Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1

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 Ian Rose 23:04, 17 March 2014 [1].

---

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties

Nominator(s): — Cirt (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties is a WP:GA article on a book about freedom of speech and censorship. This comes on the heels of my successful effort to bring the article on the documentary Fuck (film) to Featured quality.

After being promoted to WP:GA status by Diannaa, the article had a helpful copy-edit from WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors member Baffle gab1978. At Peer Review, valuable feedback from Piotrus, Wehwalt, Jimfbleak, and Curly Turkey helped further improve the article.

Thanks very much for your time and consideration, — Cirt (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Notified: User talk:Curly Turkey, User talk:Jimfbleak, User talk:Wehwalt, User talk:Piotrus, User talk:Baffle gab1978, User talk:Imzadi1979, User talk:Diannaa, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Popular Culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, User talk:Cirt, Talk:Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties. — Cirt (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Comments from Curly Turkey

Addressed comments from Curly Turkey moved to talk per agreement with user, see diff.

• Support. A nice, short article on a book that will probably go on my long, long "to-read" list. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the Support -- and for the helpful comments, — Cirt (talk) 06:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from DMacks

Addressed comments from DMacks moved to talk per agreement with user, see diff.

• Support. I was a bit surprised at first, like John seems, below, that such a short article could be FA. But I agree that it may well say all there is to say, and it does say it well. It's actually refreshing to see one that isn't an intricately detailed tome. DMacks (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the Support - and I'm glad you found the article informative and refreshing. — Cirt (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk per agreement with user, see diff.

• Support on prose and images. Good job. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the Support - your helpful comments and suggestions are most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Image review from Crisco 1492

• Well, since I'm here I may as well give an explicit image review. Images are okay: one fair use, meets all criteria (could be downsampled a bit, but still within the limits), and one free image, relevant to the article, AGF that the OTRS is valid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

1. My thanks to Crisco 1492 for the image review.
2. Done. I've both uploaded a lower resolution version of the fair-use image, and also re-sized it to a smaller presentation in the article itself.

Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• The size in the article was fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thank you, changed the image formatting in the article back to the prior size, and left the image at the image page to the new, lower resolution, version. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Jimfbleak

Addressed comments from Jimfbleak moved to talk per agreement with user, see diff.

No other concerns, happy with responses, changed to Support. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your Support -- most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from John

• Support I don't want to lose my reputation for being a hard-assed reviewer but I couldn't see anything majorly wrong with this article. It's a wee bit short, but it covers the subject adequately, is well-written and well-sourced. I think it passes the criteria. --John (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the Support -- I did my best to try to find all secondary source coverage out there. I appreciate your statements that it's well-written and well-sourced, most appreciated! — Cirt (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Blofeld

Addressed comments from Dr. Blofeld moved to talk per agreement with user, see diff.

• Support Thanks for your swift response. This is a credible, well-written article on the book. Although it might have a bit more detail on its content and analysis I think it covers what needs to be covered rather well.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your Support -- as for the article, I exhausted research in multiple databases to find all secondary source coverage, including Westlaw, NewsBank, LexisNexis, and InfoTrac. — Cirt (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt

• Support Weighed in at the peer review, nothing much I want to add to that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your Support - and for the prior help at the peer review. — Cirt (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Delegate notes

• Just stopping by to say that I expect to promote this in the next day or so. If anyone's watchlisted the page with a view to commenting, could they pls do so -- or at least let me know of their intention -- within that time...
• Meanwhile, I didn't see a source review labelled as such but I noticed Dr. Blofeld reviewed reference formatting so I'm happy to go with that unless anyone wants to do more; given the experience of the reviewers supporting above I'm presuming that no-one has any concerns with source reliability. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Yes, Dr. Blofeld did review sourcing for several citations, and these issues were all successfully addressed and per agreement with the user the addressed comments were moved to the talk page. — Cirt (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I was a little concerned on some of them about verification but it seems it can't be helped in this case. All of the sources to me look reliable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I replied that all of them satisfy verification through archival database resources, for example like NewsBank. And I also noted that I exhausted research in multiple databases to find all secondary source coverage, including Westlaw, NewsBank, LexisNexis, and InfoTrac. — Cirt (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: @Ian Rose:, @Dr. Blofeld:, I've gone through and increased accessibility of references by adding notes on the archival news database used to access them, and/or adding URLs. Done. Thanks, now the article is better because the reader will be able to more easily read those cited sources. — Cirt (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You might want to add the Template:Subscription required at the end of NewsBank and those which aren't otherwise accessible.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. — Cirt (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.