Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Richard Nixon

Richard Nixon

This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the TFAR nomination of the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new {{TFAR nom}} underneath.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 9, 2013 by Bencherlite ^Talk 13:51, 2 January 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nixon (1913–1994) was the 37th President of the United States, serving from 1969 to 1974. He graduated from Whittier College in 1934 and Duke University School of Law in 1937, returning to California to practice law. He served in the United States Navy during World War II. Nixon was elected to the House of Representatives in 1946 and to the Senate in 1950. He served for eight years as vice president, from 1953 to 1961, and waged an unsuccessful presidential campaign in 1960, narrowly losing to John F. Kennedy. In 1968, Nixon ran again for president and was elected. He initially escalated the Vietnam War, but ended US involvement in 1973. Nixon's visit to the People's Republic of China in 1972 opened diplomatic relations between the two nations. Though he presided over Apollo 11, he scaled back manned space exploration. He was re-elected by a landslide in 1972 despite a series of revelations in the Watergate scandal, which cost Nixon much of his political support in his second term, and on August 9, 1974 he resigned as president. In retirement, Nixon's work as an elder statesman, authoring several books and undertaking many foreign trips, helped to rehabilitate his public image. (Full article...)

11 points Centennial of birth (6) level 4 vital article (4) 1 year FA (1).--Wehwalt (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. - Obviously. GabeMc ^{(talk contribs)} 07:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support 100th birthday! Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 08:34, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
Support. - Obviously. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support important topic. --Rs chen 7754 09:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment blurb is about 1,570 characters, or 25% over the standard target length of 1,200 - Wehwalt, would you mind trimming it when you get a chance? Thanks, Bencherlite ^Talk 10:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut it some.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now ~~1,236~~ 1,204 characters. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: No question. Points probably irrelevant here, but does the 20-day rule for noms with 5+ points not apply? Brianboulton (talk) 11:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the rule is 20 unscheduled days, not 20 days. At the time of writing, the next unscheduled day is 22nd December, and the 20th unscheduled day is 11th January, so this high-scoring (record score?) nom is legit. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support; very much looking forward to seeing such a prominent article featured. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Centennial is a one-time opportunity not to be missed, topic timely and interesting. Plenty of time to fix any minor glitches, none of which are significant to the issue of this excellent article being TFA for the date stated. Montanabw^(talk) 20:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion made, suggestion answered. Hatting to ensure that nobody accidentally says something that someone else might regret. Bencherlite ^Talk 02:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please audit the prose; a search reveals 16 instances of the word "however" in this version. (See here and here for discussions of the overuse of however.) Although this issue was brought to Wehwalt's attention in a previous FAC after DCGeist copyedited an article and among other improvements, reduced the uses of "however" from 12 to 3, [1] the overuse of "however" persists. Several of Wehwalt's recent FAs have improved on this score, but the older ones should be audited; it shouldn't require more than a few moments to review each FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, captions need to be audited for final punctuation throughout. The oversized images throughout will likely get objections when it runs on the mainpage (I see no reason for them to be oversized-- this isn't an article about art, for example, where there is a need to examine images closely since the article is about them). A bigger concern (back on prose) and an indication that a prose review is called for: see the image in Richard Nixon#Domestic policy and the caption: "Nixon chats with a future voter at the Washington Senators' 1969 Opening Day, with Baseball Commissioner Bowie Kuhn (to the right of Nixon), Senators owner Bob Short and Nixon aide Jack Brennan (in uniform)." The caption misidentifies several people (and the reference to a child as a "future voter" is unnecessarily cutesy and unencyclopedic).

