Talk:Lady Bird Johnson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lady Bird Johnson article.
Article policies
Good article Lady Bird Johnson was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
October 9, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject University of Texas at Austin, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to The University of Texas at Austin, the people, history, and sports teams of the University, and promoting development of related articles. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
UT Portal

Contents

[edit] fan written vs authorial written

who ever wrote this article seemed to really like lady bird johnson, and while a 'nice way of remembering her', some of the writing doesnt seem to correspond to caro's writings of her. not after jbj's death but during, according to caro's research (and he spent nearly 30 years researching lbj) the radio purchase was actually johnson's decision not lady bird- though he made it seem like her purchase. and she would very VERY unlikingly "stood up to lyndon baines as told him it was her money and she could do as she pleased" to paraphrase from the article in reference to purchasing the tv station. everyone who had any contact with them (and there quite a lot as lbj would invite mass amounts of senators, etc. over) he treated her like shit, beyond shit, and even worse she appreciated it. ..........so please check the sources and lets not re-write history just because it sounds nicer, some people still think wiki is reliable. 70.173.205.106 15:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] needs reworded,doesnt make no cents

in reference to ladybirds mutha,this is what wiki says...--->While pregnant, she died after falling down a flight of stairs when her daughter was five and died of complications after miscarrying.[2]

And this is what the linked source says->...She was never in good health, and during her last pregnancy, at age 44, she fell, had a miscarriage and died from complications. Lady Bird was only 5. And since her mother had left many times before to go to cultural events or to recuperate from illnesses, Lady Bird didn't realize at first that her mother wasn't coming back. shouldnt it be more like this hear...While Pregnant she died due to complications after a miscarriage brought on by falling down,at the time lady bird was only 5... whatchuthankboutityall?(4tildes,7/20/7@1:45pm)

[edit] Footnote / Citation

Can anyone help me out. I am attempting to offer a citation on this article and can not seem to get the formating correct Gnew18 23:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centenarian

Any opinions on what her status will be on the day she becomes a centenarian if she lives?? Georgia guy 00:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

December 22, 2012

That's the day she becomes a centenarian. What I want to know is any evidence on what she will be like that day. Georgia guy 21:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how to provide evidence for the future, but I am certain she'll be just as charming and polite as she ever was. --Angr/탉 22:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

With her current state of health, we must first hope she lives to be one hundred years old. 23:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is now a moot point. NickBurns 20:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Rest in Peace, Lady Bird. (JosephASpadaro 05:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Additional question

Her husband died 33 years ago. How close is she to being the longest first lady to survive the corresponding President?? This already is longer than JLBK, who survived JFK for 30 1/2 years. Georgia guy 22:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I found the answer of Edith Wilson. The day Lady Bird Johnson would have to surpass Edith Wilson is December 10, 2010. Georgia guy 19:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the answer is Sarah Polk. She survived her husband by 42 years and 2 months (James K. Polk died June 15, 1849, she followed on August 14, 1891). Mrs. Johnson would pass Mrs. Polk on or around March 22, 2015, if she is still alive at the age of 102. MDolson22 05:12 27 April 2006 (UTC)
That is very unlikely since now, its basically a deathwatch. Her daughter said herself that her mother "is not in very good health." 13:30 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not a deathwatch, most people at that age are likely not to be in the greatest health so Lynda Robb's statement could apply to most anyone that age. 18:19 1 Jun 2006 (UTC)
i wouldn't call it a deathwatch. i wouldn't judge the quality of her life. is it true she had a niece or student nicknamed "ladybug" or "wadeybug" who was incidently a water lover. respectfully submitted by linda grace (unsigned comment)

[edit] What does "Ladybird" mean?

A nursemaid commented on her, "She's as pretty as a ladybird."

Was the nursemaid British (and referring to the Coccinellidae), or is there something else that's called a ladybird? Marnanel 18:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Ladybug" is the common US name for the insect, but in many parts of the South people employ the British name "ladybird." LBJ seems to have called Mrs Johnson "Bird" as a shorthand version of the nickname, and that's how she is identified on their marriage certificate on exhibit at the LBJ Library in Austin. VNoble 17:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questioning a statement.

I doubt this statement in the article:

She has been protected by the Secret Service longer than anyone else in history.

