Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States

[edit]

Self-nomination. The United States article exemplifies one of the best country articles on Wikipedia and deserves to be featured. If you are unsure, you are welcome to check other featured country articles, such as China, India, Australia, South Africa, and Cambodia, and maybe Singapore to get an idea of how the US article compares. If you object, please state explicitly why you object (no bias or personal opinions, like mentioning the article should be expanded or reduced, which not everyone agrees. Personal opinions also include reorganizing the sections or anything related. These should be put into the discussion page instead). Thank you.

The "see also" links at the end of each section are necessary for people who want to learn more about a specific topic, otherwise, they can just move on reading the next section. I don't agree with having a topic box at the end of the article, which unnecessarily lengthens the article and is not as clean as just having a few links. It also does not help much when people can just click on the "see also" in the respective sections. Also, the topic box is included in List of United States-related topics, so if people want to learn more, they can search through there. The US topic box tends to be larger than that of Australia's and Singapore's. This is not the place to discuss this, so please use the Discussion page on the US article instead. Thank you.--Ryz05 00:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Petaholmes/nixie—remove the section see alsos by incorporating them into the text, moving them to a box at the bottom, or best yet, deleting them, because they should be accessible through the "main articles" at the top of every section. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 00:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please take this discussion to the talk page of the US article, as it is a disputed minor issue. They are accessible through the main articles, however, having them at the bottom of the section saves people's time when they are looking for something specific. Again, the topic box for the US is larger than that of Australia's, so it is not fitting to be included.--Ryz05 00:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a see also section, just stick the topics box template (it needs the lines between the topics removed to decrease the length) in there - it shouldn't be a great dilema. Removing the lines of see alsos from the actual text will also shorten the page length.--nixie 00:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the template box is included, it would be longer than just including the "see also" under each section, as the US template box is longer than that for Australia. The box is also in the link under see also, as with other lists and categories, which make a more comprehensive list. The "see also" is important to include in that it broadens the topic for each section, as people can click them to find out more.--Ryz05 00:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since most of them are linked inline anyway, they really don't need to be there. --nixie 00:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object; Serious lack of inline citations. Two inline citations in the history section? Neither one to a print source? Zero citations in the science/technology and economy sections? Zero in the human rights section? And plus, all the statistics: "Now, more than 40 percent of Americans exercise or play a sport as part of their regular routine." "And today more than 70 percent of children who get cancer are cured." Nothing there either. Furthermore, there aren't any print sources. Census and forbes.com are fine, but give us some meat; some analysis. Not just websites and newspaper articles, but several of the scores of books that have been written on this country. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 00:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, on a related note, tons of weasel words: "The U.S. has often been criticized", "the United States has been criticized for interventionist policies", "opponents criticize as unnecessary", "proponents say they are necessary", "critics charge that their decisions are made as a way to save money". Finally, what's the significance of the freshman chariot thing? I highly doubt that that is a typical extracurricular activity in the U.S. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 01:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If lack of citations and "weasle words" are problems, then they can be taken care of easily- there's no need to object over minor issues.--Ryz05 01:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, often the main things that separate good articles (and this is definitely a good article) from the excellent and FA-worthy are such things as these. Also, I doubt that it will be very easy to add the type of citations I'm looking for—in my experience, such things take alot of work and research. Also, I don't want to come across as excessively harsh—these are the standards I expect of all FAs, and I've objected to numerous FAs over exactly these types of problems. The article is good, but still needs serious improvement with respect to citations before getting promoted. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 01:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your judgements seem to be very strict, but in my opinion, compared with other featured country articles, the one on US should be considered one of the best. We'll just have to see how others vote.--Ryz05 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your objection is outdated. Please provide more reasons or change your vote.--Ryz05 17:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, there are still several sections that need more citations ("politics", "Foreign relations", and "Education" are three that I notice), though I will say that you're doing a good job of adding these in. Still though, I don't see many substantial sources other than government ones—no books, and not even many newspapers. Also, to me, citing Britannica is a no-no, though mostly out of pride than for having a good reason. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 04:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's so bad about Britannica? Saying that your pride affects your vote is not a good reason for an objection. How can Britannica not be credible? Also, what more citations do you need for those sections? There are people that live in the US and knows those basic things, such as about what the school system is like in Education, the history of the US in foreign relations, and the structure of the government in Politics. If you don't believe some of the things mentioned in those sections, rather than having citations, you can click on the links which will direct you to other articles that explain in detail what they are. The US article provides a lot more references than other featured articles, like Australia for example.