Talk:W. Nelson Francis

Improvement tags

This article has one topic, W. Nelson Francis, and as it is fairly short, division into subtopics is inappropriate. It is drawn almost entirely from one source, Francis's autobiography in "First Person Singular III: Autobiographies by North American Scholars in the Language Sciences," so inline citations are rather pointless and would look silly. Cf. the Wikipedia entry for Francis's colleague, Henry Kucera. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kucera, which likewise is mainly based on one biographical source, Language Industry Monitor, cited under External Links, and is neither divided into subtopics nor provided with inline references.

I am restoring the tags for the following reasons:

1. Of course,this article is on one subbject. However, as with most biographies, including this one, there are different topics in a biography: early life, academics, notable accomplishments, end of life, death, works, etc. You have even created some informal headings and section heads in the article. Wikipedia's manual of style requires proper section for ease of navigation. See also MOS:LAYOUT.
2. An article such as this one should generally not rely on a single source. This often leads to copyright violations, such as WP:Close paraphrasing. Multiple sources also increase the ability to verify the content of the article, a conerstone policy of Wikipedia. The lack of inline citations makes it impossible for any reader to know what information comes from what source, or that there is only one source. Again, please follow Wikipedia's manual of style, as well as WP:Citing sources.
3. How connected are you to the subject? Have you read Wikipedia's guidelines on conflicts of interest? Singularity42 (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Point by point:

1. Any topic at all can be arbitrarily divided into subtopics. The question is whether in this article it would be appropriate and helpful. As I pointed out, the Francis article is short, so ease of navigation really isn't an issue, and besides, the analogous article about his colleague Henry Kucera is not divided into subtopics, yet has attracted no censure from Wikipedia. The only "headings and section heads" I have created are the Bibliography and External References, which are obviously appropriate. On the other hand, "Early Life" would consist of one sentence, "Academics" of one sentence, likewise "End of Life" and "Death." Where's the beef?

2. As for potential copyright violations, no language in the article is taken verbatim or closely paraphrased from any printed or online source - only the facts, which as such are not protected by copyright. (I'm a publishing professional and know the law.) Though Francis's own memoir is the primary source, what of it? I have provided links to other biographical sources against which those who are interested can check the article, but they don't contradict what Francis wrote in "A Pilgrim's Progress." I could provide an inline reference from the mention of Tougaloo College to the Niketa Williams piece, but otherwise there is no fuller or more reliable source than the Francis memoir. What would you suggest?

3. I am connected to the subject by being a member of the Francis family, as my user ID openly suggests. (I did not try to conceal this connection by uploading the biography under some other name.) That is how I have access to all the books and articles cited in the Bibliography, as well as the Francis papers, and am able to write a comprehensive and accurate account of his life and career. To avoid any appearance of bias, I have refrained from any value judgments apart from the word "pioneer" in the first sentence, which is amply justified in sources listed in the Bibliography and External Links - and is used, without any inline reference, in the same position in the Wikipedia article on Francis's colleague and partner Henry Kucera. Otherwise it's all facts, and strictly focused on Francis's professional career rather than his private life.

That Nelson Francis was an important figure in the field of linguistics is really beyond question. This isn't just family pride; the biography and bibliography surely make it clear. There ought to be an entry on him in any encyclopedia that also includes entries on Geoffrey Leech, Henry Kucera, and other linguists of that calibre. I've done it right and I've done it well. What more can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfrancis51 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the tags on the article. They are not deletion tags. They are tags saying what needs to be done to improve the article. No one has suggested the article be deleted. It just needs to be improved to bring it up to par. I'm not sure I'll be on Wikipedia for the rest of the day, so I or another editor will have to respond to the rest of your questions at another time. Now that I've added this to a couple of Wikiprojects - including the Linguistics wikiproject - other editors may come by in the next few weeks to improve the article and/or answer your questions (that, of course, does not stop you from trying to improve the article - read through WP:MOS for more info). Singularity42 (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'm all in favor of improving the article if possible, though I've been reviewing and revising it for many months and have taken it as far as I can. But I can't become not a Francis! Looking forward to whatever you and your colleagues may suggest, the more specific the better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfrancis51 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I see that the article has been much expanded and largely rewritten by Cindamuse. The new material is mostly but not completely correct on points of fact, and contains information about Francis's second wife that does not seem relevant to the topic. Subtopics have been added, too many of them I think. So I need to revise it. But I will wait a few days for any comments that Singularity42 or other Wikipedia editors may make.

I don't know who Cindamuse is, but have no objection to others revising what I wrote - that's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. And this major contribution by someone else, who has also let stand the information in my original version though not in its original form, should at least partially answer the issue of conflict of interest.72.229.191.231 (talk) 10:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)