Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ronald Reagan/archive2

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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 08:35, 21 May 2009 [1].

Ronald Reagan

Notified: none.

Previous FAR: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ronald Reagan/archive1

Major 1(d) and 1(c) issues. Article is filled with neocon talking points and is poorly referenced. The most recent example of the propagandist editing of the article is this discussion on the lead and reganomics.--Sum (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 1(d) I don't see this.
• Poor references: This may have merit, but may be borne of the article's passing when requirements for FA sources were being made more stringent. I see citations from About.com. imdb.com, Encarta, citations that do not state the publisher or website (or any information: #65). I also see MOS problems: 1-sentence paragraphs, 1-sentence blockquotes used with cquotes, text sandwiched between images. Though I know that many articles are spawned from this one, there are places I think that could be expanded to flow more smoothly. It reads now like a collection of unrelated events used to direct readers to other articles.
• To SummerWithMorons: It is customary to notify the original nominator of the article and the wikiprojects that have tagged it with a link to this FAR. --Moni3 (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep SummerwithMorons has made a total of nine (9) edits to the article, two of which were reverts. Eight of his edits centered around highlighting Reagan's brief status as an informant for the FBI; the information was good, but placed too much undue weight on McCarthyism. I reworded it, and Summer accused me of striking negative material (see [2]). Propagandist editing? If this were a puff piece, it never would have made FA in the first place, over a year and half ago. In response to Moni, I will go through the references over the weekend and see what I can do to bring them up to standard (though the majority are in tip-top shape). I disagree with the point about adding more material; if anything, a little bit more on his acting career should be added but that's it. Happyme22 (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep SummerwithMorons would apparently like the lead to be loaded up with information about how Reagan increased the national debt, without mentioning how Reagan reduced unemployment and inflation. That would not be NPOV.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I haven't looked over the full article, but anybody who files an FAR with language like "neocon talking points" and "propagandist editing" has zero credibility. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur that it sounds like POV-pushing of the highest form to present those arguments at FAR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:50, 21 May 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.