Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norman Selfe/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.

This article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Norman Selfe edit

Nominator(s): Witty lama 06:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After all these years, I've finally got something to (hopefully) FA standards...
Norman Selfe is, as I'm sure you'll agree, a fascinating character who clearly cared deeply about providing access to practical education to everyone. I'm sure he would have been a Wikipedian if he were alive today! The unusual thing about how this article is that the original content on which it is based comes from an original research essay in the Dictionary of Sydney which I imported as it is CC-By-SA licensed. Therefore, for many of the facts both the source content and the direction of the reference is the same thing - unusual but not against the rules if done correctly (which I've had checked over three prior peer reviews). Witty lama 06:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, attribution present

Missing bibliographic info for Selfe 1990

I think this may be a typo for 1900 - nominator needs to confirm. Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - simple typo. I'd be very surprised if Selfe were publishing anything in 1990! :-) Fixed now. Witty lama 04:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check alphabetization of Bibliography

Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest putting Freyne 2009 in Bibliography

Done Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone this, for now. I created the bibliography section at the request of a previous reviewer to highlight the published books that are used as references multiple times - the important physical publications that are accessible (as opposed to unique materials in a reference library or pamphlets). Freyne is certainly used multiple times but is not a book. That means, as far as I thought, she gets a mention in the external links section immediately below (and also in the mini attribution line immediately below that (because of the CC-by-SA content). I think mixing websites into the "bibliography" section is confusing. Is this ok? What do you think? Witty lama 04:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FN8: formatting

Please specify problem. Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For "cited in..." notations, suggest including page numbers, and be consistent in how these are formatted

As far as I can see, the "cited in" notes which lack page numbers are all to the online Freyne article which is not paginated. I don't see any format inconsistencies - perhaps you will indicate. Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Brianboulton says - this is my intention with the 'cited in' cases without page numbers. Please advise if there are others I've missed. Witty lama 04:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FN20: WriteLight appears to be a self-publisher, so what makes this a high-quality reliable source? Also need page number

I've replaced with a better source (and added a pic too). Witty lama 04:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FN23: formatting

This probably arise from use of the "citation" template, per note below. Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Cite Book format. Witty lama 04:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FN11: formatting, and given that this was unpublished what makes it a high-quality reliable source?

I've listed "Arthur (2001)... cited in Freyne (2009)" several times (footnotes 11, 17, 22, 26...) because that is what Freyne cites. As Freyne is the Reliable Source here I could simply have cited her each time, but it is more academically honest to make reference back to the source she is using. Witty lama 04:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mix {{cite}}, {{citation}} and untemplated citations - pick one format and stick with it

I believe all instances of {{citation}} are now replaced with cite book etc. Witty lama 04:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FN34: don't use all-caps

Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FN35: formatting

I've got rid of the overitalicisation but maybe a further format check necessary? Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FN37, 38: page(s)?

This is find-able, but requires trekking into the research library to bring up the microfiche of the first volume of this journal. These are editions 4 and 6 of the first volume so they're not particularly large publications. I think, for the purposes of anyone coming after us to find these sources won't have any difficulty tracking the reference even without page numbers. So... yes, I can find the specific page numbers for these essays in the journals when I have the time to go to the research library, but do you think it's a blocker for the purposes of this FA review? Witty lama 04:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FN40: publisher?

Added, with link to National Library catalogue reference for consolidated publication of this and others. 04:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

FN41, 43, 47, 51, 57, 58, 60: page formatting

All fixed Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges

Fixed a couple, can't see any more. Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FN55: formatting

Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FN62: formatting

I believe I've fixed this. Please confirm. Witty lama 04:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent in whether you include publisher for dictionaries/encyclopedias. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now removed the publisher (ANU) for the Australian Dictionary of Biography. The ADB, unlike the Dictionary of Sydney is both a physical and digital publication so many references to them in other publications treat them as a book but still link to the URL. I'm now treating it as an online citation only. Witty lama 04:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed most of the above (as indicated) on behalf of the nominator, who needs to deal with the remainder, i.e. refs 8, 11, 20, 37, 38 40 and 62 plus the mixed templates issue and the final point about dictionary publishers. Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've now gone through and addressed all the remainder. Thank you very much for your assistance Brianboulton! Witty lama 04:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- with no further comments after more than a month, I'm afraid this review has well and truly stalled, so I'll be archiving shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 05:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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