Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hillary Rodham Clinton/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Hillary Rodham Clinton

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wasted Time R (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the American Secretary of State, Senator, First Lady, and once and possibly future presidential candidate. It's been GA for a long time, it had a couple of runs at FA a number of years ago, and has been kept in an FAC-ready state ever since then. Now I'd like to try for FA again. I think it meets all the criteria and it's been very stable in terms of content. I thank in advance any reviewers for their comments. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Nikkimaria

[edit]
  • File:Hillary_Clinton_official_Secretary_of_State_portrait_crop.jpg: source link is dead
Now modified to the current State Department source.
  • File:Hrcraad.jpg: do we have an approximate date for this image?
Did some digging, found the date and circumstances, updated the image description accordingly and also updated the caption in the article under review to give the date and a better description of the event.
  • File:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton.jpg: source link is dead
Now modified to an archived link.
  • File:2008_Democratic_Primaries_Popular_Vote.png: is there any merit to the complaint of the IP? If not, it should be removed from the image description
"Primaries" is used by people in two senses, one to cover the whole nomination campaign, which includes caucuses, and the other to mean the specific kind of nomination contest known as a primary. I've removed the IP's addition but have modified the image description text to discuss that caucuses are included. There is no need to modify the article under review because the image caption already mentions caucuses and the article text already indicates that Obama did much better than Clinton in them.
Now modified to an archive link.
Thanks very much for reviewing these and pointing out where they needed fixes or improvements. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Curly Turkey

[edit]
  • (Just checking formatting)
  • Can we get accessdates for some of these web sources, such as Ref#123, #129?
I've added the original accessdate for ref #123, somehow it got lost along the way. Not sure what you mean regarding ref #129, that's a news source with a published date.
  • Should that be "Teachers College Press" rahter than "Teacher's College Press"?
Yes, now corrected.
  • I wonder why the issue about her maiden name is shunted to a footnote
It is in the article text: "During her husband's campaign, Rodham began to use the name Hillary Clinton, or sometimes "Mrs. Bill Clinton", to assuage the concerns of Arkansas voters;[nb 1]" The Note is to further expand upon the detail of how this came to be and give a quote from her, without derailing the narrative thrust in the article text.
  • In the "Notes" section there's a lot of external linking without explaining what the sources are (and which is also susceptible to link rot)
When I originally created the Notes section, there was no way of doing nested references, so the cites were all inline. Once there was a way, I started using it for new Notes, but didn't change the older ones. I have now done so. I did leave two Notes, 4 and 16, in the inline form, because those Notes are about the sources themsleves and read better that way.
  • What is the logic behind putting some things in "Notes" and others in "Footnotes". I'mn thinking of statements such as ref#6: "Her father was an outspoken Republican, while her mother kept quiet but was "basically a Democrat". and #16: " The teacher, Paul Carlson, and the minister, Donald Jones, came into conflict in Park Ridge; Clinton would later see that "as an early indication of the cultural, political and religious fault lines that developed across America in the [next] forty years""
Basically, longer asides or explanatory descriptions got put into Notes while shorter ones stay in footnotes. The #16 one is kind of borderline, but I felt it was tangential enough not to merit a Note.
  • Ref#52: "This Google Scholar search result produces nearly one hundred hits showing citations of her paper in academic literature.": This likely constitutes WP:OR
Source changed to a journal article by other academics which explicitly states that the paper has been frequently cited.
  • Ref#s 74 & 75: ditto
Not sure what you mean on these. The cites to these two of her articles are just to identify them; all the commentary on them follows and is from third-party sources.
  • Ref#211: this is a primary source---is there not another that can be used to cite this statement?
I've looked but there is nothing that is good as a replacement. I think it is appropriate here because the article text has Clinton "saying" what the source supports.
  • Ref#383: see for example Franklin, op. cit.: I think we're supposed to avoid things like op. cit.
Actually, WP:IBID seems to allow op. cit. It's only used this once, it's to avoid creating a Note just to get a nested reference, and the referent of the op. cit. is just three references above it.
  • Can we get pages for:
    • Ref#31 "The Class of '69"
Pages now added, as well as a url that is now available.
    • Ref#54 "Adults Urge Children's Rights"
News source replaced by a book cite with page number.
    • Ref#122 "First Lady President?"
I couldn't find page numbers for this but I did add a url for the full article which is now online.
    • Ref#128 "St. Hillary"
I couldn't find page numbers for this but I did add a url for the full article and fixed the title which was slightly off before.
Thanks very much for doing these source reviews and for your direct edits to the article. Some responses are above, more to follow. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have now responded to all of the source review comments. Thanks again for making them. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber

[edit]

- am reading now - will jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In para 2 of early life, there are 3 consecutive sentences starting, "She..." - and htey are a bit short. I think we could combine two to make them flow more smoothly
I've reworded this and combined two sentences, in combination with one of SNUGGUMS's comments.
Clinton first proposed marriage to her following graduation but she declined. - no idea why?
I've added "..., uncertain if she wanted to tie her future to his." This is elaborated on in the next section, when she eventually decides to follow Bill to Arkansas rather than stay in DC where here career prospects were better.
Once there, she pushed successfully for Wal-Mart to adopt more environmentally friendly practices - hyphen needed in there?
I don't think so, based upon the notion that adverbs ending in "ly" don't get hyphens when in compound modifiers. I know there are some exceptions to that, but this Google Books search doesn't show others using a hyphen.
ok
and was silent about the company's famously anti-labor union practices - ...undecided about the adverb - wondered whether "notoriously" was more apt (but as a left-leaner I would say that)...then wondered whether we need an adverb at all......
I think it's important to indicate Walmart's attitude towards unions has had a lot of visibility, and 'famously' is more neutral than 'notoriously'.
ok - wondered if "famously" was too positive a word but pratice speak for itself, so yeah point taken.
The last 4 paras of the Early Arkansas years section are a bit small. I though maybe some more details about chelsea's pregnancy and birth but became mindful of the overall size of the article. I recommend making into 2-3 paras for flow here
Hmm. The paragraphs are each on a different topic, and while working on a different article in the past with another editor I got converted to the school of thought that having differently sized paragraphs is a good thing and helps prevent visual tedium. As for Chelsea, I've never been sure of what to add here. Hillary said it was the "most miraculous and awe-inspiring event in my life" but plenty of mothers say the same thing. I could say she was named after the song "Chelsea Morning" but that's better in her article, where it already is.
Agree neither of those facts add anything here.
She earned less than the other partners, as she billed fewer hours,[100] but still made more than $200,000 in her final year there. - given the size of the article, I'd recommend losing this, or just saying she worked a bit less as a subordiante clause if need be as I don't think it adds a huge deal...
I get what you are saying, but I put financial details like this in the article because the Clintons have often said they didn't have much money and that was the rationale for the Whitewater investment, her cattle futures trading, and the high-priced speaking engagements they both did after leaving office. Indeed there was a flap earlier this year when during a book promotional interview Hillary said they had been 'dead broke' when they left the White House. I also thinks this helps describe what her legal career was like.
Good points - I was not hugely aware of that, and makes sense to keep in. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The firm considered her a "rainmaker" because she brought in clients, partly thanks to the prestige she lent the firm and to her corporate board connections - be good if you could remove the need for a second "firm" in this sentence.
Used a pronoun instead. Also added a link for this meaning of "rainmaker".
the Clintons deflected the charge - I'd say "countered" as "deflect" suggest "obfuscate" or fubb a reply, where as their counter seems coherent.
Changed to 'countered'.
baking cookies and having teas, - having "teas"? not "tea"?
The plural was in her original quote ("... I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas ...", given in the Note), so that's what I used in the text.
Fair enough (someone should teach her about grammar...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think she did mean "teas", as in the genteel activity of hosting multiple events where tea is served - not staying home drinking tea herself. FWIW. Tvoz/talk 08:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unenthusiastic.. (ungainly) --> skeptical? unconvinced? dubious? doubting..?
Changed to 'Unconvinced', which is supported by the source.
I'd link caucus at first instance.
I've reworded a couple of places to try to get the first reference to where it talks about how Obama dominated them, since that's an important point, and I've added the link there.

To sum, my queries are pretty minor quibbles really. The article is balanced, comprehensive, well-written and neutral. If anyone does complain about the length, the only section that I think could be trimmed would be the 2008 presidential campaign. It is a little blow-by-blow and maybe some of the detail could be sent to the daughter article. But I am not fussed myself. Well done! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your comments and kind words. Responses are above. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right then, support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your support. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]

Not too bad, Wasted. Here's my review.....

