Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Condoleezza Rice/archive1

Condoleezza Rice edit

Now that this article is listed as a good article, let's go one step further - make it featured. This article is very well-written and there are references. Although I cannot prove that there is no objection, I think most people will support it. --Cheung1303 06:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Inadequate lead, which does not properly summarise the article. Many one- and two-sentence paragraphs, and even a single-sentence section. The succession boxes for NSA and Secretary of State are duplicated by the templates below them. Henry ^Flower 10:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I'm always happy to see a reasonable length, for readability. It should be easy to clean up the objections raised by Henry Flower. I'd be happy to take a deeper look at the article after those issues are addressed. Sandy 11:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. External link in the core of the article instead of being in the references section. There is also a serious lack of critics about someone who is quite controversial. Poppypetty 14:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Weak Support It's informative and well written, but yes, lacking a 'criticism' section. It doesn't quite feel like NPOV yet, watch out for weasel words - such as Rice attended a memorial service...for Rosa Parks, an inspiration for the American Civil Rights Movement. I'd say you're pretty close though. Nuge talk 18:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose almost total blackout of any criticism about someone who is extremely controversial. Quite good besides that, but that one thing means a lot of work still needs to be done :(. It is as it always was ^{T | @ | C} 20:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As to above comments it is not simply a criticism section that is missing - there needs to inline criticism of individual actions as well. We've got a few featured articles on subjects like this already, so I would recommend looking at those. One example is

it was Rice who wrote an editorial for The New York Times entitled Why We Know Iraq Is Lying.

I.E. I think perhaps you need to show the reception of that editorial? It is as it always was ^{T | @ | C} 21:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not npov. refer to peer review. Zzzzz 23:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]