Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inauguration of Barack Obama/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:03, 2 May 2009 [1].

Inauguration of Barack Obama[edit]

Nominator(s): Aaron charles, Lwalt, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM),
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because at WP:PR we have addressed most of the FAC1 concerns.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tech. Review
  • The following refs are duplicated and appear in the ref section more than once, use a ref name instead, found using WP:REFTOOLS
  • {{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/17/national/inauguration09/main4729489.shtml?source=related_story|title=Obama Takes Train Ride To History: President-Elect Retraces Lincoln's Route From Philadelphia To Washington; Next Stop: Inauguration|accessdate=2009-03-05|date=2009-01-17|publisher=CBS Interactive Inc}}
  • {{cite news |first=Amy|last=Hamblin|title=The First-Ever Neighborhood Inaugural Ball |url=http://www.pic2009.org/blog/entry/the_first-ever_neigbhorhood_ball/|work=Presidential Inaugural Committee|date=2009-01-05 |accessdate=2009-03-28}}--Truco 23:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Before I check all of the images in this article, let's begin by removing some of them. This article is overillustrated. Please be more selective. Many sections are illustrated by two pictures when one would do. The "Ceremony" section, in particular, is poorly laid out. Awadewit (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I changed the position of images that were placed above the section and subsection headings to which they belong so that the images are positioned below their respective headings and "see also" links to other articles. According to guidelines in the Wikipedia MOS, "images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading." Source: MOS:IMAGES#Images. →Lwalt ♦ talk 10:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The layout of the images in this article is poor. Note that the MOS suggests images be staggered. All of the images in this article are on the right-hand side of the article. Awadewit (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* I left messages for the person who filed the deletion request and the one who posted the audio file. This matter has been unresolved since January 2009, and it looks like the consensus is keep for now. But, I haven't heard anything back about resolving the deletion request, though. →Lwalt ♦ talk 07:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Done Matter has been taken care of, and the analysis of the consensus for the audio file is Keep. Someone (administrator?) took care of this per my message on the Administrator's notice board at Commons. →Lwalt ♦ talk 18:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look here. I found the page for the DoD photo on the DefenseLink site based on the photographer's name taken from the image page at Wikipedia. →Lwalt ♦ talk 22:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need to link to the HTML page, if possible. I did look through the album of images provided via one of the links, but I couldn't find this particular image. Awadewit (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image update I see that the images are changing in this article. Please let me know when they have stabilized and I will recheck all of them. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The inclusion of images in this article have stabilized for the most part. →Lwalt ♦ talk 23:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All images have adequate descriptions and verifiable licenses at this time. Awadewit (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return. (I noticed NPR, but there may be others)
  • NPR has been revised. IHS, FAA, JAG, PAC and VMI also converted. Most others like FBI, HBO and ABC are common. We can review any others that are questionable. Aaron charles (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's an astrology blog. You know the drill, you need to show they have a reputation in third party circles (and NOT astrology circles) that they are factual, etc.
O.K. I do not see any third party sources establishing his reputation in terms of publishing. However, do either of his offices as the president of the Association for Young Astrologers as well as the Research Directory of the National Council for Geocosmic Research serve as third party verification of his credibility?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, no. Surely the official website gives the exact time! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that a very grey area. I think it counts as a recognition by his peers that he is a credible expert. What official site has the times?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking astrology here. If you were trying to discuss the astrological aspects of the inauguartion, his abilities as an astrologist would be germane. Since you're using it to source bare facts, the fact that it's astrology is going to count against it. And the official site of the inauguartion is what I'm referring to. Surely there was an official schedule, etc? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tomorrow, I will spend some time reviewing how essential the content is and whether it can be substituted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would welcome some feedback from the other editors. I think it is possible we might be able to replace the first two uses of this source, but unlikely that we would be able to source the last two. I consider all four additive to the article. I have not yet found an alternative and will look tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the timetables I am finding were the anticipated schedules and not what actually happened.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Timetable and chronology searches came up empty. However, there is hope. I have found live blogs by otherwise WP:RS such as this. This takes care of two fo the four times. I will search for more live blogs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 18:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have found some sources. Some are good and others are decent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 82 (Warren, lowery..) has a formatting glitch.
  • Current ref 93 (2009 gifts) is this lacking a link?
