxi

Good to have this FAR

I do not live in the US and am not American but English is my first language. I do not think that writing in this article is very good. It very choppy. I believe a reassessment is needed. I also see that others agree with my assessment. Here are quotes by others (I'm not against a review, I'm just saying it might be a problem trying to do it at the same time, that's all. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC) and I took a look at a couple of sections and he quality of the writing is terrible. I started copy-editing it, but there are so many more serious problems of completeness that it seems premature to do this until the more major problems have been addressed. --John (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC) ) I agree: I'm not against a review, am for it if done civilly, and the quality of the writing is terrible.

Since this is a hot article, everyone, including me should pledge to be civil. I pledge to be civil. Hopefully, there will not be extremists who insist Mr. Obama was born in Kenya, but even if there are, we can work with them and explain to them that such theories are outside the purview of Wikipedia.

One problem is the selection of things include some trivia and some major things are not included. Once this FAR gets started, I am happy to point out some examples. Let's make this the best article in WP. It will take longer than a week or two but it CAN be done! Wawaxi (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a reasonable person. I see some merit to Mark Arsten's comments, particularly about the Israel part. The fix would not be anti-Obama so supporters do not have to worry. The fix would not be cheerleading so opponents do not have to worry. There is also a problem that some of the biography is about the administration of Obama. There are some things that Mr. Obama strongly supported and did things for, so that is appropriate but there are some things are make the article bloated. Some of his Illinois Senate sections are not very detailed and look lopsided compared to the very long Presidential section.

I read the talk page and some comments are way over the top but some are very useful. One example was that there was such a large part devoted to Christianity, really undue weight. I can see why...because Mr. Obama has been accused of being a Muslim. If that is put in (it is not in) then it gives it context but without it, it is pure cheerleading and almost seems to be Wikipedia trying to convince the audience that Mr. Obama IS a very strong Christian. I can't take credit for this but merely cite it as an example of some good points raised in the talk page.

I kmow content forks are not appreciated but one brainstorming way would be to have 3 versions of the article as an exercise only and see how they compare. They would be entitled "Obama by supporters", "Obama by opponents", and "Obama by neutral parties and foreigners located outside the USA". I would be happy to do the latter. However, given that content forks are not liked, I do not think that alternative versions for an exercise (which is not a true content fork) will be liked so let's not do it unless there is very strong support. Wawaxi (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kyle:The US Elections make a FAR difficult because of instances of impartiality. This should be tabled until AFTER the november elections. 99.99.61.169 (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Malleus Fatuorum: I think this FAR is ill-timed given the upcoming US presidential election and premature. I see no evidence that a serious effort has been made on the article's talk page to resolve whatever issues may exist, which is a prerequisite for initiating an FAR. Is the article perfect? No, but what article is? The issues so far identified seem to me to be relatively easily fixed and in some cases arguably in areas where reasonable people may reasonably disagree. Malleus Fatuorum 16:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dank: I'm concerned about the process questions, about possible harm to the editing and discussion process for this article, and harm to FAR itself. If we threatened to run off to FAR every time an edit has been made that doesn't seem to meet the FA criteria (this is FAR #10 for this article), that would create an oppressive editing environment, and this is not the point of the FAR process. If FAR reviewers and delegates have to evaluate every defect in detail on an ongoing basis, that takes up time that very busy people don't have, for no gain at all that I can see. The nominator has selectively, and disingenuously, pulled out a quote from Dana that makes it sound like Dana thought it was time for a FAR, when she actually strongly suggested that FAR seemed premature, since there was no consensus or attempt at consensus on the subject at the article's talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Spevw Kyle and Malleus Fatuorum are not in favor of FAR before the election. However, that would just delay improvement. Perhaps there is fear that the article will get better and the poorly written version is preferred? Dank makes sense in that FAR should not become oppressive and every effort should be made to ensure civility and constructive improvement. However, Dank mentions that "FAR reviewers and delegates have to evaluate every defect" and that they are busy. This is a good reason to have a FAR because Dank admits that there are defects in the article. In my opinion, the article needs improvement and work to bring it back to FA standards. There has not been a serious FAR for several years (there are a few joke FAR, like the last one, which last a day or so and result in no changes in the article before the FAR is closed up right away). This FAR should go on but care should be made to have a good discussion about editing and not have some people want to include "he's born in Kenya" though I have faith in WP that there aren't too many of those people. Spevw (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not just do the work you believe is required? That doesn't require an FAR. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: serious error Looks like there is an error here preventing discusssion. It is not in the FAR page. The only way to get into here is through an obscure link in the Barack Obama talk page. I have fixed this. George Tupou VII (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's because there's isn't a legitimate review going on here, just some sporadic nattering by a handful abusing the FAR process. Tarc (talk)

