Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Review for GA

Do these things:

Expand! There is lots of good info on en.
Add more refs. Its sad to see this article has 4 and the en version has over 300. Copy some over.
Notable Speeches could use some clean up.
In the intro his name is Ronald Wilson Reagan but in Childhood it is Ronald "Dutch" Reagan. Dutch is also in quotes in the article. What does this mean? Be consistent and use one, not both.
In Radio career a sentence:After Reagan finished college in 1932, he became a sports announcer at WHO. Better be changed to:After Reagan finished college in 1932, he became a sports announcer at the World Health Organization (WHO).

I can't find much of anything else. Overall, the article isn't to bad. I-on|^{I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ} 12:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Point of View

The article lacks a neutral point of view. There are phrases like "Reagan was a very popular governor" and such scattered here and there. This is not a neutral point of view. The entire article needs to be cleansed of these statements. 64.129.187.2 (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addiction...

I will add this soon= Reagan had a smoking addiction, but quit by eating Jelly Belly JellyBeans. He did this by always having them nearby, keeping his hands busy. Pending ^{(tell me I screwed up}^{and where)}

3rd millenium?

"Reagan was the first United States president to die in the 21st century and the 3rd millenium. He is the second president to live longer after Gerald Ford, who lived longer at 45 days."

This is the bio of a world historic figure. Many people will die in the 21st century and in the 3rd millenium. This is not notable. Kauffner (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA article review

Overall I think the article is worthy of being a GA, well sourced, not red links, simple, and gives plenty of facts. Anyone have something else to add? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some sections still need work - for example there is more information about a one day trip to an air craft carrier than there is about his two terms as governor. There some odd phrases in the article, which I will have a look at fixing next week, as well as giving a more detailed review.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Readability

Checking with a number of readability tests show that the article requires further work to be a good example of Simple English. For example, using this check:

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 9.8 - I would want to see 7.0 - 8.0
Gunning-Fog Score 10.5 - I would want to see 8 or lower
Coleman-Liau Index 10.9 - this is another grade level and should be in the range 7-9
SMOG Index 9.4 - Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, show the years of education a person would need to read the article, so again a level of 8 or less
Automated Readability Index 8.6 - another grade level score, so aim for 7-8
Average Grade Level 9.8 - another test, should be in the range 7-9

While I appreciate all the arguments about the problems with all these readability tests, these are the standard tests used in the community. Other people will use them to see if our articles are simple enough. Articles that are featured as GA level should be models of Simple English. This article does not reach the simple English level on any test at this time. The article is getting close to standard, but still needs more work to reach it.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I think. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, could still be better, but I will have a look at how this could be done.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Issues to be fixed

I will add to this list as I work through the article. --Peterdownunder (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saved 77 lives as a lifeguard - no reference for this dramatic claim

Fixed

Some references need to be "completed" for example Ref 5 to Live Science does not have an author name or a date, both of which are on the website quoted.

Fixed

Still needs work, the example quoted above, now Ref 4 to Live Science does not include the author's name - Stuart Fox, or the date which was June 18, 2010.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Five "dead links" identified and tagged, which need to be fixed.

Fixed --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had a chance to read the article, but just thought I'd mention: the article is using {{cquote}} for quotations, which is against the Manual of Style. It should use {{quotation}} instead, or the standard HTML <blockquote></blockquote>. Osiris (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 6 on broadcasters missing author name and date. All the references need to be checked. I know it is a difficult and time consuming task, but our featured articles have to be models for others to follow.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Featured articles? This article is nominated for a GA status not FA. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, bad choice of words, by featured I meant an article that is held up to be better than most, and shows the sort of things that we would like to see in all articles.--Peterdownunder (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what if the authors name and date of the reference is not shown? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you don't have to give them. This reference, though, is not really authoritative. It's written by an elementary school student... Osiris (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 7 and 12 are to Cannon - but there is no title--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

Ref 8 title is all in capitals, this needs to be changed.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

Ref 15 to Skinner et al, ahs no title or publication ---Peterdownunder (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

ref 16, no author no date - you need to check them all.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On it first thing tomorrow. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ref 17, no author or date - which happens to be Ronald Reagan in 1964!--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

Some further improvements needed

"... one of the most popular presidents in American history..." claim not supported by the given reference.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest it should be taken out. (Although I could try to prove it, but that would be conflict of interest.) -Pending ^{(tell me I screwed up}^{and where)} 21:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...originally a Democrat until 1962 when he changed it to Republican..." - changed "it", what is an it - --Peterdownunder (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

"...He is ranked high in presidential opinion polls..." - needs to be supported with evidence.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...known to have created a political right..." - meaning not clear, do you mean an entitlement, or a political movement? Unreferenced. --Peterdownunder (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...Ronald Wilson Reagan was born on February 6, 1911..." name does not need to be bold in this section.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

"...a sports announcer at WHO." should probably state that WHO is a radio station. --Peterdownunder (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

"... with the U.S. Army at San Francisco two months after its release..." -reads like the army was being released. --Peterdownunder (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

"...stateside service..." - this is a US expression which may not be understood by others.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Although he used to be a Democrat who strongly supported the New Deal and admired Franklin Roosevelt." - Although what?