  • Current ref 155 (Watch Barack Obama's ...) is lacking a publisher
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose File:Obama-Biden_Presidential_Inaugural_Committee_logo.png if excluded would not damage the readers understanding of the subject, hence fails wp:NFCC#8 and FAC#3 (if this logo was real I would be stunned if it wasnt the work of the US federal government) Fasach Nua (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this file not PD? I thought that PIC work was PD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has a fair use rationale, and a copyright-logo template on the image page. For what it's worth, I also believed it to be PD: The Presidential Inaugural Committee is organized by the US Congress Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, one of the US congressional committees which is a legislative sub-organization of the US Congress. As the Congress is part of the Federal government, first thoughts would be it is PD, but if you read the PIC website's Terms of service, it says everything is copyrighted. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think this article would be well served by a clarification of the distinction between the PIC and JCCIC (or USCJCIC). I will take a look tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. See posting on Talk page for the Obama inauguration article. →Lwalt ♦ talk 02:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image has been removed from the article. Is that the consensus at this point? Awadewit (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oppose FA criteria #3 Fasach Nua (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I mistakenly thought that there were two OPPOSES. There should only be one in bold as it is confusing to other reviewers. Please unbold at least one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see the image has been included in the article at this time. Could you explain what you think is insufficient about the fair use rationale? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Committee website [2] says "The entire Website is copyrighted...Please contact us directly for special copyright permissions." Would noted permission resolve the issue? Aaron charles (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-Headings. What is the difference in content under the sub-headings "Missteps in administering the oath" and "Missteps while administering the oath?" →Lwalt ♦ talk 22:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Nevermind. I took care of it by revising the section. →Lwalt ♦ talk 23:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We still have one left side image under a level three header. However, It is in a short section where I am not sure what rearrangement to make to move it to the right.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think its okay to move the retake audio up under the original audio file to make room to move the pic to the right. See how that looks. Aaron charles (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Perhaps we need to mention in the Planning section the attempts of the event to be "green", as lofty a goal that is for such a big event.

Thoughts? (I am looking for feedback) Thanks. Aaron charles (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done
  • I am not sure that we need the pics of "Entertainers at the President Obama Home States Inaugural Ball" The pics of the Obama, Biden and their wives could suffice.

Done.

    • Personally, I would have kept the Common picture because it is very sharp.
Removing the picture of the entertainers is fine with me...no other entertainer (not to mention, Beyonce, who serenaded the Obamas) appear in the articles and including the picture here with the performers here seem to elevate them over other notable ones. →Lwalt ♦ talk 00:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to see a picture of Beyonce, but since we don't have one that does not mean you can not add another lesser performer.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the image of the parade route is better suited to the United States presidential inauguration article, since the parade followed the same route for previous inaugural parades. I did not find in the news coverage of the inauguration any mentioned changes in the usual route for the inaugural parade. My view is that a picture of the parade route is relevant to inaugural parades in general, not to a specific president, unless changes in the parade route occurred because of security concerns. →Lwalt ♦ talk 10:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parade route from the Capitol to the White House appears to have been static over the years for the most part. For history's sake and a past example of a map of an inaugural parade route, here's a photo of the Kennedy inaugural parade route in 1961 (photo credit: The Washington Star Collection, DC Public Library; ©The Washington Post). The picture of the Kennedy inaugural parade route is the third image in the photo gallery on the left. →Lwalt ♦ talk 19:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's there for the viewing...click the third black and white photo in the first column of two on the left side under the red heading "Photo gallery." The image shows a diagram of the route on the "Parade Route & Stand Location Plan" featured in the photo, and the caption refers to a review of the 1961 parade route by Edward B. Foley, Maj. Gen. C.K. Gailey F. Joseph Donohue. This photo and the one posted in the Obama inauguration article would be ideal for contrast and more relevant for the United States presidential inauguration article. Although the planning sometimes changes as logistics become complex, the parade route seems to have remained static over time, with the route starting from the east side of the Capitol, traveling down Pennsylvania Avenue, NW DC, and ending at the White House, usually somewhere near the Old Executive Office Building on the 17th Street, NW side). →Lwalt ♦ talk 13:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look a little more closely. That one starts on a diagonal. I think it must have started on the West side of the Capital on Pennsylvania. Our year started with a northward jog from the east side of the Capitol. I think the image you are pointing to supports inclusion in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image review was completed this afternoon. However, I still support my earlier recommendation and the one offered by another editor about this issue. I'm only here as an encyclopedist to help the WP community elevate the quality of articles under principle of good faith, not to WP:WIN over degrees of a starting point. →Lwalt ♦ talk 00:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that in some years the