This article is about the First Lady of the United States. Now that she has been in office for 6 years, there have been a lot of eyes on the article and there has been a lot of refinement since the last nomination 4.5 years ago. This is a very odd nomination. Among the 18 people with at least a dozen edits to the article, no one has edited the article since November 2013. Thus, we can see that the article is now very stable. I think it is greatly improved over the previously nominated versions. Although I remain the leading editor in terms of number of edits, the vast majority of those were prior to FAC1. Nonetheless, I will take the lead on this nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Several things stand out to me when I read this: Noahcs (Talk) 15:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LGBT Rights section has one sentence that is over half the paragraph. Also, with the repeated use of the phrase "his support"", it appears to read like an advertisement for Barack instead of Michelle. Noahcs (Talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but the first paragraph still seems off to me. First, they are not reflecting on Michelle Obama herself, they are mostly referring to policies and personal views that Barack Obama shares. Second, the comments were given at what was basically a fundraiser which seems to be incompatible with WP:NPOV. It still reads like an advertisement written for Barack. Perhaps if you changed it to something like "Both her and her husband have been committed to _______. Together they support _____. They feel ______. They both have been _____." I assume their viewpoints match on these issues? Noahcs (Talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On that same issue, shouldn't the Let's Move section be bigger? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't her healthy foods program her signature program? Noahcs (Talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's Move! has its own article. This section summarizes that and has a ((main)) tag to send the reader to a more detailed coverage of the topic. This article is not about Let's Move. The dedicated article is 7449 characters of readable prose, while this section is 1541 characters. Note that the WP:LEAD of that article, which is also suppose to summarize the topic is only 1371 characters. That is a good size for a summary. If that article were really large and it had a full-size LEAD (about 3000 characters), I would be more worried about the content here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only two sentences and one source under "Support of Barack Obama US House and Senate campaigns". Noahcs (Talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we merge "Support of Barack Obama US House and Senate campaigns" and "2008 Presidential campaign and election" to a "Early campaigns"? How much encyclopedic content do political wives have regarding their husband's early careers. I might be able to find content about how the couple considered his foray into politics. In fact, some content may have gotten thrown out with the bathwater during some of the high vandalism periods.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a great idea Noahcs (Talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the family section has a lot of content related to how his political career affected the family. Do you think all the content is where it should be?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think her life before and after meeting Obama should be more distinct; the article blurs the line between them. I would definitely consider moving the section about her daughters to the bottom under "First Lady". I'm not sure if I would give "Religion" its own subsection, but that's fine either way. Noahcs (Talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that meeting Obama now is the start of a subsection. What stuff about her daughters are you talking about.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the section starting at "The Obamas' daughters attended the...". It seems that there should be a family life section under "First Lady" that shows their lives while they are in office. Noahcs (Talk) 19:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in that paragraph before "Malia and Sasha now attend Sidwell Friends School..." belongs where it is. That is not FLOTUS content. I am not sure how to fit the rest of the paragraph in the FLOTUS section either although an argument might be made that it belongs there. I am not sure it really does.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Family and Education" seems a bit long, couldn't it be split up into other sections? Noahcs (Talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's a tough subject to write about because so many things overlap with her. This article has to balance information about Michelle, Barack, her role as first lady, his presidency, and their family as a whole. I think the nominator has done a good job, but I'm not sure about Featured Status just yet Noahcs (Talk) 20:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is that it just jumps around a lot without relying on summarizing issues. It's just not tightly edited. This section in particular is a mess. It talks about her hiring Jackie Norris then goes to military families then to criticism of her being a "feminist nightmare" and then to Sasha and Malia in China? Noahcs (Talk) 03:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On March 20, 2012, Michelle Obama said her husband's Supreme Court nominees will weigh in on decisions that will determine whether Americans can "love whomever they choose.""Jarrett, Michelle Obama pushed for gay marriage". Washington Wire. 5/9/12. Retrieved January 22, 2013. ((cite news)): Check date values in: |date= (help) That link is to an unrelated photo at Time. The date 5/9/12 is ambiguous and should be turned into prose.
On her first trip abroad in April 2009, she toured a cancer ward with Sarah Brown, wife of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Do we need this? What does it tell us? Mr Stephen (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Using that as a highlight of her first trip abroad, sort of tells us about what type of person she his. It is not like they dragged her around town kicking and screaming. Also, she surely has her own publicity machine. If this is the first highlight, we should show the readers what her publicity machine produced as her first highlight.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki. I've checked prose and a couple of the sources. This is broadly there, glad you didn't trivialise this. But I have a couple of queries. I think there is a clash between "As the wife of a Senator, and later the First Lady, she has become a fashion icon and role model for women" and the later bits about her being the least known candidate's spouse. She may still be less well known than Hilary Clinton's spouse, but there were other candidates in that race. Do you have sources for her being a fashion icon as a senator's wife, or would it be more accurate to say something like "As the wife of a presidential candidate, and especially as First Lady, she has become a fashion icon and role model for women". "Obama advocated of her husband's policy priorities by promoting bills that support it." may make sense in American English but to me it jars "Obama advocated for her husband's policy priorities by promoting bills that support it." would I think be slightly better; if it means that she lobbied Senators and Congressmen to support certain bills then I would prefer that you say that.ϢereSpielChequers 23:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See "In July 2007, Vanity Fair listed her among '10 of the World's Best Dressed People.'"- She was clearly a fashion icon at least a year and a half before becoming FLOTUS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tony. July 2007 was five months into the presidential campaign. Is there anything indicating she was considered a fashion icon before the campaign when she was just known as a senator's wife?ϢereSpielChequers 14:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WereSpielChequers, According to the electronic response that I got back from the Chicago Public Library "Ask a librarian" portal, which identifies itself as the CPL E-mail Reference Team, Ms. Obama was not mentioned in Vogue or Vanity Fair before the February 2007 announcement. However, prior to that date, the couple was listed in both the 2005 and 2007 Hottest couples lists by Ebony. Obama was also mentioned as "ever so stylish" during the January 2005 inauguration balls in her Maria Pinto-designed gown per Anthony, Florence (January 13, 2005). "Go with the Flo: Denzel turns 50". New York Amsterdam News. Vol. 96, no. 3. p. 18..--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tony, nice work ϢereSpielChequers 22:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry Tony, but this is not FA-material.....
