Or is it History of the United States? The cover page is the latter, while the rest of the book is the former. This is a good book with substantial content, but it needs a lot of cleanup. Nearly every link in the book is a redirect, several pages are setup like [[US History:Presidents]] rather than [[US History/Presidents]], and the navigation throughout the book is not standardized, or on every page. Several pages also feature maintenance tags. I think this makes it not meet criteria 3, 6, and 8. Also, I think the History bookshelf needs some sort of policy outlining what is and is not acceptable for a history textbook. Several of these books spend far too much time (in my opinion) dealing with trivial modern issues, that 50 years from now will not be relevant to history. This book is probably the worst case of this that I've seen. The VFD nomination of this page (which, incidentally is not linked to from the Contents page) and my subsequent examination of the rest of the book is what sparked this nomination. Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 17:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a book that has fallen into general disrepair, and has not been maintained over time. It was once a very good book comparatively, but our standards have risen here dramatically in recent months. Many of the pages are "blocks of text", with very little formatting, few pictures, etc. There are some pictures, certainly, but I also saw a few places where images have been deleted, and only the red links remain. The naming conventions that you pointed out are also a big problem, and need to be corrected in a serious way. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Support - This book has no (correct me if I'm wrong) green/100% markers before George W. Bush. That shows it's a current-events book. However, there is nothing wrong with current-events books as long as you recognize they are such. But this "history" textbook has little information before George W. Bush. Also, not everyone agrees what "human rights" are. I personally believe some things that are called "human rights" in this book (or that's the connotation of "human rights") and most people in the U.S. think likewise. So, I support this one losing featured status, but I would like to see it (or a similar book) be featured soon. Cheers, Laleena (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I fail to see how "cleanup tags" can possibly be avoided for this book, especially in the last chapter. This book does offer a good example of what a history book can look like on Wikibooks, and is an example of a well-written history book that can be used for actual instruction of this topic. Yes, I'll admit there are some significant short falls in the book, and considerably more material can be added. In a sea of rising expectations, perhaps removal from featured status can be re-considered, so I guess I place this more as a weak opposition to its removal. But I'm also warning to not raise the standard so high that good books like this can never meet the criteria for inclusion due to the topic and structure of such a book.

In response to Laleena, the information before George W. Bush is amply covered in depth. In fact, most of the 19th Century U.S. History is pretty much stable, free of mark-up tags, and of generally fair quality in terms of prose. Yes, even more can be added here, but this is a general history book and not just a current events book. That perhaps some work can happen on the most recent episodes of American history is true, and keeping those particular pages current is always a challenge for any history book writer. Also, there is a green 100% marker next to the US History/Contents/W Bush module. This is a huge scope for a book, and it is remarkable that such a book has been written with surprisingly NPOV tone throughout most of its pages. --Rob Horning (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I got rid of the redirects and such, but there are two left that I can't figure out how to fix. US History/W Bush and US History/Roaring Twenties and Prohibition are both linked to by the Print Version, but I can't figure out where. If someone could figure this out for me, fix the links in question, and then delete the redirects, this book would be well on its way to being cleaned up quite a bit. Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 23:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Neoptolemus, you have to click the button for "George Bush, 9/11, ...", which is the same content as the W Bush article. Laleena (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment As well, the link for the Roaring Twenties is where you'd find it. Laleena (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem was actually not on those pages, but on the navigational links to them from pages before them. The [[../]] style links caused the Print version to link to different pages, but it's fixed now. Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 16:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I've cleaned up more (only maintenance tags and the naming issue remain), so I'd like to propose that we decide upon a name for this book. United States History? US History? History of the United States? All are currently used in some form at present. Once we settle on a name, I'll move for this nomination to be closed as an Oppose due to the fact that all issues that prompted the nomination for removal will hopefully have been resolved by then. Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 22:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This book needs some attention but is good in parts. On balance I think it should remain a featured book. The large number of US readers of Wikibooks do not seem to be correcting the faults, perhaps this shows how Wikibooks works on a different model from Wikipedia with each Wikibook tending to be the work of less than 5 authors. RobinH (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that I have extra buttons, I think I'll be able to clean this book up a lot sooner and I will then close this nomination. Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 11:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)