Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ronald Reagan/archive3

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

Ronald Reagan

I have nominated Ronald Reagan to be a featured article, because I think it meets all of the criteria. After a lot of cleanup, and an expansion to the "Presidency" section, I think it's ready. All the sources have been cited in the correct format, and everything is in tip-top shape. Again, I urge you to support this nomination. Thank You, Happyme22 15:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous nomination.

I'd recommend referring to peer review before nominating an article here, and closing this FAC. LuciferMorgan 01:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The comunicator and teflon president occures two times in the lead. Are the church habits importened enough for the lead. --Stone 16:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

Done The comunicator and teflon president were changed, and are said only once now.

Comment - The nominator withdrew this nomination I thought? Or has someone else re-inserted it without even contacting the nominator? LuciferMorgan 18:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Comment - I, the nominator, was the old nominator. We, the editors of Ronald Reagan, fixed up the article, and we are ready to try it again. Reagan's Christian belief was important to him. The errors you listed will be fixed. Thank You for your input. Happyme22 01:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Comment There's no fair use rational for the TIME magazine cover and you have mention the specific magazine in the text to justify it's inclusion. Quadzilla99 06:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done The award given to Reagan (TIME's Man of the Year) is now included in the text.

Oppose I wrote a brief peer-review for this article a couple of days ago. In that review, I mentioned that the article should not rely so heavily on Reagan's autobiography as a source (see footnote 2 of the article). Autobiographies are not secondary sources, not NPOV and notoriously unreliable. Since the article has a long list of references, I assume that the editors do not need to rely on the autobiography. If indeed they have written the article based almost solely on Reagan's autobiography, I object even more strenuously to this article being accepted as a featured article. See my peer-review for a few further issues [1]. I might also mention that issues such as the Iran-Contra scandal get very short-shrift here. Awadewit 10:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support As a rebuttle to the above statement, I say: Yes, President Reagan's autobiography is the main source in the article. Yet, if you look (and actually read), it is very rarley used in opinion statements, and only in facts. In the "Cold War" section, Reagan's autobiography outlines what he believed would happen with the Cold War, and we listed that there. It's fair. The above writer says that autobiographies are notoriously unreliable. Okay - President Reagan's has been noted time-and-again by historians as being one of the true (and FAIR, I might add) sources of the Reagan Presidency. The above writer says that the Iran Contra Scandal takes up a little bit of the page. Okay, I agree. We should expand on that. Overall, if you actually read the article, you will find that most of what I am saying is correct. I support Ronald Reagan's nomination. Happyme22 23:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me state, one cannot read an autobiography uncritically, that is, one cannot assume that all of the statements in it are true. Reagan would have had an interest in representing his life story in a particular way. That is why even basic facts have to be verified using secondary sources. But beyond basic facts, you present Reagan's analysis of his own life as a fact and as at times the undisputed interpreation. This is problematic. Here are some examples:

Reagan's father was a problem drinker and sporadically unemployed. - It is Reagan's decision to portray his father this way.

Done Found another reference for it

Witnessing what he believed to be inefficient and overreaching government programs firsthand, Reagan believed that liberals were naively leading the country down a road to serfdom. - this should be a quotation, not a statement of fact, if it is coming from an autobiography

Done Added quotes, and found the page in Reagan's autobiography

Reagan implied that Roosevelt would have also disapproved of the change in the Democratic Party. - this should be a quotation

Done Added quotes, and found the page in Reagan's autobiography

Reagan 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 is Reagan's interpretation - make that clear

Done Specifically stated

The misery index had considerably worsened during his term, which Reagan used to his advantage during the campaign. - which Reagan believed he used to his advantage - that is his interpretation of events; aa political scientist or historian would be more reliable here

Done Got it from one of Reagan's biographers, Lou Cannon

His most influential remark was a closing question to the audience, during a time of skyrocketing prices and high interest rates, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" (a phrase he would successfully reuse in the 1984 campaign). - you should use a secondary source to prove what his "most influential remark" was, not Reagan's opinion.

Done Found other reliable sources, and cited them correctly

Your sole source on the "Federal Air Traffic Controllers' strike" is the autobiography? This is an event which sparked a lot of controversy. You need to have sources from across the political spectrum and from more dispassionate observers.