Additional comments for improvement: from me I've looked into other FAR above and the concerns listed seem to be real. I think some are confusing support for President Obama for opposition against FAR, which is wrong. Opposition for FAR should be because the article is so great that virtually nothing needs to be done, which is not the shape the article is in.

Looking at the talk page archives, there are legitimate points that are never addressed. This should give us a clue that FAR may be needed to prod improvement. Looking at just the last archived talk page, there is concern about the Afghanistan section being not comprehensive (which nobody refuting the suggestion...therefore a consensus that it is poorly written). There is concern about the Israel section and some agreement but nothing written, maybe because people figure "it's already a FA, why bother?". There is mention of overemphasis on his Christianity with no context to the reader. The reason given is because he has been accused of being a Muslim. There is a suggested new picture of Obama with no response. I do not claim support or opposition to any of these changes. I merely am making a list from 1 of 75 archives and this list seems reasonable.

So far, I have not seen anyone comment here insisting that we smear President Obama. This suggests that a FAR could actually be very productive and civil. I am not sure what is the process after this. Is it further FA review? If so, let's do it! and make Wikipedia better! George Tupou VII (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: File:Lugar-Obama.jpg, source is dead link, needs source per WP:IUP. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 21:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source website is archived at archive.org [3] Rreagan007 (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 10:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - after reading the article and some of the talk page "discussions", i am still not sure FAR can help to improve the article. When interested editors can find a common ground to collaborate on the article, great. But just moving a discussion to FAR doesn't magically make it more civil or productive. FAR is great to fix clearly identified specific issues, it's not well suited for general content disputes (imho). Also reading and following the FAR process guidelines should be a basic requirement. GermanJoe (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "I am stil not sure FAR can help improve the article" reads the above comment. The best and neutral way is to try it. By denying it FAR is like saying "let's not have an election because it will not improve the government". Well, not having an election is dictatorship. Certainly, we should not support those who advocate dictatorship. Let's have a FAR and see how it improves the article. Certainly, quacks that say "Obama is a Muslim" can be discounted. Besides, in this civil FAR discussion, no quacks have appeared.

I do have and have seen many good suggestions but the political nature of the article means that some good suggestions are ignored and nobody has the stomach to pursue the discussion. Every section I read can be greatly improved. The big problem is that over the years stuff has been added on but the comprehensive focus has been lost. Let's take one example. The Israel section of a bad representation of the biography of Obama. Then multiply that with how many sections that ere.

Some have said to wait until after the election. Wikipedia needs improvement as soon as possible, not after some external event. Everyone has been civil so far, much more civil than on some talk pages, so AGF and let's start the FAR. Best of luck...

Disclaimer. I am not a U.S. citizen and edit outside the U.S. so I have no axe to grind. I cannot and do not want to vote in the U.S. election. Wawaxi (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's give you another example. Foreign policy. The subsections are Iraq, Afghanistan, Iarael, Libya, Bin Laden. That is a terrible outline of both US foreign policy and/or Obama's emphasis of foreign policy. However, if suggestions are made for major re-write, this will be impossible in the normal way. If there is FAR agreement of the need to re-think foreign policy, there is a chance that ther will be great improvement.

If anyone insists that Libya, Israel, Bin Laden, Iraq, and Afghanistan together summarize Obama and foreign policy, there is a serious problem with Wikipedia. Anyone with a little knowledge of the world knows that such summary is very bad prose. Obama has said he wants to bring Asia to the forefront. So, that is an idea. That also shows that even President Obama disagrees withthe contents of this WP article summarizing his foreign policy.