--Ryz05 18:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's an excellent reason to avoid citing Britannica or other encyclopedias unless really necessary. It reduces Wikipedia's authority as a reference source if many articles cite other encylcopedias. It would be unacceptable for a Britannica article author to reference MSN Encarta or another encyclopedia, as it damages the content value and brand image of Britannica. Same rule applies to Wikipedia, if one is to take it seriously. Also, Wikipedia is not just, or even mainly, for people living in the US. Bwithh 01:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for the aforementioned citation reason.Changing to Neutral. This article is in too high a state of flux (the nominator started doing large numbers of edits just a few days ago) as well. I will change my vote if it stabilizes and the citations are put in. You can never say "is criticized" without quoting/referencing someone doing criticizing. It is not a minor issue, featured articles are supposed to be the best in every way, including citation and style. We have to cite every figure, no exceptions, even if the article looks better than other country articles. --Golbez 03:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have included plenty of citations, as you can see it for yourself. The reason that I did those edits was to bring the article to featured status, so it's not "destabilized." Please change your vote.--Ryz05 03:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My objection about unsourced criticisms remains. --Golbez 04:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are 48 references to this article. Please explain what more need to be cited. Thank you.--Ryz05 04:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The two that I see: "The U.S. has often been criticized for seemingly contradictory stances, on the one hand supporting the human rights laid out in its Constitution and Declaration of Independence, while not always living up to these ideals in practice." "At times, the United States has been criticized for interventionist policies in places like Latin America, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, as well as for its support of repressive governments and warlords, particularly during the Cold War, when many of these decisions were based upon a calculation of the greater good as a counterweight to the influence of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was seen by many in the U.S. as the world's greatest threat; to be opposed with methods that might not otherwise be considered ethical." Individual statements aren't really useful here, simply citing another source that says that there was criticism would work. --Golbez 04:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the lack of paper sources - there is only one - is a bit odd. There have been great volumes written about the United States that aren't online, surely we can find some useful information in them and cite them? I don't think my objection hinges on this, but it would greatly help. --Golbez 04:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestions, and I will provide some referencing to the Human rights section ASAP, but unfortunately, I do not have any paper sources on the US, nor do I really have access to any of them. However, much of the information can be found online, especially on government websites, and the references site many. Also, please note that a featured article does not have to have paper sources in order to become featured.--Ryz05 04:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
update: finished the referencing.--Ryz05 05:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my object, but I still change to neutral because I think this article, being very large, needs a much longer peer review than what we have available to us in the few days this FAC is under debate. --Golbez 06:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think much of the kb has to do with the images, which are important to the article. Please be more specific in your objection.--Ryz05 05:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The text itself is 75kb (images aren't included in that; only the amount of text it takes to make them display), though that includes the inline references. So we're probably talking 60-65kb of prose; about double the suggested maximum. You're right though; trying to figure out what to trim out is a tough problem. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 05:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
United States is a complex subject, and with its 200 years of history and global influence, there's a lot to talk about. The size might be larger than desirable, but please note that the content should not be jeopardized simply because of size, and that many other featured articles are over the size limit as well.--Ryz05 05:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All countries are arguably complex subjects. For example, India has a much greater history than the United States does, and that page manages to be less than half this size. Take a look at some of the other featured articles, specifically Pakistan, Bangladesh, and I think Singapore is on FAC now is likely to be promoted, and all are significantly less than this article. There is no need for 60 kb of prose on an article. Pepsidrinka 16:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot to talk about America, given its long history and world influence. The history of its founding and its global influence can be arguably saidto be more influential than Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Singapore, and I seriously think India can be expanded with more referencing.--Ryz05 17:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. If, as claimed, the United States has "one of the world's highest literacy rate", then this article surely wasn't written by Americans. (In other words: serious copyediting is needed.) Fredrik Johansson 09:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So the US does have one of the world's highest literacy rate- at 99%! That's something worth mentioning. Don't see why that needs to be taken out or to cause "serious" copyediting.