According to the Secret Service site, they say about the protection of spouses of former Presidents:

Title 18, Section 3056 of the U.S. Code states, "The United States Secret Service is authorized to protect former presidents and their spouses for their lifetimes, except that protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of remarriage unless the former president did not serve as president prior to January 1, 1997, in which case, former president and their spouses for a period of not more than ten years from the date a former president leaves office, except that--

  • protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of remarriage or the divorce from, or death of a former president; and
  • should the death of a president occur while in office or within one year after leaving office, the spouse shall receive protection for one year from the time of such death.

If I'm reading this correctly, it seems that her protection ended with LBJ's death in 1973, rendering the statement wrong. Until a legal eagle can parse the law in a way that confirms or denies the statement, I'm editing this out. - Thanks, Hoshie 06:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a legal eagle so I've had to read it a few times and the conclusion I have come to is that because she has not remarried the protection continues . . . and continues . . .

My basis fo this is that the criteria for expiration of said protection seems to be dependent on remarriage and the subsequent clauses relating to expiration continue to flow on from that basis of remarriage. DJE


"The United States Secret Service is authorized to protect former presidents and their spouses for their lifetimes, except that protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of remarriage"

- This gives lifetime protection to former Presidents and their spouses, unless the spouse remarries. Everything after this only applies if the President did not serve before 1997. So Ms. Johnson still gets protection, as the clauses following (about death of the President) don't apply to her. --ZonathYak 04:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted the "dubious" claim. Extremely sexy 22:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot offer any concrete proof, but I have a friend who is a retired Secret Service agent whose career spanned from the Nixon administration through the first term of the Clinton administration, and he informed me that Lady Bird Johnson continued to enjoy Secret Service protection, and that she fondly referred to the agents assigned to protect her as, "my boys". CrashRiley 01:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death?

Her death is real right now on WOAI-TV(San Antonio,TX) there are talking about it right now. So its legit. It occured in the Afternoon @ today at 7/11/2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.205.3 (talk • contribs)

Confirmed by the announcement on reliable news sources as well as by the official library. Miranda 22:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doubtful statement

This statement cannot be possible:

Lady Bird Johnson personally knew every other First Lady from Mary Todd Lincoln through Laura Bush.

Mary Todd Lincoln died in 1882, and Lady Bird Johnson was born in 1912. Does anyone know which First Lady was actually the first one Ms. Johnson knew? 65.96.189.254 02:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Eleanor Roosevelt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.195.135 (talk • contribs)
It should be deleted. I thought I did delete it, I guess not. - Jeeny Talk 02:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It was deleted, apparently. I was just being slow =) 65.96.189.254 02:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Class B article classification

I have standardised her classification as B class as per the Biography classification. I have also been bold and removed the trivia section which was unsourced and replaced the popular culture section with a sourced honors section. Capitalistroadster 06:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have put the trivia section back on. Captialistroadster, I suggest you read the WP:TRIV guideline, which clearly states Don't simply remove such sections; it may be possible to integrate some items into the article in a more organized fashion. I agree the items need to be sourced, and I think there is some valuable information there that could be incorporated into the article. K-lit 15:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia section removal inappropriate!

I think it was really inappropriate that CapitalistRoadster removed the trivia section without giving other editors the opportunity to incorporate useful information with the rest of the article. The trivia section was not good for this article by any means, but there should have at least been a warning placed there.K-lit 03:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Bird

We should put soemthing about hank's dog (king of the hill) being named after her, which was explained in an episode. 99.245.230.98 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Texas flag icons?

Resolved.

While I know many of the good folk of Texas are proud to claim her as one of their own exclusively, the fact remains that she was a former First Lady of the United States - not a former first lady of the State of Texas. As such, I think the use of the Texas state flag icons instead of the American flag icons in listing her birth & death dates is highly inappropriate.

