Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:11, 19 May 2006

Franklin D. Roosevelt

I like this article. It is a good article about a president. I didn't know much about FDR till I read this article. I haven't ever seen a better one.--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 20:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support- A very comprehensive and well written article. No doubt, it can be improved, but even in its present form, in my opinion, it deserves to a featured article.Jordy 21:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak object. This is an incredible article- the only problem is that is needs reform of its references section. There are no inline citations, and the references section is not proerly formatted. Other than this technicality, the article is excellent. RyanGerbil10 21:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral. If other people don't have a problem with the references, I won't make it a big issue. RyanGerbil10 22:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• There are 16 inline citations already but there are a lot of main/whole article references which I don't have a problem with as long as they are used in the article's sections. It needs a more beefear lead though, and it could use a bit more encyclopedic structure. However, it is so goood right now... so, for now, Weak support. It is as it always was 21:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well written, good references. --Danaman5 21:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support Two things, both of which are quite fixable, but this is definetly FA quality. First, the economics section needs some reformatting as those long lists of text coupled with the large graphs really distort the section on some resolutions. I'd say the graphs can be thumbed, as that way they won't disrupt a casual reader but someone can get the details if he or she wants em'. Second, as above, more inline citation with those refs is always a good thing. Staxringold 22:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Dont want to oppose yet. However, the article is too long and tedious (Remember it needs summaries). Also, has an overwhelming TOC. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Agree with Oran Orane :-). It is so hard to read these 100KB articles: about half that size is manageable, using the Summary Style. Sandy 03:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually its Orane ('e' included). Don't worry, I forgive you :) Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support as nominator--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 00:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support- Well written. Has lots of information.--Sabertiger 00:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Object - "Economic record" is poorly written and poorly formatted with virtually no text. A collection of charts and tables does not sufficiently describe Roosevelt's economic record. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 18 May 2006 @ 03:54 UTC
• ObjectThere appears to be a lot of original research in the article. And, the section with the graphs appears POV (and possibly original research) because there are no graphs showing the negative side. The GDP graph from 1933 to 1945 is ridiculous --you don't see the bigger picture since the years around that time frame are excluded. There was a depression, but from the graph, it looks like the economy was booming. And, to be NPOV there should be graphs showing the unemployment rate --which was dismal through his term. And, the rising tax rate, and the decreasing number of hours worked, etc. I don't trust the numbers in the tables, either. RJII 04:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Additional comment Also, there are huge sections of text with absolutely no sources attached. There is a list of books and papers at the end of the article but they don't link to anything in the text with footnotes. How do we know this the article not full of made-up things? I don't trust the information in the article at all. Some of us have just started creating footnotes, so there are a few in the article, but nowhere near enough. The article is nowhere near ready for being a featured artiicle. RJII 21:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The Economic record section is a disgrace. The Legacy section says nothing about his legacy except the classic line "Roosevelt's greatest legacy was the sense of hope that it gave people mired in what seemed like endless economic despair." This is touching, but not encyclopedic. The rest of the section just says where he ranks in lists of presidents. What was/is his legacy? Henry 11:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support This article is flawless. There's no need to say more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.243.98 (talk • contribs)
• Support An excellent article. Comprehensively written, very interesting, well organized and formulated, fine images. I agree with the previous two "Objects" - though these issues can be corrected very quickly indeed. Overall the article is of great value, and reflects the person it regards. --D-Katana 20:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support As per nom. Hezzy 23:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Minor comment some section titles are too kitcshy like "the path to war", subsectioning should reflect which terms certain events occured in. Otherwise, great. savidan 00:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. My biggest problem with this was the headers, which I fixed. I like it now.--HereToHelp 01:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment 'Henry James' can also be improved.--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 13:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)