--Ryz05 17:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what he is implying (he was not implying that it be taken out). He is saying that if the U.S. really had such a high literacy rate, then an American couldn't have possibly written this article because its poorly written (punctuation, grammar, s/v a etc). Long story short: it reads like it was done by someone illiterate. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 17:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I changed that sentence. Although I'm not perfect at grammar, I believe the overall edits have made the article significantly better than before.--Ryz05 22:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment→No need to insult. Do you think it's clever? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 16:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean clever?--Ryz05 17:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do I really need to explain this? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 17:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I was just confused as to what you meant.--Ryz05 18:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, that didn't belong. But the objection stands. Fredrik Johansson 06:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What? No reasons? I sense some anti-Americanism here, rather than a logical objection.--Ryz05 18:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take it easy; remember WP:AGF. He mentioned that it needs a good copyedit. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 19:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object This is a great article, but the topic is far too massive to be covered in an article this size. I know that this article is already over the size limit, and that people want to trim it. I think that this is a special case; and that we should do the oppiste. Even though there are subpages and the article is in summary style. It doesn't link to enough subpages. I'm sure there must be hunderds of them. Also, more information should be added to the history and politics sections. Despite having seprate articles for them, they need it. This article would not be a good starting point to get to very specific information about the United states. That is my objection. Tobyk777 01:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying this is a great article, which I ardently agree. However, it surprised me that you want more to be included in this article, as it is already very long. Please be clear on what details you want to include, so that important details could be immediately added. But please keep in mind that the US article is only a summary of the main articles, which are linked under the sections in which they specifically deal with, so that only very important details are mentioned, otherwise it'll risk bloating the article; making it hard to read or follow. If you want more links to this article, I do not think that will be needed, because in the "See also" section, there's List of United States-related topics, which links to virtually everything dealing with the United States. I hope this answers your objection so that you may change your vote.--Ryz05 02:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It seems clear to me that this will likely not succeed. This FAC is turning into an ad hoc peer review - I suggest this be closed early and the article submitted for a formal Peer Review. --Golbez 04:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I grant this isn't likely to succeed, but it is possible, so I might as well mention what I see needs to be fixed. If it's not possible to get it done in time, let me know before nominating it again and I can tell you if it is ready to pass or not. I have a very high hit rate with that. 1) I substantially agree with Spangineer's comments above. Still needs a substantial copyedit, but the low quality of the sources overall is the most concerning. Britannica is not a high enough quality source. Good work on improvements so far, and I commend the efforts, but a topic such as this that has been written about in thousands if not hundreds of thousands of books needs to cite some of the best ones for each sub topic. What are the best regarded sources on American History, Politics, etc? Use them. Anything less than a trip to an academic or research library would probably not be sufficient. Specifically the image caption mentions lacross is the fastest growing sport. I could show you sources showing that auto racing is, but I think it would depend on the metric. That point needs better research. - Taxman Talk 17:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A number of objections so far that I've seen don't seem to have good reasons, as I have commented on many of them without further reply from the voters, so if this nomination does fail, the article will have a hard time improving if it does not have good reasons for changes and improvements. You said that the article needs heavy copyediting, which I already did by going through all the sections and resummarizing and reworking many of them, so I don't see where they still need copyediting. I notice that there are editors going around fixing some things here and there, but the original ones before those fixes are not grammatically incorrect. So you say that the low quality sources is a problem, well, many of the sources that I've chosen are from government sites and sites with a very high reputation, like Forbes or Sports Illustrated. Some of the sites might seem a little dubious, but if you click them, you'll see that their articles are actually from credible sources, so the articles on them are not actually their own work, but government or some governmental research institutes. If you are still not satisfied, please point out where you see the sources that are not credible, so those can be changed in due time. Books are good sources, but they are not mandated to have for an article to become featured. Check out some of the other featured articles on Wikipedia, like India, PRC, Australia, South Africa, and Cambodia to get an idea of how the US article compares, which in my opinion, should be among the best.--Ryz05 18:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you think Britannica is not a good source, but I've changed that reference to a Chinese governmental source. Hope that satisfies.--Ryz05 19:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentObject. I have a problem with last line in the lead:
"Its dominant global influence in economic, political, military, cultural, scientific and technological affairs around the world currently remain unmatched."