Rather than unilaterally changing it (and risking the ire of some unhappy folks in a pickup at my doorstep!), I thought I'd put it to discussion first. Incidentally, the flag that draped her coffin was (correctly) the U.S. "Stars & Stripes" - not the Texas "Lone Star". Any thoughts? 208.127.115.247 11:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget about the shotguns :) Incidentally, when I paid my respects to Mrs. Johnson at the LBJ Library, her coffin was draped in what seemed to be an embroidered cloth. And the dilemma now is whether it should be the US or Texas flag icon for birth & death dates. What to choose? Keep in mind, almost everything about Mrs. Johnson was defined by her Texan heritage. And yes, she was also the nation's First Lady. Hmmm. While I know the "Don't mess with Texas" line is an anti-littering slogan first and foremost, it is a VERY apt message in this instance. -Northridge17:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
While I obviously agree with everything you said, I would simply point out that it is her position as the "nation's First Lady" that justifies her inclusion here to begin with. So her understandably deep Texas roots notwithstanding, shouldn't that flag be used? And oh yes, I'm well aware of the "Don't Mess with Texas" slogan - and its ongoing application as far more than a clean roads admonition - but as a warning! Which is why I'm scared!! But it begs the question, is there another nationally elected figure on Wiki who's state icons are used? I haven't found one not from Texas. The same problem in fact, exists on the Lyndon Johnson entry. Seems for some folks, everything IS bigger in Texas - including egos! :)208.127.115.247 23:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Calm down! I don't own a shotgun (sometimes we play the Texan stereotype more than it really is, for the fun of it!). Well to further the debate for the Texas flag, I'll pose these 2 question: Is the First Lady an official position? Is she elected? -Northridge02:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we need look no farther than other first lady articles. There's no reason for this article to be an exception. Rklawton 03:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I did a VERY cursory examination of the First Ladies' articles. Some had the US flag, quite a few had no flag at all, and Eleanor Roosevelt had the New York flag. So it doesn't seem there's a uniform policy on flags in the First Lady articles. -Northridge05:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

