Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] United States

(self-nomination)

This important article is very well-written, not too long and not too short, and full of references.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States/archive2
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States/archive1
Wikipedia:Peer review/United States/archive2

NOTE: This article has 48KB of prose as of 9 June 2006

  • Support per nom.--Ryz05 t 14:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Terrific article indeed! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. My previous objection in a former nomination has been fixed. --Maitch 15:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support On this topic I would love to see some adminstrator step in, because I have seen this article keep getting kicked around; first it needs to mention all this new details or it can't be Featured, and then it's way too long. Unbelievable, this article is going to be long, lets accept that. Judgesurreal777 18:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Finally someone understands this dilemma.--Ryz05 t 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The article is on the longish side but that is to be expected for a topic as broad as this. It would be hard to shorten it in any substantial amount without detracting from its comprehensiveness. --Richard 22:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The prose is flabby in some areas and awkward in others. Per various comments below.
--Richard 15:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. The main arguements against this nomination are that some things important to the objector are missing. However, it simply is not possible to say everything about the United States in one encyclopedic article. Instead, the purpose is to give a good introduction to the topic, which I think this article does a great job of doing. PDXblazers 23:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    We summarise the content here, and move detail to dedicated articles. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Response' I didn't ask that Hollywood, Silicon Valley, the American Dream, Entrepreneurship, and the development of computers after 1969 be described in detail. Most people suggesting additions fully understand that this is a summary overview article. What we're asking is that these things be at least mentioned in the corresponding sections. The whole point of a summary overview article is that includes mentions of major terms and topics. Can you show how mentioning Hollywood is less important than mentioning the influence of Disney on Chinese comics? Or why the American Dream isn't important to reference properly rather than dump in the See Also section? Bwithh 14:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
        Are you asking me? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Uh, I was being rhetorical, I think. Oh, and for the record, I support letting this article be longer than normal for a FA due to the scope of the subject Bwithh 18:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. PDXblazers has got a point, you can't put everything there is in an encyclopedic article. It is well summarize as it also gives important issues on all USA aspects. Lincher 02:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, I'll take care of Bwithh's comment about the dates sometime soon. (and by the way, I don't think the stability of an article was originally intended to refer to protection/vandalism- see Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article?#Stability) Andy t 22:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I believe that the article is well-written and makes good use of summary style. I think because it does all that it can to off-load information, it's size can be forgiven. It's long, but it's doing the best that it can to be short, IMHO! InvictaHOG 03:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. But Geography section may contain more summarized text on climate. --Brand спойт 20:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I support everything about the U.S. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) 19:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment thats not what the featured article process is about. Philc TECI 15:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an excellent article. Very informative and very encyclopedic. -Vontafeijos 20:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent footnotes. Globeism 22:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This is a great article. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 01:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Per all above. --Hezzy 02:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Per all the supporting comments above. --Northmeister 02:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Although I must say: holy crap this article is long. I'm not going to oppose because of that, since America is the world's pre-eminent nation and I'd expect nothing but a very long article, but still....damn. I would suggest beefing up the lead though; such a long article definitely requires a bigger lead than what's currently there. Overall, great job though. Long live America!UberCryxic 02:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • "Long live America!" - Amen, Brother! --Northmeister 03:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment What's with all these patriot support votes which have suddenly come flooding in? Bwithh 03:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - One of the most fantabulous articles I have ever read, like oh my god, it was good. Strong support. Amaas120 03:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support This is a good article, which I do not think is too long. I continue to