This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nancy Reagan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
Nancy Reagan 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 24, 2007. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
The second intro paragraph should really be rewritten. The purpose of the introduction is to give a general outline of the person's life without coloring it in either way while erring on the side of positivity. The entire second paragraph seems to exist only to talk about criticisms over mundane details such as her choice to change the White House china and talk to an astrologer. I have no problem with this information in the article, my only issue is why are such inconsequential details in the intro? Just to make her sound controversial? MrDestructo ( talk) 17:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The astrology thing is pretty obscure in that it was a minor story and, while it is pretty well documented, it simply was a minor story at the time. Additionally the sentence "She had a strong influence on her husband and played a role in a few of his personnel and diplomatic decisions." is rather obscure. Several Presidents dating at least to FDR have had that criticism levied, usually, by partisan opponents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.177.68 ( talk) 18:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not a Wikipedia expert so please excuse any errors in my approach to giving feedback. I notice that the page for Ronald Reagan opens up with him being President of the United States, and then discuss with him having been a Hollywood actor, union leader and governor of California. However, Nancy Reagan’s page opens up with her being an actress, second wife of Ronald Reagan, and only then mentions that she was the first lady of the United States. Seems inconsistent; should mention her role as First Lady first. Can anyone make the updates to make the intros consistent? I did not make any changes to the pages (I don’t know how). Thanks much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4400:171f:7c0e:a292:ebf7:fa18 ( talk) 14:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
The photo chosen is a professional portrait intended to portray Mrs Reagan an a favorable light (which, from a certain perspective, makes it non-NPOV). Don't you think the date of the photo should therefore be shown, as it is with virtually every other Wikipedia portrait? 67.170.64.149 ( talk) 18:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
"Kennedy" is mentioned ten times - isn't that too much in an overview article about Mrs Reagan? Points to be made by comparing the two First Ladies or the two administrations could perhaps be grouped into a single section? I think it would help keeping focus on the article's main person in an otherwise very good text. -- 84.209.23.211 ( talk) 22:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
How can First Lady be considered an office? I realize that by now all the First Ladies' articles are likewise formatted, and that this poor woman was showcased more than most and deserves some honors. (Even more so for Jackie O. who endured even worse, rest in peace.) But it's not official, ergo not an office. It doesn't seem encyclopaedic or proper. I have no doubt that being First Lady is a demanding cross to bear, but it seems to me that we should use some words other than "In office." — Preceding unsigned comment added by CousinJohn ( talk • contribs) 04:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I find the following line to be misleading "In 1988, she became the first first lady invited to address the United Nations General Assembly, where she spoke on international drug interdiction and trafficking laws."
It gives the impression that Nancy is the first first lady to interact with the United Nations in an official capacity, which is untue. Eleanor Roosevelt was appointed as the US delegate to the United Nations General Assembly 33 years earlier and made significant contributions. While Eleanor was not in the role of first lady at the time (by 8 months), a change is needed to clarify the point.