While I hope you weren't offended by the humor, I still think the point is valid. As to your rhetorical question asking if First Ladies are elected - well I'm almost tempted to take the bait and answer "yes" - to the extent that a presidential candidate's spouse is subjected to intense scrutiny and heavily factors in that candidate's electability - so actually the spouse is also de facto elected. Not bad, huh? And I appreciate that you took the time to check former First Ladies and found nothing uniform. But I'd simply suggest that in the absence of a standard, at least an icon should be accurate, and a Texas flag while technically accurate, when judged by the objective Wiki standard of notability, is far less accurate than the U.S. flag. Her notability is not derived from her having been a Texan, but from her having been a U.S. First Lady. And while there is no formal Wiki policy on flag icons, I think we should take our cues from proper protocol, and once again, Lady Bird: 1) received a U.S. military honor guard, not one from the Texas Militia; 2) had a U.S. flag drape her coffin during her funeral (which incidentally was her choice. I looked it up, and according to the Secretary of State Office of Protocol, and the White House Social Secretary Q&A's I found, as a spouse, presidential protocol & federal law are significantly more lax, and she would have been permitted to use the Texas flag had it been her or her family's wish); and, 3) yes, she was a former U.S. First Lady. Dunno how to make the case any clearer really. And just think, all this because some, no doubt proud Texan Wikiite slapped his/her state flag up instead of "Old Glory". And on Lyndon Johnson's entry too! And of course, he was elected! And just to add a bit more fuel to the fire, shouldn't we remember that Wiki is international? If every foreign dignitary's entry were to follow suit, posting flags of their provinces instead of their nations... Well, can you just imagine the WikiMess?! Or the WikiMadness?! Or the WikiConfusion? Okay, I'm WikiDone.208.127.115.247 09:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: I'm not aware that the U.S. has ever had a First Lady who wasn't American. Therefore the U.S. flag seems redundant. States, on the other hand, take great pride in their contributions to the presidency, and a state flag icon would be one way to represent this pride. In Lady Bird's case the association with Texas is strong, so I have no objection to a Texas State flag (this isn't the opinion I held yesterday). Alternatively, I would be just as happy omitting a flag icon entirely. Rklawton 15:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm.... in the absence of a rule, are we to become slaves to opinion and regional "pride"? Isn't that exactly the kind of thing that qualifies as a POV objection? Everyone knows she was from Texas, so if anything, that would seem redundant. But to use an icon that does not accurately reflect the subject's notability just seems misguided. I would be fine with no flag icons myself, but if they're added, shouldn't they objectively reflect information regarding the entry, not merely the editor's bias? 208.127.115.247 22:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It almost seems like you're arguing that using a Texas flag would diminish Lady Bird's "notability." I have so much to say about that, but I'll hold most of it back. The position that a US-flag-trumps-all can also be accused of being federalist bias. Also, let's not talk in absolutes here; not everyone knows Lady Bird was from Texas. So if you're arguing Wikipedia's international mission, wouldn't a foreign reader be better served by that extra bit of descriptive information? And I very much doubt your slippery slope argument (i.e., "WikiMess," "WikiConfusion," "WikiMadness") would come to fruition if we used a Texas flag; at worst, this US-vs-Tx-flag issue could become a frivolous matter (i.e., see Lamest edit wars ever). Don't get me wrong, I'm also okay with not using any flag (though I am a Texan). But not everyone should have to be defined totally by their national identities. -Northridge:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Now I'm accused of a "federalist bias" simply because I argue that any flag icon attached to a former U.S. First Lady should be the U.S. flag? You've gotta be kidding. Also I never said the Texas icon "diminishes" her notability, but at the end of the day, like it or not, it is irrelevant. When was she ever the First Lady of Texas? So why is that flag relevant? Because she was "closely associated" with Texas? All that information is readily available in the article, so it's not hidden or diminished in any way, so I just don't see your point. For that matter, an editor could legitimately include a "how much she loved & was identified by her Texas roots" section, I wouldn't care. But you really don't see the subjective use of icons as a problem? Then should we also have icons for religion? A Star of David icon next to Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a staunch and proud supporter of Israel? How about what university people attended? Slap a Harvard or Yale (or a U-T Austin) icon next to every president that attended either. Pres. Kennedy has an entire School named for him at Harvard. Pres. Wilson has one at Princeton. Put up those nifty icons! Why not? Nixon was our only Quaker president. Don't they have a flag? Next there'll be a Third Reich swastika next to Hitler or a Ku Klux Klan icon in David Duke's article because after all, he was a former Grand Wizard. Really doesn't get more "closely associated" than them. If you don't uphold any standard, then you can't argue against anyone else's standard. There's your slippery slope. But why stop at state flags? Fiorello LaGuardia, Rudy Giuliani, and Michael Bloomberg of New York City and both Richard Daleys of Chicago would probably tell you they're far more "closely associated" with their respective cities than with their states. And both cities do have a flag. 208.127.115.247 04:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You're spiralling this issue beyond civility (i.e., again, see Lamest edit wars ever). So let me try and bring this debate back down to earth, and maybe rationality (You attached this issue with Hitler & the Third Reich! Ever heard of Godwin's Law?). I did a little research. Apparently there has been some discussion on flag use in the biography infobox page; it's brief, but explicit enough to suggest a 'right' solution.

Go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_Biography#Use_of_flag_icons_in_Bio_Infoboxes

So screw my Texas pride and your silly slippery slope arguments. It's more an issue of infobox feasibility. Since the names of Lady Bird's brith and death places don't take up too much space, no flag should be used. (something we BOTH agree on; compromise at it's best). Anyone else have thoughts on the matter? Northridge 06:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw no "spiralling beyond civility" at all. No nose's got out of whack. A least I know mine didn't, and I certainly hope yours didn't either. For me this was simply a spirited debate, nothing more, which is precisely why I never changed the icon unilaterally. Also why I didn't respond to your twice repeated reference to "edit wars" because nothing had ever been edited. As to the Hitler analogy, it was intended to be odious. That was the point. Familiar with "Reductio ad absurdum"? But I knew you'd pounce on it because there really wasn't much else available in the way of a good response. But, as you say "back to earth". I appreciate the link you sent and I checked it out. I don't know if that's an actual mandate or simply a suggestion, but I find it quite reasonable. Another thought I had earlier that I felt you might accept was to include both state and national icons where appropriate, and certainly you made a case for the fact that both might have applied here. I thought you might not have a problem with that solution. But after reading your link, I now think that might set a bad precedent. So we're basically back where we started, which is that we do both agree that no icon is certainly better than the wrong one. Per your link that also seems to be the "right" solution. Good for us! So would you like to delete the Texas icon in this article or should I? To avoid any hint of further rancor, I really would feel better about all this if you did it. But either way, I'll accept - and defer, to your best judgment. Fair enough? 208.127.115.247 08:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Please note though, I simply cited the Lamest edit wars ever to illustrate what this heated conversation COULD HAVE turned into (I personally remember the arachnophobia picture conflict quite well). I have seen so many inconsequential situations turn into war... it wasn't funny the first time. And I perceived a certain combativeness in your words (even a little silliness); my own could have been over-interpreted the same way (so screw the inferiority of the written lanuage).

