Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Horace François Bastien Sébastiani de La Porta/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 not promoted 18:03, 4 June 2007.

Horace François Bastien Sébastiani de La Porta edit

The old nom had many objections that have since been resolved, as well as much discussion. I'm restarting it. Raul654 19:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I see no reason to oppose this article's promotion, though I think you should follow Kirill Lokshin's (among other users') advice and drop a few footnotes. HHermans 23:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—My objections concerning the significant amount of redundant referencing have not been resolved (breaching the requirement for a professional standard of formatting). Nor has my concern that the text needs proper copy-editing (1a). I don't see the justification for restarting this nomination. Tony 00:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I consider the "problem" of citations to be irrelevant to any FA criteria, the notion that the text has not been copy-edited is spurious. First of all, it was reviewed by as many as five native speakers, so, if anything in the text is ungrammatical et al., it was probably missed by anyone but Tony (it is not unlikely, but it also means that, if present, those mistakes are bordering on trivial). Such problems Tony has presented in the past have been dealt with, so his "concern that the text needs proper copy-editing" has in fact been resolved, for all we know - as for all we don't known, well, he won't tell us. This, presumably, because it is convenient to paint a picture of an article that you oppose for entirely different reasons. It is also not the first groundless accusation that Tony has made in respect to this article (earlier, you will note, he suspected that references lead to each other, because, you see, he suspected it, and because he must be right).
In short. Comments regarding the number of citations are out of place: "excessive" citations are not opposed by any letter or comma in the FA guidelines, and, being present in that number in this and other articles, they do not pose any unforeseen practical problem. Comments regarding copyediting are in bad faith. Dahn 04:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose concur with Tony on the excessive referencing. Resurgent insurgent 00:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, nearly every sentence is cited. Reference number eight should simply be listed as a source, as opposed to the three dozens cites it has now. -- Phoenix2 04:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you read the text and the guidelines, you will notice that doing that would go against regulations (for citations backing direct quotes, and for citations indicating outside views/comments). Again, I find it difficult to answer to everyone's take on citations, and to please every single taste. Dahn 04:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And since it's such a grey area, I saw no reason to oppose. I'm unlikely to cast an opinion either way for the article, but see now that the issue I mentioned was discussed to death in the previous nomination. -- Phoenix2 04:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, still concerned about copyediting, which hasn't been addressed, and the excessive, repeat citations impede readability and aren't professional. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll say it again here: comments regarding the number of citations are out of place; comments regarding copyediting are in bad faith (because, and I have to say this for a fourth time, all concerns of yours that were not about citations have been addressed). Dahn 04:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - as previously. I for one don't see any problems with the copyediting. It's a great article and follows all the guidelines. Current objections appear to be rooted in frivolity. Biruitorul 05:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to clear WP:POINT breach of criterion 1. c., which in my opinion is actually in very bad faith. I also oppose per 1a too, and see no reason this nomination was restarted. Dahn had no intentions of actually getting off his backside to address others concerns last time, so what's special about this time? Clear waste of FAC's time this is. LuciferMorgan 10:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, I do not respond to "breach" of what the rules may say by not saying, but to what the rules do say. This means that there is absolutely nothing in criterion 1. c) which would even dream of being applied here. Just because a certain number of editors think that there are too many citations doesn't mean that the article, as is, is not up to wikipedia standards (it means that it is not up to their own standards, and this alone means a breach of WP:POINT). And, let me be very clear about it: we would not be discussing the issues of what citations support if a note would have several citations (instead of a citation having several notes); this means that, if I had used another system (not less references) to begin with, LuciferMorgan would not be spending his precious time coaching me about how rules that do not exist should be read. Dahn 10:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's total rubbish Dahn. They do exist actually, only you failed to listen when told. Let's take a trip down memory lane...

Criterion 1. c. of Wikipedia:What is a featured article? asks for the following; "Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." So by the rationale of this criteria which is set out in black and white may I remind the FAC nominator, is the nominator saying the following is "likely to be challenged"? Examples;

  1. "Promoted to brigadier general in 1803,[2][1]" - This isn't a claim but a fact, and is unlikely to be challenged.
  2. "She died in childbirth while in Istanbul, just a few days before the Sultan was deposed (April 14, 1807),[15][16]" - is this different?
  3. "He asked to be recalled in April 1807,[7][11][16]" - or is this different? Is this likely to be challenged? I think not.

