Jump to content

Talk:Abraham Lincoln

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleAbraham Lincoln is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleAbraham Lincoln has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 5, 2004.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 16, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
October 8, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
December 24, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
March 18, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
February 22, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
September 23, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
September 16, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 16, 2010Good article nomineeListed
March 16, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
May 1, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 9, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 4, 2004, April 14, 2004, April 14, 2005, and February 12, 2009.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

GA concerns

[edit]

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

  • At over 13,000 words, WP:TOOBIG suggests that some of the text should be reduced or spun out.
  • One of the reasons why it is large is the numerous large block quotes used in the article. I think these should be summarised, reduced, and/or removed.
  • The end of "Historical reputation" has a lot of random facts and quotes. I think this needs to be edited for things to be removed.
  • There is uncited text in the article, including citation needed tags from March 2024.

Is anyone willing to address the above concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a need for this article to go to GAR. Re the "citation needed" tags - There are only 4 on the article. I'll attempt to get that info cited over the next few days and TOOBIG wouldn't seem to have any bearing on the article being a GA or not (is that in the GA parameters?), Historical rep being untidy also isn't in arrears for a GA... - Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shearonink: For the citations: there's some uncited material that doesn't have a cn tag. Would you like me to add them? For the prose and layout: WP:GA? says "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience". If the article is too big, I am not sure that the information is concise. Z1720 (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP:TOOBIG is not directly relevant. See WP:GACR6 for a list of criteria.
If there is material that should be summarised, reduced, and/or removed, it's concerning. Large block quotes are by no means the only source of this. Ulysses S. Grant and George Washington are articles that have been dramatically reduced in size the hard way, i.e. by going through section by section and looking for text that was clumsily written or was superfluous. But those articles were in no danger of WP:GAR. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruce leverett: I am happy to support editors who want to reduce the prose without bringing this to GAR. If editors do not indicate a willingness to do so, I would consider nominating this for GAR to try to find editors who are willing to do that. Z1720 (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GOAT

[edit]

Reading about "often ranked as the greatest" reminds me strongly of what we have gone through in the biography articles about chess world champions.

Wikipedia should be used to settle arguments, not to start them. If experienced editors go back and forth endlessly about how to exactly to say superlative things about Lincoln, then sure enough, we are starting arguments. Something calmer, along the lines of "generally highly ranked", would be perfectly acceptable.

The word "often" technically gets you off the hook for puffery, but it gets you on the hook for weasel words. You can't win. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think "generally highly ranked" or something similar would be fine. "Often" was cited in the latest revert along with "We've been through this". I don't care that this has been discussed before, I care about the preciseness of the prose and my understanding of what Wikipedia is stating in its voice. "often ranked in both popular and scholarly polls as one of the greatest presidents in American history" seems more precise to me (as well as, frankly, less hagiographic to "Saint Abe Lincoln") than "often ranked in both popular and scholarly polls as the greatest president in American history". The main article text of Abraham Lincoln#Historical reputation that the lead is supposed to rely on seems much more nuanced in its assessment of Lincoln's historical reputation, that text is what we should take into account when rendering the lead. - Shearonink (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]