Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2017

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Archived nominations
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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2017 [1].

John Glenn edit

Nominator(s): Kees08 (Talk) and Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Glenn is one of the most viewed spaceflight articles on the project. He died recently, which made me work towards making his article my (hopefully) first featured article. He was the first American to orbit the Earth, was a highly decorated marine, and served as Senator for much of his life. If you notice on the talk page that this article just failed A-class review, I wanted to note that was due to a lack of reviewers and not due to any opposes. Hopefully I can garner enough interest here that we can get this article the rest of the way to FA. Kees08 (Talk) 07:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Light show, JustinTime55, and Hawkeye7: Apologies for not asking pre-nom, but if any of you significant contributors would like to be co-noms just let me know (or add yourself). Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 21:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to be a co-nominator. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:John_Glenn_Signature.svg: source link is dead
    Now I just feel argumentative, I hope it is not seen that way :). For this one, is a live source required, since signatures are not copyrighted in the US unless they are artistic? Otherwise, I suppose I could use another PD image and extract the signature out of it, then link to that. What do you think of this case? Kees08 (Talk) 20:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If there were significant information to identify a source without the live link (eg. a Google Books link in a book citation) I'd be less inclined to push it, but in this case the URL doesn't really speak to either original source or credibility, and a source is required under the image use policy. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How about [2]? Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Friendship_7_insignia.jpg: tag indicates that use of insignias is restricted - how does this affect this image? Same with File:STS-95_Patch.svg
    I do not think that it does, as the work was created by NASA, so as far as we are concerned in the US it is in the PD. I believe that notice is put there in case individuals in other countries want to use the image, they can see that it may not be in the PD in their country and that they should investigate that. Thoughts? Kees08 (Talk) 20:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't seem to find mention of the issue in the legal document linked from the tag, but this page suggests that at least some logos/insignia are not PD despite being created by NASA. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean this text specifically? "NASA images may be used as graphic "hot links" to NASA Web sites, provided they are used within the guidelines above. This permission does not extend to use of the NASA insignia, the retired NASA logotype or the NASA seal. NASA should be acknowledged as the source of the material." If so, I believe it is specifically discussing using them as hot links to NASA websites, so as long as we are not hotlinking to NASA with those images, we are fine. Did you mean another part of that page? Kees08 (Talk) 21:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:92OHSenateCounties.PNG: what's the source of the data presented in this image?
    I have a request in the Resource Exchange right now for the data. I replaced the image with one that looks better, but obviously that does not solve the data source issue. I will let you know when I hear back. Kees08 (Talk)
  • File:Annie_and_John_Glenn_1965.jpg: source link suggests the correct license would be PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked pretty hard at this one in the Commons, with this showing that photos donated by Nationaal Archief are PD, and this talking about it in English more. I think its just slightly incorrect information in the metadata of the photo. The National Archief template is where the CC license comes from, which is another reason I think that all of the photos they donated are with a commons license. What are your thoughts? I am open to being wrong about this. Kees08 (Talk)
    On the Nationaal Archief website, the image is clearly tagged as being CC0/PD - because that's a less restrictive license, I'd be more inclined to go with that. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that's fair, I'll use a PD tag. Kees08 (Talk)
    Replaced, let me know if that is good. Kees08 (Talk)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. (Note that I don't cover end-sections, such as the Awards section.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde edit

