The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 00:58, 11 May 2010 [1].

Harry S. Truman[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Harry S. Truman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: Dominus, Americasroof and Gadget850 (most active users who have edited lately), and Rlevse (FA nominator in 2007). WikiProject Biography, WikiProject U.S. Presidents, WikiProject Cold War and WikiProject Politics.

I am nominating this featured article for review. I haven't scrutinized it thoroughly, and I don't have any experience with the FAC or FAR process, really. But it obviously fails criterion 1c.

done. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done — Rlevse • Talk • 16:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done — Rlevse • Talk • 23:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done — Rlevse • Talk • 23:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance at the reference list:

That now seems to be 167, replaced it, worked other refs. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted NNDB, which to me is not reliable. Others seem okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A brief note about the first paragraph:

Fixed — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that when it was promoted, this was for no real reason, other than that "Several editors have recently worked hard [...] the prose size is 58k; and the article size is 108k, about the size of the FA on Gerald Ford", and various exclaims on its perceived quality. Geschichte (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the article are needed to be rephrased or rewritten. Cant argue with that. Dont the the whole article needs to get scrapped. Is anyone monitoring this article for questionable editing or it got the star based on whats here now? Meishern (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was promoted 3 years ago, so it was different then. It does not need to get scrapped. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the above, which should disqualify it as a FA:

Just added it, with quotes. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This FA can be saved. You're wrong about his Exec Order and the Armed Forces, it did desegregate the Armed Forces. If it didn't, what are you claiming did do it? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The order announced a Presidential intent to treat persons in the armed services equally, and it authorized a board to investigate the matter. Business as usual ensued, while the supporters of segregation conducted a long rearguard action. The board reported in December 1949. Integration did eventually follow, but the Army continued to maintain segregated units until 1954. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know. Do you think desegregation in an organization that big would happen overnight? The fact remains it would not have happened without his EO. The majority of units were desegregated a few years prior to 1954. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the article should make this clear for readers who might not understand the subject in the detail that we do. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK with, can you rework those parts? —

Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have also added some material about Harry and historians. I replaced your link with one to the actual poll. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need to wait til the FAR is over. This FA is salvageable. Hopefully someone besides me will put a significant effort into it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll be willing to put in effort to save Truman. However, it's currently quite late, and I will be calling it a night. If I don't drop by on Friday/Saturday, drop a message on my talk page and I'll help. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 05:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criteria of concern brought up in the FAR section include referencing and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HUH? The refs have ALL been fixed and no one critcized the prose. Would you care to explain yourself? Plus Hawkeye7's last comment was "Looks okay now". — Rlevse • Talk • 00:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When moving to FARC, the delegates simply restate concerns raised during the FAR; concerns were raised about sourcing and prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There were no concerns about prose and since what was raised was fixed why are we moving to FARC? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Please read what I wrote above. Those criteria were brought up in the FAR section - I (and YellowMonkey, when he moves reviews) list them here as a starting point for reviewers listing keep/delist declarations. One of the commenters wrote "Parts of the article are needed to be rephrased or rewritten.", which I took to mean that they thought the prose needed work. I am not stating that I agree or disagree with any of the comments, just that they were mentioned in the previous section. The review was moved here because there was not a clear consensus by multiple uninvolved editors that the review should be closed prior to the FARC section. Dana boomer (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) "Parts of the article are needed to be rephrased or rewritten" is a prose concern; articles move to FARC unless there are declarations to close. It is *not* a big deal; just the way it works. In the future, Dana might ping editors to ask if the article is in keep territory and a FARC can be avoided, but please be kind to the new delegate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sandy - I'll keep that in mind for the future. Pinging editors before moving to FARC hadn't even crossed my mind (I don't know why, it just didn't!); I guess I'm more used to needing to ping editors for articles down at the bottom of the list. For what it's worth, I've mentioned this article to a couple of editors in an attempt to get it quickly moved through the FARC process, and I know Dabomb has pinged a couple of others. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of it was rewritten. Thank you everyone for wasting my time. Next time I come across a FAR I'll ignore it and let it flounder instead of trying to be productive. You said "prose" and that is only mentioned in ref to its state 3 years ago. As for rewriting did you both to read it? Most people haven't even bothered to comment on it's current state. Again, sorry I wasted my time trying to fix this, I won't make the mistake again. He should consider the work and those who wasted hours on this stuff. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rlevse, you're overreacting to a normal part of the process: articles automatically move to FARC unless there is clear consensus not to-- reviewers enter Keep or Delist declarations at this stage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not. It should not even have been moved to FARC. The concerns were clearly met. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then it shouldn't matter, because people will !vote to keep the article anyway. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be here at this point anyway, so it does matter. At any rate, — Rlevse • Talk • 00:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Rlevse that this article's issues were addressed. The article has much better sourcing, and the referencing was ironed out. I'm not a regular at FAN or FAR but it seems counterproductive to have a time period for mistakes to be missed, and when the editor bringing them up says all is well to move it into a bureaucratic three week vote. I understand that you guys are new, but I certainly see where Rlevse is coming from. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 01:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the editor that created this FAR never returned to re-review the article. Gary King (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh. I made the assumption the user heading the critique nommed it, but that was not the case. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 05:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks alright. Referenced well from legitimate sources. POV is not blatantly partisan. There are a few minor things that could be rewritten or rephrased in my opinion, but nothing major sticks out to warrant deletion of this article. Needs a bit of polishing, thats all. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the content/focus of the article doesn't appear convincing to me. The density of ambiguities and errors in the one section that I follow a bit, makes me suspicious about the preparation that went into the content of the rest of the article. I'm going to ask for some other opinions from people who follow big-picture Cold War politics of the 1940s and 1950s YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The weight given various topics needs adjustment. Israel is covered in so much greater detail than any other aspect of Truman's political life. There is also disproportionate detail about nonpolitical aspects of the his life, including an extended section on "Hereditary memberships." By contrast, containment and the Truman Doctrine get only passing mention. There is a section on China, but no indication of why this is relevant to Truman's life. (The reason being that many Americans saw WWII as a war to save China, so "Who lost China?" was a powerful political issue, leading to McCarthyism and so forth.) Also, I don't notice any analysis of Truman's psychology or character. Deborah Larson does a good job of this Origins of Containment. (Her analysis is that Truman was extraordinarily anxious to be seen as strong and decisive, hence his tendency to make surprising "snap" decisions.) I'd cut the section on Pakistan; You could have a section like this about almost any country. The stuff about Indochina is confused. Ho Chi Minh issued his declaration of independence as soon as he arrived Hanoi. That this was also VJ Day is just coincidence. Truman decided to back France in Indochina immediately after the Korean War broke out. The article misunderstands "containment" as hardline anti-communism, but Truman's thinking was more complicated than this, as his reaction to the Communist takeover in China illustrates. Kauffner (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV. By separating the two discussions of American communism, and by lumping McCarthy, Nixon, and so forth into a single paragraph, there is a certain amount of implicit POV that Truman was opposed to McCarthy and Nixon, and to some extent a victim of the red scare. Go look at Truman's, and Attorney General McGrath's statements from that era.
The "fur coat" scandal is underplayed. Most of the fur coats did not involve the IRS, this is a segue I doubt you'll find in the sources. These were big news all through the last years of the Truman administration, and surely deserve more space than his army buddy being knocked for bumping a wounded veteran from a flight. Ever wonder why Nixon said in the Checkers speech that his wife didn't have a mink coat? Well, she didn't, but it was a swipe at the Truman scandals.
Why all the one paragraph sections? They break up the prose and should be merged into broader topics.
I'm rather troubled by the legacy section. "revisionist historians began attacking Truman" is rather a POV statement and also undetailed. Suggest using similar language and attention as the pro-Truman historians, naming the most prominent adherants.
I'll be back with more later, but it may have to wait until Monday. This would not pass as a FA today, but it's maybe salvagable.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just on the last point: I added this because the article originally falsely claimed that Truman is held in high esteem by historians. I can improve this part along the lines you suggest, by bringing in more material from the references I already cited. which provide ample deetail. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got more, but I'll wait until initial comments are replied to/dealt with. I'll enter a vote to Delist pending further action.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More