Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Shotgun house/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 15:06, 31 August 2010 [1].

Shotgun house edit

Review commentary edit

Shotgun house (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject African diaspora, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Orleans

There are many paragraphs that have no citation, particularly those that make generalisations about trends. Cite 4 used, multiple times, and 9, are books with no page number indicated, and account for much of the body. There are other parts with tags for citation. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see another editor has added citations, and I see no "citation needed" tags now. Are these concerns all addressed? --doncram (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on it. --JJ98 (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are two dead links in the article:
  • [2] - dead link.
This regards a link for Karal Marling's book _Graceland_ at Harvard University Press. I don't know what was available at the page. A direct URL linking to overview info about the book is this: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?recid=30671 , but that does not provide the specific info cited, that shotgun houses often have just 2 rooms. Perhaps the "cite web" within the article should be changed to just an off-line reference to the book, with its ISBN etc. I certainly don't think Featured Article status should be dropped because a URL needs to be changed or dropped! --doncram (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, since this article was promoted to FA status in 2006, I want to proceed to FARC commentary to vote it. --JJ98 (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again i'm not familiar with the process here, but your statement sounds negative to me. Do you mean you want to now force a decision, and that you would vote to de-feature the article, because the current reference is imperfect? I'd rather we fixed up whatever can/should be fixed up, first, before forcing some vote. About this, can't we just replace it by an off-line reference to the book? And towards that, can you point me to an acceptably formatted book reference, to emulate? --doncram (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're right, it needs a fix. --JJ98 (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped the URL but added the ISBN for the book. I do not have, did not check the book, but I believe the book-supported claim that some shotgun houses have 2 rooms is pretty innocuous and I expect it is supported by the book, based on previous editors' putting it in. --doncram (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the second URL, within bywater.org, has changed to http://bywater.org/about-bywater/architecture/shotgun-house/ . I changed the URL in the article, which is the first in External links section. --doncram (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it looks like its fixed. --JJ98 (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note these multiple issues:
  1. There are not enough citations to improve the article.
Does this comment still apply, since citations have apparently been added? Also, I don't understand the comment. If there's an issue with citations yet to be addressed, could that be explained out a bit more? Thanks. --doncram (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified Cirt to review the article. --JJ98 (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Also, these images have multiple issues:
Could someone explain to me, as I am not familiar with the process here. What are the issues here? Photos are noted as being public domain, etc., which sounds fine. What's the problem? --doncram (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're right, these photos are look fine as long they are in public domain, but the article doesn't haven't enough proper or inline citations to improve the article. --JJ98 (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've have added all the citation needed tags myself, if an there is an another experienced editor or expert wants improve the article. I don't know, this may not meet featured article status. --JJ98 (talk) 06:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this a reliable source? I removed it boldly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How this going? I haven't seen doncram lately. --JJ98 (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its been two days since I have tagged all the citation needed in the article. Lack of improvements may fall into section 1b and 1c. I have checked on doncram's contributions, but I do not see any improvement or the update of the article. --JJ98 (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jj98, these reviews and improvement often take a while, always weeks and often months, so please be patient. This article will be moved shortly to the FARC section, but even then it will be at minimum two weeks before the review is closed. If you would like to help, jumping in to edit the article yourself is always an option, as is leaving a politely worded notice on doncram's or other interested editors' talk pages to remind them that the editor article is at FAR and will most likely be moving to FARC soon. Dana boomer (talk) 12:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC) (edited Dana boomer (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I am on-and-off watchlisting this review and noted Jj98's comments in my direction. I am taken aback by all the citatio-needed tags added; i guess the implicit point Jj might be making is that FA article standards have changed and now each sentence should be individually sourced. Is that so? Not sure that is good or helpful. Is there reason to believe there was not actually a specific source for each point, among the several sources given for the article? If there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the original authors' writing, i don't think it adds value to challenge them to provide a specific source for each and every sentence separately. Maybe the original authors cannot spend the time to keep meeting new requirements, as if to prove that they wrote properly to begin with. Are there any specific points that the challenger really doubts?