This is a little outside my usual area of work, but a significant figure, so I'd like this to be as good as possible. Feel free to revert any copy edits I make. Vanamonde (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm afraid I'm tending towards a weak oppose. A lot of fine work has gone into this article, and it is certainly up to GA standard or better. At the same time, it relies heavily on news sources despite some decent book sources being available. The prose is occasionally a little scratchy, and could benefit from attention from a better copyeditor than myself. It also often reads a bit like a list, rather than a bio. I will complete my review, because I think this process should be about article improvement, and not about checking it against a single standard; I would also be willing to change my mind later, but this is my current assessment. Vanamonde (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The early life section is rather brief. Do we not have any further information?
    Plenty. I have expanded the section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better.
  • A lot of sentences start with "He", can we mix it up a bit?
  • How does one a pilot's degree in a physics class?
    Ostensibly because the course included aerodynamics, combustion and heat transfer. Added this. But it was 1941, and there was a war. (When I was stationed in Texas around the turn of the century, football players could get credit for learning how to operate a microwave oven.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm.
  • I think you need to clarify that Annie actually went to the same college (or did she?)
  • "inspired by the marriage." Strange phrase
  • "Having completed his training in March 1943" is this training as a marine, or as a pilot?
    Pre-flight training. The stuff you see in An Officer and a Gentleman. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some issues with the order of references
    Any idea what they are? Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, for instance "had qualified for a regular commission.[27][22]". I've found the quickest way to fix this is to search for the string "][", which gives you all the instances of multiple refs, and then check those.
  • What happened to him between October 1952 and February 1953?
    Added "After a short period of leave, during which he moved his family back to New Concord, and two and half months of jet training at Cherry Point, he set out for Korea in February 1953." Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his ability to attract enemy flak" unclear whether this attraction was part of his job (in which case "ability" is appropriate) or whether it was accidental (in which case it isn't.)
    It's not part of your job per se, but you get hero points for flying through flak. There's not much a pilot can do, so it is not held against you if you get shot down, as Neil Armstrong did. The record is held by Kim Campbell, whose A-10 Thunderbolt II was holed 1,400 times over Baghdad in 2003. Fortunately, the A-10 can fly on just one engine, and without hydraulic systems, stabiliser or air brakes. The landing gear just drops and locks into place, and, most importunately, the pilot is protected by a titanium "bathtub". She was able to fly home and land the aircraft, which was a total write off, and is now in the USAF Museum in Dayton. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I'd suggest saying "tendency" instead of "ability".
  • Jumping back and forth in the chronology is a bad idea unless there's a really good reason, and I'm not seeing any such reason in the third paragraph of "Korean War"
    Re-organised so the section flies straight. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "27 combat missions in the faster F-86." Faster than what?
    Than the F9F. Added a bit to make this point clearer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Glenn shot down his first MiG-15" Was this his first "kill"? Otherwise, why is it notable?
    To have shot down a MiG made you a hero in the early 1950s. It put Glenn right at the top of the Ziggurat. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So maybe say that.
  • On my screen the final word "medals" is all by its lonesome below the picture. I'd suggest moving the image to the right.
    On my screen, there is no room for images on the right. The image of him at Patuxent sandwiches the text between it and the images of him from STS-95 and the F-86. Moved the images into their appropriate sections. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The military career section in general feels a bit like a list, without much interesting detail. I'm not certain how best to fix this, though; I will think on it further.
    I can add more details. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before Glenn's appointment as an astronaut in the Mercury program, he participated in spacecraft design." This is unintentionally misleading; it reads as though he participated in the engineering side of things. The rest sounds more like he was the guinea pig. Or am I wrong about that?
    About whether he participated in the engineering design (which he did), or about whether it is unintentionally misleading? In any case, I have re-worded it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "graduate-level introductory space science" bit contradictory?
    Our oxymorons are mighty weak. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need a brief explanation of what the Friendship 7 flight was
    Added.
    Much much better.
  • You don't really need subsections under Project Mercury
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Glenn is honored by President Kennedy at temporary Manned Spacecraft Center facilities at Cape Canaveral, Florida, three days after his flight." I think the tense is odd for a caption.
    Really? It is adapted from the original captain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweaked it myself, if you're unhappy we can discuss it.
  • "On February 23, 1962, President Kennedy" Kennedy should be "U.S. President" the first time, but then just as "Kennedy" thereafter
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Soviet Union orbited a female cosmonaut" I find "orbited" an odd word in the circumstances; I have a mental image of Russia spinning around Tereshkova.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "detailing his opposition to sending women into space" I think it's important to both explain what his reasons were, and any substantial response, which seems likely to have occurred.
    Blatant sexism. The early 1960s was the nadir of gender relations in the United States. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better. Unsurprising, perhaps, but is there a sentence or so of commentary we could add from someplace?
  • There is a good bit of redundancy between "Resignation" and "1964 Senate attempt".
    Not only that, but there is a discrepancy. Where's Justin? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that? I combined the two sections to maintain a chronological order and removed the redundancy Kees08 (Talk) 06:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holding off on 1964 and 1970 senate runs for now; will return after the previous issues are sorted out.
  • "The results of the task force" odd phrase: "findings of the tf"? "report of the tf"?
    Good point, reworded to better reflect the source material. Kees08 (Talk) 06:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metzenbaum's eventual victory seems better suited to the next subsection, where its relevance is clear.
  • "Late 70s and 80s campaigning" has a lot going on, but is not clear. When did he run for president?
  • Why was there tension, and why did it thaw?
  • Why is Metzenbaum's 1988 election relevant?
  • "Glenn introduced bills on energy policy to try to counter the energy crisis in the 70s." The trouble with politicians is that probably most senators expressed a desire to "counter the energy crisis". It's political hot air. What did the bill do to counter it? That is what is relevant.
  • " based on nuclear non-proliferation," perhaps better as "promoting nuclear non-proliferation"?
  • Also the subsection title is a bit strange: perhaps "Activities" would be more appropriate.
  • Link or explain "Taiwan Enabling Act of 1979"
    Linked Kees08 (Talk) 06:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1979, another dispute Glenn had with President Carter was Glenn's stance on the SALT II treaty" Overly complex wording
  • Rather heavy use of the OSU source in that section...
  • "illegal foreign donations by China" is it possible for China to make either legal or domestic donations? Maybe better as "donations by the Chinese government to...At the time, foreign donations to political campaigns..."
  • "Considerable acrimony existed between Glenn and committee chair Fred Thompson of Tennessee." Why?Also didn't the article just say Collins was chair?
  • We definitely need more detail in the savings and loans scandal section; not negative information, necessarily, but for the uninformed reader to have at least some idea of what he was accused of doing wrong.
  • The renamings of the school don't really need a whole sentence.
    They are a separate thought, I am not sure what sentence I would combine it with, do you have a suggestion? Kees08 (Talk) 17:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say his campaigning for Kennedy's presidential candidacy should come before Kennedy's assassination
    Agreed, changed the wording around. Kees08 (Talk) 05:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " but that too went to Mondale" sounds a bit colloquial, I'd suggest "lost to Mondale once again"
    Done Kees08 (Talk) 02:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aide Greg Schneiders" Presumably Glenn's aide, but the article should say so.
  • "because he did not meet the study's conditions;" It would be interesting to learn what those were.
    Undisclosed medical reasons that NASA will not disclose, apparently. Edited the article to reflect that. Kees08 (Talk) 05:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "first ever presidential email" As written, this can be parsed in many different ways...first email sent by a US president? (as an aside, it's a damn good thing that was 20 years ago; if that happened under Trump, there would be an article about reactions to the reactions to the email.)
    First ever email sent by a president. I think it sounds like that...is there a different way you would write that to get that message across? Kees08 (Talk) 06:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was renamed John Glenn Parkway for several months." Not certain there's anything to be done with this, but that is really strange...
    I reworded it a little bit, let me know if that is satisfactory. Kees08 (Talk) 06:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He received all of his degrees in full in a Mason at Sight ceremony from the Grand Master of Ohio in 1978, 14 years after petitioning his lodge" To a person such as myself who knows little to nothing of the Masons, this is incomprehensible.
  • There's a picture of Annie here, but Annie isn't actually mentioned in the personal life section.
  • "John and Annie Glenn dotted the "i" in Ohio State University's Script Ohio marching band performance" Again, is there anything we could add to help the uninitiated understand what this means.
    Made an effort to describe it without providing too much emphasis. Kees08 (Talk) 18:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you need subsections under illness and death; they're very short subsections.
    Removed subsections Kees08 (Talk) 17:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the formatting of the awards rather strange, but I know little about military article conventions, so I won't make any suggestions here, except to say that you could combine Awards, Illness and death, and the "retirement" section into a single "Death and legacy" section with three subsections; but that's not necessary, the current structure is okay.
  • The one-sentence paragraph at the very end could probably be avoided.
    Moved into tributes section, seemed appropriate there. Kees08 (Talk) 03:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, that's all I have for now, though I will reiterate my concerns about primary sources. I will take another look at this once my concerns have been addressed, and I may reevaluate my position; though, given the length of time this has been open, I'm wondering if that's the best option. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John edit