worry about systemic bias, which is not evident in the length and detail of this article, but in the shortness and lack of detail in other articles (and the flag waving on this page). However, each section is well summerized and well written. Good job to all who worked on it. --D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 06:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, why the hell not. I added a mention of the American Dream and removed the table; those take care of my two largest grievances. I do, however, also agree with Pepsidrinka, and hope that the article continues to be trimmed. --Golbez 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Ahem, that was rather bold of you. (Too bold, in my opinion, since it goes against an established consensus) However, if it will get you to support the FA status, let's leave it out and re-vote on whether the table belongs in or out of the article later. Personally, I don't like the table either and would have voted against it if I had been aware of the poll.
--Richard 17:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to imply this is what you meant, but let me just state that it would be in bad faith for the editors of this article to remove the table simply for the purpose of this FAC only to re-add it once this nomination is completed, if it does succeed. Pepsidrinka 03:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
No, you got me right. I'm not suggesting that I would deliberately manipulate things in the way that you described. However, it is inappropriate for you to be so bold as to delete text from an article knowing that a previous consensus had been formed around keeping it. (Remember that I am not personally in favor of keeping it myself.)
What good is it going to the trouble to form a consensus if people won't respect it enough to form a new one in the opposite direction?
If you won't vote for the article with the table in, then leave it in and vote against the FAC. If it makes you happy to delete the table and then vote for the FAC, be my guest. However, Wikipedia being what it is, don't be surprised if one of the people who does care about the table puts it back in either before or after the FAC closes.
That's the funny thing about Wikipedia. It would be a great place except for all those pesky editors that you can't control.  ;&)
The right way to get that troublesome table out of there is to re-open the poll and see if enough other people hate it also.
--Richard 03:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I've read through the whole thing, and I really approve of it. JONJONAUG 14:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Neutral - I've flipflopped too much on this vote. --Golbez 04:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Object. This article is great indeed, but there are still some minor issues in comprehensiveness. For example, the lead section does not mention the Civil War, rather, it jumps from the Revolutionary War directly to World War I. Also, the map showing territorial acquisitions of the United States, even though it comes from the United States government, is not accurate. It's close, but it does not show the result of the Webster-Ashburton Treaty which changed the border of northern Maine in 1842. I hate to be such a pain, but it's the small things that distinguish good articles and truly great ones. RyanGerbil10 14:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Having done extensive research on the US's borders very recently, I would say that northern Maine would not count as a territorial acquisition, it was a territory dispute. The other areas - Louisiana, Florida, Mexican Cession, Gadsden Purchase, Red River Basin, etc. - were clearly unowned by the United States until received via purchase or cession. Maine, on the other hand, was only disputed, claimed by both sides. Therefore, I don't think the northern half of Maine belongs in any list of acquisitions, only in a list of disputes and changes. --Golbez 14:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I added a paragraph in the opening of the article that breifly talks about the civil war. Edit as seen fit. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 03:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Good article, but missing some key points which I raised in the previous nomination discussion but were apparently just ignored:
    • No mention of Entrepreneurship or "the American Dream" in neither the Economy or the Culture sections nor anywhere else. The American Dream is key to both the ideological legitimacy of the US economic system and to its positive image around the world.
    • Glaring ommissions from the culture section - the "American film industry" is mentioned (inadequately) but the term "Hollywood" is not mentioned anywhere. Also, television is not mentioned in the culture section, but is definitely more important culturally (and economically) than cinema. (Also this newest version now bizarrely refers to Disney's influence on Chinese cartoons and Japanese manga but still does not refer to Hollywood). Also, what about fast food?
    • Science and technology section has no mention of Silicon Valley or the Internet (there is only a very brief mention in the History section - it is not clear that the internet revolution began in the US). Computers are only mentioned in a pre-1969 context.
    • "The country has also sought to fight terrorism and control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but its main goal remains to protect American interest and the safety of its citizens at home and abroad". How is the "main goal" different from the first goals mentioned? (And it should be "interests", not 'interest") Bwithh 14:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Article should probably also mention that the idea of immigration being crucial to US history and identity ("a nation of immigrants") rather than just an useful economic boost - this would tie in with mentioning the American Dream Bwithh 15:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you forgot to read the Culture section, the Population migration and growth section, as well as the History section of the U.S. article.--Ryz05 t 15:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)\