Still, you probably don't understand what invoking Nazi analogies, in an unrelated topic, popularly means :) Reductio ad absurdum isn't always as obvious as Godwin's Law.

And yes, since I made the case for Texas' honor, I probably should be the one to remove the flag icons. I'll wait a bit to give others the opportunity to voice their concerns (this isn't just about us). Northridge 09:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's good that we've reached an accord. I accept your reference to Lamest edit wars ever in the cautionary vein it was intended. And agree that any misperception should just get chalked up to the inherent imprecision of the written word. And while my tone was intentionally light-hearted specifically to diffuse any potential tension, it was never intended to suggest that I was any less serious about the issues I raised. And yes, while I was aware of Godwin's Law, (and I'm sure you'll stipulate to the fact that, placed in context, the Hitler reference was just one of several other references), you're now aware of Reductio ad absurdum as a valid, in fact, ancient technique in logic, debate theory and the law. Okay, so all that's done now. Whew! Anyway, as I said, I'll leave the disposition of the icon edit to you, and when/if anyone else cares to express an opinion. So far it doesn't seem like the issue has sparked a whole ton of interest beyond you and me - and Rklawton, who has honestly confessed that his position on the question has been subject to change.

I also addressed the same issue on Lyndon Johnson's talk page a couple days ago when I noticed them both, and to date it hasn't even resulted in a blip on that page's radar, which is fine. Until your Eleanor Roosevelt discovery, the state flags just seemed like a regional and rather parochial conceit found exclusively on pages by and about Texans. It would be nice if all editors were aware of Centrx→talk's suggestion.208.127.115.247 12:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Business acumen neglected?

This article seems to treat her as just an appendage of her husband LBJ, with no mention of her outstanding business ability or accomplishments. And it was her money that backed him in his political campaigns!

From vague recollection, some points are:

  • she parlayed a rather modest inheritance ($17,500) into one of the larger (non-oil) fortunes in Texas. She eventually owned a broadcasting empire of a TV station, 8 radio stations across Texas, and a cable-TV system.
  • she purchased a radio station early on (1942/1943), switched it to 24-hour broadcast, and greatly expanded it. She was very active in management, hiring staff, scheduling programs, and selling advertising.
  • she purchased the first TV broadcasting rights in Texas, at a time when most people thought TV would never amount to much. (1950)
  • she got her station as an affiliate of all 3 current national TV networks (ABC, NBC, CBS), meaning:
    • she could fill her station's schedule with the programs that got the highest ratings, picking from all 3 networks.
    • competing stations could only show the leftover network programs, ones that her station had declined.
  • her TV station was one of the first to add late night broadcasting (though allegedly this was partly to keep network programs from competing stations -- if her station broadcast a program anytime on the schedule, the network couldn't sell it to competing stations).
  • she remained active in her broadcasting business a long time, still attending Board Meetings at age 89 (only stopping after her stroke in 2002).

None of this is mentioned in the article. Just how she was pretty as a Lady Bird, supported her husband, and loved wildflowers. Rather patronizing and chauvinistic for 2007! T-bonham 08:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Your feminist critique aside, if you feel that strongly about these notable accomplishments, go ahead and lace them into the main article. Any problems will be worked out later. Northridge 17:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I was interested by this comment, so I added a section on her business career. It seems many people think the stations' success was the result of political patronage.--Gloriamarie 22:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing articles that are no longer free to access like funeral article on Mrs. Johnson from NY Times

The New York Times article citation about Mrs. Johnson stopped being free to read after a week or so. Wouldn't it be a better solution to use a permanent link to the article that stays free? There's an openurl to the article: http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.newsbank.com:NewsBank:NYTB&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_dat=11A67922EA1A7910&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated4&req_dat=11ECDBF131F44C689BB0EDBA11D99EE0