  • After Glenn resigned from NASA in 1964 and retired from the Marine Corps the following year, he planned to run for a U.S. Senate seat from Ohio. An injury in early 1964... Is it me or is there a temporal discontinuity in there? --John (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks more like an error to me. Re-worded. Expanded the introduction slightly. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we sure that During Glenn's first orbit, a scheduled 30-minute test to see if he could fly the spacecraft manually became significant when a failure of the automatic-control system was detected at the end of the first orbit; this forced Glenn to operate in manual mode for the second and third orbits and re-entry. Later in the flight, telemetry indicated that the heat shield had loosened. If this reading were accurate, Glenn and his spacecraft would be incinerated on reentry. is our best prose? "Significant"? Everything on this article had better be significant, else why would it be in the article? "If this reading were accurate" is awkward and (I think) a misuse of the subjunctive mood. "Incinerated"? I think we can do better than this. --John (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Looks up what the subjunctive mood is.) Okay, I have re-worded this bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I'm afraid this has been open a long time without attracting much support, and there is a weak oppose standing. Therefore I shall be archiving shortly. This can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period, and in that time I would recommend that the nominators work with Vanamonde93 on any remaining issues. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2017 [3].

Revival (comics) edit

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the comic book Revival, published by Image Comics between 2012 and 2017. It passed GA in June 2017 and has been stable since. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
  • The infobox image requires ALT text.
    • done.
  • In the lead, identify who described the comic as "a rural noir" and add the source that supports this quote.
    • I revised it to "described by its creators as". The citation in in the Early Inspriation section.
  • In the "Plot summary" section, do you think you should include a link to Wausau, Wisconsin? It is linked in the "Production" section, but the place is first used in this section so I would move the link up here.
    • Done - the sections got shuffled during GAR, and I didn't catch this. Thanks.
  • I would put the acronym CDC in parenthesis directly after Center for Disease Control, just to make it absolutely clear that the acronym is referencing this.
    • done.
  • In the phrase (referred to as "creeps" in Seeley’s scripts), clearly identify Seeley with his full name and a short descriptive phrase and link him. Remember that the lead and the body of the article should be treated separately so things linked in the lead will have to be linked again in the body of the article.
    • done.
  • In the first paragraph of the "Early inspiration" subsection, please fully introduce Norton with the full name and add a link.
    • done.

Great work with this article; once my comments are addressed, I will support it. I hope you are having a wonderful day so far. Aoba47 (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Corrections made, thanks for the input. My day's been quite nice so far, and I hope yours has been as well! Argento Surfer (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your quick responses, and my day is pretty good so far. This was a very interesting and enjoyable read. I will support this for promotion. Good luck with the rest of this process. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my current FAC? Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
  • File:RevivalComic1.jpg: The image use makes sense in the context of the article, and all aspects of the Non-free media information and use rationale box are fully completed to explain the rationale for the image.