inauguration has been on the east side of the Capitol and in some years it has been on the west side. This year, with it on the west side the parade route started on the east side. I doubt it always starts on the east side in years the inauguration is on that side. Thus, I believe the route differs from year to year although it always generally goes from the Capitol to the White House along Pennsylvania Avenue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just noticed this removal, which came before my argument above. I have reverted it for the reason above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have linked to the map as "Further information". Could this be a compromise? Awadewit (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise is not the issue. I have had at least a half dozen images I have created removed from the article and agree with almost all decisions and thus have not pressed any points. I disagree strongly with the removal of this particular image due to its encyclopedic content. The average reader would not look at the image and say "I already knew that was the route". Furthermore, as I explained above, the route almost surely has varied throughout the course of history in non-trivial ways although they all probably went up Pennsylvania. The map serves to teach the reader the general route (up Pennsylvania) and this particular one starting from the east side of the building. Do you think the average reader already knows the route or do you think the map has instructive value?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the map has enough value to be included in the article. The route of the parade is not that significant, especially since nothing important happened on the route that needs to be identified as happening at a specific place (an assassination attempt, for example). The reader does not gain any significant information from the map that is not already in the article, for example. Note also that in my version, the image is not totally removed - it is linked clearly for the reader to access, if they want to see the map. Awadewit (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a lot of value to a new map that I just included in the article. It presents the reader with information about several events in one map.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good additions, but I continue to think that it is not vital to know precisely where the buildings are located in relation to each other (the purpose of a map). I think linking would be sufficient. Other thoughts on this? Awadewit (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree strongly. I think a picture is worth a thousand words. In addition numerous secondary sources include a map of the parade route, which should clue us in to the fact that it is something the reader wants to see.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the map of locations be posted at the top of the "Planning" subsection as "further information", similar to how the parade route map is posted in its section. Let the reader choose to click or not. Aaron charles (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like odd placement to me. Many articles get tagged requesting maps. This should almost be in the infobox, IMO. The problem with linking the image is that it loses much of its value without a legend that would be in a WP:CAPTION. I don't see how we caption it without including it in the main article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering there is a "strong oppose" by Karanacs below, I suggest the editors work on addressing those issues and return to this one (which is only standing in the way of FAC because it is making the article unstable) at a later date. Awadewit (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, read MOS:IMAGES. There are two competing rules that we seem to be bucking up against. One says: "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading." and the other says. "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two." I keep moving the images to be in line with the second and you guys keep reverting to be in line with the first. I am going to make an attempt to be in line with both.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both rules were likely suggested in the MOS guidelines to limit a sub-heading appearing as an orphan line in the printed document in cases where where a left-aligned image is placed on the first line of the first paragraph for that section. The only way to know how the printed article will be presented to the reader is to do a "Print Preview" of it in the browser (FYI - audio infoboxes are not included in the printed and preview versions of the article, and multi-images aligned side-by-side are instead aligned atop one another).
One or both of the other rules (I say the second one) that handles placement of left-aligned images needs to be clarified by adding "where applicable" to the guideline - perhaps a suggestion to post as a comment on the Talk page for the MOS?
I went back to move down the picture in the Luncheon section because the subheading was the last line on the page as previewed in portrait orientation within the browser as I looked at the article in preview from a reader's perspective. Now...how to handle orphan headings without images is another story.
Also, I moved down the right-aligned image of the Obamas and Bidens to the paragraph starting with CIC Ball to allow the single line paragraph beginning with "The nine other official balls..." (13 words) to display as a full line across the page when the article is printed on paper or previewed within browser in "print format." This edit allows keeps with the same presentation of the single-line paragraph lead (18 words, counting each part of the date as a separate word) to the bulleted paragraph for the Obama Staff Ball. '→Lwalt ♦ talk 01:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the only opposes are from a copyrighted logo, why don't we just remove the logo unless and until we can get permission to use it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed image (for now). Anyone want to seek permission? Aaron charles (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I e-mailed legal@pic2009.org on 4-13-2009, but I've not yet received a response. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose by karanacs. This article still needs a great deal of work to meet the FAC criteria. I only read about 1/3 of the article closely, and I've listed examples of the issues below. In general, the prose needs significant work and the article needs to be better focused on its topic; there is too much trivia and other unnecessary information. Please note that in most cases fixing only the example I listed will not satisfy the underlying objection.