No, I didnt forget to read those parts. They give stats and talk about economic impact. They don't talk about the American Dream. Bwithh 15:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I was talking about the mentioning of immigration. I also added the American Dream to the See also section. If you can think of a more suitable place to incorporate it, please say so. --Ryz05 t 15:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of putting words into Bwithh's mouth, I think he is saying that the American Dream is central to the American ethos. Although it will be seen as POV by some, it is important to highlight the sense that Americans have of having a dream that was previously unattainable in Europe and other countries (that of achieving material success and upward social mobility solely on the merit of intelligence, talent and hard work rather than being born into an upper class). This should not just be a "See also". I recognize that this was more true in the 19th and early 20th century and that the differential narrowed in the last half of the 20th century to the point where there may be very little difference between the U.S. and some European countries on this dimension now. However, the difference still exists between the U.S. and many Latin American countries. Why do you think we get so many immigrants? It's because of the American Dream. Not just that we are a wealthy country but that you can get some of the wealth if you are willing to work hard. You don't necessarily even need to be educated. A hard-working entrepreneur can make it big here. It is this American Dream that has fueled immigration for two and a half centuries and some will argue that this is the basis of American greatness, that we did not have a rigid class structure when most everybody else did.
Similarly, we should highlight the idea that we are a "city on a hill, a light unto the nations" shining a beacon of democracy, justice for all and human rights. It's not for nothing that Superman stood for "truth, justice and the American way". Others may not agree that we are this and we may not be this in reality. But that is the way many of us like to think of ourselves. It affects a lot of how we act domestically and abroad. (No, not just Republicans, Democrats think and act this way, too.) Of course, you've heard this from me before but haven't been willing to incorporate it into the intro as I suggested. --Richard 17:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've inserted an encyclopedic version of the above text into the article. I disagree with Bwithhthat "The American Dream is key to both the ideological legitimacy of the US economic system and to its positive image around the world." I think that's hyperbolic and POV. I've tried to strike a more NPOV stance in the article text.
Bwithh, would you review the new "American Dream" section and tell us if this addresses your concern?
--Richard 17:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I think the section is great. I just added one small fragment mentioning entrepreneurship. As regards whether the my statement was hyperbolic, I was referring to the idea that the American Dream is a key part of the basic social contract between the politico-economic system and its citizens - and is important in this role today, not just in the 19th century - through which citizens accept less of a state social welfare safety net and greater economic inequality in return for a better chance at social mobility and improving their financial worth and enhancing their class through free market capitalism. I don't think this is hyperbolic - its a common part of political and academic discourse in the US and is not regarded as an exaggerated kind of position. Whether this social contract functions effectively is another matter of course. You addressed the second part regarding the positive image around the world in the passage. Bwithh 03:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for this explanation. I think the bit about "accepting less of a social contract, etc." is important and I will try to make this point in the text.
--Richard 17:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Bwithh, I'll see what I can do about some of these. --Golbez 14:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Changed vote, see above.
  • Reference dates Most of the dates in the reference footnotes appear to use European style dating (day first) rather than US style (month first). To be perfect, this should fixed up Bwithh 15:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object -- summary needed. Also needs to stabilise since it's protected. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
About the protection, see Talk:United_States#Request_unprotection.--Ryz05 t 16:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, too long, too many details that should only be in subarticles. Especially History and Publich Health are too long. Kusma (討論) 16:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not too long? Skinnyweed 17:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe in WP:SIZE and think no article should be longer than 50k (plus references). 88k is too long. I know that it is hard to make a short article on a topic of such a scope, but that is what Wikipedia:Summary style is for. Here, the sumamries for some sections should be shorter, the meat and the details should be in the subarticles. Kusma (討論) 17:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

