Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hadji Ali/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ucucha 03:38, 10 February 2012 [1].

Hadji Ali edit

Hadji Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because there's presently not enough coverage of regurgitation among our FAs, much less an article on a professional regurgitator. I say "very little" as a hedge: It is possible that there have been others, but I really do think this is the first one. This oversight should not stand. I guess I should also tell you as an aside to the above merits, that this has had a peer review, is a good article and I think it meets the criteria.

Regarding content, two gaps you may note is that there is little on his personal life and little on his years in Europe and elsewhere before he came to the U.S. This is not for lack of trying. I have exhausted every source I could find using every variation of his name's spelling, misspelling, reversal of order, his stage names in both English and in other languages. etc.

This was mostly built from newspaper articles – hundreds I looked at using Newspaperarchive.com. Very few sources go beyond variations on the same two or three paragraph patter about what his vaudeville act consisted of. I've included every pertinent detail I came across and I traveled down every path to locate reliable sources I could think of, including (after the usual Google News archive and book suspects, and magazines with archives such as Time, Life & Variety) looking at German sources such as Die Zeit and Der Spiegel, Italian newspaper archives, expat asian newspapers, etc., as well as asking for help at the Russian Wikiproject (since he performed for the Tsar). Obviously, I am trying to gird against a comprehensiveness objection I foresee as a possibility, but I don't think this can be made significantly more comprehensive.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for newspapers and for books
  • FN 6: what's a font page?
  • FN 34: what kind of source is this? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All fixed. I've also made all U.S. state listings more consistent by using their standard abbreviations. Thanks for looking.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Z. Thanks for stopping by. I don't edit Wikiquote but please feel free to create the page yourself. Regarding the disambiguation I suppose a hatnote could be added to the article on the mosque but I'm not sure it's necessary. Hadji Ali (with the "d") is his common name and there are very few sources that have ever mistakenly spelled it without the "d" when referring to this individual. Regarding a disambiguation page, they are only addressed to ambiguity created by various existing titles that can cause confusion. Even if we add the mosque to the mix, we only have that and Hi Jolly to deal with so hatnotes would be the normal way to go. See generally WP:TWODABS. Regarding creating the suggested redirects, I have done so for the Arabic but I see no need for the others since I think it very unlikely anyone will be looking for this subject by searching for the transliteration.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This is an impressive piece of work, given the way that it has had to be pieced together from lots of sources. The prose looks good apart from a couple of quibbles, and there are one or two other points. It is an enjoyable article and I look forward to supporting. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure that a long list of his stage billings should appear in the first sentence of the lead. Firstly it makes for a distractingly long sentence and secondly I think (unless he was widely known by these names) it would be better kept for later in the lead, or more ideally, the main body.
  • He was widely know by these names, at least in hundreds of advertisements, though commenting on that directly would stray into OR territory--no source I've come across directly says that. I've taken them out of italics and folded them into the body.
  • Also, unless I am missing some strange part of the MoS (which is likely!) why are the names both italicised and contained in quotation marks?
  • See above.
  • "Although never a true headliner…": A little vague: maybe "Although never a true headline act", but it leaves the question of what a headline act is in this instance. To me, it suggests "topping the bill" at a theatre, but I suspect that was not the intention. Needs clearing up. Struck, but see below! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A top headlining act is the sense, tweaked to say so.
  • Close repetition of "vaudeville": "…had a dedicated following on the vaudeville circuit in the United States. His vaudeville act was captured…"
  • Rewritten. Although "vaudeville" and "vaudevillian" are now nearby one another, I think the modified forms don't have the same repetitious feel. Better?
  • Not sure about this. After the change above, we now have three words with their root in vaudeville in the first two sentences! I think this is overkill, but I'm afraid I'm not sure of a better word that carries the correct meaning. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I'm not too fond of "vaudeville...vaudevillian" but that's just my opinion, so struck. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the first usage; "top headlining act" didn't need the vaudeville modifier.