I can agree to political, military and cultural, but I have a problem with the rest. The European Union is economically stronger than the US. There are many different fields in science and technology, surely USA can't be the leader of them all. A country like Japan is strong in many of them. With that said I believe that such a statement require a reference.
The article still needs to be shortened and some of the level 3 subsections is a good place to start.
To the nominator I would say that it had been a good idea to submit the article to a peer review first. --Maitch 20:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is already listed as a good article, so why should it be submitted again? Also, it is all right to say that the US is dominant in those areas, because the European Union is not exactly a country; it's not as unified as the US. It can also arguably be said that US is more influential than Japan. It can even arguably be said that China is more influential than Japan, as it does have a higher GDP. In any case, the US is the world's sole superpower, as you can see from those inline citations.--Ryz05 20:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A peer review has nothing to do with GA.
The problem with the statement is that it doesn't explain that it is as a single country. It just says it is unmatched, which is untrue. What citations are you referring to? There are none. When you use weasel words like arguably it is critical that you have a source. --Maitch 20:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to criticize your response, but the whole US article is about the country United States of America, so what do you mean it doesn't say that it's a country? The citations for the US article being a sole superpower or hyperpower are next to those words, how much clearer can I make them?--Ryz05 21:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you don't want to listen to constructive criticism, so I will stop replying now. --Maitch 21:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you meant by that, because I don't think it makes much sense.--Ryz05 21:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you are objecting over a single statement, but that has been discussed in the discussion page of the US article (under Introduction), and the current decision is to keep.--Ryz05 22:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object inline citations are essential, and they cannot easily be slipped in as is suggested by a user above. Ideally, the original sources of the information used when writing the article would have been cited as the info was put in. Also, the culture section should be expanded. Cuisine, sports, and religion do not cover all of American culture. At least a hint of some broader culture or a description of a melting pot is needed. The history section should be broken into subsections (I'll do it unless someone beats me to it). The article should probably go through a peer review to address some of these problems. To editors of the article, don't feel disparged. You've done a lot of great work. The United States is a broad and important topic so getting to FA status is particularly hard for this article.--Bkwillwm 20:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, yes, original sources should have been included as the article was written, but that fact that they were later added does not prevent an article from becoming featured. The US article currently has 63 references, that's more than other featured articles like India, Australia, or South Africa. Sure, cuisine, sports, language, religion do not cover all of American culture, but the Culture section is merely a summary of its main article Culture of the United States, so if you add in too much information, you risk bloating the article, as I said earlier. The same thing goes if you break the history section into many sub-sections, which risk the chance of people going in and adding excess details. The article is already pretty long, so there's no need in adding more detail unless it's a crucial fact that's worth mentioning. I hope my reasons will change your vote.--Ryz05 20:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, ideally inline citations should be the original references- in most cases however, they are not. According to WP:V, verification is important. WP:CITE notes: You can add sources even for material you didn't write (sorry, I'm not trying to yell here; I'm just copy+pasting from WP:CITE). And I disagree that history should be broken down; the TOC should not be overwhelming (see WP:WIAFA), and there have already been objections above against the ToC already being too long - editors above have suggested the opposite be done and that the number of sections be cut down upon. Thanks, AndyZ t 21:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, nm on the subsections for the history section. I still think that they would be worth having even if they made the TOC longer, but if others having reasons for leaving subsections out, fine. My main point is the citations. There need to be a lot more.--Bkwillwm 00:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many citations do you want? And where? The article currently has 76 references, which is more than many other featured articles.--Ryz05 08:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can copyedit it again, if there is a need to. However, I'm sure someone else would want to copy-edit it as I already did some heavy copy-editing before.--Ryz05 21:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
