Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gerald Ford/archive1

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 19:49, 25 January 2007.

[edit] Gerald Ford

Messages left at Jtmichcock, Michigan, Congress, bio (bio template page is not being updated), Politics, U.S. Presidents, and U.S. Politicians. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This featured article has undergone numerous daily editing since President Gerald Ford's death. Entire sections have been created, revised, and reworded. Many citations have been added, along with new links and pictures. I'm requesting this article be reviewed to see if it still maintains featured article status after such an important current event as Ford's demise. I believe the article should remain featured, but my opinion is of course not enough. I care about this article, so I wish to hear what my fellow Wikipedians think. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 01:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sumoeagle179 (talk • contribs) and I ran through the article structure and references on December 31, and left them in good shape, but I see there have been almost 500 edits since then. It shouldn't be too hard to whip this back into shape after its time on the main page, but it will need someone's sustained attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd like to see inline citations, but the most noticeable weakness in the article is the "Longevity" section - reads very trivial and listy. LuciferMorgan 08:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Question? Are we reviewing this article too soon after its time on the main page? The main page is very hard on articles, and we usually allow time for edits to settle down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• This review should be postponed for at least a month; it's been through a lot of editing. Ral315 (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• I think de-featuring this article at the moment would be improper. Surely the death of someone so significant would lead to considerable changes in the article, but allow editors some time to absorb all the new edits. I second User:Ral315's suggestion that this be postponed a month to allow the article to achieve a sense of stability again, and then an honest assessment of it's FA merits can be made. Thethinredline 13:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I've raised the question on the talk page here; I'm not certain if we've established a minimum lag between time on talk page and review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If you look at the current editing, its already slowed down considerbly. I thought now was a good time. Most of the new edits, in my estimation, have been absorbed fairly well. The only sections in question are the Longevity section, which was there when the article achieved FA, and the new Death section. Concerning the death section, the question on what to delete and add to the seperated funeral and death article needs to be addressed. I see no reason why this article shouldn't maintain its featured status, or why we need to wait. Funerals start and end abruptly, as seen in the editing. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 16:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • FAR talk page consensus is to go ahead with the review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Status: Does this actually need to go through FARC or are people happy? Marskell 20:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

References are in very good shape, article structure is good, and Sumoeagle179 is watching the article - it should not need to go to FARC. However, prose size is at 45KB, which is approaching too long - if something can be moved to a daughter article, I support closing without FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Message left on article talk page regarding size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep FA, no FARC I feel this has been saved. Vote for no daughter articles too.Sumoeagle179 23:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I knocked off one of those K myself and I feel this has been saved too. Wait for any last comment from nominator. Marskell 15:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the process, and agree the article should remain FA. Thanks for everyone's input. Veracious Rey t • c • r 19:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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.