  • The table of contents is completely overwhelming (that is a violation of 2b). There are quite a few very small subsections that don't really need to be set off as their own section.
Recommended breaking the international reaction section in a new article for this reason. See article Talk page. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two subsections under Oath of Office have been merged up.Aaron charles (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm having trouble understanding the paragraph on bars in DC. If senators were concerned that extending the closing times was a safety issue, why was that legislation passed?
Rewrote paragraph to address concerns. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added back some color that got lopped off along the way to make it clear that the original legislation called for 5AM closing for liquore and twenty four hour food service.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image caption says that 1 million public invitations were issued. I don't see this info in the article, so it would need a citation in the image caption.
  • Might it be useful to have at least a sentence or two at the beginning of the article that has a bit of background about inaugurations in general? Perhaps define what an inauguration ceremony is, and for how long the US has done so, and perhaps when the election was?
Not relevant to subject of article. Info would be more relevant, as discussed in general terms, in the article about United States presidential inauguration. A link to this article already existed at the time of your reading at the beginning of the Events section. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Lwalt that adding general info is not necessary. Aaron charles (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence doesn't make sense to me "Apart from its commitment, the committee did accept donations from individuals, who had active lobbying interests but were not classified as registered lobbyists"
  • To cover the projected shortfall, the mayor of the District of Columbia and the governors of Maryland and Virginia - we haven't been told that there will be a shortfall, just the estimates of how much they think they will need to spend.
  • Did Congress agree to pay DC, MD, and VA for their security costs? The article says they asked, but didn't say what happened.
  • Probably need a citation for Obama departed from Philadelphia on the Georgia 300, a vintage railroad car used by past presidents and the same one he used for touring Pennsylvania during his presidential primary campaign
  • lots of white space in Oath of office section, likely due to stacking of files.
Fixed. 01:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • There is a lot of what is unnecessary informqation in the article. Some of this is essentially trivia. Some of this might not be considered trivia if it had more explanation. In other cases, the information is probably useful, but it does not really belong in this article. I feel as if the article content is not focused enough on the topic. For example:
    • Do we care that the inauguration schedule didn't use the full middle name? Unless we know (and can document) the reason why not, this seems very, very trivial to me.
Yes. Obama made a deal of it, as widely reported in news reports. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I merged the two references; one in the planning section and the other in oath section. I think that should help. Aaron charles (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closing hours of bars in DC is worthy of mentioning here? That seems to have little bearing on the inauguration activities.
Disagree. The planners over at the Senate made a media event of the move because of public safety and security planning for the inauguration. DC City Council reconsidered the temporary law to address these and other concerns. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think somewhere in the mix we lost the fact that the original plan was for 5A.M. closing for liquor and twenty four hour service for food. Without that detail, the complainant has a point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per the article discussion, I do wonder if the bar hours have merit now and doubt in the future that they will offer much historical context. Aaron charles (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we care that some of the tickets had silver borders? Since the article doesn't mention any other colors, I think we can leave out some of that specificity.
A mention of the colors for the other tickets - orange, yellow, purple, blue, are mentioned in this section at the time of your reading. The silver tickets, in particular, were mostly issued by the U.S. Congress to the general public by lottery or on a first-come, first basis. This story became the subject of wide media coverage because of the unprecedented demand for them - not to mention that some in Congress were begging for more silver tickets to the reserved areas for the general public because of the demand. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we really need to know how much was spent on GW Bush's second inauguration? I don't think that belongs in this article.
For comparison and contrast, it does matter, given the widely-reported news that emphasized money raised and spent for this inauguration compared to the previous (and other) presidential inaugurations. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we aren't going to hear about the "special stories" of 16 of the 41 people, do we really even need to mention them?
    • Why so many details about the train ride? I think the core information that is important to understanding this section could be given in two relatively compact paragraphs.
    • I still don't understand why we need to know to the minute what time activities occured (and their duration) during the inauguration ceremony. Does anyone care about that now? Will anyone care in 5 years? (probably not) The only exception to this would be the fact that the oath finished after Obama officially assumed the presidency.
