Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Nicolas Sarkozy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Nicolas Sarkozy

Article is no longer a featured article.

This article is horrible, horrible, horrible. It is filled with unsourced claims, poorly translated passages, and weasel words.

• "He is nicknamed Sarko by both his supporters and his opponents; this nickname is never used in any official context but is often used in left newspapers such as Le Canard Enchaîné or Libération (and it's one of the keywords to reach UMP website from Google)." -- This is pretty long-winded and meandering for the second sentence of the lead paragraph. What's written before the semicolon should be enough, but if the para were just chopped down to that, it would look too curt.

• There are a great deal of terms in the article that are clearly poorly translated from French -- references to Sarkozy's "collaborators"; "as regard his repressive discourse"; etc. Bad grammar abounds; I've fixed a few of the most serious cases but there are some sentences I just don't understand and can't fix without knowing what the intent of the author was ("Sarkozy is the son of Pál and Andrée Mallah Sarkozy into a family belonging to the lower aristocracy of Hungary.") The article is just extremely poorly written. But what really chafes is the flagrant overuse of weasel words. There are dozens of assessments of Sarkozy's character, his political motives, his way of expressing himself, and many more issues. Here is a small sampling:

• "While his supporters emphasise his charisma, strong leadership qualities, and his many innovative initiatives, Sarkozy's opponents see him as populist, careerist, and "repression-happy" for his "law and order" policies;" These are strong words, and they badly need to be cited, and cited well.

• "He is known for his ubiquity" -- Well, one would think he'd be ubiquitous, he's one of the most important people in the government, and in any media-heavy country top-ranking politicians appear in the press a great deal.

• "Many of his speeches and interviews are famous for their frankness-kind side, wit, and folksy, plain-spoken character; opponents, however, contend that he uses demeaning language. Sometimes, derisive comparisons to the over-ambitious cartoon character Iznogoud are made." More claims in dire need of citation.

• "it is widely recognised that his position, influence and popularity currently make him the third man at the country's head" Yet again, "widely recognized" according to whom? We're not even out of the article lead yet.

• "Allegedly, Guillaume Sarkozy was prevented from running for the presidency of the MEDEF due to the political career of his brother, Nicolas." A very serious claim, not given the least source to back it up.

• "In 1959, Paul Sarkozy..." Are we still talking about Nicolas' father, who was called "Pál" in the previous paragraph? Is this an alternate spelling, a mistake, or a different person?

• "who had developed a reputation as a Don Juan" Again, no sources.

• "He did not feel fully French at the time (his father is said to have told him once that a Sarkozy never could become President of France, that such things happened only in the United States), suffered from insecurities (his physical shortness, his family's lack of money), and harboured a considerable amount of resentment against his absent father. "What made me who I am now is the sum of all the humiliations suffered during childhood," he said later." Once again, what's missing from this pictue?

• I could go on -- this on only about a quarter of the way through the article -- but you get the idea. (Scroll down to the Criticisms section filled with weasel words if you need more examples). Put simply, this article is horrid, and most shockingly, I just found out it's scheduled to be featured on the main page on March 13. This article's moment in the spotlight should be deferred (if not canceled entirely) until all the issues are settled. Andrew Levine 06:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC) Oh, and Remove.

I came across the article as it's due to be on the main page soon, and also feel that it isn't an article that'd pass FAC if it were submitted today. Andjam 09:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Remove I also noticed this through TFA. It was promoted before I even knew about FAC, so I didn't see it there. It is full of sweeping statements, based primarily on numerous on newspaper articles and other current media. Also (I believe my count is correct) 19 of the 20 reference sources are in French, one in English, which is particularly problematic since they are mostly media reports on politics, therefore likely more open to interpretation than, for example, academic texts where literal translation might be less of a concern. Also, the promotion was with little discussion, three supports with no substantial comment, and one standing objection concerning writing style, with examples, where IMO valid concerns seem to have been largely unaddressed. This doesn't suggest an adequate FAC review. --Tsavage 19:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• remove per nom & tsavage Zzzzz 14:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Remove, I agree with all comments so far and would add that the 'timeline' section really should not be necessary if the rest of the article is properly written, and the 'quotations' section also should be redundant with the rest of the article - if the quotes are individually notable in the story of his life they should be mentioned - otherwise move them to Wikiquote. Worldtraveller 15:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)