Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/Hillary Rodham Clinton/archive2 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 17:29, 30 April 2008 (→Hillary Rodham Clinton: restart note). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:29, 30 April 2008 by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) (→Hillary Rodham Clinton: restart note)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Toolbox

previous FAC

Support I feel that this article has improved so much since last year that it should be featured. It's already has "good article" status, but I think it's a great article. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Article stats:

Wasted Time R 1427
LukeTH 656
Tvoz 199
K157 137
StuffOfInterest 74
Ohnoitsjamie 51
Gamaliel 50

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Please Withdraw. This is a drive-by nom. As the #1 contributor to this article, I am not prepared, and do not wish, for it to go to FAC at this time. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Can't be withdrawn. I will try to do some impromptu fixup work on it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Quirky has never edited the article, but Quirky did follow the WP:FAC instructions:

Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination.

and query the article talk page several weeks ago, where as far as I can tell, no one objected. We put the instructions in place to avoid precipitous noms, not to encourage article ownership. As far as I can tell, Quirky complied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't think it serious, so I didn't bother to object. Guess that was a mistake. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Query Is it withdrawing or not? Ealdgyth - Talk 03:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
(whimpers) 360 references? Yikes. Tomorrow I'll look at the sources. I don't think I can do it tonight after a day spent traveling on cramped airplanes Ealdgyth - Talk 03:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article clearly is in violation of MoS length policies. Length guidelines, even after reduction, show the article over 15k above where it should be. The responder below refuses to cut a lot of information that is not encyclopedic and refuses to make the article concise. The responder below also refuses to pursue further splits of the page which are needed. Much of the information reads as trivia and the notability seems to only be from the fact that it is "Hillary Clinton" doing such things. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have reservations about such an article. If she becomes President, if she doesn't, etc, her page will dramatically change to reflect that. With such, there can be no guarantee to the standard of the article. I believe that when it says "stable" as part of the criteria, that it means that there wont be major changes, which are inevitable for such individuals. Also, most of the information needs to be put on its own page. Furthermore, articles over 80k are way too long and excessive. This article needs to be trimmed down a lot before it can be readable. There is just too much information. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The readable prose size is 59Kb, within article size and FA guidelines. The overall large physical size of the article is due to the many references, which alas are needed. Just about every single statement in here, no matter how innocuous, has been challenged at one time or another, hence the heavy citing. A secondary issue along the same lines is the article's use of the "cite" template, whose current implementation is notably inefficient in several aspects. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe that total size should be taken into consideration. I use dialup quite often. The page took forever for it to load to me. Sorry, but it is way too long. The Presidential campaign, for example, needs its own page. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It has its own page, Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008. What you see here is just a summary. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Then why are there more than three paragraphs devoted to that topic? Isn't that just a tad excessive? The main article link is there for people to read about the topic. That is a good area to start cutting the article length. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've done some trimming and excess cite reduction of the presidential campaign section, and have it down to four paragraphs. But it would be wrong to reduce it too much. The campaign has had many significant twists and turns, and has brought out some of the motifs that run through the article, such as the role of Bill in her life. Any way you look at it, this campaign has been a major development in her biographical evolution, and readers should not have to go off to the separate campaign article to glean that. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
And you are wrong about the manual of style - Misplaced Pages:Article size
  • "which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose"
  • ""Readable prose" is the main body of the text, excluding sections such as: * Footnotes and reference sections ("see also", "external links", footnotes, bibliography, etc)"
  • You are going to have to cut the page to about half before it can be considered in compliance with the manual of style. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages:Summary style. This applies also to her Presidential campaign article, which is far too excessive in length. Just because it has made the news, does not mean that it needs an encyclopedic page. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The guideline is "6,000 to 10,000 words", and the size tool says this is 9,580 words. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, at 59Kb, this article wouldn't even make the Top 10 FA articles in size list. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
As I pointed out above, references count as readable text. This is well beyond reasonable. I would suggest you look at the "text" number, because that is what the MoS is refering to, which is 70k. This page even causes my computer to freeze when copying parts or other such things. Its unwieldy and does not meet MoS. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It's the expansions of the cite template that are giving your computer problems; per the size tool, the page generates 148 kB of HTML for prose, but 284 kB of HTML for references, twice as much. Anyway, I accept that you'll oppose the FAC; from your perspectives (including a disinclination of FA for active bio figures), you are right to do so. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is it wrong to cut down a campaign that has its own, majorly large page, devoted to it, based on putting every possible news mention listed? This is an encyclopedia, not a list of every single event. Most biographies lack day to day activities. People will come here looking for a short history, not details and detail that don't really contribute to understanding her. If you really like Hillary, you would try to put out the information that is most important to her in a simple way so that people can see that and then pursue the other paths if they are interested in such things. Instead, excessive length could be viewed as propagandistic and turn people off. And I haven't opposed anything. This is a comment. Not a support or an oppose. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I just got to a computer with faster internet and processing power. The print size of the page would be 17 pages. Thats almost double what is recommended for pages to be. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The recommended high end is 10 printed pages for readable prose, which this is; the last 7 pages are all references, external links, and the templates at the bottom. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)'