  • "She participated in swimming, baseball, and other sports"..... be more specific in "other sports", or perhaps say "She participated in sports such as swimming and baseball"
Reworded per your suggestion.
  • Is it necessary to say her father was "otherwise a traditionalist"?
Yes, I think so. As stated in the following paragraph and a footnote, he was an outspoken conservative and did not have an easy personality in general. But he did want his daughter's life not to be limited by her gender, and that may have made a difference in her becoming what she has.
  • "was of the opinion" is quite a mouthful, try thought or felt
Changed to 'felt'.
  • "Clinton first proposed marriage to her following graduation but she declined"..... any particular reason she declined?
Now added, see same comment from Casliber above.
  • "Other segments of the public focused on her appearance, which had evolved over time from inattention to fashion during her days in Arkansas, to a popular site in the early days of the World Wide Web devoted to showing her many different, and frequently analyzed, hairstyles as First Lady, to an appearance on the cover of Vogue magazine in 1998"..... not sure if this is really needed
I feel strongly that it is. She talks several times in her Living History memoir about all the attention her different hairstyles got, much to her surprise. One of the early 'viral' websites was about all her different hairstyles. And there's been plenty of commentary about what she looked like in her student or Arkansas days. The article needs to reflect all this.
Yes, there was actually a notable amount of coverage on the her hairstyle. This sounds superficial on the face of it, but is only documenting the public reaction.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "privately was reported to be furious at him and was unsure if she wanted to stay in the marriage"..... give a more definitive statement than "reportedly"
Almost by definition, no one knows how she reacted in private. But we have to say something in a case like this, because for sure her public reaction wasn't the whole story. So I used the Bernstein biography as a source, which seemed the best and fairest in this matter. Nevertheless I think it warrants a 'reported'.
  • It would help to include what made her decide to stay with Bill after finding out about his affair with Monica Lewinsky
There are many theories, some of which are alluded to in the 'public reactions' paragraph. Readers can consult the various biographies used as sources for in-depth psychoanalyzing on this question. But at the end of the day, only she knows why she stayed. I included her quote on this, about still loving Bill and how fully alive he is, which I'm sure is part of the reason but I'm also sure is not all.
  • "There was a variety of public reactions to Hillary Clinton after this" isn't really needed
I shortened it to 'Public reaction varied:'.
  • The following statements are missing citations:
  • "She was sworn in as United States Senator on January 3, 2001."
Cite added from existing source elsewhere.
  • "which authorized United States President George W. Bush to use military force against Iraq should such action be required to enforce a United Nations Security Council resolution after pursuing with diplomatic efforts"
Simplified description and moved it under the prior source. The article on the resolution should be the one to describe its complexities.
  • "It passed the Senate 74–25."
Prior source covers this, so indicated.
  • "Her last day as Secretary of State was February 1, 2013."
Cite added from existing source elsewhere.
  • Is "finally" really needed in "The debt was finally paid off by the beginning of 2013"?
Yes, I think so, because it took so long and constituted a burden hanging over her.
That could actually be "eventually" as 'finally' does have an air of POV in that it suggest it was almost an impossibility.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In September 2014, she became a grandmother when daughter Chelsea gave birth to a baby girl" is completely unnecessary, Charlotte belongs in Chelsea's article rather than here
Have to disagree on this. There has been lots of news coverage of Hillary as a grandmother, what it might mean for her politically, etc. It merits a brief mention here.
If so, may as well mention Charlotte by name here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have now done so. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does "political positions" consist of public rankings of her political affiliations and not what Clinton herself identifies as?
I don't think she's ever self-identified to an ideological label like that - she and Bill generally tried to avoid that. And even if political figures do self-identify, it is often inaccurate and/or pandering, such as when Mitt Romney characterized himself as 'severely conservative' in front of CPAC.
May as well remove this section altogether, then. It doesn't seem appropriate to include political labels when she doesn't describe herself as such.
The largest paragraph in this section uses various metrics that political scientists and analytical journalists have devised to measure members of Congress in their voting patterns. That's a useful and completely legitimate thing for this article to include. And the best of those break the analysis down by economic, social, and foreign policy issues, which helps avoid some of the oversimplifications of single-axis left vs right spectrum. Another paragraph gives ADA and ACU ratings, which is a shorthand for liberal vs conservative that many observers have made reference to in this past. The third paragraph, about how the public views her ideological position, is interesting but not as compelling as the other two, so I've now moved it to last in the order. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New York Times writer" → "The New York Times writer"
I think the 'The' is usually left out in such usages.
My basis was how "The" is part of the paper's name, but I'll take your word for it Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having 7 citations for "Clinton has often been described in the popular media as a polarizing figure" seems excessive per WP:OVERCITE
There was a whole hoorah about including her being polarizing this in the article back in the 2007-08 timeframe, and the eventual resolution was to show six cites in favor of that characterization and two cites against. My philosophy is to honor such agreements even if many of the participants have moved on. I'd fold the sources into one footnote each except that many of them are used in other places as well and thus can't easily be shared.
Putting multiple sources within footnotes would be a good idea. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have now combined all the sources for this into one footnote (the sharing issue wasn't as bad as I first thought). Wasted Time R (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Memorable" in "A memorable 2012 Internet meme" seems like WP:PEACOCK
I've taken out the 'memorable', since it's redundant to 'viral popularity'.
  • "Its viral popularity illustrated the public's interest in the more human side of Clinton"..... I'm skeptical about the tone of this
Well, there's two book sources that say this. There was something about it that caught people's attention - there are still news stories about it now, two years after the fact.
I meant the phrasing, particularly the "human side" bit. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "It achieved viral popularity among younger, technically adept followers of politics." This is directly supported by the existing sources given. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of tweaking myself, and can definitely see this becoming FA. Just needs some touching up first. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your comments. I did have a concern about one of your direct edits, which removed 'French Canadian' from her ancestory. The source involved, this NEGHS piece, seems to treat it as a separate ancestry from either French or Canadian, as does the existence of Category:American people of French-Canadian descent, which you also removed her from. I don't have strong feelings about the ancestry parts of articles, but other editors do, so are you sure this removal fits in with usual WP practice? Wasted Time R (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Yes, I'm sure my edit fits practice, and that category is very misleading as it is based off of a common misconception. The piece you've given actually at one point says Antoine Martin was born in Ontario to French natives, easy misunderstanding. Just a few more things and this is good to go. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm alright with no French Canadian. I believe I've now responded to all your other points. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your support! Wasted Time R (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions from MONGO

