Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bruce Johnson

Bruce Johnson (politician) edit

Self nom. Biography of Ohio's lieutenant governor. Illustrated, referenced, thorough account. Previously had a FAC nomination here and a peer review here. PedanticallySpeaking 21:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Much better! —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC) Neutral. Some sections, including the last sentence of the lead section, could do with a rewrite. Once the prose is improved, even just by a tiny margain, I'll support the nomination. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've redone the second paragraph of the lead and proofread other parts of it. PedanticallySpeaking 19:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not so sure, it appears that the whole article may require a copy-edit. The final section is also awkwardly-worded in specific places. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you identify some of those "specific places" so I might be able to work on them? PedanticallySpeaking 14:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. The article is good, but needs a bit of rewriting. Some of the subsections are too short, and the section headings themselves are unencyclopedic in tone. Very close, would be prepared to support. RyanGerbil10 21:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Several sections have been merged and renamed. PedanticallySpeaking 19:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased with the size and number of the sections now, as well as their order. The tone of the section titles still strikes me as a bit uncyclopedic, but I'm not going to be that picky. My only remaining concern is that other users have found problems with the copyright status of pictures. As soon as that is cleared up, I will support. RyanG e rbil10 00:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Picture license tags need to be updated. Gflores ^Talk 21:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I can't speak to all the license tags, but those should always be kept up to date. As for the article, there is quite a lot of it, maybe a slight bit of trimming? However, the issue I have that would sway my vote is the "Runs in Columbus" section. The text makes numerous references to what The Columbus Dispatch says, it would be nice to have individual refs for each article with the given quote, rather than the giant ref #7 that is there right now. Staxringold 22:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but if I did that, then there would be an objection to too many footnotes. See the comments here and here. PedanticallySpeaking 18:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over-refing is better than underrefing, and this is nowhere near the level of Katie Holmes. To start off with, I added in div resizing so the refs don't take up as much space. This still uses the old ref style which isn't great (though not enough by itself to downvote), has a massive ref #7 that has no sense being grouped together, and a massive bibliography of sources that have unknown connections to the article. Staxringold 17:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object, same as last time. The images Image:BobTaft.jpg, Image:Bruce Johnson's family at swearing in.jpg, Image:Bruce Johnson giving inaugural speech.jpg, Image:Bruce Johnson and Jennette Bradley.jpg are claimed as being in the public domain. However, works of individual states are not automatically in the public domain: it varies from state to state, and sometimes from department to department within the state government. --Carnildo 22:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And same as last time I would ask what information do you have about Ohio's copyrights? The page from which these pictures was taken, http://ltgovernor.ohio.gov/ , contains no copyright notices. PedanticallySpeaking 18:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We must assume that an image is copyrighted unless otherwise stated. Why don't you just email the webmaster and ask if the images are copyrighted? That's what I did once with another US government website. Johnleemk | Talk 18:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no contact e-mail addresses on any page on this site. And what is the basis for "assum[ing] an image is copyrighted unless otherwise stated"? I have never seen a copyright notice on anything produced by the State of Ohio. PedanticallySpeaking 18:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...our copyright policy? Or how about American law? See public domain -- anything that meets the criteria for copyright but lacks a copyright notice is still copyrighted. And I really doubt that you can't contact the webmaster. Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a basic part of American copyright law that all creative works produced on or after March 1, 1989 are copyrighted, regardless of the presence or absence of a copyright statement or copyright registration with the Library of Congress. --Carnildo 07:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The press office of the Ohio Department of Development, of which Johnson is director, informs me by e-mail "We do not have copyright on the photos." PedanticallySpeaking 14:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I repeat, do you have specific information on the State of Ohio's stance on copyrights? PedanticallySpeaking 14:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on the person claiming the material to be PD to prove his claim, not the other way round. I would support, but the header image is fair use, and is supposedly produced by the Ohio government -- would this not indicate that the Ohio government does claim copyright on its materials? And the four other images of people in the article are all tagged with {{PD-OHGov}}, yet the tag states the image "was produced by the State of Ohio, which does claim copyright in the work." Furthermore, the Ohio Department of Development message you quote is a bit ambiguous -- does the Department alone not have copyright, or is it the whole state government? If, as I am presuming, a number of those photos were not produced by the Department, the Department would not be able to claim copyright on those photos -- but that doesn't make them public domain. Johnleemk | Talk 08:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I omitted the word "not" from the template. I have corrected this. And if the Department of Development, which Johnson is head of, can't release the photographs, I don't who I am expected to contact. PedanticallySpeaking 16:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting concerned -- the template is currently on TfD. Anyway, I have contacted the webmaster to enquire about the copyright status of content published on the website, so hopefully we should be able to settle this soon. Also, the Department that Johnson heads has no more claim on copyright of photos of him than, say, General Motors would on the copyright of photos of Bill Ford, so it's not surprising that they would deny copyright on images not taken by their personnel. The only copyright they would have is on photos of Johnson taken by the Department. (Anyway, this is probably a moot point.) Johnleemk | Talk 16:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of this entire exasperating discussion. I've removed every image save the one at the top. Will that earn your support vote? PedanticallySpeaking 16:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will not object for now; if we can confirm that the images are PD and they are added back to the article, I will support then. Johnleemk | Talk 16:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Two or more external links will be better. Brandmeister 00:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what else I could link to besides his official site.PedanticallySpeaking 18:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object as per Carnildo. Otherwise, it's very good, though. Johnleemk | Talk 14:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I removed all the photographs would that lead to a support vote? PedanticallySpeaking 18:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. The article should illustrate him, at least. Perhaps show a picture of him on the campaign trail, and tag it as fair use. If the campaign is discussed by the article, that would be fair use, I think (IANAL). Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that when I removed the offending photos from the article the last time to address these concerns, the nomination still failed so its hard to see what I can do to satisfy people. As for "a picture of him on the campaign trail", I have no such photos. PedanticallySpeaking 15:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Needs a copyedit, especially the WP:LEAD: lots of pronouns, "He managed his campaign and he was appointed." Instead, try "becoming Mayor Joe Mayors Chief of Staff after managing Mayor's 1991 campaign, and leaving that post when appointed by Mr. Appointment Guy to the Ohio Senate in 1994." Also try, "After being elected to two [Senate] terms and rising to the second highest post in the Senate, Governor Bob Taft in 2001 asked [Johnson] to join the cabinet as Director of the Ohio Department of Development and then appointed [Johnson] [Lieutenant Governor] in 2005 [why? who retired or died or what?] to complete the lieutenant governor's unexpired term. ~~If the office of governor became vacant, Johnson would succeed to that office.~~ Johnson is thus currently first in the order of succession for the Ohio governorship. Kaisershatner 18:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, except for explaining why there was a vacancy. That seems too much information for the lead but the information is contained in the article's body. PedanticallySpeaking 18:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support while I feel that the photo copyright issue is significant, I am not educated enough on the topic, in terms of this article or in general, and since it has been mentioned enough, I feel it is unfair for me to drag it on. Therefore, the article is superb ~~otherwise~~. Another great work! Nice photos, the external links section is a little short and looks out of place being so short after such a long references section (perhaps could be rearanged? but is that customary otherwise?), but I know it may be tough to find external links. Anyway, great overall, very nicely done! --Lan56 06:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Interesting article and I suspect that a politician might not be the easiest to write about in finding good references. Overall welldone.--Dakota ~ ° 08:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Mainly per DakotaKahn; but shouldn't there be an infobox on the politican like the one on Dick Cheney, or similar? Also, I think the references section size should be reduced to something along the lines of, say, 90%; or was this not considered "the thing" nowadays. Kilo-Lima ^{Vous pouvez parler} 19:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 17:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC) Neutral. This is a very well-written and exhaustively researched article, and it's an interesting read even though I hadn't heard of the subject before. However, I feel that the issue involving the copyright status of the images is important. Also, there appear to be several duplicate wikilinks to The Columbus Dispatch and others, and some of the solitary year links could be removed in accordance with WP:CONTEXT. If those images, as well as the links, were removed (or their status as public domain material confirmed), I'd definitely vote support. Extraordinary Machine 21:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another user went through and removed these links and was then reverted just prior to your edit to the article, Extraordinary. PedanticallySpeaking 15:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the edits that removed the year links, and have also removed the duplicate wikilinks. Thanks for clarifying the image copyrights situation. Once again, very nice work. Extraordinary Machine 17:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Comprehensive and meets all FA criteria. Only nitpicky suggestion is that I'd suggest using the cite.php reference format.--Fallout boy 02:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good to me, but could you add Wikipedia:Persondata please? That'd be great. Good job. Gflores ^Talk 01:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Interesting article, well researched. Well done. AriGold 18:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]