*Oppose per WP:WIAFA 2e. This article is well-written, well-referenced, comprehensive, but it is not stable, and that is a major criteria for FAC. There has to be some guarantee that it won't degrade over time, and a page which is protected for vandalism can't guarantee that kind of stability. You could, of course, argue that my objections are unactionable (which they probably are); I'm not sure where I stand on that point right now, but for the moment, I'm voting against. Sorry. The Disco King 18:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

From WP:WIAFA, "(e) "stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars."
The article is only changing "significantly" in response to coomments on this FAC page. The semi-protection is to ward against vandalism by anonymous IPs. There has not been a significant edit war on this page in a couple of months. There are some pages which are more habitually vandalized than others (this is one of them). As a result, this page is almost continually protected as are some other notorious targets of vandalism.
--Richard 18:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, some minor, actionable points. Why are "Science & Technology" and "Transportation" subheadings of "Economy"?

The Disco King 18:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Truly a minor quibble, eh?. They could be moved out of "Economy" or left in. It's hard to define what belongs in "Economy" and what does not.
--Richard 18:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Could the History section be subdivided to make it less daunting, or could some information be moved to History of the United States? Cheers! The Disco King 18:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be difficult to shorten the History section much without opening it up to the charge of leaving out something important.
Insert non-formatted text here


    • Canada recently became featured. It is far shorter than this article. The US may be more important and more powerful, but it's article should still cover the same information and should be able to do so in the same length. —CuiviénenT|C|@ on Thursday, 1 June 2006 at 19:02 UTC
      • On the other hand, if this article becomes to long with the additions, more of it might be eligible to be split off, per summary style. Obviously, if things have been split off to their maximum potential, then length can't be counted against it. Fieari 22:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Size issue is a major concern for me although an article on USA is bound to have a lot to write on. Please summarize further. Also image captioning is improper with many images having 9 lines long caption. For guidelines, please see WP:CAPTION. Image problems in "Largest cities". Please have a look at "Largest cities" in 800x600 screen resolution. One advice: It is better to have a reasonably big image rather than 5 tiny ones. Images are there to provide visual aid for the readers to understand the subject. Seeing one representative skyline is enough to fire the imagination of a casual reader. There is no need to fill the page with images as additional images aren't very helpful. Why does mile has "sq mi" and kilometre has "km²" in the table? Also, the references are sometimes after the punctuation and sometimes before. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The area measurements use the standard abbreviations - square miles are sq mi while square kilometres are km². It's much like the in-tandem use of mph and km/h for miles per hour and kilometres per hour. —CuiviénenT|C|@ on Thursday, 1 June 2006 at 20:03 UTC

"The country has also sought to fight terrorism and control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but its main goal remains to protect American interest and the safety of its citizens at home and abroad". How is the "main goal" different from the first goals mentioned? (And it should be "interests", not 'interest") Bwithh 14:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC) The country is not a person with goals. This is instead the primary interest of the curent administration and may take a back seat to other issues at another time. It maight better fit in a polotics or modern events section. Feel free to change my post to conform to the style of this section.

  • Object. The human rights section does not even mention the fact that the US is among the top five nations WRT death penalty, nor the intense domestic and international controversy surrounding that fact. That makes the article looks incomplete. Furthermore, phrases such as "unprofessional military tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan" to describe the well-documented organised violation of human rights by US soldiers, CIA et al. look ever so slightly euphemistic, don't they. 87.122.36.179 22:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per my comments on last FAC and peer review - in summary some parts are too long and others underdeveloped (like culture), the article still relies on some poor sources. Laregst cites table still poses a problem, its inclusion is not consistent with other featured country article and is over a screen in length, and I am yet to hear a compelling reason as to how/why it is useful to the reader.--Peta 03:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just had a brief look at the article and i can't find anywhere a discussion of the flora or fauna of the U.S.A. I think this would be a positive addition to the article.Yakuzai 12:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: As I said above, the article is too long. To those objecting because topic XY is not mentioned in the article: It should not be. Check that it is mentioned in the appropriately titled and linked and easily found subarticle. Kusma (討論) 14:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—2a. Here are examples of awkward prose.
    • "the U.S. displaced most Native American nations residing in the area." Can "residing" be removed as redundant (it's awkward, too).
    • "This belief was thwarted somewhat by the stalemate of the War of 1812,.."—"somewhat" is pretty clumsy here; can you find a better word than "thwarted", if that is too strong by itself?
    • Why is it sometimes "the U dot S dot" and sometimes "the United States"? Most US style manuals say to spell it out when another country appears in the same sentence (after the initial appearance in the text, of course); beyond that, consistency is required.
    • A few snakes need chopping up; e.g., "In the mid-19th century, the nation was divided over the issue of states' rights, the role of the federal government, and the expansion of slavery, which led to the American Civil War when, following the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, South Carolina became the first state to declare its secession from the Union.[9]"
    • "The post-war era in the United States was defined internationally by the beginning of the Cold War in the late 1940s,.."—a bit jumbled ("internationally"?).
    • "Specifically, the nation operates as a presidential system, also known as a congressional system." Do we need the first word? Is it an overstatement to say that a whole nation, rather than its system of government, does this?