This is a very easy image review as there is only one image used in the article at the time that I am writing this. I believe that passes the image review. If any additional images are added to the body of the article during the nomination, I will update this and review those image as well. Either way, wonderful work. Aoba47 (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am currently seeking a good interior image to show Norton's style, what a "glowing man" is, and at least one member of the cast. I will ping you when I locate one. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good to me; thank you for letting me know and good luck with your search. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with your assessment that I think the second image is the best out of the four as it is a single image. However, I think any of them will work fine in the article. Just make to sure to connect it in with the article/critical commentary. Aoba47 (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 1989 edit

  • "originally published" I would remove the first word.
  • done
  • The format is ongoing? The lead said it ended.
  • In comics, Ongoing series is a format distinct from a limited series. Even though the story has been ended, it was not planned to have a fixed number of issues.
  • I would put square brackets around ...
  • done
  • Who's "letterer Crank!"?
  • "was announced February 12, 2014 and released May 2014"
  • not sure what the issue was here, but I've specified the date as May 28 and added the word "on" before both dates.
  • "In January 2013, a group of retailers who commission exclusive "Phantom Variant" covers to provide additional attention to series they believe deserve more support selected Revival to be part of the project." This sentence doesn't sound right.
  • I've reworded it to "In January 2013, the Phantom group, retailers who commission exclusive covers to provide additional attention to series they believe deserve more support, selected Revival to be part of the project." I agree it's clunky, but there's not an article for the Phantom group and their mission statement is hard to summarize. Other suggestions are very welcome.
  • "Because of the declining sales, Seeley expressed skepticism about doing a project of similar length in the future" You're missing something.
  • Clarified, hopefully.
  • "A fourth hardcover collecting the rest of the series is scheduled for release in June 2017." It's August now.
  • It was released in June. Updated.
  • "8.1/10" I'd change the slash to "out of".
  • done
  • Kois described Norton's art as "wonderfully specific and evocative of the rural Midwest"
  • Added a period.
  • "Tonic found the subtle background detail added to her understanding of the characters." Doesn't sound right.
  • added "such as music posters and the cleanliness of bedrooms"
  • "a satisfying conclusion for longtime readers." I'd move the period.
  • "every plot thread that has been hanging out there in a satisfying manner." I'd move the period.
  • done
  • "was nominated for Best Cover Artist in 2013 and 2015 in part because of her work on Revival." In part?
  • she does covers for multiple titles each month, and Revival was one of three or four listed with her nomination.
  • "Screen Panel released four prints based on Revival October 25, 2014."
  • not sure what the concern was here - I added the word "on" before the date.

When my concerns are resolved, I'll check back. -- 1989 21:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1989: Thanks for the input. I believe I've addressed or responded to your concerns. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Argento Surfer: When you get a chance, could you review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dragon Ball (manga)/archive1? -- 1989 13:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian edit

Recusing coord duties, not much of a comic fan, and never seen this one, but you can't knock a bit of horror-SF so happy to have a look...

  • Found the prose to be in generally good shape but let me know if I misinterpreted anything in my copyedit; outstanding points:
    • Others believe they can absorb the revivers' immortality by ingesting their flesh, leading to an active smuggling business that moves body parts of revivers and other recently dead individuals. -- just to clarify, immediately before this we're told the revivers are effectively immortal and heal from all wounds, so are we saying people like to chop off bits of revivers for profit, but the revivers heal, meaning it's a kind of gruesome win-win situation?
      • That's exactly what happens. One of the revivers died from a heroin overdose, and his suppliers keep him stoned while they continuously cut off strips of meat. Should I clarify that in the prose? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Production you say that in 2015 the creators "decided to end Revival at issue 48" but elsewhere (infobox, Publication history) it's 47 issues, with no specific explanation I could see for the reduction.
      • I wasn't sure how to address this - the source says 48, but my best guess is that either 1) sales fell further faster and they cut it short or 2) They said that before the scripts were done and it wrapped up faster than they expected. I thought about not specifying "48," but couldn't find an appropriate way to word it. Any suggestion is welcome. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article structure seems logical, and the level of detail reasonable.
  • I haven't looked at source reliability/formatting, so will withhold final judgement until that happens, but so far I'm leaning to support.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Ian Rose: - the source reliability and formatting has been reviewed below, if you'd like to weigh in or update your comments. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth edit

