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 User:Marskell 11:38, 27 June 2008 [1].
You're right. The article is full of unsourced statements (quotations, no less) and is way too long. It seems to have more than doubled in size since the last nomination. Bit of a shame given that it's about Teddy. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you thought of trolling for some less active editors with more recent histories as well (three of the top five seem to be dormant). Zsero looks like a likely candidate. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably time for a top-down review. While I'm a TR fan myself, some of TR's political mistakes, particularly after his departure from the White House are not adequately covered. I've spent almost a year reading every critical book on TR I could find including Pringle and Blum and we ought to consider these as well as the laudatory stuff. Sure TR was a great guy, but consider this - before he finished his last year, Congress was literally ignoring Presidential messages that they would usually read from the House Floor - "O Yes, O Yes, a message from the President to the House..." i.e. instead of reading, they were FILING them. What accounts for his almost "miserable" relations with Congress which can only be partially accounted by his lame duck status (I won't run a again) status. SimonATL (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), LEAD (2a), and focus (4).Marskell (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Problems raised above are largely unresolved. For example,
Referencing: "dubious" and "citation needed" tags need clearing.
Focus/length: "In 2006, a group of American high school students developed a 10 minute video on Roosevelt's conservation legacy with the help of Roosevelt scholar Edward Renehan and Roosevelt descendant Tweed Roosevelt." This is commented out. Why? It should be removed. The Table of Contents is too long and several sections, e.g. "Views on race", "Anthracite coal strike of 1902" and "States admitted to the Union" should be shortened or merged. "See also" and "External links" sections are far too long.
Images/media: unevenly distributed (at least one is duplicated); unnecessary white space created by crowding images too close together; the media files are at too large a resolution.
Prose/MoS: References are inconsistently formatted (both Harvard and footnotes). "Clarify" tags need clearing. Dare I say it, shock, horror: spaced mdashes. Some sentences are lucky enough to have two full stops. DrKiernan (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Mostly because of lack of references and citations (1C). I doubt whether this article would pass GA, let alone FA standards. Whole sections of text and assertions have no references. LordHarris 09:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.