Stop this right now. I have quoted directly from MoS, and there are NOT 7 pages of references. Stop it. Its almost double of what it is allowed to be. You cannot excuse this any longer. This page needs to be trimmed dramatically. FAs must abide by MoS guidelines. This is one of the most important guidelines. If you refuse to acknowledge this, I will be forced to oppose you based on your unwillingness to follow MoS. Having an article this size is severely inappropriate, especially when her career isn't yet to its highest peak. Trim the first lady section. Trim the senate section. Trim the campaign section; you do not need a section for her senate campaign and for her senate experience. Make this look like an encyclopedia, not a blog listing links to every possible news article. The notes among the footnotes are excessive. They need to be reduced. Some of it is just trivia, which does not belong in such an article. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your tone, and I don't intend to reply to you any further. Cast your "oppose" and be done with it. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
My tone? You are showing severe uncivility and ownership problems over an article that clearly is in violation of MoS. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
According to the guidelines Misplaced Pages:Article_size#References for how to find the text size, it reads at "This page is 65 kilobytes long." Thats 15k too much. Note, when you follow that format, there is no HTML, there are no pictures, and there are no ways to excuse the extra 15k. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
That page says "Estimate", but using Dr. PDA's page size tool, gives "Prose size (text only): 59 kB (9540 words) "readable prose size"" for this article. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
His estimation tool is clearly wrong then. I uploaded just the text and hit previous. It puts it over 65k. I can hit save and revert it if you do not believe me. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it correct on the number of words though? And I'm not sure there is a hard and fast number for anything. I honestly don't care one way or the other, but I don't feel that 65K is that awful either. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Ms Word had a different listing for the amount of words also. I think that counter goes off of syllables and not actual words. The size I originally checked at was the 166k version (which was 65k readable) and the recent 163k is 64k readable. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Ottava, I believe the problem that you are having is that you are including the section titles and reference links (but not the references themselves) as part of the readable text. I've removed all of the section titles and reference links here and I'm only getting 59k of readable prose. I'm also getting 9,675 words using MSWord's word count. As far as the printable pages, there may be a difference of tools in getting the different page count for printable pages. Using word I'm getting 18 pages, but if I use the printable version link on the HRC article I'm getting 17 pages total with 10 of those pages being readable text and 7 of them being references, templates, etc. The main cause of the difference seems to be that the printable version shrinks to fit the page, so smaller text means smaller printable page. --Bobblehead 19:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
According to MoS, section headings cannot be discounted, and there are not 5k worth of section headings. I have put forth the proper, MoS sanctioned "readable prose" according to the guidelines and published it on the page followed by a revert. It clearly says 64k. This cannot be mistaken. Furthermore, this is not the end of her career, so the page must be dramatically shortened to accomodate future aspects. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The MOS does not say that section headings should be included either. But as far as there being 5k worth of section headings, you are correct, there is 1k worth of section headers. There is 5k worth of Reference numbers. After I removed the section headers there was 64k of text according to Misplaced Pages, but when I removed all of the reference numbers from the text, it dropped down to 59k. I've added the section headers back into the size test here. --Bobblehead 22:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with Ottava, although I'll note that Barack Obama is a Featured Article. I think that FA needs to avoid giving an impression of favoritism (has this been discussed elsewhere to develop clear guidance/consensus?) If it's determined that HRC cannot be featured for reasons of stability then we should probably remove Obama as well. If, however, it's the case that the HRC article is simply not featured quality and the Obama article is, that's different. But looking over Barack Obama cursorily just now, I'm not sure one could make the claim that it's particularly high-quality or has been sufficiently stable. --JayHenry (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It's worth noting that Barack Obama recently underwent a FAR, which was closed as neither "keep" nor "remove" because the article is basically high-quality but is undergoing some edit warring at the moment due to the election. There was no real consensus about whether the article met the "stability" criterion, or whether the "stability" criterion makes allowances for temporary fluctuations. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have noted elsewhere that I have reservations about all biographies of living people who are involved with many major projects, especially a Presidential campaign. I think that FA is supposed to be one of the markers of the best Misplaced Pages pages, and that would mean they would change very little over time. The nature of politics has such pages change constantly over time. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I realize it seems to be this way, but in reality this article is a biography of her entire life, and does not change much (not counting vandalism and obvious bias edits) even during this campaign. The last paragraph in the "Presidential campaign" section grows a bit when new primaries or major campaign developments happen; that's about it. Most campaign developments go into the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 daughter article and most new Senate developments go into the Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton daughter article, not here. So this article is a lot more stable than you would think. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
And as for the possibility of her becoming President and the article undergoing a major overhaul, that's very unlikely at this point. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I tend to disagree, because the article of her life would shrink as other things become more important or other details are revealed. Think of Bill Clinton's profile if there was one pre Monica and one after? It would rewrite a lot of stuff, or call into question a lot of previous comments. New information puts a whole different context upon all of the old information. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article, because of its subject matter, is inherent unstable. We should at least wait until after the primaries are over and the Democratic nomination has been decided before we even consider this FAC. If Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee for president, this article will become even more unstable. If she becomes the President... Her article is basically news at this moment. (Yes, I know Obama is an FA - if I had seen that FAC, I would have opposed it on the same grounds.) Awadewit (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding stability, pls see this past talk page thread and the stability criterion, which is:

1 (e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day, except for edits made in response to the featured article process.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And becoming a President would mean that contents change day to day. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
That talk page thread hardly represents a community consensus on this issue. It is my opinion that nominating an article on an ongoing news event clashes with the desire for stability. It is regrettable but inevitable. Awadewit (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Ongoing news event? What's going to change? The vast majority of the article, detailing her life and her career, will not change aside from a tinker here and there. As for her presidential campaign, I think we've got so many people carefully watching and manicuring the article that we'll be able to keep it both up-to-date and stable. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
If she becomes the nominee, that entire section will have to be expanded. If she becomes president, the section on her career will change dramatically. That is why I said let us at least wait until we know who the Democratic nominee is. If you look at the articles on other US presidents, their pages are dominated by their presidencies. Awadewit (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Then we'll cross that bridge when we get there. But for right now, it's extremely speculative. This article, as it stands, is featured article quality. If future events change that, then we'll adapt. But we shouldn't prevent perfectly good articles from being featured just because of what might happen. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not wild speculation. Waiting a few months to establish how stable this article is going to remain won't hurt anyone and will only benefit the article. The campaign will be over. If Clinton becomes the first female president of the United States, the focus of this article will change dramatically. Awadewit (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
If I may interject, it is important to note that this article is currently semi-protected as the result of an edit war. As such it dramatically fails the above criteria, specifically: "...not the subject of ongoing edit wars..." — BQZip01 —  18:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
That's not correct. The article has been semi-protected forever to eliminate IP address vandalism, which used to be rampant. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    Per Quirky: www.snopes.com has been referenced endlessly by credible media sources including CNN
I'm going to need something better than "someone says" a couple of links to CNN saying/using it? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Does this google search for Snopes.com site:cnn.com work for links of CNN using snopes.com? --Bobblehead 18:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that works. Resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Links to sites saying this? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
For starters, this one, but will look for others. Tvoz talk 17:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an article that appeared in Wired magazine about factcheck.org. Tvoz talk 17:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Another article, this one from GOOD magazine. Tvoz talk 18:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Who is newsmax? And why should we be using it more? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Snopes.com is being used as a reference on the origin of her name (first reference:
  • In 1995, Hillary Clinton said her mother had named her after Sir Edmund Hillary, co-first-climber of Mount Everest, and that was the reason for the unusual "two L's" spelling. However, the Everest climb did not take place until 1953, more than five years after Clinton was born. In October 2006, a Clinton spokeswoman said she was not in fact named after the mountain climber, rather "It was a sweet family story her mother shared to inspire greatness in her daughter, to great results I might add." See Hakim, Danny. "Hillary, Not as in the Mount Everest Guy", The New York Times, 2006-10-17. Retrieved on 2008-04-25. and Hillary vs. Hillary. Snopes.com (2006-10-26). Retrieved on 2007-11-23.
  • Not really. The NYT gives part of the picture, but the Snopes account is the definitive word on the subject and isn't completely sympathetic to HRC. You may think this matter is trivial, but based on Talk comments and attempts to elevate the footnote to the main text, this is one of the el primo Hillary controversies out there. Supposedly it establishes that her habit of mendacity begins with the origins of her own name, etc. So I'd rather keep the Snopes cite in there, to defuse further editing/complaints on it. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • NewsMax is being used as a source (248 currently) to support that Clinton started an internet campaign to oust AG Alberto Gonzalez:
  • In March 2007, in response to the dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, Clinton called on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign, and launched an Internet campaign to gain petition signatures towards this end.
Well, there's this - I don't know if you'd accept that over Newsmax. It appears to be a non-political site disseminating information about ways the web is used for marketing, and this post is from March 2007, contemporaneous to when she launched the Internet campaign.Tvoz talk 20:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I should just chop this clause out of the article and let the Senate subarticle keep it. The Internet petition isn't especially notable, and AG didn't resign for another half year. The other newsmax use is an AP article published by them, but there might be another media outlet that carried the same article, I'll look. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
That works for me. Tvoz talk 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It's done. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
So that's taken care of. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • FactCheck.org is being used as a source (currently 148) for her involvement in SCHIP.
  • Along with Senators Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, she was a force behind passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage, and conducted outreach efforts on behalf of enrolling children in the program once it became law.