Another sample, the opening blurb: "In retirement, Nixon's work authoring several books and undertaking many foreign trips helped to rehabilitate his public image as an elder statesman." Why "many"; what does that add? Why not just "rehabilitated his image"? His image problem that needed rehab wasn't about being an "elder statesman". Also, "Although Nixon initially escalated America's involvement in the Vietnam War, he subsequently ended U.S. involvement in 1973." "Subsequently" is another overused word-- the 1973 seems to cover it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update, one image caption corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You also incorrectly changed an image format which had consensus, and you lack consensus to change the text of the caption as I object. Come on Sandy. Let's both walk away, shall we?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article below (Metropolitan Railway) also has 16 instances of "however" in this version. It's a new FA (August 2012) Should all articles be checked for these issues? MathewTownsend (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All articles (here and at FAC) should be checked for lots of things, so I'm not sure I understand the question. Other than to say, "of course"; lots of stuff is sliding through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note I've looked over Metropolitan Railway and reduced the howevers to five. I will read over my changes tomorrow to see if I've changed the meaning. Looking at the links above it seems the problem is misuse and overuse - I don't think it's now mis-used or overused in that article. However, [sic] I don't think a simple word count is helpful. Edgepedia (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will of course check the article before it runs, and will give Sandy's suggestions the respect they deserve. (and yes, I'm aware that Sandy's trying to provoke conflict here, so the mild snarkiness in the last comment is the most she's going to get out of me)--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, high quality educational and encyclopedic article on a dead politician, who has passed on, is no more, has ceased to be, bereft of life, may he rest in peace. — Cirt (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, he was a person, not a parrot! ;) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, someone got the reference!!! :) — Cirt (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fantastic article, centennial anniversary -- of course! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had not noticed that the instruction set had been massively changed without significant discussion. I am reluctant to allow the article to run given the arbitrary nature of the changes, and now, of the instructions.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we if the instructions (of minor importance to me) are in the way of showing an important historic person on his centenary? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to go through 24 hours of hell which this article on the main page will inevitably entail to give legitimacy to an arbitrary process. The article will still be there.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm confident that the article will be in perfect order by the birth centennial date, which is not to be missed. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent date connection, though the image placement is far from ideal (IMHO). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image placement does not follow the MOS ("Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection"), but this must be a TFA tradition ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to follow the guideline get easily termed "disruption of the TFA process", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that "avoid" does not mean "never". It is just the less-preferred path. Due to the orientation of some images, and their necessary placement in text, sometimes the best solution is to not follow that guideline. An example of this is here, as McKinley faces right in the cartoon, it must be a left-side image, and the image is best placed there as the image illustrates the "straddle bug" text nicely. This is something we trust editors with, and the article passed FAC like this, not that this makes it perfect but it's got something going for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember. The guideline says "avoid", that translates to me to: generally it is better "right" but in specific cases "left" is preferable. The current TFA format, however, has it always "left" (at least to my observation so far), regardless of the picture orientation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support When was the last time we had an article worth 11 points? Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No brainer as far as I am concerned! -- Cassianto ^Talk 05:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support and urge Wehwalt's preferences regarding the image be followed. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why don't the images have alt text? --John (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text is not a FAC requirement. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No reason why something we promote as our best work shouldn't have alt text though, right? Or perhaps we should forget those viewers who read our FAs with screen readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, criterion 2 of the featured article criteria requires the article follow the WP:MOS, which states on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility that "Images should include an alt attribute..." Chris857 (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text is not a requirement but I will not oppose someone adding them. Or we can choose not to run it :) (given the grief I'm already taking on multiple pages over this article, I'd be happier if it didn't, actually).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support seems pretty obviously a good idea to me. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mainly per the eccentric image placement policy in this article; giant images at the start of each section make the article unreadable on mobile devices, and the lack of alt text means that screen readers won't describe the images, in contravention of WP:ACCESS. Fixable? Yes. Our finest work that we would want to showcase? Not quite. --John (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing with you, John, but I'm wondering if someone could take a look at the article on a smartphone and see what's going on? I'll do the same. I'll see if I can remember how to take a screenshot. It may be a problem with what browser is used.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. There's a problem when the mobile browser is used, though it's OK if the user happens to emulate the desktop appearance, which I always do. I'll play with it in a sandbox. If anyone is technically adept at these things please feel free to come to my talk, otherwise don't expect results soon. I have bronchitis and am also not motivated to edit right now because of hostile environment (see above).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The centering of the image is causing the problem. I moved the first image left and it works on the mobile browser. John, as you opposed on this basis and I imagine checked it before doing so, can you confirm this? There's a bit of whitespace on right, so I will continue to play with it and when I find something satisfactory I will adapt it for the other images.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than change it unnecessarily, I brought it up on the IRC channel #wikimedia-mobile. I discussed it with Max Semenik, who is one of Wikimedia's software developers, and he filed a bug report which is available here. He said it would be discussed today, he had no idea whether if it would be fixed by January 9. I will keep an eye on the matter, and if time is getting close, shift the images left or right (alternating has been suggested) and they will not appear as distorted.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The developers have fixed the issue, and so the images appear now without distortion in the mobile platform, I just checked my iPhone and it looks fine. The explanation seems to be "We were setting a max-width but the height was left at the implicit original height of the image. Adding height: auto resolves this by keeping the aspect ratio neat." per here.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to the image placement. It may not violate any guideline per se, but it still makes the article cluttered and hard to read. (Call it the inverse of Ignore all rules.) -- YPN YPN ✡ 20:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]