Done Found other sources, and cited them correctly

Reagan was considered a small-government conservative and supported income tax cuts, cuts to domestic government programs, and deregulation, but no one knew what concrete steps he meant to take, or whether the House (controlled by Democrats) would support him. - Reagan was considered by himself?

Done Found another source

All of your citations in the "Reaganomics" section come from the autobiography as well. Reagan was not an economist. He cannot speak with any authority on these issues.

Done Found other reliable sources, such as Reagan's biographer

Nevertheless, some surveys showed that illegal drug use among Americans declined significantly during Reagan's presidency, leading supporters to argue that the policies were successful. - so quote the surveys and the supporters
Again, I would point out that all of your citations in the "Judiciary" section are from the autobiography. For such contentious issues, you simply cannot rely on a single source, especially one that is so biased.

Done Found other sources

"The invasion of Grenada," a military action, also only has citations from the autobiography.

Done Found other sources (one is very good and informative, I might add)

Supporters responded that SDI gave Reagan a stronger bargaining position. Indeed, Soviet leaders became genuinely concerned, and SDI ended up playing a major role in ending the Cold War. - you mean, Reagan believed it did!

Done Fixed it

Even historians who use Reagan's autobiography are going to verify it and use it judiciously. This article appears to tell the story of Ronald Reagan from Reagan's own perspective. That is not the function of an encyclopedia. Since there is an abundance of sources on Reagan, there is no reason to rely so heavily on the autobiography. Scholarly biographies would be much more appropriate. Awadewit 00:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reiterate that the editors of this article need to seek out scholarly sources. Replacing some of the above source problems (which, by the way, are only some of the many) with obituaries, for example, is not an improvement. There is so much written on Reagan that there is no need to resort to using obituaries (except perhaps to discuss his death and funeral). It is especially egregious that the editors are using an obituary as one of only two sources for the "Air Traffic Controller's Strike" section. Awadewit 05:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say to Awadewit that I respect you, but if you read the Los Angeles Times Obituary, it covers Reagan's life and Presidency, The "Air Traffic Controller's Strike" included. To make you happy, I'll find another source. By the way, you will notice that Reagan's autobiography is much less prominent in the article than before, and is being replaced with "scholarly biographies." In all of biographies that I listed as sources, everything is true, and you can check for it youself (I did not just replace on source with another). And, if you look above, you will see that 12 out of the 13 things that you listed were fixed. Are you any happier with the article? Happyme22 17:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will look over everything again in the next few days, but I feel like you are missing the point here. For you to be able to write on the air traffic controller's strike, you need to read more than an obituary. An obituary is not going to give you the detail necessary to understand that event. When a reader sees that you have used an obituary as a footnote, he or she will assume that you have not read deeply on the topic (in this case, the strike) and know nothing about the topic (I do not know whether or not this is true, I am simply pointing out what it will look like to a reader). Obituaries tend to be used in very particular contexts: to prove that a person is dead and to give details of the funeral. They are often cited to prove that a person is noteworthy as well; Reagan had obituaries in many world newspapers, for example, therefore a historian in the future could argue that he was famous. Obituaries are rarely used for basic factual information unless there are no other sources available. This can sometimes happen with obscure historical figures. Reagan is not an obscure historical figure. There is a wealth of information available on him. Getting back to the strike, putting "Reagan air traffic controllers strike" into Google scholar gets you a wealth of material. I think that perhaps the editors of this page are assuming that the research for this page can be done entirely from biographies. I would question that assumption. I would suggest that the editors look at the list of sources on the Franklin D. Roosevelt or Theodore Roosevelt page for the kind of variety I would expect and that would make the page more reliable. It does seem that wikipedia does not always require this kind of variety, though. If they decide to stick only with biogpraphies, I would recommend that they look at Calvin Coolidge. Note though, that the variety exists on FDR's page, a well-known president, while the reliance on biographies is relegated to Coolidge's page (not a president many people even remember in a quick run-down). I would argue that since Reagan is such a recent president, his page deserves extra-special treatment. I would like to reiterate a message I left on my talk page responding to Happyme22 that I applaud his/her efforts on this page. It is not easy to write on a polarizing political figure like Reagan. I simply feel that a page on one of the United States' most important recent presidents should be done as well as possible. Certainly it will be highly trafficked, therefore it must be very carefully reviewed.