update I recently did a check of the US article for copyedits, and only found few. You can do another search if you want.--Ryz05 02:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These objections without good reasons is a bother. If the article nomination fails, then at least there must be one good reason why it failed. It is best for that good reason to be brought up quickly, so that it can be fixed in due time.--Ryz05 22:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're kind of misunderstanding how this works. Please also reallize that this not making FA this exact time is not an insult to you and neither are any objections. People have mentioned legitimate objections and there is not substantial support. You can't argue away the objections, many examples of people trying to do that have been disasters. You don't feel they are legitimate, but you don't have much experience with FAC, and it's likely that your desire for this to be successful is clouding your view. Try to relax a bit, do the best you can, and keep trying to improve the article. But your comments are making you appear less than polite and friendly and that is not helping anything. - Taxman Talk 23:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I realize that I'm the only one responding to objections for the US article, which is kind of surprising as I think there are many Americans on Wikipedia, but then, they might not be interested in bringing the US article to featured as much as I do or are not aware of this nomination. Anyways, the brute work in improving the US article is done. If this nomination fails, it'll get renominated in short time I hope. Regarding the comment on my lack of experience on FAC, the main reason why I nominated the US article is because I compared it to other featured country articles such as India, Australia, PRC, Cambodia, and South Africa. To me, the US article should be among the best, so I don't understand why people are objecting.--Ryz05 23:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether they are American or not has nothing to do with meeting the criteria. I'm American, but that's besides the point. Everyone sems to be objecting to the same thing, which tends to indicate it is legitimate. Keep working and maybe it will make it this time, but if not the guideline is to give it at least two weeks to iron out any issues and to assess how it meets the stability criterion. Only then renominate. - Taxman Talk 23:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, I think I made my point. You guys can jump-in and help where ever you see improvements can be made. However, I'm still pondering why you guys are rejecting this article, when to me, it deserves to be featured as much as other featured country articles (like India, Australia, PRC, Cambodia, and South Africa). Hope someone can explain that.--Ryz05 23:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really need paper sources for an article to become featured? I guess a textbook on US history or something might help, but you can't say the US article has no paper sources, as many of the citations are from sources such as US census bureau, which print out their statistics on paper. Some sources that I citated from are also found on PDF, which should count as paper.--Ryz05 23:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paper isn't the key, the level of review and editorial reputation are, but that's not likely be possible for a subject of this scope without consulting some books. The Census bureau is good but limited in scope. Why are you fighting so hard against good recommendations people are making? Just go get some good books and be done with it. - Taxman Talk 23:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess some books can be useful in the US article, but is it necessary to object just because of that?--Ryz05 23:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
update: Due to the objections regarding lack of citations from books, I included some books in the referencing for the history section. I don't know how many references you guys want from books, but I hope that this will change some of your votes.--Ryz05 00:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, on a number of issues, but in summary the balance of content is weighted in the wrong places:
  1. Low quality references unlike the Australia article which uses published or government sources, this article cites Yahoo, Fact Monster and BankruptcyHome.com. I have no issue with the number, in fact this article is probably over cited, but the quality of the sources is very important. Many of these sub-par references chould be replaced with official government statistics, the US governemnt is very good at compiling statistics on everything.
    Government sources are cited as well, and low quality is subjective. Those websites are credible, such as Yahoo, which has a high reputation as a search engin.
  2. Language and religion should be in the demographics section on the article.
    I disagree, those definitely go more with the Culture section.
    Australia, a featured article, has them in demographics. They matter more for demographics than culture. --Golbez 02:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I didn't see your response earlier, but can you explain why they are more relevant in the demographics section? I see topics like language or religion has more to do with culture than with demographics.--Ryz05 05:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that "Culture" is for what sets a nation apart from the others - its own culture. However, the proportion of Christians to Jews to Muslims in a society is a statistic, which seems to belong under demographics. So too with language - every country has one, and a great number use English. Maybe a tally should be taken of how other countries do this. --Golbez 06:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All currently featured coutries have this information in demographics, all sources list these types of stats in a section called demographics - like the World Fact Book.--nixie 06:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See the PRC (featured article), which has the same format as the US article for those sections. It is just you guys' opinions that they should be taken to Demographics, so not everyone will agree. This has never been a serious issue with the US article, so please take your opinions to the talk page instead.--Ryz05 07:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There is some unnecessary historical information in several sections (Foreign relations, human rights, economy, science and technology) which if removed would make the article more focussed on the contemporary US.