The list goes on and on here with the amount of ridiculously cited info, in fact to the brink of WP:POINT. Only statements that are "likely to be challenged" need proper referencing which criterion 1. c. properly states. This article is clear abuse of the criteria, and almost an attempt to change the criteria so that every statement needs two or three citations. Considering that this "refers to actual guidelines", perhaps Dahn can finally stop turning this FAC into a criteria debate, get off his backside and address the article's problems hmm? LuciferMorgan 21:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claims, ie. opinion, not facts. None of my examples are likely to be challenged for citations, so why have you cited them more than once. And this time, rather than go on some farcical rant with no basis in reality, actually answer my question. LuciferMorgan 10:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, LuciferMorgan: the guideline indicates what is the standard to be expected for potentially controversial claims; nowhere does it say that other sentences are not to be cited or not to be cited as much. It stands self-evident that there is nothing in 1. c), and, indeed, anywhere else, which would apply to "over-citation" or whatever you call your peeve. Furthermore, as you will see from the previous discussion, plenty of editors agree that citations should be used for facts and dates (because wikipedia is not a source, it points to sources).
And, talking of farcical rants, allow me to note how I came to be "responsible" for both ignoring and over-using criterion 1 c)... Dahn 10:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - as per previous comments. Also, in the meantime, the article has become even more polished; it looks like most of the stylistic objections have been addressed. As for the sole remaining issue under discussion—how many citations per fact—it reminds me of the medieval question, how many angels can dance on the point of a needle? Perhaps this goes to show that history is an endless repetition; in this case, the first time it was not a tragedy, so let's not make it now into a farce. — Turgidson 12:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this is a very good article so I'm supporting it. (I don't do weak or strong supports) However, I can also see where Tony 1 (above) is coming from - not the referencing that is fine - but the prose mostly it is good rather than excellent but there are many places where the phraseology is clumsy and better vocabulary could be used. There are too many "he"s, at the beginning of a new section the full surname could be used - these are all very minor things which can easily be addressed. I have made a few minor edits to demonstrate what I'm talking about. Factually and encyclopaedic wise it is excellent so all things considered this is FA standard Giano 13:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The opposition to this article's promotion is getting absurd. "Too many references" is not a valid problem with an article that should prevent it from being promoted. I ask those opposing not to have their views clouded by the argumentation that went on the last nomination--just because the nominator was not exactly polite doesn't mean that the article is not an excellent one. —Cuiviénen 15:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm with the group that thinks this is ridiculously over-referenced. MLilburne 17:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; it affects the readability in my opinion. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 18:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would just like comment here because I think I can put things into perspective regarding citations etc. I have written a lot of FAs (said modestly) over the last two or three years In the olden days 2004 citations and notes were not important - so we inserted very few, if any. But citing sources, rightly or wrongly, probably rightly is becoming increasingly more important to Wikipedia. Take Buckingham Palace currently on FARC, every word I wrote was true and from a reputable book, but someone says here [1] they want it defeatured because of an uncited comment. I can remember seeing that fact written, I had many books out of the public library to write it, but I cannotm a long time later, be sure where the last part of the uncited fact came from, so I cannot reliably reference it - and this is why I think a page should not be failed for not citing what may seem trivial at the moment. This was not written to be a good "lets read in bed" thriller but a factual account for research and students. Fail it on prose but please not over referencing. Giano 18:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the main editor of four recent FAs and as a historian in training, I entirely agree on the importance of referencing statements. However, I still maintain that there is such a thing as over-referencing, and that over-referencing is simply bad style. If you have a sentence with no direct quotations, and with only one comma in it, it doesn't need two footnotes from the same source. It only needs one footnote at the end of the sentence. We can aim for academic style and readability at the same time. MLilburne 19:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like your argument, Giano, and am encouraged to see it ... but ... very trivial facts don't need to be cited three and four times (and this is down from the six that originally came to FAC !). This has turned into what appears to be a WP:POINT to the editor who simply won't reduce redundant citations in spite of multiple objections, which do impede readability and aren't needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just thought it would be interesting to see how FAC has changed - as Sandy your normal habitat FARC where you and Licifer are demanding these cites is such a bore, it seems to me you want it all ways. Well good luck to you but its an impossible requirement. Giano 20:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has changed, Giano; articles still need to be cited. Some of the facts in this article are cited four times, when one would suffice, and multiple citations to the same source are used in one sentence. As you well know, I