Now, I've looked at just a small part of the text. The density of the problems suggests that the whole article fails to meet 2a. Tony 01:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there were instances of "awkward prose". I have fixed (IMO) some of the ones that you identified. Could you review my edits and see if the changes address the issues to your satisfaction? Also, I notice that your comment suggests that the problems you mention are only representative of a larger problem with awkward prose. I acknowledge that this is a failing of at least one editor who seems to prefer anacondas to common garter snakes. My problem is that I don't always focus on a snake until someone points it out to me. Would you do us the favor of doing some snake hunting for us? If you will point out the snakes, I will slice and dice them into snake steak. --Richard 16:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per my previous objections concerning the article size. Please consider further summarizing. See WP:WIAFA, number 5. Pepsidrinka 01:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I was asked to justify this objection further, so I shall give some suggestions on what can be shortened/removed to decrease the size of this article. The "Demographics" section can be vastly reduced. Five paragraphs should suffice for the entire sections, rather than the monstrosity it is now with many subsections. Further, there is no need for that much information regarding public health in the main article. Also, the information does not have to be cut, just moved to a more, in my opinion, deserving location for the information, i.e., Demographics of the United States. Also, as stated previously, the largest cities table is not neccessary (yes, I know, there is a discussion in one of the talk page archives). Pepsidrinka 03:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
While I think the article is "good to go" in its current state, I agree that the above suggestions by Pepsidrinka would improve the article. --Richard 04:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Further objections. I objected earlier based on size, but I'm going to provide more details on my objection. From WP:WIAFA, this article fails to comply with 2e, with the largest cities table being added and removed several times within the past few days. This article's lead paragraph is hideous. Three short paragraphs filled mainly with historical facts does little to summarize the topic (See other country FAs on what a lead should be like). Also, the article seems to disregard consensus from Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries (Number 3 from WP:WIAFA). Pepsidrinka 02:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Weak object I hate to object to an article that's obviously had so much work done to it, but there are a few things I just can't overlook:

  • The size. Yes, the US is a complicated place, but that's all the more reason to create a good summary article. This article is nearly twice as long as the article on China, which is just as complex, but with a history ten times as long. The US history section could probably stand some pruning, which might help reduce the number of references cited on the page.
  • The history section also weighs too heavily on the recent stuff - fully half of it is from the 20th century onwards.
  • Do we need to have a map and a list of the states? I would remove the list since it's redundant (there's also a list at the bottom), but I realize nation articles typically list their divisions in the article itself.
  • The Foreign Relations section might work better if it was reworked into the military and economics sections somehow.