Perhaps referring to Nancy as "the first (acting) first lady..." or "the first first lady (currently in the role)..." would be sufficient emphasis to show that she was not trailblazing a connection between the role of the first lady and the UN like the current statement implies. DinoGarret ( talk) 20:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Good call. I updated it to the first suggestion. I like the separation of "first first lady" which already sounds awkward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinoGarret ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I have done some archiving, and, unlike her well-documented appearance on Different Strokes, there is no record of a guest appearance on any Dynasty episode. 2601:447:4080:10:F00D:331C:4B77:A09F ( talk) 00:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ramirezk6.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Article does not seem to be well-researched or comprehensive. There's too much reliance on news stories as opposed to scholarly sources or retrospectives such as the Benze biography. See the further reading section ( t · c) buidhe 22:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Is this really appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia? Oktayey ( talk) 17:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I made Category:Nancy Reagan a subcat of Category:Reagan Era, which made Category:Conservatism in the United States redundant. I've made some mistakes with categories before, so if this doesn't seem like a legit change, feel free to undo it. - Special-T ( talk) 00:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nancy Reagan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
Nancy Reagan 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 24, 2007. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
The second intro paragraph should really be rewritten. The purpose of the introduction is to give a general outline of the person's life without coloring it in either way while erring on the side of positivity. The entire second paragraph seems to exist only to talk about criticisms over mundane details such as her choice to change the White House china and talk to an astrologer. I have no problem with this information in the article, my only issue is why are such inconsequential details in the intro? Just to make her sound controversial? MrDestructo ( talk) 17:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The astrology thing is pretty obscure in that it was a minor story and, while it is pretty well documented, it simply was a minor story at the time. Additionally the sentence "She had a strong influence on her husband and played a role in a few of his personnel and diplomatic decisions." is rather obscure. Several Presidents dating at least to FDR have had that criticism levied, usually, by partisan opponents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.177.68 ( talk) 18:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not a Wikipedia expert so please excuse any errors in my approach to giving feedback. I notice that the page for Ronald Reagan opens up with him being President of the United States, and then discuss with him having been a Hollywood actor, union leader and governor of California. However, Nancy Reagan’s page opens up with her being an actress, second wife of Ronald Reagan, and only then mentions that she was the first lady of the United States. Seems inconsistent; should mention her role as First Lady first. Can anyone make the updates to make the intros consistent? I did not make any changes to the pages (I don’t know how). Thanks much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4400:171f:7c0e:a292:ebf7:fa18 ( talk) 14:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
The photo chosen is a professional portrait intended to portray Mrs Reagan an a favorable light (which, from a certain perspective, makes it non-NPOV). Don't you think the date of the photo should therefore be shown, as it is with virtually every other Wikipedia portrait? 67.170.64.149 ( talk) 18:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
"Kennedy" is mentioned ten times - isn't that too much in an overview article about Mrs Reagan? Points to be made by comparing the two First Ladies or the two administrations could perhaps be grouped into a single section? I think it would help keeping focus on the article's main person in an otherwise very good text. -- 84.209.23.211 ( talk) 22:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
How can First Lady be considered an office? I realize that by now all the First Ladies' articles are likewise formatted, and that this poor woman was showcased more than most and deserves some honors. (Even more so for Jackie O. who endured even worse, rest in peace.) But it's not official, ergo not an office. It doesn't seem encyclopaedic or proper. I have no doubt that being First Lady is a demanding cross to bear, but it seems to me that we should use some words other than "In office." — Preceding unsigned comment added by CousinJohn ( talk • contribs) 04:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I find the following line to be misleading "In 1988, she became the first first lady invited to address the United Nations General Assembly, where she spoke on international drug interdiction and trafficking laws."
It gives the impression that Nancy is the first first lady to interact with the United Nations in an official capacity, which is untue. Eleanor Roosevelt was appointed as the US delegate to the United Nations General Assembly 33 years earlier and made significant contributions. While Eleanor was not in the role of first lady at the time (by 8 months), a change is needed to clarify the point.
Perhaps referring to Nancy as "the first (acting) first lady..." or "the first first lady (currently in the role)..." would be sufficient emphasis to show that she was not trailblazing a connection between the role of the first lady and the UN like the current statement implies. DinoGarret ( talk) 20:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Good call. I updated it to the first suggestion. I like the separation of "first first lady" which already sounds awkward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinoGarret ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I have done some archiving, and, unlike her well-documented appearance on Different Strokes, there is no record of a guest appearance on any Dynasty episode. 2601:447:4080:10:F00D:331C:4B77:A09F ( talk) 00:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ramirezk6.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Article does not seem to be well-researched or comprehensive. There's too much reliance on news stories as opposed to scholarly sources or retrospectives such as the Benze biography. See the further reading section ( t · c) buidhe 22:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Is this really appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia? Oktayey ( talk) 17:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I made Category:Nancy Reagan a subcat of Category:Reagan Era, which made Category:Conservatism in the United States redundant. I've made some mistakes with categories before, so if this doesn't seem like a legit change, feel free to undo it. - Special-T ( talk) 00:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)