[edit]
  • Please add her DOB to the early life section.
Now done, that was an oversight on my part.
  • Break up her 2008 Presidential Run and her Sec of State section with more Level 3 headings. [16:16, November 30, 2014‎ MONGO]
I've done that for the Secretary of State section, as it can be divided into two halves. I haven't done it for the 2008 presidential campaign section because it doesn't divide easily (almost all of it is the primaries and caucuses during 2008) and because I don't see any other examples of campaign sections being divided and because I don't want the Table of Contents to become too overwhelming.
Thank you very much for your suggestions and please let me know if you have any more. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll read it over this coming weekend and get back to you. If I don't then ping me. Right now I'm leaning no opinion but that is based on my belief that she may have the next POTUS and if so then this current article will be greatly superseded by new events.--MONGO 02:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks in advance for reviewing the article. Of course you are entitled to view this aspect as you like, but for what's it's worth, the FA precedent is that looming presidential elections are no barrier to FA promotion. John McCain made FA in August 2008, three months before the general election that he was in, and Mitt Romney made FA in early November 2012, four days before the general election that he was in. And here we are still two years out from the 2016 presidential election. There is no guarantee that she will run - several recent pieces in the political press have been to this point - and certainly no guarantee that she will win if she does. And if she does become president, we'll deal with it in the article when that time comes. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support promotion to Featured Article. Let me say that I am no fan of the subject, so I deliberately looked to see if there was white-washing of those things that Hillary Rodham Clinton is considered controversial for. I did not see any omissions regarding those issues. I will say that the image selection does show the subject in a mainly positive light, but we are limited by what is available due to licensing issues. With over 2200 edits to this article, Wasted Time R has obviously been a dedicated editor on the subject matter of this article and deserves commendation for that dedication which has ensured we have a neutral, expansive, complete and comprehensive article as of this date and time.--MONGO 19:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your support and your praise. I understand your concern about the photo selection and it's true that much of what is available are official photos of her meeting with world leaders while Secretary of State, which tend to be staged as to make the participants look good. However, I was able to find and add one of the "reset button" photo op with Sergey Lavrov, which is an example of one of these meetings that didn't turn out as desired in the long run. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mark Miller

[edit]