On a side note, I checked out a lot of the other president pages and I haven't found any other (albeit I didn't click on every single one) except for Bill Clinton that had a "Criticism" section. I really would like to reiterate that this structure is problematic. In fact, I consider it POV. To have an article that discusses the greatness of Reagan and then essentially says, "oh, yeah, we can lump all of the criticism into a little section over here" misrepresents the Reagan presidency and the reaction against it. The editors must integrate these criticisms into the timeline of the presidency. Also, the bulletted list of Reagan's "positions" and "achievements" is highly problematic. For example, it says that Reagan was "intolerant of crime." This implies that his opponents were tolerant of crime. The whole "positions" section is essentially a propaganda section - what Reagan wanted the public to believe about him - but it is presented rather innocuously. I'm not particularly sure why it is included. If the editors want to discuss particular positions in relation to particular legislation, they should do that. The "polices" section should be done in prose. Discuss those policies, if you believe they are important - explain them - source them - link them. Lists like these are simplistic and reductionist. Awadewit 07:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I nominate this page. It is quite excellent and presents Reagan in an unusually honest and sincere way. A good article like this will make the reader agree and disagree with some things - and learn a few new things - but accept it as reasonable. I think this current article is reasonable. It is also afree of the previous partisan lies (from both sides) that had plagued it. Reagan did proudly vote for FDR four times, and I am happy to see that it is honestly stated here - which adds to the credibility. This is a very impressive work for it's accuracy and not fakery. People will like this.

Also, I would nominate Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Washington.

The above Support was added as a comment by an IP, [2] and converted to a Support by Happyme22. [3] Happyme22 has already registered support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author of this support gave me permission to change it from a "Comment" to a "Support". Happyme22 19:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object - I have no objection off-hand to criticism section, but in this article it is used to relegate certain facts and do display them only from a critical perspective. For example, dereguation of the banking industry should be discussed side by side with his economic policies, with all the facts in one place, just as Reagan's (lack of an) AIDS policy should be discussed within the broader context of health care/medicine during his presidency. The same goes for certain facts about the Iran-Contra affair (e.g. a link to Nicaragua v. United States. "Criticism" shouldn't be synonymous with "fact that might be considered damaging to Reagan's legacy. Here are some specific problems throughout the article: Savidan 17:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"credited with restoring America's power and prosperity" in the intro - I think it might be a more neutral route to describe the overall tone of his economic and foreign policies (already done to some extent) rather than to discuss it from the angle of praise or criticism in the intro.

"well-received autobiography titled An American Life" - try a more neutral adjective; e.g. (if true) "best-selling"