  • Seems to have been corrected from oath and spiritual observance sections. Aaron charles (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we need the transcript of the oath? The article has already spent several sentences explaining what happened, and we have the soundbyte in the article. It seems redundant to have the exact wording transcribed again.
    • The menu at the luncheon? That is sooo overly detailed.
Disagree. Paragraph also places in context that the historical practice of basing the menu on foods from the states of the new President and Vice President. That, you know, changes from one President/Vice President to the next. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Lwalt. We trimmed out trivia from the section instead. Aaron charles (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is still not where it needs to be. The following are EXAMPLES ONLY.
    • Watch for redundant wording. EXAMPLES only "Relying on the inaugural theme, Obama marked the occasion of his inauguration" -> inaugural/inauguration twice very close together
    • Watch for overly wordy sentences. Example: "Relying on the inaugural theme, Obama marked the occasion of his inauguration and the anniversary year of Lincoln's 200th birthday[3] "to give Americans reassurance that today, as in Lincoln's time, the country would find its way through any crisis," both on the economic and foreign policy fronts.[13]"
Revised sentence to address concerns. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Watch for agreement between various parts of a sentence. for example, this sentence Unlike political campaigns, an individual or company can contribute to an inaugural celebration without legal restrictions on the amount of the donation, is actually comparing "political campaigns" to "an individual or company" rather that to the inauguration celebration, which I don't think is the intent.
    • There needs to be a good comma audit. There are commas in some places where there should not be.
    • Watch for redundancy within paragraphs. In one sentence, we are told the total amount of money that DC, MD, and VA budget for security, then we are told in the next sentence how much two of the three named entities individually estimated. Why the duplication?
    • I don't like that the article occasionally refers to things as "notable". We shouldn't need to point out specifically that something is "notable"; we should instead strive to show that it is notable.
Revised to address. Aaron charles (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overlinking: march, poet, minister, etc.

Karanacs (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As used in the article, the terms "march" (a piece of rhythmic music; "Hail to the Chief" is called a march), "marching band" (group of musicians and dancers on team that perform outdoors in events, such as parades) and "March on Washington" (a historical event where Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech) have distinct meanings. Each of these terms is linked only once in the article. Could you provide details on where exactly each of these terms are overlinked? →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean that the terms themselves are linked multiple times, but that it is unnecessary to link to many common terms. If you think march is necessary to differentiate between the different ways that word is used, fine, but there are a lot of other words that shouldn't be linked at all. Karanacs (talk)
Note about trivia: I noticed in the comments given above that one of the reasons for including things is that it got covered in the press. The press covered many pieces of the inauguration in excruciating detail. That level of detail is not necessary to an encyclopedia coverage of the event. We should be taking the whole of the press coverage and distilling out the most important pieces and leaving behind the excess detail. (As an example, after expanding Battle of the Alamo from my sources, I trimmed about 1/3 of the article out - some to subarticles/other articles, and some info completely left out - because the detail got in the way of seeing the big picture. This article could benefit from a similar large-scale cut.) Karanacs (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK...here's what I think:
  • Delink common, words typically used in an everyday context (cello, violin, manure, and so on). However, two editors had a debate on the merits of linking/delinking links in the caption (looks cleaner without most of the linking, though). That concern must be addressed.
  • I definitely think that the international response section should be in a new article. This section is becoming rather long in terms of the weight the section adds to the article. The title that I had in mind (International reaction to Obama inauguration) redirects to this article. Apparently, someone else likely had the same idea, but may have been vetoed in some discussion that I'm not privy to.
  • Since the transcript of the oath flub has been documented elsewhere, only links to the sources are sufficient. The article already covers the missteps in administering and reciting the oath.
  • The image of the parade is not germane to the subject of the article; therefore, the parade image should be moved to an article for the U.S. presidential inauguration.
Have more to cover and tighten up, but will be back at another time to do that. →Lwalt ♦ talk 22:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I will start by listing concerns, as it ia a long article with a lot of research (kudos on that). I only have a short amount of time right now, so I will come back to this a couple of times, most likely:

  • "and an inaugural prayer service that featured religious diversity." Surely that is an odd phrasing. A prayer service no doubt features prayer, or devotion to God, or some such. Perhaps "conducted by clergy from several religious denominations"?
  • "which led to a retake on the day after the inauguration." Why be so wordy? What's wrong with "which led to a retake the following day."? And isn't retake a little informal? Why not "Due to the variance, the oath was readministered to President Obama the following day."?