  • Background: the opening is a little mixed up in my view. It talks about how he discovered his ability, when he explained how he discovered his ability, and only then describes what his "unusual ability" was. Would it be better to begin by describing the ability and then how he discovered it, or even to open with the event by which it was discovered. (Hope this makes sense…) But, given how vague it all is in his own words, maybe the current way is better. Hmmm. Not sure.
  • I have placed a lead-in sentence that makes it less in media res.
  • "A more dramatic version of these events was provided by Ali's Daughter, Almina Ali in an interview in England after his death": May be better with a comma after his daughter's name.
  • Done.
  • Actually, you hadn't, so I did it! Also realised that "Daughter" was capitalised, which I also changed.
  • Oh, this is one of those where I was working in multiple windows and never transferred the edits over. I remember decapitalizing daughter also!
  • "an ability that he continued to develop as he grew older": In the sense that he practised or that he became naturally more accomplished as he got older. The source seems to imply the former but is a little vague.
  • I have tweaked.
  • "who signed him to a contract for music hall performances": Slightly awkward "signed him to a contract"; would "signed him" be better, or change the subject of the sentence and have "Ali signed a contract".
  • I have worried at this but cannot figure out a better way to say it. "Signing someone to a contract" is a stock expression (see e.g., this).
  • OK. I still feel it is awkward but not enough to worry about. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ali "remained more a sideshow curiosity than a true vaudeville headliner."" Although this has a ref, there should be in-text attribution as well.
  • Done.
  • The way it was phrased was awkward so I replaced it with the name of the author. If anyone comments on explaining who he is (I don't think that is an issue myself), it may be worth recasting the whole sentence. However, I like the link with Judy Garland. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reportedly 60 to 100 glasses at a time": Reportedly does not sound reliable. Maybe "according to X" may be better.
  • Tweaked.
  • Minor close paraphrasing issue: "he spurted forth the water in a steady stream": Arguably a little too close to the source which says: "Then for nearly a minute he spurts forth the liquid in a steady stream from his lips" (Incidentally, the ref gives the date as December 12 when it was actually 21) I think "spurted forth" is a little too grand anyway.
  • Rewritten.
  • "It is thought that for the nut feat, … For the handkerchief stunt, it was speculated that…" Not too sure here; maybe say who thinks this and who speculated, otherwise it suggests editorial voice.
  • Rewritten with in-text attribution.
  • "At some performances, a panel or "jury" from the audience was invited on stage to verify as best they could, while in close proximity to Ali, that no trick mechanism was being employed: that he was actually swallowing the items in question and delivering them back through acts of regurgitation.": This strikes me as too wordy: maybe "At some performances, a panel or "jury" from the audience was invited on stage to verify as best they could, while in close proximity to Ali, that no trick mechanism was being employed: that he was actually swallowing the items in question and delivering them back through acts of regurgitation regurgitating them."
  • This has been tweaked, though I kept in "jury" because it's replicated in the lead and it gives the sense that they were there to determine legitimacy, not just to observe.
  • "Not all felt the same.": Not all what? Newspapers? (that is the last thing mentioned) The public? Theatre managers?
  • I think you missed how the subject "others" is connected to the immediately proceeding sentence, which reveals that it refers to audience members/the public. I have made it clearer by ending with a colon.
  • I think I may be missing something here. These are the two sentences concerned: "One newspaper reported that Ali's feats, essentially controlled vomiting, were performed in "a manner without the least bit of unpleasantness or anything bordering on repulsiveness."[27] Not all felt the same: at least one of Ali's engagements was cut short once the proprietor realized that the nature of the act "was killing their supper shows". The subject of the first sentence is "one newspaper" and the public aren't mentioned. I think this is easily solved by replacing "all" with "everyone" or "all the public". --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Everyone" works fine for me and I have replaced.