Done Thanks a lot for your comments. I'll try to fix them. I agree with you on the autobiography, but I don't really agree with you on the "credited with resoring America's power and prosperity." Many, many people will argue that Reagan did exactly "restore America's power and prosperity." Would it be better if I cited it? I have a good source- I'll do that. You'll also notice that I moved many of the criticisms into the article section, like with "Reaganomic's and the Economy". Again, you are carefully pointing these things out, and I'm grateful to you. Do you feel any better about the article? Happyme22 17:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an improvement, but I don't consider this addressed yet. The cite is a step up but its just one person's opinion (maybe more people) which I consider to be given undo prominense in the intro. If it's a notable subject of praise of Reagan then it should be attributed (i.e. no weasel words like "often credited"; cite the specific author and acknowledge them by name in the text. Might I suggest a "praise" subsection to the "legacy" section or similar. Also I don't consider the AIDS issue to be adequately addressed in this article. If you need some help doing the research see Google, Google Books, Google Scholar. The problem isn't just that the most notable criticism is omited (the "what's aids" comment), but that the article should provide a general background on Reagan's health policies as well. Savidan 02:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Slight object~~ I wonder if it possible to include some of the serious allegations put forth by David Stockman (budget director) in the 1986 PBS Frontline interview [4] which essentially said that Reagan was deliberately kept out of the loop during his first years of the presidency by his own cabinet because he himself did not know where he stood on his own policies. For example, one example Stockman gave was a "test" he gave to Reagan in 1981 in regards to the budget cuts which asked him to cut funding for social programs such as welfare and SS. In his words, Reagan "failed" the test as he couldn't bring himself to cut anything. He dozed off during meetings and had to be trained by Stockman to know "where to stand" on his platform. I think this deserves a mention but its worthy to note that virtually no one (that I know of) countered Stockman's claims at the time.--MarshallBagramyan 17:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Hi. Thank You for your comments. I really do not think the David Stockman thing is worth mentioning, because I don't think that it's very important, and is worthy of going into Reagan's article, but I did it anyway for a neutral point of view. Plus, it's a proven fact that Reagan did not fall asleep in cabinet meetings (see James Baker if you disagree). If you disagree, please respond to this, or drop me a line. Happyme22 18:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support - I think the article can do much better if there are even more citations (esp. for a 110kb article and provide publication info, details such as ISBN and page numbers) and if most of the spelling and grammar are fixed but I'm satisfied with its current status.--MarshallBagramyan 23:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support There have been quite a bit of objections, but if you look at the article, almost everything that people objected to has been fixed (see above, or the article), either by myself, of another editor. Again, I think it's ready to go into the Featured Article list. Happyme22 18:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

~~You have already supported - we know your position - please do not stuff the virtual "ballot box" or consensus-cluster. Thanks. Awadewit 07:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~This is the third Support registered by Happyme22. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Additional objection - I'll make my comments about meta-issues on this page, but most of the {fact} tags in the article speak for themselves. I don't want to clog up this FAC by listing all the things here, but if you have any questions about them, let me know here. Savidan 03:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Savidan. Its nice to talk to you again. I've fixed three out of five ^{[citation needed]} tags. I was not the one who added a lot of the uncited info. I've already tried looking for a source about the Iran-Contra is the 9th worst mistake thing, and I can't find one. Should I just delete it? Happyme22 04:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to use your own judgement on that one. But simply to delete the poorly cited sections will not improve the article in the long-term or satisfy Featured-Article-level completeness. Savidan 00:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support The Reagan autobiography is a reliable source. Reagan was an honest and sincere person the the point of being labeled "an amiable dunce." Reagan in his autobiography actually disproves other false claims made about Reagan, such as the suggestion that he destroyed USSR as some sort of Godzilla-type neo-con. Reagan reveals himself to be firm yet very willing to use diplomacy which led to a peaceful end of the Cold War (as stated in this article) and not the phony claim that he made it explode.

And the conservative neo-cons would never want you to know that Reagan favored abolishing nuclear weapons. This is favorable yet honest article, and I must say a great article. It is more honest and complete than much else.

The failings of the Reagain autobiography is what he leaves out; not what he put in. It was mainly written from his diary and ghost authored by a reported for the New York Times. There is no mention of the increased pollution or the political favors for his donors, which every elected candidate is forced to do to keep power. That's the dirty aspect of all politics, and Reagan pretty much removed himself from the patronage aspects. Also, Reagan was very tough on the poor - specifically the able-bodied. His biographer Richard Reeves said that Reagan felt bad for the poor but said it was of their own doing. Reagan optimistically believed in individual initiative as the best way to handle economic issues, which is covered in this article, and said that people should pull themselves up by their boostraps.

Other than those nuances, I cannot think of anything missing or false in this article. This voting for the Discovery Channel rating Reagan the Greatest President ever was suspect. The descriptions of the other nominiees were not always fair. For example, FDR's description made NO reference at all the World War II. The vote count was not audited and then Technically Lincolns still could have been named #1 depending on how you counted the multiple vote process. But this is standard hyping, such as that which followed the death of Kennedy.

Under a differ IP address, I previously ruthlessly edited out the fake stuff. This is now a good acticle. I have read several Reagan biographies and believe this article to be reasonable.