Anyhow I am interested in the article and wanted to help clear up simple-to-clear-up matters. But I am not the one of the original authors of the article, and have no access to sources other than those linked on-line, in order to provide that detailed sourcing. It may be that some of the new citation-needed tags could be cleared by references to the on-line sources, but I have not been able to check. I would appreciate also if the challenger could check to see if his/her challenges are actually met by those sources available online, at least. Then, are there any remaining items where the challenger actually doubts the accuracy of what's written. Thanks for clarifying, Dana boomer, about how the process works going forward. --doncram (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Each and every sentence does not need a source. Per FA criteria, which links to WP:When to cite, only information which includes quotations, exceptional claims, contentious BLP information or "Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work". General and subject-specific common knowledge does not need references, and paragraphs that are sourced entirely to the same reference do not need repeated references at the end of every sentence. Jj98, it may be helpful if you went back through the article with this in mind - and please also bear in mind that the lead doesn't need references, per WP:LEAD. I haven't done more than glance at the article in the past few days, so I can't comment on any specific tags, and this is more of a general comment than anything else. To clarify slightly what I said above - if work is ongoing on this article, it will stay at FAR/FARC for as long as necessary; the goal here is to improve articles and maintain their status rather than delisting them out of hand. Please let me know if you have further questions regarding the process in general or the way it applies to this article specifically. Dana boomer (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the remaining citation needed tags, all of which had been added by Jj. Some spurred two other editors' changes, which i left. I mean this as an improvement to the article and to facilitate this FA Review, which needs to focus only on assertions which are to be doubted for some reason. --doncram (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: In this edit Lexein reverses that, with edit summary suggesting s/he misunderstood me. At Talk page, Lexein asserts "The CN tags were put there to indicate exactly which claims were supported by attached citations, and which were NOT." That seems false; the citation needed tags appear to have been added wholesale, indiscriminately (per discussion above), which is why i removed them. I asked Lexein to comment here. --doncram (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
== Citation needed tag removal ==
Discussion continues here, though here's my linked comment in its entirety. I misunderstood nothing, but objected to "will comment" at face value. "Left comment" or "See comment" accompanied by simultaneous posting is much preferred.
Preface: Per-sentence citations are not required, but grouped claims which are not supported by the nearby citation may be justifiably tagged. Some time ago, I read through this article and all of its citations, and found many claims not supported by their nearby citations, and tagged a few myself, and dug up others. Editors have inserted claims, apparently in the hopes that a nearby existing citation will provide cover for the insertion.
I disagree with the removal of any CN tag without proper rationale for each removal. To me, a CN tag has the editorial/moral weight of a deletion, and therefore removal of the CN must be supported as in WP:BURDEN. Not verbosely, just concisely. Verification is imperative.
Doncram wrote:this FA Review, which needs to focus only on assertions which are to be doubted for some reason. The doubt has been stated by the presence of the CN tag. Unless the editor has a history of vandalism or some other historical low-quality edits, the CNs are valid.
1. Any of Jj98's tags which are addressed by distant citations - those should be brought near through use of named refs.
2. Any of Jj98's tags which are found to be based on shallow reading or way-too-narrow scope, should be removed one-by-one, with a concise edit comment for each one, OR listed here.
3. If claims are taken from sources in an alternating way, so as to drive a POV or WP:SYNTH then the section should be rewritten to untangle the citations, or so that the citations can be neatly grouped at the end of the paragraph.
--Lexein (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern is sourcing, images YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Per sourcing problems. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep listed (tentative) There are NO issues about images which have been explained. The original listing here cited photos as an issue, but all the photos were already public domain or otherwise 100% okay, as far as I understand. About sourcing, I appreciate that Lexein and others have improved sourcing and can continue. The addition of citation needed tags everywhere was excessive. Uncontroversial facts still tagged, such as benign assertion that there are shotgun houses in small towns in the south, should be resolved by removing the citation needed tags. --doncram (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, I see that the image review above was by an inexperienced editor. I would suggest that you ask User:Elcobbola or another image expert to check through the images, just to make sure. YellowMonkey's "FAC criterion of concern" comment above is just a listing of any and all issues brought up during the FAR process, regardless of legitimacy. Also, from Lexein's comment above, it looks like they have no problem with you removing fact tags, as long as you do it in small doses with explanatory edit summaries, rather than a wholesale removal. Dana boomer (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the distracting image stacking, which I believe to be a violation of the required "professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing" (i.e. there are too many images), I don't note any image issues. I'm unable to decipher the meaning of the image commentary above. By the way, an {{information}} template, while preferred, is not an image requirement. Эlcobbola talk 16:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per sourcing problems. There are still several unsourced portions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, we might want something better than TV.com for that one reference. TV.com is user submitted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a licensed video from the BBC, also hosted by ClassicalTV - a network. Trouble is, the vid player there hangs at 30:00 unless you scrub past the defect. Dilemma. So I chose the TV.com link. --Lexein (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struckthrough BBC because it was Channel 4, and a network because ClassicalTV is the sub rosa online streaming free/premium arm of DCD Media, who own DigitalClassicsDVD.co.uk, who released the DVD in 2006. Also found this: "Classical TV was founded by eminent classical music entrepreneur Chris Hunt... four-time Emmy winner". Some bloke of the same name directed "The Search for Robert Johnson." So I'm pretty sure it's licensed, yay. --Lexein (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- How is work going on this? It looks like editing has pretty much stopped, despite the fact that there are still numerous cn tags. It would be great if the rest of the tags could get dealt with, so that we could bring the reviewers back (and bring in a few more), and get this moved off the page! Dana boomer (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist nothing for two weeks and much still unsourced YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:09, 25 August 2010 (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_review/Shotgun_house/archive1&oldid=1088203408"