Let's work together through the FAR to improve this article. It can be done. Show the world how good we can get. Wawaxi (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One problem is that there has been no overall direction, just people adding things here and there. This results in a skimpy Senate career, a Senate campaign section almost as large as his Senate career, and a Presidency, which has been shorter in length than his Senate tenure, yet is much longer. The Senate career section almost exclusive is a list of bills that he introduced and is not even represenative of the Chicago Tribune articles about then Senator Obama then.

His state senator section is in even worse shape. There are major omissions, including events that got him elected, his well publicized mentor, etc.

There was a concern that this is the wrong time to have a FAR due to the election. The election should have no bearing at all about writing and improving this article. The concerns about extremist editors is unfounded because, as you can see, everyone here has been civil. If we wait until President Obama leaves office in 2017 (probably) then that is so long and so much time wasted, as well as editors leaving WP who could have helped. Let's proceed with the FAR review. George Tupou VII (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some good insights. Agreed on all points. • Jesse V.^(talk) 04:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. --John (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rules say "there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage." Two months have passed and the suggestions made were not done. There is no consensus to close during this second stage. In fact, there is support not to close it. (note: I changed by username but I did comment above). George Tupou XXI (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption

Wikid77 has repeatedly deployed {{cite quick}} into this article citing this review as a rationale. The article is currently exceeding the template preprocessing limit, resulting in the loss of navboxes and a few other templates at the bottom of the article. Editors need to cull a few unneeded cites; or something ;) Wikid77's template is one of a suite of experimental templates he has going. He has been repeated told by many, in TfDs and elsewhere, to confine these to non-article testing with the goal of improving standard citation templates. {cite quick} is currently at TfD. The core issue those opposed to Wikid's approach have is that it's disruptive. The other simple fact of the matter is that his templates are unfit; they drop all sorts of parameters in the interest of speed and less preprocessor overhead; i.e. they are incompatible. Stuff ordinarily passed to citation templates simply fails to appear on the rendered page. And there are all sorts of punctuation, order, and formatting anomalies. I'm not seeing anything from him here, although he's referenced this FAR in edit summaries and on the talk page. So, an FYI… Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "Religious views" subsection, I believe that this is given appropriate weighting. The text is well-written and well-sourced. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I read it and I have no idea what's supposed to be wrong with it. Yes, its length and level of detail is, in a way, a response to the existing "controversy" about his religion, but I don't understand why some editors feel that's undesirable. I feel that ideally, encyclopedia articles should devote more space to aspects of a topic that are of increased general interest regarding that topic. For example, the Michael Jackson article devotes eleven paragraphs and two sub-articles to his death, while the Albert Einstein article has three short paragraphs on the subject. This is eminently reasonable, since Einstein's death was unremarkable and uncontroversial, while Michael Jackson's wasn't. Similarly, Obama's religion is a contentious matter that's been chewed over by talking heads in the media many times, which is certainly not true of most other presidents' religion. --Ashenai (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Over 2.5 months have passed since the FAR request and there is no consensus, which means that there needs to be progression to the next step. A lot of users want a review of this article, although some say that the election will make editing not objective and that we should wait until afterwards. That is not going to solve anything because if there is not objectivity now, it will not change. However, I only see civility in this discussion so that suggests that there will be civility with further review. One editor said he has "no idea what's supposed to be wrong" but that editor can simply wait for the finished product. I see many things wrong with this, only some of which are mentioned above. Let me add another one. The foreign policy section is not representative. There are lots of areas not covered and the areas covered, such as Israel are not well covered at all. Iran's nuclear problem isn't covered at all by a sub-section. Even the Libyan section is out-dated, with particular lack of emphasis of President Obama's role.

Let's end this FAR and proceed. We can make this article better. Wawaxi (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably going to be controversial, so I'm leaving a longer note here than usual. First, it seems there is intense disagreement, both above and previously on talk, about whether neutrality/coverage issues exist. Such issues are far less likely to be solved by a move to FARC than they would be by resuming the discussion on talk and, if necessary, taking it to a content noticeboard. Secondly, no matter what happens next month, there is going to be a need for article expansion, and reviewing a moving target is rarely productive. I respect that there have been some legitimate issues raised above, and I would encourage contributors to continue working on the article and discussing its possible deficits on talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.