Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Theodore Roosevelt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Theodore Roosevelt

Simply brilliant. I am stupefied and amazed this isn't a featured article yet. Johnleemk | Talk 15:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This is a good article, but it still needs some work. There are far too many short paragraphs and sections that need to be merged and expanded. We should not have external links to pages about his parents within the article. If they are worth linking to, they are worth having Wikipedia articles and should be red links. A problem shared by almost all presidents is the mess of templates and categories at the bottom, taking up almost two full screens. Why have both succession boxes and templates listing everyone to have ever served in the position? Why have so many cats when in theory all that is needed is Category:Theodore Roosevelt? - SimonP 18:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I tackled the parents' external links. The template issue is one I am not well-versed in and seems quite complicated, from my limited experience handling these difficult issues. As for the short paragraphs and sections, I'm having trouble identifying which ones you take issue with. Some I think could use work are the Square Deal, naval buildup, Panama Canal, Supreme Court Appointments, states admitted to union and the historian & writer of prose sections. Are those all? Anyhow, I'll see what I can do. (I don't have that firm a grip on TR's history, I just stumbled on what I felt was a stunningly good article.) Johnleemk | Talk 18:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • After some more examination, I've come to the conclusion there are some other bits that need work (like the references). Any other comments? I'm going to work on the other parts of the article tomorrow, but looking at how much I added to the references just by writing one subsection, I'm worried the references will take up half the article when I'm done. Johnleemk | Talk 19:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm certain that with some work this could get to FA standards. In the section on his presidency I would suggest merging Naval buildup, Panama Canal, and some bits from the introduction into a general overview of his foreign policy. The entire Legacy section also needs an overhaul, I especially dislike that every paragraph there has only one or two sentences. I don't know what to do about the mess at the bottom. I would suggest dumping the three large templates, but it seems some have been placed on TfD in the past and survived. One thing that strikes me as especially illogical is a succession box for Progressive Party Presidential Candidates when Roosevelt was the first and only person to hold that post. - SimonP 22:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Support. Great work, all my concerns have been addressed. - SimonP 14:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - (leaning to Support). The content and writing and images are good. My sole knowledge of the subject is what is written here, so I can't comment if anything is missing, but there seem to be no POV issues. To my eye the only thing that spoils it is the vast array of templates. Is the large info. box restating information which should be in the lead necessary. I see that template looks likely to survive templates for deletion, but is it a Wikipedia essential, or requirement for an FA. I don't want to bring the deletion discussion here - just a yes it is required, or No will do. The cabinet table is OK - but all the others? Giano | talk 10:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object: That bio-template makes the lead into a newspaper column, if one imagines what it looks like as text, one realizes that the lead is too short. It is also not well written. To whit:

"Roosevelt's energy, vibe, skill and sheer joy in the Presidency were remarkable. During his life he was an author, legislator, soldier, big-game hunter, diplomat, conservationist, naval-power enthusiast, peace broker and progressive reformer. For his many achievements and the larger-than-life role he played in the White House, Roosevelt is usually thought of as one of the greatest U.S. Presidents."

