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.
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia 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.Georgia (U.S. state)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state) articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football 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.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles
@Rjensen, OgamD218, Davide King, Hmains, Orser67, and Keystone18: In light of the significant extent of your contributions to the Woodrow Wilson page (as well as relatively recent evidence of your continued interest in said article), you are invited to participate in a discussion regarding which image is best for the lede. Should you feel so inclined, please share your thoughts below.Emiya1980 (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of B. The current image of Woodrow Wilson is from 1919 which is right around the time he had a stroke so it clearly does not capture him in his prime. Additionally, B has significantly better lighting and is not as cramped around the subject's head. Emiya1980 (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a clear consensus for option B. There should be no objection to me closing this RFC even though I am involved. I voted for option A, but there's an overwhelming consensus for option B. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
B is slightly crisper in my view although I'm not strongly committed. Five years certainly made a difference to his face. Both have very narrow margins between the top of Wilson's head and the top of the frame which make them feel a bit compressed. ITBF💬04:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original uncropped version of A has more space at the top which might resolve that issue; the source link for B is dead so can't tell if there was similar cropping there. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an LOC link to confirm that tag? The current source link is dead and on a quick look I don't see it in LOC (but there are lots of results so I may have missed it). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very careful about saying "... right around the time he had a stroke ..." A stroke is a sudden thing. If the photo were taken before the stroke, it would be, relatively speaking, OK. After the stroke, if he were still recovering from the stroke, he would look so doubtful, they wouldn't even bother with a portrait photo. I suspect A was before the stroke.
A This current image has been on this WP:GA in one form or another for over 10 years. I don't see a compelling reason to change it now. It's a clear image of Wilson. I really don't understand why there's suddenly so many RFCs about images of historical figures. Certainly there's better ways to improve the project. Nemov (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B, per most of the above. Although option A has a "dark and stormy night" look, a good metaphor for Wilson's broken promise to keep the U.S. out of war, B depicts the dignified subject professionally. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The differences are marginal at best. To add upon Nemov's point, there are certainly more productive ways to use the collective power of an RFC. To quote WP:RFCBEFORE, "RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable. Editors should try to resolve their issues before starting an RfC." Are the photo "improvements" so dramatic that one BOLD editor couldn't have just made the photo update in the matter of a 5-minute edit? Pistongrinder (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every few months, someone tries to change the lede image of an article like this. Editor time is spent arguing over it and/or reverting it. I have spent quite a lot of editor time combing through article history looking for attempts to change the lede image, so that I would know whether or not I had been anticipated, and so that I would know how we got to where we are. When people complain about editor time being wasted, it's likely that they themselves have never gone to the trouble of consulting article history. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's likely you haven't looked at the number of RFCs opened by the same editors on multiple stable biographies over the last 3 months. 90% of these RFCs have ended up being unchanged, thus taxing the community on a discussion that should have never occurred. Nemov (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, that's still the case. 90% isn't 100% and this RFC wasn't necessary. This could have been resolved through simple discussion without opening up a RFC. RFC are supposed to be the last resort. Obviously some editors have ignored that. Nemov (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems pretty unfair. I don't know about elsewhere, but in this particular case it looks like Emiya1980 made a bold edit not once but twice, and was reverted both times. Wisely not edit-warring, they then brought the discussion to the talk page in the section above this one, just as you suggest, pinging several editors, but received no reply from anyone. This RfC was the last resort. I, and possibly others, would not have known about this issue if not for the RFC, and considering the fairly clear consensus that has emerged, I consider my five minutes well spent in helping to improve a highly read article. Station1 (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B. To the extent there is a consensus it seems to favor B. As Station1 points out, Emiya1980 has followed procedure and done what was asked in starting a discussion to seek consensus and pinging relevant editors. Robert Pius should either be satisfied or speak up. (Personally, I prefer the aesthetics of the grittier A, but I admit B is more familiar to me.) Carleas (talk) 11:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn’t notified about this second conversation. I am personally more familiar with A and I believe its more recognizable. But, if there’s a consensus for B then so be. Kind regards, Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs)16:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are some tag issues that can affect article classification. "Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from February 2019" and August 2022 (categories), are not that serious. Categories such as "Articles with unsourced statements from August 2022" and "Articles with dead external links from October 2023", can affect the article classification of even a B-class article. The B-class criteria #1 states: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. -- Otr500 (talk)
This is a level-4 vital article and is rated GA-class. Sometimes the incremental edits, that define Wikipedia, can also lead to degradement. There are currently nineteen links in four subsections.
This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.
Second paragraph of the lead: Some acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.-- Otr500 (talk)
The "External links" section is one of the optional appendices. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to try to add for a forth.
The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
I am moving all but two so a possible discussion can be had, if warranted, to determine content by consensus
Please note: This is more of a maintenance and not normally subjected to BRD per:
WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. -- Otr500 (talk)
Some can be carefully and thoughtfully trimmed but nearly all is overkill. I restored the major online repositories of Gutenberg, Archive.org and Librivox which are standard. There's some other good stuff in there like the NYT repository, the CSPAN life portrait, White House bio, LOC resources, the essay at Miller Center. -- GreenC14:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I usually stop at a max of four but a compromise is a win-win. The links are beneficial and the rest was absolutely overkill. On another note, it is ironic that the US wouldn't join the League of Nations because Wilson refused to negotiate.
In the last paragraph of the "Governor of New Jersey (1911–1913)" section is the sentence "Before leaving office Wilson oversaw the establishment of free dental clinics and enacted a "comprehensive and scientific" poor law (my use of bold). I tagged this because I couldn't find a source. I have no idea what the bold wording means. Any rate, thanks for your assistance. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