Infobox
I don't think we need to give Malia and Sasha's birth years here, they should just be in article body
This follows Barack Obama's article, which is a very closely watched article for all elements of style. Unless you can convince me that removing it would be supported there where every content addition and removal is highly scrutinized, we should keep it here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I wouldn't have done it in his article, either.
"Christian" is unneeded in "Protestant Christian" since Protestantism is a division of Christianity.
"The family enjoyed playing games such as Monopoly and reading"..... how is this significant?
I think if her father was an alcoholic who left his family or beat his wife, it would be encyclopedic. This is a rare statement of the opposite, depicting a close-knit family. I picture them getting in a wood-grained panelling station wagon and doing all kinds of things together as a family. It paints a very clear picture for me and thus I view it as quite helpful. I have played scrabble with my grandparents, but I don't recall playing board games with my parents. I have a distinct feeling about her family from this statement.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be simpler to say they were close, happy family Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Craig should link to "Craig Robinson (basketball)", not "Craig Robinson (basketball coach)"
If you are asking why they each skipped a grade, I would presume it was intellectual maturity. If you are asking why they each skipped the 2nd grade as opposed to another random grade, that is a different question.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why they skipped a grade at all, assuming this bit is to even be included Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Family life
"The couple's first date was to the Spike Lee movie Do the Right Thing"..... trivial
It tell's us the couple's first date was in the summer of 1989 and carries additional socioeconomic information about them as a couple.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to say they began dating in the summer of 1989, but it's not really important what they did that day Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"for their two children"..... daughters, let's be more specific
"However, despite their family obligations and careers, they continue to attempt to schedule date nights"..... is "date nights" really the best term to describe their time together?
I think that term is O.K. My problem with this content is that it is from a pre-White House source. We need to make it clear that this was a statement about their pre-White House life. I have added the phrase "while they lived in Chicago". If we were talking about their White House lives, time together might not be regarded as date nights. I think what they probably had in Chicago amounted to date nights.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You could just say they found ways to be together, "schedule dates" tends to be used when a couple is unmarried Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info on Malia and Sasha's education would belong on articles about them, not Michelle
My point is that it's trivial Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The entire fourth paragraph simply doesn't belong- info on Malia and Sasha's education would belong in their own articles rather than Michelle's, the other bits are trivial
The version of the article I am looking at now only has three paragraphs in this section.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might have been fourth when I first reviewed this, but still is the last paragraph of the section Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Education and early career
"took advanced placement classes,was a member"..... needs a space after the comma
I'm not convinced this warrants a separate section. Her Methodist upbringing could perhaps be mentioned in a previous section, but the rest doesn't really seem needed. In any case, such a subsection doesn't belong under a section for "family".
Are you saying that mentioning that she is pro politics in the church is unencyclopedic?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that this section goes into excess detail Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Career
Sidley Austin should have been linked in the "family life" section rather than here
The fifth paragraph is fluff, and the last two sentences of the first paragraph are trivial.
It seems that WP tends to be a pop culture focused encyclopedia and FLOTUS articles seem to have a lot of ligher fare. The content that you are asking to have removed seems to be consistent with the more popular content elements of WP and the generally accepted practices for FLOTUS articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of all of the link suggestions below. I believe other editors have removed a lot of the links that I had previously included. I will readd these.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why. Although we assume that a reader has seen a link in text earlier in the article, we do not assume that the reader reads all the citations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because linking a work/publisher is only needed in its first footnote Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it would pass for GA, it isn't a top-notch source. Remember that FA critera demands more than GA criteria, and thus wants the best possible sources. Fox News isn't among the top-notch sources. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's simply too many problems right now, better luck next time. I suggest withdrawal and taking to peer review before renomination. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS, please revisit this. It would be helpful if you struck the items that you feel I have addressed and commented on the others.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but I still oppose and suggest withdrawal. In addition to the unresolved bits, Crisco and Designate brought up another major problem: none of the footnotes cite any full-length biographical books on her. We cannot say this article is comprehensive if it doesn't reference such books, and this still suffers from superfluous detail in certain areas. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Were any of the full-length biographies consulted for this article? All of the inline citations are to news sites. One of the criteria is "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". —Designate (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors have included three biographies in further reading. I assume the text has been guided in some ways by those sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. If there are three full length biographies of the subject, yet they are not referenced even once, and the main contributor has not consulted them, how can we say that this article is comprehensive? Even if the current article is a reasonably thorough look at events in her life (possible; it looks reasonable), the three biographies likely include analysis which is useful for improving on the causality of events, and discussion of how her actions as First Lady (and before) have been seen by others. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- Not only does the article eschew the biographies as sources, I couldn't see clear evidence of any books being used as sources. Articles and online sources of course aid in spotchecking, but they don't offer a level of comfort that a broad range of references has been employed. The article isn't suffering from excess weight at the moment so I think further sources could only be a benefit, and that should take place away from the FAC process (I might just add that even given its current length the lead seems light on). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.