If I recall correctly there was a lot of back and forth about whether her role in creating the SCHIP program was widely acknowledged - which it was - and the variety of sources confirming this from different angles is what stopped the arguments and allowed this completely valid, significant and multiply-verified fact to be included in the article. I'd prefer to leave the sources in to avoid having to go through that again, but that's just my opinion. (By the way, this is true for why there are other multiply-sourced items as well, I believe.) Tvoz talk 21:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Tvoz is right, we need all the sources on this one. Our SCHIP article has full detail on this; basically, I constructed a narrative that pretty much allowed everyone's interpretations to coexist. Elsewhere, I agree, we should cut down on duplicate cites if we can. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The links above satisfied me on factcheck.org. I've even noted that for future reference. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The Snopes article could probably be removed as their is already a source from the NY Times there, but the NewsMax and FactCheck.org would need to be replaced if they are deemed unreliable sources. --Bobblehead 19:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The above links satisified me about major news sources using them as reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The article is already sluggish to load because of the referencing; why not eliminate duplicate sources wherever possible? One of the reasons the article is slow-loading is that there are so many websources used (as opposed to books, where you don't have to chunk up the entire cite template). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Followed through on what Sandy started - tightened remainder of cite names to author= instead of last= first= ; also reduced bluelinks. Tvoz talk 08:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I mourn some of the bluelinks that are gone. Some of this is personal taste; the "sea of blue" look doesn't bother me, although I understand it does others. So I'm okay with a bunch of the eliminations. But I'm not convinced that English speakers in every culture know what a student strike is, or a commencement address, or a community organizer ... even lawyer has different meanings in different English-speaking countries ... that's why I try to link occupations and kinds of events such as these. Most importantly, I have a strong concern with shortening the bluelinks to the subarticles of this article. Will just "elected as senator" and "re-elected" being blue clue readers that these are articles about these two specific 2000 and 2006 senate campaigns that Hillary was in, or will they appear to be links to generic articles about elections, and go unclicked? Will a just blue "trading cattle futures contracts" clue readers that this is the article about Hillary's cattle futures trading, or will it appear to be a link to a generic trading article? When I do a long bluelink as was there before, it's always to indicate that the pointed-to article is specific to this subject, not generic. Our subarticles get low enough readership as it is, I hate to see it get even lower. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes - I was struggling with that, as I know the reasons behind the longer links, and even backtracked on a couple that I thought I had over-shortened. I'm really not sure about this - you make a very good point about the purpose of the links being that readers know that the link is not to a generic point, but to a specific event. I'd be completely ok with going back to the longer ones- there weren't that many of them. As for the common word bluelinks, it's a judgment call. I only removed some that I thought were really common like "homemaker", but again I don't necessarily think we had too much blue. Tvoz talk 15:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I've restored the three longer bluelinks to the daughter articles, because those were the ones I was most concerned about. I've left the rest blueless. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure using Encarta or Encyclopedia Britannica are the best sources possible. Also Scholastic Press.
    Regarding Scholastic Press, it was used twice. One was to their juvenile bio, and I replaced that with book cites to Morris and Brock; the other was a well-written adult article, aimed at teachers not students, and I've kept that. Regarding Britannica, it was used twice too. One was to one of their HRC bio's, and I replaced that with a Gerth book cite; the other was to a video they had up on their site, and I kept that (it's the video that matters, not where it is). Regarding Encarta, their HRC bio is referenced three times. It's a well-written bio, and the uses are to valuable characterizations of HRC. Is there really any prohibition against using tertiary sources such as Encarta? I looked around in WP:RS and related pages, and found nothing more than a few inconclusive debates in talk. I don't see why it can't stay in, but maybe I'm missing the rule ... Wasted Time R (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
There really isn't a prohibition, it's just odd for an encyclopedia like Misplaced Pages to quote another general reference encyclopedia for sourcing. It makes sense to quote specialized encyclopedias devoted to specific subjects, but general purpose encyclopedia's are pretty much the same as us. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, Encarta is gone now; one use replaced by existing newspaper cite, two others judged redundant for the purposes of this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks very much ... for the deluge! ;-) I'll let QuirkyAndSuch handle the first pass on these ... Wasted Time R (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Status — I think everything in the Ealdgyth list has now been addressed, although I'm sufficiently bleary at this point from looking at cites and references that I certainly wouldn't swear to it. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Now you know how I feel most days! I'll look these over in the morning when my eyes can handle the strain. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see QuirkyAndSuch lent a hand on the first pass. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that takes care of everything. I'll cap all this tonight, just in case I got lost in the maze and missed something that Sandy sees. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You can go ahead and cap: I do read under the caps anyway :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
All other links worked and checked out fine for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Way to unstable, wait untill the primaries are over to nominate. Limetolime 16:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • What's going to change? The vast majority of the article, detailing her life and her career, will not change aside from a tinker here and there. As for her presidential campaign, which is a relatively small chunk of the article, I think we've got so many people carefully watching and manicuring the article that we'll be able to keep it both up-to-date and stable. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Article fulfills all the criteria, and the stability issue is a non-issue and a red herring. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The size issue I feel is unfair in this case, because of the relative importance of the article. There are many articles over the Misplaced Pages guidelines that are much larger than this article. Misplaced Pages has many guidelines, but there are always exceptions, and they need to be made democratically by editors that review individual cases. I feel that due to the importance of this article it can be larger (with prudence of course) than the average article about something such as Pokemon or Britney Spears. I think that's fair.

