Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Margaret Thatcher/archive1
This article seems well-written. John Major is featured, and it's shorter than Thatcher's article... cryptfiend64 00:55, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral, leaning towards oppose. Couldn't the cabinets be split off or something? They make the article unnecessarily long. Johnleemk 02:12, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
Oppose for now. There are a lot of words that could/should be hyperlinked, particularly for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with Maggie (hard though it is to believe, as a late-20s Brit, plenty such people do exist ;o) — I'll prolly go through and do some of these later this evening. A copy of the (rather famous) photo of her leaving Downing Street, with tears in her eyes, seems notable by its absence, though; there must be one that doesn't present copyright issues, surely? I'm inclined to agree with Johnleemk about the Cabinet lists, though. I think they should be split off to another page. I could be convinced on these last two points, though; I definitely will support this being FA at some point soon. — OwenBlacker 19:49, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)- Right, I've done that (and read it through even more carefully as a result). I'll support this once there's another image or two to break up the copy a little. I'd suggest a photo from the aftermath of the [{Brighton Bomb]] and Maggie crying in the car, leaving Downing Street, as they're both memorable sets of images, one of any of her Conference speeches at the podium would prolly suffice, if that's the best anyone can do... ;o) — OwenBlacker 21:27, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
- I added another photo. Changing back to no objections. →Raul654 05:54, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
- The Brighton bomb and the Maggie leaving Downing Street were unique events with considerable historic and educational value. Thus they are ideal candidates for a fair use of photos from one of the various news sources. The argument for a podium speech photo is harder to justify. I like the article. Pcb21| Pete 22:18, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The new photo is great, but I really do think it needs at least one of her leaving Downing Street or the Brighton Bomb. Definitely an improvement (thanks, Raul), but I think I continue to object until at least one of these two events is pictures on the article; the new photo is just a little too nondescript... OwenBlacker 12:14, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Right, I've done that (and read it through even more carefully as a result). I'll support this once there's another image or two to break up the copy a little. I'd suggest a photo from the aftermath of the [{Brighton Bomb]] and Maggie crying in the car, leaving Downing Street, as they're both memorable sets of images, one of any of her Conference speeches at the podium would prolly suffice, if that's the best anyone can do... ;o) — OwenBlacker 21:27, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
Object - TOC is too long (see guidelines).I suggest moving all the cabinet stuff to a separate daughter article. --mav 06:38, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)- Cabinets spun off. TOC is about 40% smaller now. →Raul654 06:44, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Much better, thanks. --mav
- Some of us are worried about butchering articles just so the remainder looks neat enough to satisfy the whims of the FAC process. It seems a backwards way to do things. Although layout is important, content is king. See Talk:Margaret Thatcher.
- Much better, thanks. --mav
- Cabinets spun off. TOC is about 40% smaller now. →Raul654 06:44, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. — Matt 14:13, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Support. James F. (talk) 17:45, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Brilliant. +sj+ 06:15, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Support. TreyHarris 15:38, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. The article is well written, but the introduction is poor. One has to read several screens of text before learning anything about her role as one of the most important political figures of 20th century. The article should have an introduction fit to be put on the front page. Zocky 18:23, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Titles
[edit]It seems to me that this article has to meet the same fate as Ian McKellen, as it refers to "Thatcher," just as Ian McKellen refers to "McKellen." So if that article gets disqualified as an FA for that usage, this one has to be, too. --TreyHarris 01:08, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thatcher is a baroness. Peers are referred to by just their last names. And for the period before she became a peer, there's certainly not a problem. john k 06:38, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Is our policy to refer to her as "Lady Thatcher" or "Baroness Thatcher"? I think that "Lady" might be more appropriate for references after the first (if even that is used, instead of just "Thatcher"). It's like referring to a Countess as "the Countess of X" first and "Lady X" or "X" thereafter. -- Emsworth 17:10, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
Tbh, I'm not all that bothered about the use of titles either way, as long as the article is internally consistent, I think Wikipedia-wide consistency is merely a nice-to-have. — OwenBlacker 19:49, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
I'm hereby declaring that peerage titles should not be used in the article, and that this objection is moot. →Raul654 06:00, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that titles need not be used when referring to the period during which the Lady Thatcher was not a Baroness. For the period she was a Baroness, however, I think that "Margaret Thatcher" would be innapropriate. Better would be "Lady Thatcher" or just "Thatcher." That being said, I agree that this objection is not germane. -- Emsworth 22:24, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)