Again, it's obviously a very good article, but it just doesn't feel like a FA (yet). Matt Deres 00:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The article is too long, 88KB. I wish I knew what to do to allow certain sections to be in articles of their own so that this article, made of summaries alone, is at most 32KB, but I'm sorry I can't do this. Georgia guy 01:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great article! HeyNow10029 23:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment. The size issue alone looks as though it will sink this nomination. I know that some of the contributors have resisted the relocation of such details as the list of the largest cities, but they appear to be out of touch with WP's summary style. My advice is to be bold and reduce the size by making proper use of the daughter articles: that's what daughter articles are for. I'd make a strong case in the edit summaries and on the US talk page for why this has been done.

It's simple. Tony 01:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be reduced by about 20%, which is a tall order. You can probably weed out 10% of the text by identifying redundancy. Look: "the United States foreign policy became highly concerned with the threat of terrorist attacks." Make it: "U.S. foreign policy focused on the threat of terrorist attacks." Magic wand got rid of more than a third, and it's much nicer to read at the same time. Everywhere I look, there are extraneous words. This might help you to define the scope of the task. The other 10% might come from relocating material to daughter articles, or from just getting rid of it. The list of 50 states takes up a lot of room; the states are named on the map nearby, and readers can easily type a state name into the search box. "American dream" risks being a little sentimental; why not shorten it and integrate into the "Culture" section? There are lots of opportunities for tightening up the article. Tony 02:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Until a majority of the citations are to reliable paper sources with page-level granularity (that is, by page number), I cannot support this nomination. --Coolcaesar 01:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment What is the obsession with paper references? Any intelligent person should be able to tell the difference between legitimate sources and junk on the net. I believe that for a project like Wikipedia, Internet sources are actually better because the user can verify the accuracy of the information with the click of a mouse, whereas there is no guarantee that the print reference in question is availiable at the local library. PDXblazers 02:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
That's what WorldCat and interlibrary loan are for. Furthermore, in areas of the world with a high density of good public libraries and community college libraries (New York and California), it is extremely likely that the reference in question is at the local library. Also, you are making the hilariously false (and uninformed) assumption that Internet sources are always self-authenticating, when they are not. If information on the Internet was inherently self-authenticating (and if the majority of people were capable of intelligently discerning such authenticity) then we wouldn't be having so many phishing scams or downright crazy disasters like the Craig Shergold mess. That is why few scholarly works rely upon Internet sources as reliable unless their assertions are heavily corroborated against reliable print sources. At a top public university (like the one I attended), turning in a history paper that cites solely or primarily to amateur Web sites is likely to earn a D or F. Wikipedia can and should do better than that.--Coolcaesar 06:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Tony--Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 09:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I like it. Clear and detailed, well structured, plenty of references, Strong Support --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 12:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Flab is the problem here. The writing is uniformly flabby—all 88 kB of it, except for the bits that have been fixed in response to complaints in this room. Thus, not only does the nomination fail 2a, but the opportunity to reduce the size of the article with no loss of meaning is being passed up. Take this paragraph, for example:
The United States is a constitutional republic and its government operates as a congressional system, meaning that it operates through a set of limited powers imposed by its design and enumerated in the United States Constitution. There are three levels of government: federal, state, and local. Each level enjoys certain exclusive powers and obligations, and the precise delineation of these powers has been a matter of considerable ongoing debate. Officials of each of these levels are either elected by eligible voters via secret ballot or appointed by other elected officials. Almost all electoral offices are decided in "first-past-the-post" elections, where a specific candidate who earns at least a plurality of the vote is elected to office, rather than a party being elected to a seat to which it may then appoint an official. The relationship between the state and national governments is rather complex due to the country's federal system. Under United States law, states are considered sovereign entities, meaning that the power of the states is considered to come directly from the people within the states rather than from the federal government.

Here's a much improved version:

The United States is a constitutional republic; its government operates as a congressional system through a set of powers specified in the Constitution. There are three levels of government: federal, state, and local. Each has exclusive powers and obligations, although the precise delineation of these has been a matter of debate. Officials at all three levels are either elected by voters in a secret ballot or are appointed by other elected officials. Almost all electoral offices are decided in first-past-the-post elections in which candidates who earn a plurality of the vote are elected, rather than appointed by the governing party. The relationship between state and federal governments is complex. Under U.S. law, each state is a sovereign entity, its power arising from its people rather than from the federal government.