have never advocated for such citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You and Lucifer say one thing on FARC and the opposite here. Make up your minds and then let the rest of us know what you want! Giano 20:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As usual Giano, you're talking absurd. We ask for citations, but we don't ask for statements to be cited three or four times for absolutely no reason. As concerns saying one thing and then saying the opposite, let's not delve into that area for I may say a few things someone may scream WP:CIVIL for (now that's the real bore)...LuciferMorgan 14:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lucifer, I have seen you on FARC complaining that the mosy obvious and well known, non-contraversial facts are not referenced. You cannot have it both ways. Giano 07:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't bring up WP:POINT when you are failing an article for not being in line with your artistic vision. It is grotesque. Dahn 19:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about the statements that have the references out of numerical order? You've failed to address that...of course, the problem wouldn't exist if so many statements weren't double and triple cited. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 02:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why that would be a problem. This issue has never come up before, and plenty of articles with multiple citations do not have them in a numerical order - including, and I am repeating myself, those articles with several citations per note that were turned by other wikipedians into 1 citation per note. Also, what you will note that the notes in this case come in an alphabetical order (by author, with those having no author being placed first). To tell you the truth, I find the whole issue ridiculous: implying that I should change the entire article to create an "order" that could never really be preserved is not a reasonable expectation. I mean, how should I do that? I already said I see no reason for reducing citations (and numerical order is the least of my reasons) - even if I were to reduce them, the only way I could preserve an "order" would be if I also removed some citations with a single note (the sheer effort required is intimidating, over an absolutely irrelevant issue, and it would all be changeable in one second). The other option is asking me to redo the entire references system to multiple citations per note - I have answered below and in the first discussion why I consider that type of request abhorrent. Dahn 05:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only trying to speak on behalf of the people have opposed for such a reason and haven't really made their opinions clear. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 22:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I was addressing the issue as it was presented (not implying that you are responsible for the request). I apologize for not having made this clear in my previous posts. Dahn 07:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Excessive referencing and 1a issues. Also it's aesthetically pleasing when multiple refs are required (which is rare) to have them in numerical order. Quadzilla99 19:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. On a more careful examination of the footnotes, I find that many of them point to page ranges rather than specific pages. For example, footnote 16, cited ten times, points the reader to "p.205, 208–209, 211–215." It seems unlikely to me that all of these citations are in fact pointing to the same range of pages. For example, footnote 21 is once used to cite a direct quotation, which is not likely to reside on "p.44–45, 251–267, 268–269, 274, 280, 445." This does not count as reliable referencing. If this article is attempting, as it seems to be doing, to set a world record for thorough citation, then in fact ironically it's not doing a very good job. MLilburne 19:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Damned if I do, damned if I don't. Look, I'm sorry I did not ask for your input when I edited the article. This is the fact: I have used and reviewed all that text, and all facts, claims, and quotes are to be found within those pages (I hope you are not contesting that, since that would imply that you are accusing me of manipulating wikipedia). Not only is this precise referencing, per what precedents exist, and per wikipedia format variants in circulation, but it is also very practical for this article - I had chosen multiple notes per citation to spare me the trouble of writing the same bit of text over and over again, and because the number of notes would have been at least twice what it is were I to do so. It also made sense, since, as you will note from an even more careful examination of footnotes, the largest portion of text I cited, the one from wikisource, is not split into pages or chapters or anything (so why bother with the rest?).
Implying that I should change it is, as I have said in the past, unfair. Not only because there is a specific request that editors should try to adapt to referencing in articles instead of changing it, but also because, based on this whim, I would have to redo the entire article only to be faced with a different set of editors who have other demands from referencing (if you read the previous debate, you will note that I have given concrete examples of editors who turn multiple citations into single notes). I will not be repeating this point in the future: I trust it was understood and it can be picked up from here. I also trust that witticisms of the "set the world record type" will not be repeated. Dahn 19:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crumbs. I was so excited to see a Napoleonic general on FAC: there are some lovely images, and the text looks fine from a first scan (no doubt some nicks and tucks are possible here and there); but I just can't stand to read the article due to the excessive and distracting citations. A dinky footnote after every punctuation mark (often three or more) is just overkill. The citations are meant to support the text, providing verifiability: the footnotes here are killing the text, and making the article difficult to read.