His vibe? "in the Presidency" is the object of which of those adjectives? Or is it the whole stack of them? His vibe in the presidency? Since he was Sect. Navy, it's not surprising that he would be interested in navies, but "naval-power enthusiast" makes him sound like he played a lot of Avalon Hill games and hung around the docks ship watching, and that's not even to get into naval "power" enthusiasm. Finally, "is usually thought of?" By whom is he usually thought of? I usually hate to attack the writing, but there are some language boo-boos here that are show stoppers. Geogre 13:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment: The lead is improving, and I really hated being so mean in my criticism, but I still can't quite go over to support with the "often considered greatest." Honestly, is it necessary for him to be considered greatest? "Greatest" is a terrible word for NPOV encyclopedias to use, even if it's other people "considering" it. In my experience growing up, I never encountered anyone who thought he was the greatest or one of the greatest, although he certainly did have great popularity. Some of the legislation from his administration is similarly cornerstone (although being eroded these days), but I don't think he's been considered, especially "widely," one of the greatest since the 1940's. Geogre 17:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If you follow the wikilink about greatest presidents, it has a detailed table showing several surveys about the greatest Presidents. Roosevelt is in the top 10 of every one of them, and the top 5 of most. There must be some way to succintly represent this in the lead. Johnleemk | Talk 10:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There is. One is to have a footnote, or at least a wikilink, on "considered" or "greatest" so that there is some standing rather than the vague passive voice construction. Another would be to be explicit: "Several surveys indicate that Theodore Roosevelt is still remembered as one of the greatest presidents." (Also, though, top 10 of 40 is less significant than "top ten." My point being that the general public can only name about 10 presidents. Historians should do a lot better, but serious ones would probably back away from "great.") Geogre 13:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • How's the solution I came up with? Johnleemk | Talk 14:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support: I'm unhappy with all "greatests," but that's not the fault of this article. (Being in the top 10 of 40 isn't really as significant as top 10 of 100. Surveys of The People on presidents will always bias toward who they remember, and surveys of historians have to be examined really carefully. Surveys of the Wall Street Journal, on the other hand, are of no more worth than a survey of The Nation readers; far, far right wing.) Anyway, the other issues are addressed, and this refers elsewhere. Geogre 13:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, I've tackled everything except the legacy section and the templates. For the latter, I've enquired on the talk page about removing them. For the former, I may not be able to come online for a few days, so it may have to wait. Johnleemk | Talk 17:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object—needs a thorough copy edit. Stop-start paragraphing; awkward wording, such as 'succeeding to the office upon'. Why cite vice-president before president at the top? 'Larger-than-life' is POV unless justified objectively. The list 'in addition to being a politician, he was also an author, soldier, big-game hunter, diplomat, conservationist, an enthusiastic supporter of the navy, peace broker and progressive reformer' is chaotic. How about some logical ordering here? Get the whole text looked at by a fresh pair of eyes. Tony 13:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I've tried my hand at rewriting the lead again, but have no idea whether it's any good. Could you give me some examples of stop-start paragraphing so I can identify and work on them? Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 10:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

It's better, but I've had another go at cleaning up the lead. It all needs that kind of attention.

You mention twice the Nobel Prize, but for what? Chemistry?

Firsts: years for all points required.

Paragraphing: end of 'Post-presidency'—lots of shorties. Consider bullet-pointing 'Popular culture', since it's just a list of isolated points.

Sections on family matters to ships: relocate and/or merge—too short for sections.

Delink or stub-write the broken links?

Tony 01:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think that's everything. I've restructured the legacy section and thrown out the redundant templates. Comments? Johnleemk | Talk 16:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Further comment: I like the article very much, but I'm afraid that huge info. box , is the first thing I see, and it is a huge info box. It just detracts from the article. I know this is a controversial subject, but, for me, in my POV, it just spoils the whole page. It contains nothing that's not in the article, but it should be in the lead so anybody with a brain can find out for themselves in 30 seconds scanning the page. Giano | talk 18:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support As TR Himself was want to exclaim, Bully!! A great article on a great figure not only of American, but World history.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Still needs fresh eyes to thoroughly edit the text. Here are a few problems that pop up as I glance at random through the first few paragraphs. I'll change my vote if the prose is fixed up; 'compelling, even brilliant', the guidelines say.

to ever have received'—clumsy word order

Do we need to know about his diarrhoea?

'It is believed he attended'—either say who believes it (specific reference), state it as a fact, or remove it.

'his observation work on insects'

'compelled young Roosevelt'—the?

'Two trips abroad also had a great effect on this part of his life'—what part? Odd expression. Tony 14:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure why you think the part about diarrhoea should be removed, but I've made the other changes. How is it now? Johnleemk | Talk 14:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    • No, I was exemplifying what needs to be done, not pointing out every problem that needs to be fixed. Thorough, intensive job required throughout. Tony 13:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Is it okay now, then? I've honestly never seen such meticulous detail applied to the wording of an FAC before, but I ran a fine tooth-comb through the article, hunting down any errors I could find. Hopefully this latest revision is satisfactory. Johnleemk | Talk 15:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)