    United States has a long history, and by talking about the past, one could better understand the present. Also, some of those details, like in the human rights section (which someone added), are necessary to maintain NPOV.
  4. We have a rather long discussion of food in the culture section, but no discussion of Americans contributions to the fine arts, theatre (Broadway?) etc. No mention about the media, it's scope and influence, or freedom of the press.
    How much do you want to add to the US article? If you want to learn more about those things, it's better to look under media of the United States, and arts and entertainment in the United States, etc.
    Maybe we could shorten the food and add more? Or add other paragraphs? Be less defensive and more responsive. It is a bit odd that there's no mention of Broadway in the article. --Golbez 02:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it so important to mention Broadway? If you really want to mention Broadway theatre, then go ahead (without lengthening the article too much), but I don't see why you can't just click Arts and entertainment in the United States to find out more, or add it to the See also at the bottom.--Ryz05 04:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If Broadway is so important, I find it a bit odd that the other Cultural articles like Cinema or Dance never mention Broadway. In any case, I added a See also section under Arts and entertainment in the United States article and included Broadway.--Ryz05 04:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Native Americans get a rather short (2 sentences) mention for their long habitation of the territory.
    The article is about the US, not Native Americans. See the article Native Americans in the United States for more detail.
    Yes, but in the Australia article (which is featured), Aborigines are mentioned several times. --Golbez 02:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Native Americans are mentioned several times in the US article, especially in the history section. But since they only make up about 1% of the US total population today, they are not mentioned very often in other sections.--Ryz05 02:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, please indent properly so you don't break the ordering. Second, the only use of the word reservation is in Demographics. I'd think Geography, or Law, would also be worthwhile areas. --Golbez 02:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a check on the Australia article for the mentioning of aborigines, and I found its about the same as that for the US article. The mentioning of Native Americans is probably more apparent in the US article, especially under the Culture section.--Ryz05 02:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true, the US article doesn't mention way of life pre-european arrivale and does not discuss racial relations today. The lack of information on race relations is not just with Native Americans either.--nixie 06:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You are losing focus on what the article is about. It's about the establishment of the United States. Sure, things can be mentioned about what life is like in pre-colonial times, but that's not what the article focuses. If you want to include it so as to lengthen the history section even more, then not everyone will be happy about that. Please take this discussion to the talk page instead, as what you are mentioning has never been an issue.--Ryz05 07:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The health section is probably to focussed on domestic issues, that may not mean much to an international audience.
    How international can you make the "health" section?
    Exactly, thats why most countries don't have one.--nixie 06:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want the health section to be taken out, then you should discuss it in the discussion page for the US article, because I don't think everyone would agree with you on that. The PRC (a featured article) has one. It never hurts to include a health section, as the topic is pretty important. Also, please keep in mind that it's not just about being internationally oriented, people in the US also read the article, and they might get something out of the health section. Plus, the health section mentions how the federal government encourages its citizens to excercise like other countries. Finally, the health section mentions how the health care system in the US compares with other countries. If you still object, please explain to me how it is not international, and address some of the other things that I brought up as well.--Ryz05 07:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. See alsos following sections are largely unnecessary and caould be incorporated into the text.