The existing version is 1160 characters; the new version is 832 characters, and more precise to boot. There's your size problem solved, and Criterion 2a satisfied. Gone are awkward/redundant expressions such as "enjoying obligations" and "specific candidate". There are many occurrences of "the Constitution of the United States" in this "Politics" section; for some reason, all are fully spelt out and linked, and in one instance, piped into an inconsistent wording.

I wonder why so much detail is given over to elected officials (80% of the existing paragraph), when critical information about the relationship between the president and congress, and the fact that there are two houses of congress, has been removed. It used to be there, and it's likely to be needed by foreigners who consult the article to try to understand the system of government. I suspect that most Americans don't properly understand it either, which is more reason to explain it here succinctly. This is a very disappointing shift of emphasis, considering how much space is squandered in the article.

When you say "Under U.S. law", I hope you don't mean "Under the Constitution". If not, whose law? That of the Congress? I don't think so.

I can only assume that the reviewers who have expressed effusive approval of the nomination haven't read the article, or at least, haven't read it closely. Tony 13:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • As the article is no longer semi-protected, I'm retracting my "Oppose." However, before I support, something has to be done about the overly-long sections, especially History. We don't need to read the whole of American history on the page on the United States; that's what History of the United States is for. Tony's comments above are also correct; in some cases, the emphasis is misplaced. This article is fairly close, however. I'm gonna keep an eye on it, but for now, I'm still Opposed. The Disco King 16:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have noticed that the article actually has gotten larger since the nomination. It is moving in the wrong direction. At this pace it's going to hit 100 KB next Sunday. --Maitch 17:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Version before nomination: 88 KB
Current: 94 KB
--Maitch 17:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Trying to think of things I would expect to see covered in more detail in an encyclopedic article (or at least mentioned), and I came up with: the industry of the USA - the economy section and the main article about the US economy doesn't really go into any detail on the industry of what is, after all, an industrialised nation; Hollywood - there is currently a piped link hidden behind the word 'cinema' and a link in the template "see also" monster; US TV networks don't get a mention in the 'Culture' section - there is only a passing reference to sedentary people watching sports; I would expect to see references to TV shows around this point somewhere. Carcharoth 18:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