I'm pretty new to Wikipedia so I don't know what the standards are about linking to material that isn't going to be free for very long. Openurls through newspaper databases that offer them seem to be a pretty good idea. Garnetpoint 03:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First to have a Chief of Staff - What about JBK

Jackie L.B. Kennedy's Chief of Staff was, I believe, Letitia Baldridge; However, here it states Mrs. Johnson was the first 1st Ldy to have a COS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.82.126 (talk) 03:07, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New infobox photo

Proposed image for infobox
Proposed image for infobox

The current photo of Mrs. Johnson in the infobox is blurry from having been cropped. To the right is a perfectly in-focus photo of Mrs. Johnson, although it was taken in 1987 (so she's a bit older). Nonetheless, I think it's better to have this photo as the one in the infobox. Happyme22 03:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:


  1. The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. Specifically, it needs to summarize all the important sections about her life (for example, it currently lacks anything about her life before becoming First Lady, yet there is much in the article itself devoted to this), which, for this article, should cover about two to three paragraphs.
  2. Statements that require citations:
    "Claudia Alta Taylor was born in Karnack, Texas, a town in Harrison County, near the state's border with Louisiana. Her birthplace was "The Brick House," a former slave plantation mansion on the outskirts of town, which her father had purchased shortly before her birth. Her parents, both natives of Alabama, were of English and Scottish descent."
    "As the Vice-President's wife, Lady Bird often served as a substitute for Jacqueline Kennedy at official events and functions. The Johnsons were accompanying Kennedy in Dallas when he was assassinated, and Lyndon was sworn in as President two hours later."
    "She was an advocate of the Head Start program."
    "In the 1970s, she focused her attention on the Austin riverfront area through her involvement in the Town Lake Beautification Project. In 2007, Town Lake was posthumously renamed Lady Bird Lake after all to honor her efforts."
    "On October 13, 2006, Johnson made a rare public appearance at the renovation announcement of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum. Sitting in a wheelchair and showing signs of recent health problems, Lady Bird seemed engaged and alert, and clapped along with those present at the ceremony."
    "At Johnson's funeral service her daughter, Luci Baines Johnson, remarked that one week before her death she made a public appearance and visited the New Austin Art Gallery. "It was a scene: mother was on IV, oxygen tube and a feeding tube. It looked like a mobile hospital. But she had a wonderful time," Luci said."
    "Former First Lady Betty Ford was unable to attend the funeral service and was represented by her daughter Susan Ford. In addition, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg and Patricia Nixon Cox represented their former first families."
    "Johnson then received the Congressional Gold Medal on May 8, 1984."
  3. Some of the refs need to be converted to citation templates (ref names "pbp," "Time," "chron94," "npr4", "chron_20070726," the American Statesman, AXcess News, both New York Times, MSNBC and Fox News references and the one entitled "Recalling life in the mansion")
  4. There's an awful lot of quotes in the Early Life section, which makes the entire section read more like a biography than an encyclopedia. Most facts can be cited with reference to the source where the quote comes from, or by making the quote itself part of the footnotes. You should go through the article and keep only the most essential quotes.
  5. "Political wife" should be a level three heading under "Marriage and family"
  6. "Business career and "Second Lady of the United States" are not fleshed out enough to be their own Level 2 headers, and thus should be combined under a single header somehow. In fact, since all four of these sections are so short, it may be useful to merge them all together under a particularly broad level two heading.
  7. The "Marriage and family" "paragraphs" are far too short. The first, for example, is just one long sentence. These small sentences should be combined into a single large paragraph and expanded if possible. Same with "Political wife" and "Second Lady of the United States"
  8. The "Later life" section should condense some of the small 1-2 sentence paragraphs into larger ones.
  9. The article is a little glowing. Were there any controversies during her life? If not, that's fine, just curious.

In order to allow these changes to be made, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. In addition, once these changes are made, I will be reviewing the sources used and making sure that they all still work. Thank you for your work so far. Cheers, CP 03:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Per a conversation I had with the nominator, I am failing the article for the time being. Once these concerns have been addressed, however, it may be renominated at any time. Cheers, CP 23:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)