    Some of the see alsos are important, especially under Culture, where not everything on US culture can be discussed in the US article.--Ryz05 01:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They are all linked in the {{main}} article in that section, the see alsos just make a mess.--nixie 06:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not everyone will agree with you on that. If you really feel strongly about taking it out, you can take it to the talk page on the US article. Personally, I think they are important to include so people can have a easy time finding what they are looking for. Also, not everything on US culture can be talked about under that one section.--Ryz05 08:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--nixie 01:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment: As much as I'd love to see it featured, it's still messy in some parts. Then again, especially, it's one of Wikipedia's most popular articles by both readers and vandals alike. Can we wait one or two more years for renomination? --Slgrandson 16:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You guys are welcome to review the article again and change your votes accordingly. Many of the valid issues (not personal opinions) mentioned about the article has been addressed. If it's still an objection, please explain explicitly why you object (no personal opinions or bias), so that the article may be further improved. Thank you.--Ryz05 17:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The article is substantially improved thanks to this rigorous peer review, and the remaining objections are not nearly strong enough to keep it from being an FA. The article is increasingly well written, very comprehensive, accurate, well sourced, neutral, and generally very stable.

In addition, I would give a friendly suggestion to those who have objected to this articles candidacy, would they be more rigorous about lining out their objections, or reviewing the article as it currently is and see if their objections still stand? :) Judgesurreal777 18:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support. In fact, I'm so happy that I used your user page code for mine (albeit minor link changes). Hope you don't mind.--Ryz05 20:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs an intensive peer review, so no, I will not review it myself. --Golbez 18:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any more reasons coming for the objections. If no reasons can support the objections, how do you guys expect the article to improve? I kindly suggest those who objected go over the article again and either change their vote, or come up with new reasons (no bias or personal opinions) for the objections.--Ryz05t 01:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The United States is one of the most educated countries in the world, with a litercy rate of 99% (male and female)- defined as anyone age 15 and over who can read and write". But can they spell? Bwithh 01:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object This is a good article and great effort but also a very long article albeit on a huge topic which means that it has kinks to work out and some omissions. Here are a few things I noticed in quick first run-through:
    • No mention of Entrepreneurship or "the American Dream" in neither the Economy or the Culture sections nor anywhere else.
      • That pisses me off, because I added that a long time ago when I did my own overhaul of this article. I'm very annoyed that it's been removed in the interim. --Golbez 04:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Culture section is overly focused on cooking 50% of the summary talks about food (and yet fast food is not mentioned). Glaring ommissions from this 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.
    • 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")
    • Article needs to be checked throughout to ensure sense of time is proper and consistent e.g. sentences such as "The United States' focus on military expenditures has ranged broadly, due to regularly changing ideologies inherent in its political system. The American military, in terms of physical resources, is actually smaller now than it was twenty years ago, despite being larger than it was five years ago, for example." should not have relative sense of time without a specific year. Relative sense of time or current tense should not be used with specific years. (Also, this sentence seems to ignore the end of the Cold War (that wasn't an effect of the inherent ideological processes internal to the US))
Bwithh 02:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The United States has a lot to talk about, but I'm just curious to know how much longer you want to make it? If the article is too long, then others will reject simply because of the size. If you want to talk about the American Dream, then I expect you would then want the economy section to be expanded with more history. If you want to talk about television, then I expect you would also want to talk about Simpsons or the invention of the television, and on and on and on. I thought you said there's some omission to do? And yet, you add all those things that you want to mention. There's obviously some contradiction for your reasons in the objection.--Ryz05 t 02:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
update: I edited the mentioning about the size of US military resources, thanks for bringing that up.--Ryz05 t 02:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the article length. I made no objection to the size of the article, I was just pointing out that this article is long so there is bound to be bugs i.e. I was trying to be polite. The article really should mention Hollywood (and if you mention Hollywood, you should mention television, not just cinema)). I don't give a damn about the Simpsons (too many references to the Simpsons in Wikipedia as there is). The American Dream is central to the ideology and the world perception of what the US is about. So is Hollywood and entrepreneurship. I am not asking for lots of detail or explication. also I am not asking for omission, I am pointing out that there are SERIOUS omissions that need to be filled in. I am asking that you MENTION these terms at least. These are BIG central themes about what the US means to the world in a broad brush sense - there is no "obvious contradiction" here. I hope you understand that people are genuinely trying to help here, and that we're not pedantic simpletons. Bwithh 04:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is quite the impressive article considering the subject manner. Rangeley 17:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is really a great article. We can't include everything in the article, but I think this is nicely done. PDXblazers 00:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/United_States/archive1&oldid=1136457737"