I also feel that this article is very stable, just as stable as featured article Barack Obama. And because both articles are of equal stability and equal quality I feel that to dismiss one but feature the other would be allowing bias to get into the FA nomination process.

I should also note that although I am not a contributor I am familiar with the content, and had thoroughly thought about whether or not to nominate before proceeding. I had also asked in the discussion pages about the nomination and had no editors challenge me. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So, MoS is fair for some people, but not fair when it comes to an article you want to promote? These articles aren't for you. They are for the larger community. The guidelines are there to promote respect for the larger community. It is disrespectful to them to have such a lengthy article. That goes for all articles of such length. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article is not stable by any means. It is currently semi-protected and an edit war seems to be the culprit. With over 500 edits in the past 40 days, many not related to this FAC, I feel this is a perfect example of an unstable article. Regarding length however, we should be talking about "readable prose", not merely the size of the page. References should be encouraged, not discouraged. As for the comment about seven pages of references, I have no idea what printer, what size font, or what size paper you are using, but mine printed out at just under three pages. Perhaps your settings aren't so good? In short, This article fails stability. This cannot be fixed by anything other than time...WP:DEADLINE. — BQZip01 —  13:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
As noted above, it is important to note that this article is currently semi-protected as the result of an edit war. As such it dramatically fails FAC criteria, specifically: "...not the subject of ongoing edit wars..." — BQZip01 —  18:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
As responded to above, the semi-protection has been on for a very long time, to eliminate frequent IP address vandalism. Has nothing to do with edit wars. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I misread the summary, but my original point still stands. — BQZip01 —  19:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
As long as there are no hard feelings. I think if we can get past this spat of edit wars and article stability, that would smooth out a lot of these problems. If you provide detailed edit summaries, it would help to clarify what changes are being made. Good luck in the future! — BQZip01 —  03:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI:

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, — BQZip01 —  13:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments. There is precedent for an article failing FAC because an important event was likely to happen to the subject within a few months. The second nomination of Harry Potter failed in part because it was nominated several months before the release of the seventh novel in the series despite the fact that the article was otherwise stable at the time. (nom here) Karanacs (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please corrrect me if I'm wrong, since I know zero about Harry Potter, but in that case, the final book—the subject of the article—wasn't even released, while in this case, we have a bio of a person; all BLPs are dynamic. People die, get married, get into scandals, accomplish new and different things, etc.; do we reject a FAC because any BLP will change when the person marries, dies, has any life transition? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That article was on the series as a whole (not just the seventh book). If the article had been nominated at a time when the release date of the last book was unknown, people wouldn't have opposed on stability; the problem was that we knew the article would need to change on a certain imminent date. For an ordinary BLP, there's no imminent indication that something worthy of being mentioned in the article is going to happen. For Clinton, well, will the article really need to change much after the Convention? I can't quite make up my mind on what I think of stability to presidential candidates, which is why I'm not !voting on this one. Karanacs (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the Potter clarification :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Article not likely to be stable anytime soon. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Precrime deparment? This article has been discussed at GAR a couple of times, and the meaning of "stability" has been subjected to much debate partly as a consequence. Those opposing this article because they believe it will become unstable once the presedential elections take place this fall are effectively creating a FAC precrime department. The question is whether the article is stable now. If it gets promoted and becomes unstable at a later date, take it to FAR. Unless you want precrime to become a valid objection as part of the FAC process, you need to provide arguments and evidence that the article is inherently unstable now.I've reviewed this article and its edit history in depth several times, and have not found any such evidence. Geometry guy 21:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary. I don't think it is stable now (see my comments above). I also do not believe it will be stable for the foreseeable future. — BQZip01 —  03:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This article is,in my opinion,a great example of blatant contravention of Misplaced Pages's ownership policy. Time and time again, over the past many months, several of the article's primary contributors have teamed up to insult,dismiss and chase away dozens of would be editors while trashing the AGF policy in the process. This (the first 8 comments) is just the very latest example of such behavior. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This oppose does not engage WP:WIAFA, or the WP:FAC instructions (you must present issues with the article content relative to WP:WIAFA that are actionable; i.e., can be fixed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe not, but it's a great example of what life is like working on this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the Ownership and lack of AGF have led to instability and pov content, both of which are contrary to WP:WIAFA. The issue is actionable simply by following these 2 established policies. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Without examples and demonstration of instability or POV (actionable items that can be fixed), the oppose is not valid. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Also,are you saying that it's reasonable/possible for an article which contravenes the ownership policy to be given "Featured" status? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I could certainly trim the reference notes if nobody objects.