  • Maybe give Houdini's full name and state who he was just in case someone doesn't know.
  • Done.
  • "The abilities of Ali, who was said to have "two stomachs"…": Who said so?
  • Removed. It felt misplaced.
  • "At one of his acts a number of doctors attended and rigorously examined him during the performance.": Surely not while he was performing? And maybe "thoroughly" rather than "rigourously"?
  • I have changed the one word but yes, during the act. I can only reflect what the source says and it does say it was during his performance: "Physicians who have doubted his feats, recently subjected him to a rigid and thorough examination while he was performing..."
  • "They came away satisfied that their doubts that he was actually imbibing the material reported were unfounded, but remained "mystified over his extraordinary performance."" Again wordy, and the quote requires in-text attribution. Maybe "They were satisfied that he was actually imbibing the material, but according to X, remained "mystified over his extraordinary performance."
  • I have pared down.
  • Still requires in text attribution. As it stands, it suggests these are the actual words of the doctors rather than a source. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm missing something. It says, in text, what newspaper it was reported in, the year of the article and and whose opinion it was. Can you explain further how this should be attributed better? The article is by Morris Fishbein, not just attributed to him therein.
    P.S. I just realized didn't make this clear because I failed to place him as the author of the article in the citation. Fixed now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we are talking about different parts of the text! The part you are talking about is the possible medical explanation of his tricks. The part I mean is "At one of his acts a number of doctors attended and thoroughly examined him during the performance. They came away satisfied that he was actually imbibing and regurgitating the material and objects as claimed, but remained "mystified over his extraordinary performance."" Which has ref 17. The unattributed part is "...but remained "mystified over his extraordinary performance."": it needs to be clear who wrote those words. It only needs to say "according to X newspaper". --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding comprehensiveness, it would be nice to know more about his life outside his act, such as his childhood, family, etc. For example, his daughter appears fully grown early on in the article and we never hear much more about her. As the nominator says, it is light on what he did in Europe. However, given that these details most likely do not exist, and that he was most notable for his charming stage act, I do not think it is a problem that the information is not in the article. The main points of significance all seem to be there.
  • Indeed. As I also said in the nomination, there is little on his personal life. I have found nothing on Almina's mother or anything more on her at all, whether he was married, where he resided. etc. Just nothing. He enjoyed some small fame but I think he was not quite famous enough for background details to have been sought.
  • However... Looking at the sources, some of the claims about what he did such as the tsar seem to come from either him or his daughter. Several things seem to be less than independent. Perhaps the article could make clear which "facts" come from the man himself. It is also interesting that no-one has ever repeated this act, which does beg the question was it even possible and not some elaborate hoax. It would be interesting to cover this, but I imagine nothing really exists except the comment given by David Blane and the contemporary doctors. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made it clear that his appearance before the Tsar comes from his own recounting. Regarding it being an elaborate hoax, well it's neither here nor there, but I think that's quite impossible given the way he performed and the observation he allowed. Really, nothing he did is beyond belief (there are other regurgitators btw, even some coming to light now 1 2)—maybe only that he apparently suffered no ill effects from having kerosene in his gut many times per week, albeit for short periods of time.
  • No problems on these last two points; I was merely raising them and saying that I suspect not much can be done. Fair enough on the source of the claims. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment: It's just about there. There are a couple of final points lurking above on prose and once these are addressed I will be happy to support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC) There is one remaining issue which we are getting muddled about which I think needs clearing up, but I am happy to support now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks: I checked several of the newspaper sources and apart from one item noted above, no issues were found. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review Sarastro1.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries; WP:FAU will explain some of them. - Dank (push to talk) 02:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the copyedit! One minor reversion in the lead since I think it affected meaning and I have removed an Oxford comma for consistency since I don't use them. One other thing: I'm not so sure about the change from c. 1888-92 to the median ("c. 1890"). As you note, this is explained later, but I think the original is more precise and works better given the discrepancy described in the note.