I have worked with Wasted Time R on this article so I hope I am able to still support it at FAC. It is of Feature Article quality biography, neutral and very well written. Support for comprehensiveness, engaging prose, neutral, focused but still broad in coverage.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but think it depends on how involved one is with the article beforehand. If you were a frequent editor, that might be a COI, though you'd definitely be able to help address comments in an FAC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously not a disinterested voice, but I think User:Mark Miller's 'Support' should be allowed. The contributor analysis tool seems to be down right now, but I believe that most of his activity came in 2013, with less than 20 edits and a few talk page posts when there was a discussion with another editor about how to handle a couple of things in the Secretary of State section. I don't think that counts as a "frequent editor" in the larger scheme of things. And WP:FAC doesn't say anything about striking even in that case - it says, "To support a nomination, write 'Support', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this." And he has indicated his prior involvement. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. Feel free to unstrike, Mark. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I have been editing the article for some time now. Since 2009 under the username Amadsientist (but the history now shows the edits under this name beginning in August 2009 [2] showing just over 60 edits for that month). I have debated a number of issues on the talk page and made many edits including image alteration, text contributions, consensus discussions etc.. I may not be a major contributor but certainly a long term editor whose hands have been on the article for 5 years or more. I wasn't sure how the support !vote worked here and I should be more prepared. Sorry.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't recognize the renaming of Amadscientist. Yes, your description of your involvement is how I would characterize it as well. And thanks for your support of the FAC. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rationalobserver

[edit]
Thanks very much for your support and kind words. The nature of the beast is that WP editors more commonly get complaints than praise, so the latter does not go unappreciated! Wasted Time R (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

[edit]

I looked just at the lead section and did some copyediting; feel free to revert, as always.

  • "continued to oppose most of its domestic policies.": I don't know what "continued to oppose" means; frequently opposed? Also, most things that any administration does are uncontroversial, so she didn't really oppose most of its policies; many of its initiatives, maybe. Also, "its" is arguably ambiguous; a less savvy reader might think you're talking about domestic policy in Iraq.
  • If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 04:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: thanks very much for your comments. Regarding your direct edits, the only one I have an issue with is your elimination of "However" in the part of the lead dealing with policy efforts in her First Lady years. I know some editors consider it a word to avoid, but that doesn't make sense to me in a case like this where it is an informative connective. The difference here is essentially between:
"In year Y, Alice failed at major task A. However, in Y+3, Alice did tasks B and C."
"In year Y, Alice failed at major task A. In Y+3, Alice did tasks B and C."
The first version indicates to the reader that B and C are related to A in some way and that in some partial way Alice's initial failure was made up for by later successes. In the second version, the reader doesn't know if B and C are related to A at all; it could just be a chronological narrative of things that happened.
I've searched for however in this article, and if you were the writer, you use the word the same way most people use it: what follows negates or strongly mitigates what precedes. Did the creation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program negate or strongly mitigate the lack of a national health care program? - Dank (push to talk)
Yes, it provided health care insurance coverage for children who would otherwise be uninsured, so it mitigated the earlier failure among a significant subset of the uninsured population. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My objection isn't a copyediting objection ... that is, if editors agree that the State Children's Health Insurance Program substantially mitigated the lack of a national health insurance program, then "however" is fine. If not, "but" would be better. I'll leave this now and ask again when it's scheduled for TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 21:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "continued to oppose most of its domestic policies", the "continued" is meant to indicate she opposed Bush domestic policies from the beginning, not just after 9/11, which is what the beginning of the sentence is setting up. But I agree it's kind of mysterious if you don't read it that way. I've chopped the sentence and made a new one of "She opposed most of Bush's domestic policies." Let me know if that reads okay to you.
How about "she opposed Bush domestic policies from the beginning"? - Dank (push to talk)
I don't think the "from the beginning" is needed anymore now that it is a separate sentence – it is clear that the timeframe of that statement is not tied to the 9/11 responses of the preceding sentence. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it's fine now. - Dank (push to talk) 21:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for "policies", I think that implies non-trivial choices and not just praising motherhood and apple pie. And the rest of the article uses the word in the same sense, such as when she received criticism for playing a role in policy formation while First Lady. So I've left that word in, but if you strongly object, I'm open to trying to change it. I'm not crazy about "initiatives", because I think it implies new policies only and not modifications, continuations, restorations, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer: I think there's just a little bit of ambiguity, but it's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 03:40, 12 December 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/archive3&oldid=1089084819"