Not sure what you mean by this. Sometime today I'll do the first item in Ealdgyth's report, organizing the book references as suggested. Over the weekend I'm going to hit the library and try to replace as many online cites with book cites as possible. Book cites are more highly valued as WP:RS, don't become dead or wrong links, and take up less article space and generate less HTML than online cites. But you can tell that many online cites aren't going to be replaceable, so you're welcome to fix up any of Ealdgyth's issues on those. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a follow-up to say this idea was too ambitious, just all of us responding to Ealdgyth's references issues list (sometimes with book cite replacements, sometimes not) is task enough itself! Wasted Time R (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Another follow-up — based on Sandy's urging, I have now been doing this, at least for some sections where there's a good payoff. The article is getting smaller overall in total byte size; it's lost almost 12,000 bytes since starting FAC. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima - I understand that the guidelines are important, but they are only a guide meant to help aid editors and should be treated with great consideration, but not as law. Even the legal system allows judges to use their own discretion when interpreting the law. I feel that the Misplaced Pages system of editor consensus should allow me to share my thoughts on this article without being personally attacked, and I feel that you’ve been very rude. Please don’t talk to me unless you have something objective to say that isn’t an assumption.

FWIW, Ottava Rima's civility issues in connection to this article were discussed extensively at WP:ANI#Repeated extreme incivility by User:Ottava Rima. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked the references Tvoz questioned. Three of the five seem credible, the other two don't. The three good ones: www.snopes.com has been referenced endlessly by credible media sources including CNN, www.oldstatehouse.com is the website of a museum that’s part of The Department of Arkansas Heritage, and www.hillaryclintonquarterly.com is the website for quarterly that focuses on an alternative view of Hillary Clinton - and has both online and print editions.

FYI, it was Ealdgyth who added all the references issues. Tvoz has been fixing some of them up. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This page is showing me quite a large amount of broken, suspicious, moved, or other issues with external links. Try and fix that. --haha169 (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is mostly done. CNN blocks the tool from accessing it, so that generates a lot of blue rows. NY Times wants to redirect the tool to login, so it's redirected to the correct article, but with "?_r=4&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin" added on to the end, however, if you do change to the URL the tool is routed to, a yellow row is created because the site is doing a cookie check, so that's a bit of a Catch-22 there. There are two links to the Financial Times that the tool thinks you have to log into so a yellow row is created, but you don't have to login to see the article. The only one that is actually problematic is the link to adaction.org. No idea what's going on there, but the tool says it is blacklisted and I can't navigate to the site either. Of course, I did see several "questionably reliable sources" that might need to be fixed, but those were previously identified above, so I won't bring them up again. --Bobblehead 19:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the external link check tool is only a starting place; it's often necessary to click on the link to determine if there's really a problem. So, unless this opposer can identify specific issues with reliability of sources, it's not an actionable or valid oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I've addressed some of the issues to the apparent usability and rating of links by these comments in the Tool. — Dispenser 19:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Does SandyGeorgia have some extra level of authority which gives him/her the right to make unilateral pronouncements as to which opposes are valid? If so, then we've got a real problem with the democracy of this selection process,I think. Also, are there similar restrictions on the acceptance of "Support" votes? If not, then we've got a real problem with the democracy of this selection process,I think. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to read the instructions at the top of the page about actionable objections, and which also set our Raul and Sandy's responsibilities. You should also appreciate that this process is not a vote, it is intended to identify weaknesses in articles and if possible remedy them.--Grahame (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I just read it again and it does not bestow the authority upon Raul or Sandy to unilaterally pronounce an oppose as being "invalid". It also focuses on the recognition of consensus rather than employing a battering ram approach by steering/establishing a sequential repair effort to systematically castrate the opposes and turn them into neutrals or struck throughs, which seems to have become the modus operandi with these FAC candidate nominations. Look, its no big deal to me personally but I don't think it's wise to establish a vertically tiered organization ala corporate and that seems to be happening in a stealth way in the way the significant contributors are being allowed to, and even praised for, practising article ownership with this article and also by the way SandyGeorgia has completely dominated this nomination from the very beginning with his/her "management" decision to allow the nomination to go forward, clearly against consensus, and then picking away at the opposes with an air of authority while allowing supports to go unchallenged. To me it appears orwellian in its non-consensus approach within a project supposedly grounded in and by a dedication to consensus decision making. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, don't get me wrong, I fixed a number of links that came up on the link checker as either yellow or red rows , some of them were dead links prior to me fixing them. So I don't think the oppose was "invalid" when originally posted, but I've fixed all the dead links (according to the tool), so now I don't think it is a problem (except the ADA one, which should be valid, but is acting odd right now.) --Bobblehead 19:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the clarification, Bobblehead, and my apologies to haha169 for my misunderstanding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the ADA link. Looks like they redesigned their website and as a result bad things happened if you went to their old site. One question though. The following line "Through 2006, she has a lifetime 96 percent "Liberal Quotient" from Americans for Democratic Action." is not actually something the ADA has said and the source to support the claim is actually a link to the "home page" of the ADA's annual reports. I'm guessing the inference is that if you were to open up the annual reports between 2001 and 2006 and got her average ADA score you'd get 96 percent "Liberal Quotient". Does the sourcing need to be improved to actually say that her LQ was X in 2001,(source) Y in 2002,(source) Z in 2003,(source) etc for a total average of 96%?--Bobblehead 20:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the footnote already says that: "^ ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action. Retrieved on September 23, 2007. Average consists of a 95 in 2001 through 2004 and 2006, and a 100 in 2005." Wasted Time R (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
But I need to look up 2007 scores for some of these organizations and refresh averages and the like. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