  • The source doesn't say that he had Judy Garland proclaim him as her favorite vaudevillian, it just says that he was her favorite vaudevillian. This should be fixed in the lead and below the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 05:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You think there's a material difference? Proclaim means to make known. Barring ESP, how could the author ever state he was her favorite if she didn't state the same? Incidentally, having searched, I discovered that this detail comes from an interview Garland gave to Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show taped and aired on June 24, 1968. I and trying to get access to the clip which appears to be available behind a membership only (not pay) wall. If I do I can expand.
    • I do. To have someone do something is to induce them to do it; the source doesn't say that he induced her to say it. - Dank (push to talk) 04:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I see. Never even occurred to me that's what you meant. Read it again, using having's definition of possessing; something "having" come too pass. Or to make it crystal clear, here the same use in a different context but using a similar sentence construction: Although never considered the most fascinating of physics questions, the cosmological constant problem has been a consistent subject of PhD theses for the past 100 years, even having drawn the attention of Einstein. Hmm. I'm not sure others would misinterpret what I meant the same way so I'll try to think of a change.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I have rewritten the two mentions to avoid any ambiguity.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "vaudeville subdivision": probably the wrong word.
  • I have changed to "subgenre".
  • This isn't my area since it concerns sourcing, but why give the daughter's word equal weight in the first note? - Dank (push to talk) 23:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here we have a guy about whom sources say where he was born and even his name is not sure and that he was born "around" "c." "ca" 1892, all of which sources seem to be feeding from the same trough in the manner they parrot each other. Meanwhile, close family members normally know each other's ages. If we were forced to list only one age for Ali by our best guess at accuracy from available sources, it's far more likely that Ali's daughter, his constant assistant and translator, knew her father's age when she stated to reporter upon his death in 1937 that "he was only forty-nine!" Fortunately, we do not need to make that decision and can detail the issue as I have.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: very interesting, well-written article. Seeing the work Fuhghettaboutit did on this prompted me to track him down for help on another short quirky piece. I looked over the prose and only have some small suggestions, I could find very little to nitpick about.
  • Could the bit about Blaine be significant enough for the lead?
  • "Ali's act was captured in two films: the 1930 short, Strange as It Seems and Politiquerias (1931), the expanded Spanish language version of Laurel and Hardy's Chickens Come Home." Maybe an "and" before "the"?
  • "Speaking about the democratic nature of the vaudeville performance circuit, Vaudeville's writer and executive producer, Greg Palmer said in reference to Ali, that the film..." Could you try to tighten this part a bit?
  • In the Background section you start three sentences in a row with "Ali", maybe rephrase a bit?
  • "Ali came to the United States with Almina in the mid-1920s where they performed at fairs" Maybe a comma after "mid-1920s"?
  • "in a continuous stream for a sustained period of time sometimes approaching one minute." Maybe a comma after "time"?
  • "with a small flame burning in close proximity." is this the WP:PLUSING construction? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for looking Mark, good stuff. I have fixed all but the last. It reads fine to me, plus -ing or not. I have tried to think of an alternative but have come up short. Do you have any suggestions?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be possible to just remove "burning"? "A prop was then produced, typically a model castle or house made of metal set on a table, with a small flame in close proximity." Mark Arsten (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, it feels like the flame, using that construction, is now some disembodied fire. Anyway, I *think* the point of the plus -ing(amagig) is that the "with" is the part that's seen as the problem. So if the "with" belongs, getting rid of the gerund is removal for removal's sake. Is this really noun plus -ing? Does it actually read poorly to you as is? Rules of thumb are useful but are we talking here about the way this sentence strikes us or just trying to adhere to a rule (which I'm not clear is actually applicable to this use of with).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I have recast it, changing the detail slightly with a source that provided it was inside the prop.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Thanks for putting up with all my nitpicking :) I am impressed at how well done the article is, particularly considering its subject. Having reviewed the changes, I Support on 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, and 2b. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I may be getting ahead of things here, but if this is promoted it should be on the short list for April 1's TFA. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image are unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Nice work! This was very interesting to read. Good luck with the nomination. I made some changes as I was reading. Some other items for your consideration:

  • "Although never a top headlining act" Is the word "top" redundant?
