This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Abraham Lincoln 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 is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indiana Historical Society, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indiana Historical Society-related articles and topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indiana Historical SocietyWikipedia:GLAM/Indiana Historical SocietyTemplate:WikiProject Indiana Historical SocietyIndiana Historical Society
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:
At over 13,000 words, WP:TOOBIG suggests that some of the text should be reduced or spun out.
One of the reasons why it is large is the numerous large block quotes used in the article. I think these should be summarised, reduced, and/or removed.
The end of "Historical reputation" has a lot of random facts and quotes. I think this needs to be edited for things to be removed.
There is uncited text in the article, including citation needed tags from March 2024.
I don't think there is a need for this article to go to GAR. Re the "citation needed" tags - There are only 4 on the article. I'll attempt to get that info cited over the next few days and TOOBIG wouldn't seem to have any bearing on the article being a GA or not (is that in the GA parameters?), Historical rep being untidy also isn't in arrears for a GA... - Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shearonink: For the citations: there's some uncited material that doesn't have a cn tag. Would you like me to add them? For the prose and layout: WP:GA? says "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience". If the article is too big, I am not sure that the information is concise. Z1720 (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a bigger improvement for the article to have interested editors dealing with unsourced statements directly, rather than having cn tags added and then dealing with them separately. It's just that I have seen so many articles get tagged and then the issues linger and linger and aren't dealt with in a timely fashion. I'll get to what I can get to as soon as I can but it is the holidays... - Shearonink (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP:TOOBIG is not directly relevant. See WP:GACR6 for a list of criteria.
If there is material that should be summarised, reduced, and/or removed, it's concerning. Large block quotes are by no means the only source of this. Ulysses S. Grant and George Washington are articles that have been dramatically reduced in size the hard way, i.e. by going through section by section and looking for text that was clumsily written or was superfluous. But those articles were in no danger of WP:GAR. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruce leverett: I am happy to support editors who want to reduce the prose without bringing this to GAR. If editors do not indicate a willingness to do so, I would consider nominating this for GAR to try to find editors who are willing to do that. Z1720 (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading about "often ranked as the greatest" reminds me strongly of what we have gone through in the biography articles about chess world champions.
Wikipedia should be used to settle arguments, not to start them. If experienced editors go back and forth endlessly about how to exactly to say superlative things about Lincoln, then sure enough, we are starting arguments. Something calmer, along the lines of "generally highly ranked", would be perfectly acceptable.
I think "generally highly ranked" or something similar would be fine. "Often" was cited in the latest revert along with "We've been through this". I don't care that this has been discussed before, I care about the preciseness of the prose and my understanding of what Wikipedia is stating in its voice. "often ranked in both popular and scholarly polls as one of the greatest presidents in American history" seems more precise to me (as well as, frankly, less hagiographic to "Saint Abe Lincoln") than "often ranked in both popular and scholarly polls as the greatest president in American history". The main article text of Abraham Lincoln#Historical reputation that the lead is supposed to rely on seems much more nuanced in its assessment of Lincoln's historical reputation, that text is what we should take into account when rendering the lead. - Shearonink (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