::::::Yes, I know about all that. I did, I believe, see a few dead links? Could you perhaps check that? Everything else is in order. I'm removing my oppose, but I'm not yet supporting. I need to see more of the article and the discussion. --haha169 (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about my late comment; you fixed the invalids. Good job. I must say that the link checker's page on Clinton is in much better shape than yesterday. --haha169 (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm still seeing three dead links: *http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-newhamp10jan10,1,3225221.story

I'm not too picky about the various other colored lines. Just get rid of the red ones, and I'm happy. --haha169 (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to refresh or something. LA Times link was fixed with http://articles.latimes.com/2008/01/10/news/na-newhamp10, UKRWeekly was fixed with a link to the archive, and ditto with vpirg.--Bobblehead 20:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I do. Alright then, the links are fixed. I'll come back tomorrow or the day after with a more extensive comment. --haha169 (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks to Pethr, Bobblehead, Haha169, and all the others doing great work on the refs and cites!
    One issue, though ... Pethr has taken the Associated Press out of some cites that were published in newspapers, online, etc. I feel strongly that it's necessary in these cases to carry both the wire service and the publishing vehicle in the cite. The wire service is important because it often carries a different reputation than the publisher; for example, we have an AP article published in Newsmax; someone questioned Newsmax as a WP:RS source above, so it's important to know they were just running a wire service article. And just in general it's good to show where the story really comes from. But it's also important to show the publisher, because not all newspapers, websites, etc will run the same version of a wire service story. There have been discussions of this in Template talk:Cite news, and most editors seem to agree that it's a good idea to include both. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    A more minor point. If we're going with "short form" on book footnotes, I would guess that co-authors can be left out. Thus, we can use "Gerth 2007, p. 99" rather than the current "Gerth; Van Natta Jr. 2007, p. 99". What think? I don't have strong feelings on this one, but it would save some bytes. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
That would be a mistake. Both authors are equaly important and this is citing standart. I wasn't sure about how to deal with Jr. - is it like part of his surname? Also Is it "Rodham Clinton, Hillary" or Clinton, Hillary Rodham"? Rodham and Clinton are surnames they should probably be listed as such? Sandy?--Pethr (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I suppose we should use the "Harvard referencing" guideline — for two authors, list both, for three or more authors, do "firstauthor et al". So your "Gerth; Van Natta Jr. 2007, p. 99" should stay like it is. As for the other, it's definitely "Clinton, Hillary Rodham", as it is not a compound last name. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • And one more question. What is our current approach to linking the work/publisher in cites (New York Times, Smalltown Gazette, WXYZ News, whatever)? Originally every reference was linked. Fairly recently I tried to keep the first use of a publisher in cites linked, but not link the rest, on grounds of saving article space and generated HTML. I'm not sure from Pethr's edits if the same scheme is still being used or whether we're dropping publisher links in cites altogether. I like having at least one link, so that readers can easily look up the publisher, but I realize that it's a maintenance problem trying to keep track of first use. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    Other than WP:OVERLINKing, I'm not aware of a guideline. I'd say use common sense to aid the reader: it certainly shouldn't be necessary to link to every occurrence of The New York Times or The Washington Post, but linking to more obscure or lesser known publications more than once would seem helpful to the reader. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. 352 citations, nice pictures. Whoever has been working on this article... Nice Job!! --Npnunda (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I've been comparing this with Barack Obama quite a few times. It seems ready for the FA, but I see that the entire intro is lacking references. I'm fairly certain that references relating to the Lewinsky Scandal, her being on Walmart's corporate board, and all the other things within the intro also has references within the article. I suggest using the <ref name=""> template and duplicating them into the intro section. That would be really useful. --haha169 (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    Lack of footnotes in the intro is intentional — everything is supported in the main body and footnoted there. WP:LEAD#Citations permits this choice, as long as we stay away from contentious or challengable statements in the lead, which we believe we have. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Similarly, I think that the article in general might need a bit shortening. Its quite long. However, everything is properly sourced so I believe its fine. --haha169 (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