This support was registered by the same IP that registered a previous comment above, that was changed to a Support by Happyme22. [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, Happyme22, did not change this to a support. The author, whomever it might be, listed it as support. Happyme22 19:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct (as I stated); you changed the earlier one. In either case, that results in two Supports from the IP, and several from you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is immaterial whether or not Reagan or his ghostwriter was honest in the autobiography. It is extremely difficult to figure out the political agenda behind an autobiography; you could easily fall into the trap of repeating propaganda. That is why scholarly sources, which are more objective, are desirable. Your own statements support this view; you list examples of what has been intentionally left out of the autobiography to make Reagan look better.

This is far from a great article and there are numerous POV problems, such as this statement: preserved the core New Deal safeguards (such as the SEC, FDIC, GI Bill and Social Security) while rolling-back the excesses of 1960s and 1970s liberal policies. Since this article is the very first article that comes up on a google search for Reagan, it must be superb and very carefully researched; this is supposed to be a featured article, that is, wikipedia's best, after all. Awadewit 14:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ballot-stuffing? Am I reading incorrectly, or has HappyMe registered three Supports? PLEASE send this article to peer review to adequately prepare it for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I, Happyme22, have only registered one support. The other two that are not signed are by two users without a username. They used their IP addreses, and did't sign it, for some reason, with four tildes. You can even check out the history to see that I am not lying. -- Happyme22 19:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs from history are provided throughout; all Support votes come from you and one IP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering about what has been said above, I think one of the most important things this article fails to state is how Reagan was found by the Iran-Contra Select Senate Committee did not "faithfully execute" his role in office during the scandal. The fact that his administration unilaterally circumvented Congress' Boland Amendment and raised non-federal funds to supply and aid the Contra rebels that they themselves had created is one of the most glaringly obvious items that is missing from the article. Something like this some people would consider as a subversion of checks and balances is worthy of mention but I feel this article simply relegates all of the "Criticism" to the bottom of the page. I share much of Awadewit sentiments.--MarshallBagramyan 19:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to put that in if you (or anyone else) can find a reliable source for it. I've looked for things about Iran-Contra, and I know that to be true, but I can't put it in without a source. Find me a source, and I'll put it in. About the "Criticism" section: Many of the criticisms listed there do not pertain to anything in article (i.e. Some Jewish Leaders criticised Reagan about his laying a wreath at a cemetery where Waffen SS Soldiers were buried-where would that go?). Many of the criticisms were moved from the criticism section into their correct places (i.e. the economic criticisms were put into the "Reaganomics and the Economy" section). I understand what you guys mean when you are talking about POV issues, but we can't portray Reagan in a negative way either, and I feel that that is what many of you is trying to do. I don't see a lot of POV problems, yet many of you are trying to say that there are, and I just don't see it. Give me some specific examples, and I'll see what I can do. Again, whether I agree with you, or not, thanks for your comments. -- Happyme22 19:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have never removed an FAC before, but I am to the point of removing this nomination as a flagrant abuse of process, considering that all of the Support registered above appears to come from the same source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I explained to you- I am not the one writing all of the supports! Check out my IP address, and check out the editing history! Happyme22 19:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Sandy If you feel it's an abuse of process Sandy, I'd recommend you report it to Raul who can take the appropriate action in his position of Featured Article Director. As concerns this being referred to peer review, as far as I'm aware it actually was in its first FAC (albeit for all of 5 minutes)? That peer review shouldn't have been closed, and this FAC is too premature definitely. LuciferMorgan 22:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not concerned; the diffs show where the Support votes come from, and Raul will deal with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the one who changed my own comment from "comment" to "support." Happyme22 did not change it. I am supporting this article. I also made several picky attacks on the article, which means that the main points are sound. I picked at the hype after Reagan's death and the patronage, which is common for any president. FDR's patronage was legendary. JFK is was probably the most hyped president ever after his death. I am honest and saying that the Discover Channel poll is hype, but the rest of the article looks good. It dishes out plenty of criticism. This is really good work!

