Wikipedia:Featured article review/Harry S. Truman/archive1: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:18, 13 April 2010

Harry S. Truman

Review commentary

Featured article review/Harry S. Truman/archive1

Notified: Dominus, Americasroof and Gadget850 (most active users who have edited lately), and Rlevse (FA nominator in 2007). WikiProject Biography, WikiProject U.S. Presidents, WikiProject Cold War and WikiProject Politics.

I am nominating this featured article for review. I haven't scrutinized it thoroughly, and I don't have any experience with the FAC or FAR process, really. But it obviously fails criterion 1c.

The first paragraph in section "Family, education and early business career" is unsourced.

done. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Freemasonry" is mostly unsourced.

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Large parts of the section "Hereditary memberships" are unsourced, including one direct quote.

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the section "Jackson County judge" are unsourced.

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section "First term" under "U.S. Senator" is mostly unsourced.

Done — Rlevse • Talk • 16:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Assuming office" is mostly unsourced.

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the section "United Nations, Marshall Plan and the Cold War" are unsourced.

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some paragraphs in the section "Election of 1948" have few or no references.

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sections "Second term (1949–1953)", "NATO" and "People's Republic of China" are mostly unsourced, there is a dispute tag in the latter section.

Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the section "Korean War" are unsourced.

done. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section " Assassination attempt" is mostly unsourced, though there is a more-details-link.

Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph in the section "1952 election" is unsourced.

Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two paragraphs in the section "Truman Library, Memoirs, and life as a private citizen". Also, there is a one-sentence paragraph. Also there are many one-sentence paragraphs in the section "Legacy".

Done — Rlevse • Talk • 23:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Later life and death" is mostly unsourced.

Done — Rlevse • Talk • 23:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance at the reference list:

Ref 166 is badly formatted. Is it dubious as well?

That now seems to be 167, replaced it, worked other refs. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too many external links?

Deleted NNDB, which to me is not reliable. Others seem okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A brief note about the first paragraph:

It unnecessarily repeats the detail about Shippe and Solomon.

Fixed — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that when it was promoted, this was for no real reason, other than that "Several editors have recently worked hard [...] the prose size is 58k; and the article size is 108k, about the size of the FA on Gerald Ford", and various exclaims on its perceived quality. Geschichte (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the article are needed to be rephrased or rewritten. Cant argue with that. Dont the the whole article needs to get scrapped. Is anyone monitoring this article for questionable editing or it got the star based on whats here now? Meishern (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was promoted 3 years ago, so it was different then. It does not need to get scrapped. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the above, which should disqualify it as a FA:

That he was rehabilitated at one point falls far short of the outrageous claim in the introduction "Most American historians consider Truman one of the greatest U.S. Presidents" which is nowhere supported in the article.
- Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - pls digest that and add it to the claim (modified if need be) appropriately. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although the reader could infer Truman's and temper from some of the quotes, the famous incident where he threatened the Washington Post's music critic is not mentioned.

Just added it, with quotes. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that his "executive order, in 1948, desegregated the Armed Forces" is wildly inaccurate and misleading.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This FA can be saved. You're wrong about his Exec Order and the Armed Forces, it did desegregate the Armed Forces. If it didn't, what are you claiming did do it? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The order announced a Presidential intent to treat persons in the armed services equally, and it authorized a board to investigate the matter. Business as usual ensued, while the supporters of segregation conducted a long rearguard action. The board reported in December 1949. Integration did eventually follow, but the Army continued to maintain segregated units until 1954. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Do you think desegregation in an organization that big would happen overnight? The fact remains it would not have happened without his EO. The majority of units were desegregated a few years prior to 1954. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article should make this clear for readers who might not understand the subject in the detail that we do. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK with, can you rework those parts? —

Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have also added some material about Harry and historians. I replaced your link with one to the actual poll. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody monitored it for 3 years maybe it needs to loose the star. Or revert all the way back to edit when the star was given. Its just in its present form, I don't think this article deserves accolades. Meishern (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to wait til the FAR is over. This FA is salvageable. Hopefully someone besides me will put a significant effort into it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll be willing to put in effort to save Truman. However, it's currently quite late, and I will be calling it a night. If I don't drop by on Friday/Saturday, drop a message on my talk page and I'll help. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 05:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Looks okay now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern brought up in the FAR section include referencing and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HUH? The refs have ALL been fixed and no one critcized the prose. Would you care to explain yourself? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 ==== FARC commentary ====
 :''[[WP:WIAFA|Featured article criteria]] of concern brought up in the FAR section include referencing and prose. [[User:Dana boomer|Dana boomer]] ([[User talk:Dana boomer|talk]]) 00:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)''
+::HUH? The refs have ALL been fixed and no one critcized the prose. Would you care to explain yourself? <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 00:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)