  • What makes http://www.cbr.com/ a high quality reliable source?
    • Comic Book Resources is one of the longest running comic news websites in the English language...
      • You may find Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches useful. Bear in mind that the FA criteria require "high quality" reliable sources, so the bar is a bit higher. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I appreciate the link, but I'm not sure how to respond. CBR has been one of the most respected sources for comic news since it was founded. Are you asking me to find a source saying CBR is a reliable source? How will you know that source is reliable? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • One way is to show that other sources use the source as a source. Or show where the editorial policies/team is. Or that non-comic sites such as newspapers/etc use the site as a source. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, if you had looked at the CBR article I linked, you'd see that it's won several industry awards for journalism. So have most of the others I linked below. That's why I linked them. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • I did check the various articles. For example, for CBR - most of the awards it won were fan-based awards. And several of those are for "favorite site", not anything for their journalism. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well if most of them are, then I guess the others don't matter? The Eisner Award is not fan based. Neither is the Harvey Award. And c'mon - how could an unreliable news source win so many favorite site awards? You're picking nits here. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • (Sorry for the delay, my boot hard drive died rather spectacularly and I'm just now getting sorta back to normal... ) Yes, but picking nits is what we do at FAC. Sources are arguably more important than prose, quite honestly. Leaving this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. The multiple Eisners across a number of years at least make it pass WP:RS. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://sequart.org/ a high quality reliable source?
    • It's an interview with the creators.
      • Just because its an interview doesn't mean its reliable. What is the reputation of the site doing the interview, are they considered reliable? Do they have a reputation for accurately reporting things? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes? Again, I'm not sure what you want here. Interviews are primary sources. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • An interview is as reliable as the site/newspaper/etc putting it out. So the site/newspaper/etc needs to be reliable. There is nothing magical about some non-reliable site putting up a interview that suddenly makes that interview reliable. I can put up a site and say I've got an interview with Donald Trump, but that doesn't make the interview reliable because I wouldn't have a repuation being a reliable source. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Seriously? You're comparing a comic website's interview with a comic creator talking about his comic to a random Joe posting an interview with a controversial world leader? Surely there's some measure of good faith that these aren't fabrications... Argento Surfer (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • I assume GF until I meet a criteria that requires high quality sourcing. There is nothing magical about an interview that makes it reliable without some understanding of the place/person doing the interview.
                • The understanding is that they're comic news/review sites that interview creators, usually by email, then paste the conversation as an article with just enough copy editing to make it clear who's speaking. The material is being used to source exactly what the creators are saying in the interviews about how they work, not something outrageous or controversial. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Still not convinced at all on this one that the interviewer and the site meet WP:RS, much less the higher standard required for FA. The sources listed below that use it are themselves being questioned in this review... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                      • No. I gave three examples of reliable sources using Sequart. Only one of them is being questioned in this review. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes https://www.bleedingcool.com/ a high quality reliable source?
    • Bleeding Cool is well known for following price fluctuations in "hot comics". Their articles on print runs and sell-outs are very reliable. Their head writer, Rich Johnston, has been active in comics reporting for almost 30 years.
      • See above, the criteria is "high quality". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • The items below are from sources themselves being questioned in this review. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes https://www.newsarama.com/about a high quality reliable source?
    • Newsarama is also one of the longest running comic news websites in the English language...
      • See above, the criteria is "high quality". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • The one Eisner was won in 2008, 9 years ago. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • They only give out one Eisner a year, and there's lots of competition. They can't all win multiple awards. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://comicsalliance.com a high quality reliable source?
    • ComicsAlliance was one of the longest running comic news websites in the English language prior to shutting down earlier this year.
      • See above, the criteria is "high quality". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Leaving this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves - but at least the Eisner is recent. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://www.thegeekedgods.com/about-us/ a high quality reliable source?
    • It's an interview with the series writer.
  • What makes http://womenwriteaboutcomics.com/about/ a high quality reliable source?
  • Current ref 11 needs more publication details - lacks a publisher, etc.
    • Publisher added.
  • What makes http://thegww.com a high quality reliable source? I note that it says at the bottom of the home page: "Geeks WorldWide is a community-driven organization"
    • It's an interview.
  • What makes http://blog.tfaw.com a high quality reliable source?
    • It's an interview.
  • What makes http://www.comicsbeat.com/about/ a high quality reliable source?
    • Comics Beat is a long running Comic News website with editorial oversight.
      • See above, the criteria is "high quality". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • https://comichype.com/2013/04/21/comichype-interviews-tim-seeley/ is a deadlink
  • Current ref 20 (Parkin) says it's from Robot 6 but the link goes to Comic Book Resources - http://www.cbr.com/details-emerge-on-free-comic-book-day-offerings-for-dc-comics-image/
    • Robot 6 was an independent group within CBR, but has since relocated.
      • So... if the source meets the high quality standard, we need to reflect that change... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://www.multiversitycomics.com/about-us-2/ a high quality reliable source?
    • It's a news/review website with editorial oversight and was approved by the Comic project.