[6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Contra I think there should be criticism but be reasonable. FDR also pushed the limits of the law in his escalating war against Hitler. FDR by law was allowed only to defend US ships and shipping in a neutrality zone around North America, yet he stretched the Neutrality Zone to almost all the way to Ireland. His sparring with Hitler in the North Atlantic is well documented in the book Hitler versus Roosevelt and The Undeclared War, as well as the Pulitzer Prize-winning Freedom From Fear. Are we going to grill FDR in his article? And then Roosevelt goaded Japan into attacking in the Pacific by cutting off their oil. He did NOT know about an attack on Pearl Harbor, but he and the top military leaders knew the Japanese armada was heading to Southeast Asia and were bracing for an imminent attack in Indonesia. FDR's advisor told FDR that they should attack Japan first in self defense of Phillipines, but FDR said, "We have maneuver them into firing the first shot." So Reagan's sin is minor compared to that, not to mention that Teddy Roosevelt stold Panama from Columbia so he could build his canal. And how about all the other interventions in Central America that nobody knows about by Eisenhower and Nixon, such as Guatamala and Chile. Criticize Reagan but please be reasonable. Iran Contra was slightly overhyped. I would say the current Bush has much more to worry about.

I just want to clarify that I am not ballot stuffing for Happyme22. I have never written anything at this page under a different name. I'm sorry that I do not have a user name.

Oppose.
The lead is not an adequate summary of the article, nor is it compelling or brilliant. (See WP:LEAD.)
The article size is 58KB of readable prose; it could probably benefit from better use of summary style (see WP:LENGTH.
Section headings need work: for example, "Reaganomics" and the economy could be just "Reaganomics".
Section headings don't conform to WP:MSH; for example, The Judiciary and The Close of the Reagan Era.
Several sections of the article are listy and should be converted to compelling prose.
Per Jimbo, criticism sections should be avoided, and balanced into the overall text. (Besides, the heading is POV: what is criticism to one is praise to another.) See Wikipedia:Criticism
Scandals and controversies is a two-sentence section. Besides, one of the sentences uses incorrect bolding and has convoluted prose (The Reagan administration saw several controversies unfold in their ranks which resulted in a number of administration staffers being convicted.)
Positioning two images across from each other squeezes the text between them. Prose is choppy; there are one and two-sentence paragraphs throughout.
Legacy is one of the shorter sections: you must be kidding.
Trivia has no place in an encyclopedia; usable facts from that section should be woven into the article as compelling prose.
See also needs trimming; much of it can be, should be, or may already be linked into the article.
Footnotes need massive amounts of work; there are newspaper articles with no titles or authors (how are we supposed to find them in a library?), blue links with no publisher info or last access date (and author and publication date when available), and named refs aren't correclty employed.
It doesn't seem likely that all the sources listed are actually used in the article.
For a biography of a recently-deceased public figure, the article is undercited.
Dashes and hyphens are used incorrectly (please read WP:DASH).
Wikilinking is inadequate and needs sustained attention.
Mixed references styles, based on a missing reference—for example, we find Harvard style inline references (LaFeber 2002, 332) in addition to cite.php, but the LaFeber source is never specified.
The section Supreme Court Appointees (should appointees be capped there?) is nothing more than a short list, not warranting its own section unless there is some discussion.

All of these should be fixed (in addition to diversifying the sources used, as mentioned by Aradewit); then the article should be submitted for another peer review (which typically takes at least a month), then seriously copyedited, and then it should come back to FAC to see if it has captured the essence of the man. With all of these structural deficiencies, it's doubtful the article does justice to the man. Please don't just fix these items listed and mark done—that won't do it; the article is not ready for FAC, and needs extensive work, including diversification of sources, summarizing, and copyediting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for your comments. I'll try to fix a much as I can. Happyme22 04:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happyme22, I think you are missing the point. This page needs to be revised (in some places radically). You need to take time to think about it and carefully rework it. Good writing takes time. If, as you say on your userpage, Ronald Reagan is your hero, you should want this page to be truly excellent. Please take the time to make it that way. A good example of a section that is in serious need of radical revision is the "Invasion of Grenada" section. It is only a description of the military action. It does not explain the real reasons that the United States invaded nor the worldwide outrage (Thatcher was even opposed). You have said that you have an excellent source for that section but most of it is copied from the wikipedia page on the invasion. That does not fill reviewers with confidence and the POV clearly present in that section is highly problematic. This is just one example. Awadewit 07:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree in principle; the article is already too long, and makes use of (and needs to make better use of) summary style. An article about Reagan needs to discuss the Invasion of Grenada as relevant to the man, but is not about the invasion of Grenada; that should be covered in the main article, employing summary style (which the article currently attempts to do). One aspect of an 8-year presidency, governship, radio and entertainment career doesn't get undue weight in an article; that's where summary style comes in. That isn't to say that what is there now is necessarily adequate, but in general terms, the article should not give undue weight to any one issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a major military action that was condemned around the world. I don't think that spending a few paragraphs on it is out of line. The way to fix the problem is to cut down on the military details that are there now and to expand the other aspects. Awadewit 14:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the current amount of "space" devoted to the topic is out of proportion; my point is that what is there should discuss the topic as relevant to Reagan, and not expand to cover the entire issue, which should be done in the Invasion article. What is there now doesn't establish much relevance to Reagan. This is probably true in sections throughout the article, since the article is in dire need of lots of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Many problems in this article.