  • The whole phrase is too ambiguous and doesn't quite capture the sense of the source (quoted in the body) which is really about his degree of celebrity. I have changed to "Although never gaining wide fame..."
  • "His fame was as a practitioner of a recognized vaudeville subgenre known as a "regurgitation act", involving the swallowing of material or objects and their regurgitation in various ways." This sentence seems out of place in the first Background para. I would lead up to it in Background, and then explain in closing how the background you've outlined led to his fame.
  • If you read the section again as if this wasn't there I think you'll see that we need some type of introduction as to what he was famous for or the material that follows it lacks context. Specifically, after introducing meager details about his origins (all there is in sources), by necessity it starts with a description of how he learned as a child of his unusual gastric abilities. Without this introductory sentence providing context, the reader is left wondering: "why are we being told of this person's unusual swallowing facility?" etc. I added this in in response to a comment higher on this page stating "the opening is a little mixed up in my view. It talks about how he discovered his ability, when he explained how he discovered his ability, and only then describes what his "unusual ability" was..." I'm not quite sure what path there is to thread between your comment and the other.
  • "Ali came to the United States with Almina in the mid-1920s, where they performed at fairs, carnivals and in vaudeville." Misplaced modifying phrase.
  • I have recast, breaking up the sentence and melding with another.
  • Some of the wikilinks are of low value... peach, mouse, etc.
  • Yeah, I agree there's a bit of overlinking in that section and have removed.
  • Why periods after the attributions in the boxed quotations?
  • I have no idea why I put periods there (all removed).

--Laser brain (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much Laser brain.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, looking good as of now. I poked around in some library databases and didn't find any sources you neglected. --Laser brain (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck: Fuhghettaboutit, have you had a source spotcheck for 1) accuracy in representation of sources, and 2) close paraphrasing in a previous FAC? If so, pls link it; if not, still pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, there is a check above by Sarastro1. --Laser brain (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, this is archive1. There is no prior FAC. Thanks for noticing Laser brain.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My sincere apologies for missing that, Fuhget; had I seen it, I could have looked into promoting this one, but now I'm resigned, so I can't. Honestly, I was just making one quick last runthrough, to try and not leave so much work for Ucucha. Also, by the way, I know this is archive1-- my query related to any previous FAC of yours. We try to get at least one good spotcheck on every nominator, since we don't have the resources for every nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you resigned? I do hope that was because you're giving yourself a well deserved break and not in response to the shameful crap I've been seeing about the FAC process (am I a "battleship" or a star whore or something like that). We haven't crossed paths before I don't think, but I am around enough to get an idea of how much you do for featured content. It didn't even occur to me that you might have meant a FAC on a different article. For posterity, I have had one prior FAC: Masako Katsura but I don't think there was any close paraphrasing check in that one.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I attempted to review this back when it was a Good Article nomination, but was beaten to the punch while I was still reading it (sad face). I've re-read it now that the above feedback has been acted upon and I'm more than happy to support this article. I look forward to a colourful torrent of regurgitation-based FAs. GRAPPLE X 06:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Grapple X. Thanks for looking. Yes, I expect we'll soon need a separate heading at WP:FA just for the category.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the notes says that the Nile runs only through Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia. That is, of course, wrong, since the Nile (specifically the White Nile) runs through several other African countries, as the Nile article says. Ucucha (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the incorrect material. I have left in just the source's characterization, letting it speak for itself with no gloss about whether it's right or wrong.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2012 (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 "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hadji_Ali/archive1&oldid=1088823478"