    • I think we want to try to stay with active voice in the WP:LEAD as much as possible. However I changed "retake on the day after the inauguration" to "readministration the following day"--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In contrast to a larger than usual celebrity attendance at official and unofficial ceremonies, the Presidential Inaugural Committee increased its outreach to the public to encourage greater participation in inaugural events by ordinary citizens compared to those of the recent past." Problem here. The contrast is between a large celebrity attendance and the PIC's outreach. Maybe start the sentence with the PIC's efforts, then mention the celebrities last? Continuing the Lincoln theme, to evoke a phrase attributed to Lincoln, (though he never actually said it, though Nixon alleged he did in the Checkers speech), God must have loved the common people, he made so many of them. Put them first. I think the paragraph will flow more easily as a result.
  • Also, just looking at the article, the constant drumbeat of repetition of "Obama" is a problem. I tend to do the same thing, actually, constantly repeating a given name, and have to go back and spice it up later. Suggest eliminating about one in three usages of the name "Obama" to refer to the Prez and substitute "he" or "the President-elect" or "the President" or even "President Obama".

Anyhow, I'll be on later. A hasty read shows it to be very comprehensive, and kudos for bringing it up on such a timely manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Although the quality of the content is very good, the sum of its parts are not. The most concrete example of my objections is the ten inline references in the lead, none of which appear to be justified by the spirit or the letter of WP:LEADCITE. This issue is symptomatic of a larger problem in that the article has evolved from a gush of news media coverage that gives no consideration to the historical value of particular facts. This has overwhelmed the article with opinion and commentary from every direction capable of turning news media heads without any explanation of why any such opinion is of relevance, especially encyclopedic relevance, to the event itself. I'm aghast at state of the lead section's final paragraph. Conservatives had reservations about the speech and liberals liked it? People in general liked the overall event? It's like ending the Forrest Gump article with "audiences generally felt warm inside after leaving the film". The peril of staving off a barrage of biased editing is that you can forget that articles are not written to pass judgement on "how good" something is. Sometimes things just happen and they get reported, and this article is hopelessly naive of this. Bigbluefish (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised intro to remove judgement statements. Will review rest of article later. Thanks. Aaron charles (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed several references per WP:LEADCITE. Aaron charles (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments. Planning: Why is "a new birth of freedom" a particulary historic phrase? It certainly isn't the best remembered quote from the GettAddr. I'd strike the word historic.
  • I would come out and say why Lincoln is relevant to Obama. You assume people know.
  • "His middle name had caused some controversy during the election campaign when detractors tried to imply falsely that he was a Muslim". Well, don't know about the controversy. I'd say "During the election campaign, Senator Obama's detractors tried to use his middle name to falsely imply that he was a Muslim."
  • "scooping up manure from horses used in the parade to sell at a farm" The farm sold manure? Surely this is "to a farm"!
  • "Invitations and ball tickets for the inaugural events were produced using recycled paper, and recyclable and biodegradable products." I'm confused by the final phrase.
  • I agree the extended bar hours should be in the article, but I would delete the various proposals, and simply state the outcome. Slows down the read. Similarly, I would just say "extended Metro service was paid for by ..." and pipe "Metro service" or "Metro" to WMATA. This isn't the CTA, you know, people just call it Metro. Even the buses.
  • Invitations. I'd insert the words "ambassadors and other ..." before "chiefs" in the first sentence.
  • Fundraising: The first paragraph is ambiguous. It could be read to say that the 2009 committee was trying to raise less money than the 2005 committee; I don't think that is the case. I understand what you mean, unfortunately you don't say it clearly. Easily fixed though.
  • "To underscore its commitment to change business as usual" A little POV there. Probably non-members of the Obama nation would disagree.
  • "The federal government contributed a budget of about $49 million" Strike "a budget of". And does that include FEMA funds?
  • Lincoln's train trip: Philly to Washington was not whistle-stop for Lincoln, read the last paragraph of the reference, he was snuck through Baltimore. Perhaps make it Springfield to Washington whistle-stop, and rephrase the second sentence to eliminate the "Springfield to Washington", I believe that would be accurate.
  • More later. This is such a sprawling article that all I can do is a section at a time.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ledbetter: Obama signed legislation to overrule the SupCt decision very quickly in his presidency, might be worth a mention.