Let's start from the lead. Why six paragraphs, some of which stubby? And is this "Reagan is credited with restoring America's power and prosperity " generally acceptable?
Stylistic problems: You wikilink single years, something not recommended by WP:MoS.\
"In 1989, after leaving office, Reagan was contacted by the producers of the Back To The Future film trilogy about taking the role of the mayor of the fictional town of Hill Valley, "Mayor Hubert" in the third installment. According to Reagan's agent Lew Wasserman, he contemplated taking the role before eventually turning it down." Citation?
"Nancy Reagan reaffirmed their love for each other, stating: "We were very much in love, and still are."[cite this quote]" Tagged for citing.
In "Governor of California, 1967-1975" you mention nothing about how and why he was chosen by the Republicans as their candidate.
"Poor management of expectations". What does this mean?
"This economic growth generated greater tax revenue, although the new revenue did not cover an increased federal budget that included the military buildup and expansions of social programs, in violation of the doctrine of fiscal conservatism. The result was greater deficit spending and a dramatic increase in the national debt, which tripled in unadjusted dollar terms during Reagan's presidency. The U.S. trade deficit expanded significantly, particularly with buoyant Japan." These aggregate feautures are also uncited.
I see a couple of ^{[citation needed]}s that should be fixed.
"most of these nominations were not controversial, although a handful of candidates were singled out for criticism by civil rights advocates and other liberal critics, resulting in occasional confirmation fights." Vague and uncited.
"According to several scholars and Reagan biographers, including Paul Lettow (Ronald Reagan and His Quest to Abolish Nuclear Weapons), John Lewis Gaddis (The Cold War: A New History), Richard Reeves (President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination), Lou Cannon (President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime), and Reagan himself in his autobiography, Ronald Reagan quietly worked to make the world safer from the threat of nuclear war and earnestly desired the abolition of all nuclear weapons." Vague references. Pages? And why not cited properly like all the other citations?
"In his autobiography An American Life, Reagan earnestly wrote, "The Pentagon said at least 150 million American lives would be lost in a nuclear war with the Soviet Union - even if we 'won.' For Americans who survived such a war, I couldn't imagine what life would be like. The planet would be so poisoned the 'survivors' would have no place to live. Even if a nuclear war did not mean the extinction of mankind, it would certainly mean the end of civilization as we knew it. No one could 'win' a nuclear war. Yet as long as nuclear weapons were in existence, there would always be risks they would be used, and once the first nuclear weapon was unleashed, who knew where it would end? My dream, then, became a world free of nuclear weapons....But for the eight years I was president I never let my dream of a nuclear-free world fade from my mind." Again not properly cited. Page?
"End of the Cold War" is the first section where the prose is starting to get worse, listy. WHy all these one-sentence paragraphs?
"As a politician and as President, he portrayed himself as being." He portrayed himself where and how? anysources? And why isn't this section proper prose?
"Policies and decisions" is listy and uncited. Reagen "is credited" by whom? Because of the lack of sources, this section could be regarded as POV.
"Scandals and controversies" is stubby and uncited.
The first three paragraphs of "Post presidential years, 1989-2004" are undercited.
Poor listy prose and one-sentence paragraphs in "Religious beliefs".
Is his legacy only what Richard Reeves says?! A poor "legacy" section for such an important and controversial personality. Under-developped and not properly worked.
"Facts and Trivia" in a FAC?! No!!!
And what is this long "See also" section with articles already linked within the main text. It needs cleaning and trimming.
Where are the pages from the printed sources you cite, such as "Cannon, Lou (2001). "Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio"?