      • See above, the criteria is "high quality". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://hackslashinc.tumblr.com a high quality reliable source? The page says "an unofficial hack/slash fan page". I doubt it meets WP:RS much less being high quality.
    • It's being used in conjunction with other sources to claim (1)the existence of a variant cover and (2)the date news about a TV adaptation broke.
  • What makes http://www.comichron.com/index.php a high quality reliable source?
    • It's a long running comic sales reporting site, operated by someone who's been in the industry since the 80s. His figures are routinely used and referenced industry personnel and outside news agencies when they report on a comic.
  • What makes http://popculture.com/page/about a high quality reliable source?
    • Which source is this? I could not find it in a search.
  • What makes https://graphicpolicy.com/about/ a high quality reliable source?
    • It's sourcing a press release.
      • See above, the criteria is "high quality". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://therealmcast.com/2012/11/12/three-image-comics-sell-out-week-of-release/ is a deadlink
  • What makes https://blackcat-comics.com/about-us/ a high quality reliable source?
    • It's a retailer page that defines a retailer group and their exclusive product.
  • What makes https://forbiddenplanet.com/picks/what-are-phantom-variant-comics/ a high quality reliable source?
    • It's a retailer, and the page is being used to show that certain items were exclusive to retailers.
  • what makes http://www.grahamcrackers.com a high quality reliable source?
    • It's a retailer, and the page is being used to show that certain items were exclusive to retailers.
      • ON all these retailer sites - they may (barely) meet WP:RS, but the standard is "high quality" at FA. For a retailer source, I'd want it to be a bit bigger retailer or a distributor. A press release from the company doing the items being sold would also likely meet the higher standard (but I'd be inclined to let other reviewers decide for themselves if it was a press release). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bigger? Forbidden Planet is an international comic retailer. Graham Crackers has 9 store fronts in the US, which is a significant size in the industry. There won't be a distributor source - comic distribution is a [Diamond Comic Distributors|monopoly] in the US, and it doesn't publicize product that's available to select retailers. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://sktchd.com/about/ a high quality reliable source?
    • It's an interview
  • Current ref 45 is non-English and should note that in the citation
    • noted
  • What makes http://comicbookroundup.com/about.php a high quality reliable source?
  • What makes http://www.comiccrusaders.com/about/ a high quality reliable source?
    • It's a review site with editorial oversight. It's used to source the reviewer's opinion.
  • http://infinitecomix.com/revival-24-review-farms-faith-fauna/ is a deadlink
    • This website appears to have been taken down. I have removed the sourced content.
  • What makes http://insidepulse.com a high quality reliable source?
    • It's a review site with editorial oversight. It's used to source the reviewer's opinion.
  • What makes https://www.horrortalk.com/home/staff.html a high quality reliable source?
    • It's a review site with editorial oversight. It's used to source the reviewer's opinion.
      • The question then becomes - what makes these reviewers views significant? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 61 (Melrose) says it's from Robot 6 but the link goes to CBR - http://www.cbr.com/screen-panel-announces-revival-print-series/
    • See above.
  • What makes http://sciencefiction.com/about/ a high quality reliable source?
    • It's sourcing the existence of a toy by way of a product announcement.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations, as everything that is flagged is quotations.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to Oppose due to the high number of questionable sources used in the article.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've offered explanations for the points raised. The sources may not all be the New York Times, but they're reliable sources about comic books. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concern with some of these sources, and admit that I will not be able to satisfy your conditions for a large number of them. However, I believe their content is accurate and valuable. If I have to choose between removing the material or not receiving your support for FA, then I'd prefer to retain the content. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: With an oppose on sourcing, I'm leaning towards archiving this, particularly as the two supports are of the more cursory type of review that comic articles sometimes accumulate. Ian, I don't know if you want to weigh in on the sourcing (and I promise to stop pinging you soon!) Sarastro1 (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no prob re. the pinging! Yeah, this is why I generally hold off support until source and image reviews are done -- not being a comic expert I can't really weigh in on the reliability of the questioned refs, and I have to agree with Ealdgyth that the source of an interview is as important as the subject in determining reliability. Much as I'd like to support this interesting and well-written article, I can't while we have an impasse over sourcing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replaced the tumbler source
  • ComicsAlliance won an Eisner Award for journalism in 2015.
  • Comic Book Resources won Eisners for journalism in 2009, 2011, and 2014.
  • Newsarama won an Eisner for journalism in 2008.
  • Multiversity was nominated for an Eisner in journalism in 2014 and 2015
  • Comics Beat is run by Heidi McDonald, who was also an editor at Publishers Weekly and has been recognized as reliable by other reliable sources.
  • For the SKTCHED source, the writer (David Harper) is regularly referenced by other reliable sources.
  • Bleeding Cool has been referenced by other reliable sources.
  • Sequart has been recognized by reliable sources for doing scholarly work and documentaries.
  • I never got a response on the retailer links that are being used to source facts about themselves. Are those ok?
  • sciencefiction.com has been removed
  • Graphic Policy has been replaced
  • @Ealdgyth: If the above explanations are acceptable, I'll re-evaluate the remainders on the list. The sources in the review section are sourcing the reviewer's opinions. I'm not sure I'll be able to find high quality replacements that will be comprehensive and neutral - negative opinions don't get published much when you're talking about a niche genre in a niche medium. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • On Graphic Policy - what were the two links to it replaced with? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The two links showed how quickly reprints were announced for issues 3 and 4. (refs 29 and 30 here) They were replaced with one link to CBR, and the timeframe was removed. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Given that there is a standing oppose on sourcing, and given the length of time that this review has been open, I am going to archive this shortly. It can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period and I would recommend that the nominator works with Ealdgyth in that time to clear up any remaining sourcing issues. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2017 [4].