By way of example, the first paragraph of section 1.2 - "Mission to Egypt and 1805 Campaign" - (two sentences, one semicolon, two fullstops) cites the same source after each of those punctation mark (i.e. three times in two sentences - at least the commas are uncited in this case). The last paragraph of that section (three sentences) cites source 2 five times, and source 7 and source 1 twice each. How is this at all helpful? The last parts are a bit better, sometimes "only" one citation per sentence. Please, sort out the citation, so we can discuss the article rather than its format. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose until the unsightly and distracting overcitation is dealt with. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - images size should be left unspecified according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I also think there are too much red links, but this are minor problems which can be solved within minutes, so I'm half-supporting it. Eurocopter tigre 20:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is the matter of layout, as indicated in the same guideline - I have tried several default sizes, and noted that the images vary considerably in size (the only time when this is not noticeable is when the pictures are set at 180, which is minuscule), while the indicated width is not as much as to harm the text (whatever size the text may have - which means that people who may have problems with the layout are likely to have the same problem with 98% of the internet). Also, the presence of red links is not actually a criterion (in fact, in deliberation for my previous FA, I was told that it may be an incentive). Dahn 21:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A sentence really doesn't need more than one reference; if each only had one reference (if the others were removed), would the people opposing because of excess referencing change their votes? --HHermans 16:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saying a sentence doesn't need more than one reference is flat out wrong. In some cases its required if the sentence contains two statements not supported by one ref. Although as I said above not nearly as often as this article uses multiple refs for one sentence. Quadzilla99 16:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Typographically, they can still be one footnote; and, technically, if that does happen, we should indicate which source is responsible for which half of the sentence. But I don't always do that myself, so I won't insist on it here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that would help reduce the problem. Resurgent insurgent 06:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That and having the references referring to specific pages would certainly be a great help. I would want to look at the result before committing myself though. MLilburne 16:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. This does not have enough information or many of aspects most other FA-Class articles have. --LtWinters 11:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Care to back that allegation with some sort of argument? Just what do you feel it is "lacking", LtWinters? Dahn 14:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
  1. Sorry, but I don't think it meets criterion 1(a). I at least did not find it "engaging", despite the promise in the lead of murder and intrigue.
  2. I'm also concerned about criterion 1(b) as the first 28 years of his life is covered in a single paragraph.
  3. It is over-cited. See: "Ypsilantis had previously escaped to the Russian camp,[13] and, according to Ghica, was briefly considered by his allies as ruler over both Principalities (just before Russian occupation took over);[13]". If this comes from [13] why duplicate the ref? And "The British bombardment, coming at a time when the Muslim populace was celebrating Eid ul-Adha,[8] was met with panic, and Sébastiani's group of French officers was soon the only organized force present on the European shore.[8] In his messages to Selim, Duckworth asked for the French ambassador to be evicted, for the Ottoman fleet and the Dardanelles military facilities to be handed down,[8][1] and for Russia to be granted rule over Wallachia and Moldavia.[8]" Evidently the whole section comes from [8] so why repeat it 4 times? There are many such examples. Once again, I am sorry as it is clearly all factually accurate and verifiable (and so meets criterion 1(c)) but it's just unnecessary. DrKiernan 15:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on citations. There are several problems here
    • It is unusual, and deprecated by anglophone manuals of style, to have two footnotes in succession citing the same source, whether done by our many-to-one use of <ref>, or by Ibid. or anything else. It is marginally tolerable if they are on successive paragraphs; but that's not the case here. It makes the text hard to read.
    • It is uncommon to have full citations in the footnotes; more common to have short forms in the notes, and full forms in the bibliographies. This permits citation by page numbers where they vary, although this is less of a problem here.
    • It is uncommon, and makes it hard to read, to have three footnotes at the same point. More usual to have one, mentioning all three sources; this is why short forms are useful.
    • The quality and provenance of source differs amazingly. The Encyclopedia Americana is a tertiary source. If better sources can be found for its points, it is not necessary to mention it at all.
    • On the other hand, Marx, Irving, Thiers, Ghica are nineteenth-century authors, with the weaknesses, and few of the advantages, of primary sources. At least Marx (thanks for the link) is expressing his opinion; it should be attributed to him in text. One of the uses of an encyclopedia is to answer the question "Was Marx's view of Sebastiani justified? Is it now consensus?" Citing only Marx makes this impossible to answer. (I see that Irving is cited primarily for his long quotation; good.)
    • It is undesirable to cite sources in Rumanian if the same material can be found in English. English is more useful to our readers; and a cynic might suspect that the sources were consulted only at second-hand. I'm sure this is unfair; but it is better not to raise the question.
    • On the Revue des Deux Mondes, my opinion is divided. Much of what it's being cited for is Sebastiani's diplomatic career, on which it is likely to be perfectly reliable; but some of it is the secrets of diplomacy. We know more about that than we did in 1833. A modern secondary source would be preferable.
This is a lot of work; it is a very good article; but it is not the best we can do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
  • Note for the next nomination: My remarks above are intentionally a comment, not an oppose. I believe this would be a better article if the citations were reviewed; I doubt this would change more than a couple words of text. I express no opinion on whether this should be disqualifying for FA. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Horace_François_Bastien_Sébastiani_de_La_Porta/archive1&oldid=1111695296"