  • Biden: Worth mentioning that he was well known for commuting on Amtrak between Wilmington and Washington?
Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Obama reminded the crowds that 'we should never forget that we are the heirs of that first band of patriots, ordinary men and women who refused to give up when it all seemed so improbable; and who somehow believed that they had the power to make the world anew.'" I'm a bit confused. The paragraph is talking about phrases associated with Lincoln. Here, though, we seem to be talking about 1776ers.
  • "homemade signs and American flags" If the flags were not homemade, reverse these two items.
  • Jill and Ashley Biden: Who dat? Not previously introduced.
  • More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Events:
  • "emcee" Surely master of ceremonies? Yes, I know she's a woman, but the term still applies. I would not use "emcee" as a verb, perhaps "preside over"?
  • Warren: Perhaps mention the controversy around his selection?
  • Still more later. This is a very long article.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Back to the salt mines:
  • Conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh decried Lowery's benediction as racist, while democrats disagreed. Why did they so decry? And democrats should be capitalized.
  • Neither Obama nor Warren made references during the inaugural program to issues of direct concern to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community. Unsourced, and well, so what? And a bit of a laundry list. Can you consolidate?
  • Lowery used both humor and sincerity as he delivered the benediction, including messages of sincerity Too much sincerity. You might do better with a direct quote from coverage on the humor and sincerity anyway.
  • U.S. Congress for its approval. Senate.
  • Luncheon: Since you mention the attendance of former presidents and VPs, you might want to start the paragraph with "As former President and Mrs. Bush began their journey to their Texas home ..." to stress they did not attend.
  • "A luncheon at the U.S. Capitol has been part of the inaugural program since 1953 (before that time, the luncheon was usually held at the White House and hosted by the outgoing President and First Lady" OK, but the last time they had an outgoing President and First Lady before 1953 was 1933. What'd they do for the four intervening Inaugurations, which saw an incumbent taking the oath of office?
  • Parade: in the new armored limousine "the" would only be justified if the limo has been previously mentioned, which it hasn't. Perhaps a quick mention that it was new for 2009?
  • "Vice President Biden and his wife, Dr. Jill Biden" OK, by now we know who she is. I realize she's a pain to keep introducing because "Vice President and Dr. Biden" looks funny. I'd strike the words "his wife,", though.
  • "eight-time finalist " In what?
  • "Biden's alma mater, the University of Delaware Fightin' Blue Hens, known as The Pride of Delaware" He graduated from U of D, not from the Fightin' Blue Hens. I'd laugh more, but as I have a graduate degree from NYU, home of the (presumably Fightin') Violets, I'm not in a position to. I'd rephrase slightly so that alma mater clearly refers to U of D, not the Fightin' Blue Hens (I can't help it) or the Pride of Delaware.
More later. Pass the cream glace, Senator Byrd.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

non free content - How wer the licences for File:Barack_Obama_inaugural_address.ogv File:Inaugural_invitation_2009.jpg and File:44_CongInvitation.jpg determined? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tickets (silver one posted here) were issued by the Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies for admittance to reserved areas on the Capitol grounds for the swearing-in ceremony and distributed to the general public by members of Congress (this one was provided by Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). The Presidential Inaugural Committee and the U.S. Joint Congressional Committee for Inaugural Ceremonies issued invitations (pictured in the article) to constituents from the general public who received tickets to reserved areas at the Capitol. The video program of the inauguration has been released to the public through the website of the U.S. Joint Congressional Committee for Inaugural Ceremonies here. Only the relevant clips of the Obama swearing-in and inaugural address appear in this article. Therefore, these items were products of the U.S. congressional committee that planned the inauguration.
About the video clip of the Obama swearing-in ceremony - This version may be the one released by the White House which contained title cards that mentioned it as the source (picture for video clip was once a featured picture candidate). →Lwalt ♦ talk 01:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments continued:
  • Barack's tuxedo. Borderline trivial.
Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "breaking with tradition". Two First Ladies are not enough for tradition. How about "breaking with the recent practice of Hillary ..."
Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was also reserved". Lose the word "also". Also, the list of inaugural balls "included", past tense, unless some are still going on.
Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Commander-in-Chief's Ball, National Building Museum, held only for the second time in history, " If the first time was 2005, then lose the words "in history". It's just a recent creation.
Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On January 21, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. EST," Why is "EST" needed? And if it is, shouldn't it be linked?