Many many problems. I don't know how all this could be fixed. And another problem of me is that not even the peer-review's suggestions have been implemented. For istance, Awadewit correctly proposed: "Might you integrate the "Criticism" into the appropriate sections of the chronology, such as the Iran-Contra Scandal and the S&L Crisis, rather than relegating it to a list-like section at the end." Why isn't that done? Another correct remark by Awadewit not fixed: "Why are the bulk of your references from Reagan's autobiography? Autobiographies are notoriously unreliable. Since the page has such a long list of sources, I would have expected those sources to be used. Also, you need to cite more extensively throughout the piece, particularly when you say "some people" or "there is dispute". Maybe the last proposal has been partially implemented but not thoroughly. ANd a final remark of mine: I'm also a bit concerned about the structure; 19 subsections in section 6? Does this huge number of subsections constitute proper structure?--Yannismarou 18:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice TakenIt sounds like we should resubmit this article for featured status in two months after improving the citations. Do keep in mind that this article is MUCH better than it was six months ago and better than many other entries for other presidents. I think the overall story told is accurate and excellent. I will take some time to work on this article. I am one of the authors who improved it from the dribble it was a few months ago. I am one of the main authors of the introduction. I will start by citing the sections that need it, such as the reference to opposition to nuclear war. Some quick comments: the sentence about Reagan restoring America is so widely agreed upon that it would be impossible to cite an "expert" on this. This is simply a fact, and the fact that Reagan won a massive landslide reelection and remains highly popular among Americans means that this is a concensus of We the People. (It's unfortunate that we could now use another Reagan to restore America's position in the world following this Bush fiasco). As you can see, I am not a partisan conservative. I am not a Reagan worshipper. Instead, I am a history buff, and I think the overall theme of this article is very fair and good. Despite the huge Reagan deficits, the economic period following Reagan until today has better than it has ever been. Nobody would ever have ever thought that under 5% unemployment would be achievable without inflation. Other than the New Deal, Reagan had the biggest impact of any president on economics. Prior to Reagan, the West was plagued with both unemployment and inflation. In the United Kingdom this resulted in heavy problems, calls for anarchy from punks, major heroine problems, etc. History shows the changes to have been the right changes.

Recommended Authoritative Books for References:

Cannon: President Reagan the Role of a Lifetime Cannon: Governor Reagan Matlock: Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended Reeves: President Reagan, Triumph of Imagination Reagan: An American Life Reagan: In His Own Hand Tygiel: Ronald Reagan and the Triumph of Conservatism Diggins: Fate, Freedom and the Making of History Gaddis: The Cold War LeFeber: America, Russia and the Cold War Powaski: The Cold War Oberdorfer: From the Cold War to a New Era —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.96.105.74 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 13 March 2007

Please sign your entries by adding four tildes (~~~~) after your posts. Improving the citations alone will not be enough for this article to become featured, and being ready in a few months doesn't seem doable. If editors are serious about improving this article, I suggest the following:

Work on some of the suggestions above
Then, submit to a lengthy peer review
Then submit to WP:GAC
Then submit to another peer review, allowing enough time for it to run
Finally, consider for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have come to the realization that you guys are right: I nominated Ronald Reagan's article, but I guess it's just not good enough. I'll try my best to undergo a lot of the recommendations listed above, and talk with other Wikipedia editors. Again, I think everyone here want's Reagan's article to be a FA, but it does take time. I just wanted to let you all know that I am grateful for the constructive criticism, and, hopefully, we can all work together. Also, I was the won who added a massive expanision to the Presiency section. Yes, like everything else, it needs work, but It's a lot better than before. Again, thanks for the opportunity, but I guess it's not the right time. I am setting a goal: we get Ronald Reagan's article to the featured list by the end of 2007. I think it's achievable. Again, I thank you. -- Happyme22 00:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.