  • Oppose because of unconcise, flabby writing. --Shaanxiquake 10:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article needs a lot of copyediting, condensing of some material, while expansion of other areas...there is zero mention of biodiversity, the world's first National Park (Yellowstone), etc. I noticed many run on sentences, missing commas and there is a need for more precision: for example, the word "several" was used intead of the more exact "ten" when discussing the states that joined South Carolina and formed the CSA in 1861. I do think this is an excellent article overall, but some tweaking is necessary in my opinion.--MONGO 13:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, article can be summarised further. --Terence Ong 13:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Did you mean Oppose, as your observations indicate that. One further note. This FAC is fast reaching half the size of the article concerned. However, since the article is expanding faster now, it seems unlikely. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I think he means that the article can be summarised a bit more, but overall, it's a good article and deserve to be featured. Also, your comment about the article's expansion is unjustified.--Ryz05 t 16:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Oops. It was probably a bad attempt at humour which didn't go very well. Hence I am striking my observation completely. Hope this is ok. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great page, I love it. Aspern 16:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support I believe that such an article is meant to be an lengthy as ours is. It is well written, fully documented, full of well placed photos, and has plenty of links to related topics. --Chris 23:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Sorry, but the article really is too long. It's up to 94k now, and needs to be trimmed. I suggust trimming public health, and maybe removing completely the American Dream section. The Halo (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support More than enough pictures, refrenes, links etc. I don't think the article is too long. Felixboy 16:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per discussion. -- Wikipedical 23:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great article. --MZMcBride 02:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object based solely on first two paragraphs. America's history, while certainly noteworthy, is not the most notable thing about it today, and isn't what the entire second paragraph and some of the opening paragraph should be devoted to.
    • America is the world's sole superpower, a nuclear power, the world's largest single-country economy, the large country with the highest per-capita GDP, the country most important to scientific and industrial research, seat to the United Nations, dominant NATO member, largest Western country by population (as well as economy), the country in control of the world's reserve currency, ... not all of this needs to be in the opening paragraph, but I find "oldest existing constitutional republic" a bit weak.
    • America has a democratic form of government. While this is nowadays seen to be implied by "constitutional republic", I would think it important enough to point out specifically. RandomP 02:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per the discussion, I find the article to be acceptably summarized, and the main article is informative enough but is covered more extensively in sister articles. Meticulously referenced. NorseOdin 03:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support With those cluttering lists gone, the article has become readable enough. Earlier it was difficult to go through the article at one go. It's good that the editors decided to go for good summarisation rather than obstructive thoroughness/comprehensiveness. The article is still comprehensive and abides by all the points of becoming an FA. And yet, it has much improved from the previous riot of information to an article that is a treat to read. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Another note, which leads me to weak object: The article quotes the economic assessment in the CIA World Factbook as a fact. This is unacceptable, as that publication does not have a neutral point of view on certain issues. I've drafted a proposed (very short) policy on this at Wikipedia:The CIA World Factbook, since it's an issue to many country articles. I think discussing things there would be best, but the statement as it stands is arguable at best. RandomP 05:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I concur. Ryz05 challenged me on this issue on my talk page, which leads me to believe that he does not understand that the CIA is not a neutral source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Its primary job is to provide intelligence to the President of the United States that supports American sovereign interests. It is not the CIA's job to write balanced assessments of every aspect of every country, especially when those assessments might conflict with the political views of Presidential aides who could then get the responsible analyst fired. --Coolcaesar 05:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I find the CIA site surprisingly NPOV. It is widely used as a reference. Tony
The economy sections, in particular, do contain both predictions and value statements - it's perfectly usable as a source, it just cannot be used as sole reference for a statement that is either controversial or meaningless (the US has "low" inflation compared to countries that do not make low inflation a monetary policy goal. It has high inflation compared to the other world currencies.)
Read the economy - overview section of the "china" (i.e. PRC) article. I'm happy to discuss this further at a more appropriate page, but it just doesn't satisfy NPOV
RandomP 11:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Whatever the CIA writes on their World Factbook is based off of data collected, either by themselves or from other government agencies. Accusing them of not neutral is a matter of opinion at best.--Ryz05 t 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Weak object Lotta good stuff, but I'm also concerned a bit about the size. Trim about 10-15% out. Also, in the Human rights section, scrap the crud about South America, Iraq and Afghanistan. In the scheme of American history, any abuse there ranks far down the list. Events such as the Trail of tears, or the Japanese American internment camps rate much higher. --Jayzel 03:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. A very nice article. Rangeley 21:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support good work on an article about a great nation. God Bless America! Rama's Arrow 04:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - The article is much too long. The editors have to be a little more discerning it what should be included in the page, and let the daughter articles take care of the rest of the information. -- Jeff3000 20:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - We're working on it but it's not there yet. The article still has far too much creaky prose and too many awkward phrasings. Moncrief 18:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I agree but, since you haven't fixed them all, perhaps you could identify the passages that you find creaky and awkward? Then, others can work on them. The appropriate place fo this would be the Talk:United States page. --Richard 18:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I've added many comments in recent days to the Talk page there, and will continue to do so. Moncrief 18:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No Opinion I would generally support the article. I do not have a problem with its length, find the level of bias to be minimal, and find the choices of what to include very acceptable. The article is comprehensive and clearly took a lot of work. I still, however, find the prose to be rather clumsy. MikeNM`

  • Voting is over. --Golbez 16:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)