  • "and his wife, Hillary Clinton, in the front pew" Give her her dignity. Either call her Secretary of State-designate, or say, *"who would be confirmed as Secretary of State later in the day"
Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who delivered inspirational scripture readings and prayers throughout the service" Who says they were inspirational? A little POV.
Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "also drew in part passages" Huh?
Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The featured sermon for the inaugural prayer service was delivered by Reverend Sharon E. Watkins, general minister and president of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and the first woman to deliver the featured sermon for the inaugural prayer service.[137] In her own sermon, Watkins integrated passages from a variety of interfaith sources, such as passages summoned from sources rooted in the Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Cherokee faiths.[136]" Featured sermon used twice in penultimate sentence, "own" in final sentence not needed, "sources" used twice, and I'd strike the word "interfaith" as not really needed in view of the laundry list at the end.
Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • airline crew: People will probably associate it more quickly if you mention that it landed on the Hudson River.
Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 16:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Operation Iraqi Freedom. As this is a redirect, why not just say serving in Iraq? Also some might consider it more neutral.
Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 16:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Celebrity guests included the actors Dustin Hoffman, Samuel L. Jackson and Denzel Washington, talk show host Oprah Winfrey and director Steven Spielberg, among other celebrities. The Department of Redundancy Department orders you to lose either the first or final phrase.
Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • the ceremony was the highest attended event ever held in Washington, D.C. Unless marijuana was distributed by the PIC, suggest saying "had the largest attendance".
Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crowds: Consider combining the last two paragraphs, and also combining the last two sentences.
  • "The Obama inauguration is the first one of a president since the September 11 attacks." F-ck yeah, W in 2005 didn't count, he was just a resident! Oh, that wasn't what you meant to imply? Never mind. Umm, maybe a very slight tweak here?
Revised per suggestion, I think...let me know. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • had to stretch their imagination to anticipate unthinkable security threats, Slight contradiction here, perhaps "previously unthinkable"?
Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The District of Columbia police force temporarily doubled in size" Were the police around the US members of the DC Police? Perhaps "the police presence in the District of Columbia temporarily doubled, augmented by ..."
Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Federal Aviation Administration maintained airspace restrictions over Washington, D.C. on January 20, 2009 from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m." There are always airspace restrictions over D.C. Suggest rephrase.
Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the fact that no arrests were made by any agency during the inaugural events was unheard of for a record crowd of the size that gathered in Washington, D.C. for the Obama inauguration." But there had never been a crowd that big (which doesn't diminish the point, I simply suggest a rephrase is needed).
Revised per suggestion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's all for now, I'll finish later in the day. I don't see anything hopeless.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More stuff:

  • "The Raleigh-Durham market had the largest TV audience" Probably not, perhaps "highest TV rating"? Similar fix needed in the sentence about the top 10 TV markets.
  • "In addition, schools and workplaces across the country allowed viewing of the inauguration because the event occurred on a weekday." I'd say something like "In addition, schools and workplaces across the country allowed students and workers to watch the inauguration of President Obama."

International reaction:

  • "the president of Kenya, Mwai Kibaki extended his congratulations to Obama for the inaugural occasion." Perhaps "to Obama on his inaguration".
  • "Office of the Prime Minister of Canada released a statement:" perhaps add "on behalf of Prime Minister Harper" with a pipe to Stephen Harper.
  • "Obama was honored for the inaugural occasion by the retired principal of the school," Odd phrasing, and how was he honored?
  • North Korea: Both sentences seem to have similar content and can surely be merged.
  • Australia: The U.S. embassy and consulates in Canberra, Melbourne and Perth, in addition to the United States Study Centre at the University of Sydney and the American Australian Association. Very confused laundry list there.
  • UK: "the United Kingdom, which is home to 300,000 Americans." I would hope the US is home to them ... suggest "where 300,000 Americans reside".
  • "Another citizen commented that "Obama won't get the same treatment,' ... 'But he won't have too long to prove himself to us.'"" Why the close single quotes and reopen after the ellipsis? combine into one. And remember that a nonbreaking space is used before the ellipsis. Also, Israeli President should be piped to President of Israel. Please check to ensure you aren't having too many redirects.

That's about it. I'll wait until I see changes made. Also, is the international reaction being spun off or not?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Inauguration_of_Barack_Obama/archive2&oldid=1136097132"