"...government ran health care..." - wrong tense, should be government run - --Peterdownunder (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

"From Reagan's speech, the most important and famous part of his "A Time For Choosing" speech were" - clumsy expression, speech twice, were instead of was, the extracted quote probably should also be directly referenced--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...stopped hiring government workers to slow the growth of the state workforce..." - were workers being employed to slow the growth? Clumsy expression again.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...Reagan ran for president in 1968 (he was not nominated),..." - not being from the US, I am not sure what this means. Do you mean he was a candidate in the election, or do you mean he was a candidate in the Republican selection process. --Peterdownunder (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...Reagan beat Democrat Jimmy Carter to become president..." - you also beat a drum, so did Reagan act violently to Carter... - --Peterdownunder (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

"...which was called Reaganomics and Voodoo economics (by his opposition)" - reference needed --Peterdownunder (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistent dates: some for example are 24 June 1982, but others are June 24, 1982. These all need to be the same, including in the references.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"..The economy was the greatest it was since many years ago.." - Rewrite as it is just poor English - --Peterdownunder (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"..Reagan was re-elected in a major landslide in 1984 by beating Democrat Walter Mondale." - landslide is not the best choice here for non-English speakers who may take this in its literal meaning, and Reagan has assaulted another opponent.--Peterdownunder (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...the largest peacetime military buildup in American history..." A claim like this is probably deserving of a reference. As well there is no references for any of the SDI. - --Peterdownunder (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...He directed money..." and "...He ordered multiple military operations..." should be referenced - --Peterdownunder (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Reagan's reputation was badly hurt by the Iran-Contra Affair, but it eventually recovered." - Both parts should be referenced.--Peterdownunder (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assassination attempt
- - there are no references at all ---Peterdownunder (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- - starting a sentence with a numeral always looks odd.--Peterdownunder (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The speeches - good use of a link to the audio and complete text. But the speeches if significant should be referenced, and again direct quotes should be references as well. --Peterdownunder (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Visit to the Constellation should be referenced.--Peterdownunder (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Presidential Medal of Freedom Award should be referenced. --Peterdownunder (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All quotations need the quote " " punctuation - see the Manual of Style --Peterdownunder (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...He is the second president to live longer after Gerald Ford, who lived longer at 45 days..." - ???? what is this about?--Peterdownunder (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~"...On June 3, 2009, Nancy Reagan unveiled..." probably needs referencing.--Peterdownunder (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)~~ Sorry, it was referenced.--Peterdownunder (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...Every February 6, it is Ronald Reagan Day, it became celebrated in California, Illinois, and in Wisconsin." is clumsy English - --Peterdownunder (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy - a lot of unsupported claims, such "most popular", "strongly supported", "ended the Cold War" - --Peterdownunder (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref to "First Principles" [1] should have K. Alan Synder as the author and the 2008 date.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref called "Welfare Reform" - [2] should have Steven Hayward as author, and a 1999 date.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref about nose cancer [3] is missing author name and date --Peterdownunder (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all issues. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leading man

What is "a second-rank leading man"? I checked the source, but I don't see anything that clarifies this issue. Kauffner (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed removed unsourced material. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photos, text flow and pronunciation

In various places the range left photos interrupt text flow. Text flow is primary because it is the main content. Whenever a range left graphic gets near a range right graphic it affects text flow. Also, there may be too many photos.

I think all the ways of representing pronunciation (such as IPA) are useless, and get in the way of the intro sentence, which affects readability. Do you see them in newspaper of magazine articles? You do not, and with good reason. If pronunciation of a name is really a problem, it could be addressed in the text. In Reagan's case there is no problem. What I mean is, a name like 'Featherstonehaugh', which is pronounced "Fanshaw", needs explaining. Reagan's does not. Intro sentences and paras are absolutely critical.

I can't say either of these are clear violations of guidelines, but then our guidelines are less than adequate IMO.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me examples about punctuations in the text. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind I just got what you said. I fixed the intro. Anymore suggestions or is this article GA good? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odd sentence

This sentence does not make sense to me: "During the war, Reagan was separated for almost four years of World War II." It should probably read "During World War II, Reagan was separated for four years from...(From what)".--Peterdownunder (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Wall

I removed the line "His speech would cause the wall's collapse and the end of the Cold War" The only citation for this is a USA Today article, which only says the speech "received a muted reception". http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-06-12-reagan-speech_N.htm Pongley (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]