For a controversial and contentious subject, this article has stayed stable and mostly free of edit wars over the past three years that I've been working on it. It's never been completely locked down, and few editors have ever been blocked for edit warring on it. One reason, I believe, is related to the article's length: we cover all of HRC, the good, the bad, the historic, the foolish, in a balance that has worked out over time. (Tvoz made a similar point recently either here or on the Talk page.) Hillary admirers can find the person they see in it, Hillary detractors can find the person they see in it, and everybody else can get a sense of what the fuss has been about. I really don't want to start chopping stuff out and losing our balance. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You've got a good point there. I'm not an editor at that article, so I didn't know. My statement will now be slashed out. As for my first statement, I figured out my mistake later; I was a bit rushed in my comments. Sorry for wasting your time. I think that the article is really good, and quite a nice political figure article. I support. --haha169 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem at all, and thanks for your support. Praise is rare in this business! ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Uh, no. It was completely locked down] last time on March 13 2008. — BQZip01 —  03:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, sorry, I forgot about that. It was a mistaken (in judgement) full-lockdown by an admin that was lifted very quickly. See the discussion of it in Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/Archive_11#Why_is_there_full_protection_on_this_article? Do you have a record of exactly how long it lasted? Or if there were ever any previous to that? It certainly isn't comparable to the two long lockdowns Barack Obama had recently, or the two-week lockdown Rudy Giuliani had last year. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair nuff. It lasted about 24 hours. Enough time to back off the vandals with some blocks. That simplified the situation. — BQZip01 —  04:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Conditional Support Looks like a very solid article with plentiful sources, however the big problem is that it has as of 6:25 PM EDT 159,649 bytes which is too long especially if she ends up with the Democratic Nominee. Note I've heard about a poll giving her a lead of 9% on McCain. More splitting would be required should she become President. Her life/pre-president section would be the first bit to split into a new article and also on her being First Lady during the Bill Clinton years as President.--JForget 22:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that if she becomes President the shape of the article will change, but we'll deal with that if the time comes - as we will if McCain becomes President, or Obama, or if any other major event happens that would change any biography or any article about anything contemporary. Unless we want an encyclopedia only about things that happened in the past or people who are no longer alive or active, that's just something we live with, and adjust for, whether an article has FA status or not. Tvoz |talk 22:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for many of the reasons stated above. I also don't see how this will remain stable until after the elections and if she wins they not until after her term(s) in office. Dincher (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I think all of the MoS, sourcing, citing, etc. issues raised above have been addressed. I believe the article length is appropriate and the article will be stable unless and until she is elected president (still unlikely to happen), at which point we would deal with it accordingly. In general I believe the article merits FA status. I thank all those who have helped out with raising issues or fixing issues above, especially given the uncertain way the process began; whether the FAC is approved or not, the article has definitely benefited from your efforts. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support The FAC process has certainly helped improve the piece, and I also support its receiving FA status. I'm not going to take a position on the likelihood of her election, but I am confident that we'll be able to handle it if it happens, as we will handle whatever else happens in her career or any other active subject. The semi protection is there because of IP/new vandalism, not edit warring, as has been discussed, and I think the length is acceptable given the complexity of the subject. It also is closely monitored and widely watchlisted so I believe the quality will remain high. Tvoz |talk 06:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Although I do not support the concept of FA or FAC, it does exist so I must accept it. Having accepted the concept, then this article, I think, is one of the best and one of the best vetted. I do expect that infrequent contributors, anon or not, will be more universally warmly received in the future and the significant contributors have convinced me that their dedication to the core project is nothing less than outstanding, with this article being a good example of their dedication and craftsman(woman)ship. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Restart note: Several lengthy discussions dominated this FAC early on: 1) whether the FAC would go forward, 2) a long list of sources to be checked, 3) images, and 4) stability. The length of these discussions may discourage other reviewers and makes it hard to see whether content review has occurred, so I'm restarting the nom, which essentially erases everything to this point and treats it as a new nomination. Editors may bring forward previous supports or opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)