Indian National Army edit

Nominator(s): rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about "Indian National Army", an organisation in south-east Asia formed during World War II. It forms a part of the radical side of the Indian independence movement, different from the Gandhian pacifist movement and is a very delicate topic, with very many differing viewpoints. A substantial effort has been made over several years to achieve an NPOV good quality article, carefully avoiding hagiography and pro and anti-INA bias. Best efforts has been made to achieve quality secondary and tertiary sources in noting the pre and post-war history, politics, people, of what formed the INA. Very close attention has been laid on factual content and giving due weight to view points and opinions, and extensive help has been sought from the GOCD. In time for Indian independence day, I think this would be a great article to achieve FA status on a less visible side of the Indian indepdendence movement.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Fujiwara_Kikan.jpg: can you provide more details on source?
  • File:Gandhi_and_Subhas_Bose.jpg: given source has date of 1950s; where was this first published?
  • File:Destruction_of_INA_Memorial_1945.jpg: source link is dead; who is potentially the copyright holder, and is the claim for the memorial, the photo, or both?
  • File:Former_Indian_National_Army_Monument.JPG: what is the copyright status of the memorial?
  • File:Azad_Hind_stamps_released_by_Indian_National_Army_in_display_at_Netaji_Birth_Place_Museum,_Cuttack,_Odisha,_India.jpg: what is the copyright status of the depicted stamps?
  • File:Subhas_Chandra_Bose.jpg: can you explain why the URAA tag would apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, I took a quick look. I can't comment on content as I don't know enough about the subject, so I have focused on more generic things. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "army remains a popular and passionate topic in popular Indian...": suggest trying to change one of the instances of "popular" here to vary your language
  • this needs a ref: the paragraphing ending with "Men going forward on duty were issued British stocks of hand grenades by senior officer of the Bahadur groups attached to each unit."
  • this is not grammatically correct: "Men going forward on duty were issued British stocks of hand grenades by senior officer of the Bahadur groups attached to each unit."
  • this needs a ref: "Both the soldiers of the INA and civilians addressed Bose as Netaji ("Dear leader"). In October 1943, Bose proclaimed the formation of the Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind, or the Provisional Government of Free India (also known as Azad Hind or Free India). The INA was declared to be the army of Azad Hind."
  • this is not grammatically correct: "The radio transmitting set with all accessories that sent by Subhas Chandra Bose to India in a submarine, four members of INA were the carriers."
  • "was organised into a quasi-military organisation..." (please try to reword to avoid repetition)
  • in the Operations section, I suggest splitting the 1944 paragraph as it is very long
  • this needs a reference: "Malik Munawar Khan, commander of 2nd Guerilla Battalion during INA's Imphal campaign, later joined Pak Army and commanded Pakistani Special Forces during Operation Gibraltar in 1965."
  • this needs a ref: the paragraph ending with "The Indian National Army Memorial at Moirang, Manipur, commemorates the place where the flag of Azad Hind was raised by Col. Shaukat Hayat Malik. Moirang was the first Indian territory captured by the INA."
  • newspapers such as Times of India, Hindustan Times etc should be presented in italics
  • inconsistent date format, for instance compare "2007-07-07" with "2 November 1945"
  • the citations are generally ok, but I found a few that needed tweaking (I may have missed a few, please review)
  • the Further reading section is inconsistently formatted
  • the Cohen, Moremon and Ghosh works do not appear to be specifically cited, I suggest moving them to the Further reading section

Continuing the review: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • the use of emdashes or endashes instead of parentheses is inconsistent
  • this is unreferenced: "In October 1943, Bose proclaimed the formation of the Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind, or the Provisional Government of Free India (also known as Azad Hind or Free India). The INA was declared to be the army of Azad Hind."
  • Stenson & Rai citations (136 & 137) are inconsistent in their presentation, both also lack page numbers
  • the Cohen ref uses a different style citation to the other journal articles. For instance compare citation # 114 with 120 (Green).
  • is there a page numbr for the Urquhart news article?
  • sometimes you use "Firstname Surname" and others you use "Surname, Firstname". For instance compare "Healey, Beth" with "Stephen P. Cohen" or "Sumit Ganguly"
  • "File:Destruction of INA Memorial 1945.jpg": the source link for this file appears to be dead. You might be able to find an archived version here: [5]
  • "File:Surrendered Indian National Army troops at Mount Popa.jpg": the image description page should include an indicative date of when the image was taken
  • "File:Gandhi and Subhas Bose.jpg": probably needs a US licence as well as those that are already on the image description page

Replies to Images comments edit

Thankyou Nikki, to address the comments:

File:Fujiwara_Kikan.jpg: can you provide more details on source?
The original image was published (from what I gathere) in a Singapore newspaper in 1942 in print (I cannot shed light on which one). The image is also found in Joyce Lebra's Japanese-trained armies in South East Asia, published in 1977. I haven't asked Prof Lebra where her original source is.
Correction, the source were it was published is Domei Newsagency in April 1942.
Okay, could you add that to the image description page? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gandhi and Subhas Bose.jpg:
To the best of my knowledge, the original image was published in TIME magazine in 1937.
As above, please add to image descirption
The destruction of INA memorial file is from s1942.org.sg.
This was a digital archive of Singapore government (to the best of my knowledge). I am not tinternetwise gifted, a cached version of the website may exist?
Former Indian national army monument is noted as released under CC license by the creator.
INA stamps are released under CC license by the creator.
For both this and the memorial, the CC license given appears to apply to the photo, but not what is pictured. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, the photos are of the memorial to the memorial, and if the stamps described. The photos are used in accordance with the license to the best of my understanding. Is there a problem that is not immediately apparent to me?rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 07:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If something is being photographed, either freedom of panorama must apply or the thing being photographed must be freely licensed or in the public domain. This is separate from the license of the photographer. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point now. The former Indian National Army monument falls under FoP-Singapore, the Azad Hind stamps are in fact Cinderella stamps published in and by Nazi Germany. I imagine this is appropriately covered under PD-Germany-§134-KUG. please let me know if this clarifies.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure which other Subhas Bose image that you mentioned under URAA (terribly sorry, not sure what is URAA).

Best regards rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguay Round Agreements Act - the image includes a tag stating it was in the public domain on the date on which that act came into effect, but it is unclear to me why that would be. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Many thanks, I must ask though which image is in question since the only one with Bose is the Gandhi and Bose together, discussed above. Best wishes,rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 07:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Subhas_Chandra_Bose.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, this image is not in fact displayed in the visible part of the article, I will delete this if it is a part of the hidden part of the article. In any case it does not add much to the article and is interchangeable (the subject of the article being the INA and not Bose). Thankyou for highlighting this.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note File:Subhas_Chandra_Bose.jpg is not a part of this article.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 10:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Australian Rupert edit

I will addess your notes today. Mnay thanks rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 10:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Many thanks for your kind comments Rupert. I have addressed the poitns you raise.

  • Some sentences have been removed now (re:Munawar Khan) for which I could not find dependable source (this was added in the past by a different editor).
  • Grammatical corrections carried out.
  • Italics provided for print publications.
  • I have not changed the date format. The inconsistencies you highlight are not in fact such. The date in words show the original publication date where the artile was first published in print. For online resources first published online (and therefore available as such), this is the date provided.
    • I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. The format is clearly different/inconsistent. Please pick one style and use that throughout. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have trimmed the Further reading section to include only relevant literature.
  • Uncited works removed

rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 10:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

REPLIES TO CONTINUING TO REVIEW edit

Continuing the review: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • the use of emdashes or endashes instead of parentheses is inconsistent
    • This is a bit difficult for me to address, since the current structure is mostly derived following GOFCE rvs, please give me a bit more time, and feel free to change as you consider appropriate as well.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is unreferenced: "In October 1943, Bose proclaimed the formation of the Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind, or the Provisional Government of Free India (also known as Azad Hind or Free India). The INA was declared to be the army of Azad Hind."
  • Stenson & Rai citations (136 & 137) are inconsistent in their presentation, both also lack page numbers.
  • the Cohen ref uses a different style citation to the other journal articles. For instance compare citation # 114 with 120 (Green).
  • is there a page numbr for the Urquhart news article?
    • Afraid not one that I can provide immediately, this may be possible in the next 48h.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • sometimes you use "Firstname Surname" and others you use "Surname, Firstname". For instance compare "Healey, Beth" with "Stephen P. Cohen" or "Sumit Ganguly"
  • "File:Destruction of INA Memorial 1945.jpg": the source link for this file appears to be dead. You might be able to find an archived version here: [6].
    • I am afraid the archive notes the site but not specifically the image link.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Surrendered Indian National Army troops at Mount Popa.jpg": the image description page should include an indicative date of when the image was taken.
  • "File:Gandhi and Subhas Bose.jpg": probably needs a US licence as well as those that are already on the image description page.
    • This will need more time, since this would fall under a confusing category in the US (to the best of my understanding). It was published before 1964, I am unable to find any records of the license having been renewed by TIME magazine.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: As this has been open for over a month without attracting any support, and has stalled over the last few weeks, I think the article's best chance is to archive this now and to renominate after the usual two-week wait. It may be worth engaging with those who have commented here to see what more would need to be done before renominating, in order to secure some support for promotion. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2017 [7].

Balfour Declaration edit

Nominator(s): Onceinawhile (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the document considered to be the birth certificate of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Its 100th anniversary is in three months' time. It is a Top-Importance article at both Wikiproject Israel and WikiProject Palestine. It was promoted to good article status in April 2016, and has since had a peer review, a GOCE copy edit, and support for almost a year from FunkMonk as a mentor. As an important topic in a controversial area, it has been prepared in conjunction with WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, which aims to create a bilateral narrative in a field with distinct and divergent ways of describing the same things. The abundance of supporting quotations and notes, reflecting the fact that every detail of this topic has been argued over by scholars from all sides of the spectrum, has been discussed at WP:ANI. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

update: the article was recently promoted to be a level 4 vital article in History. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

Haven't finished reading it yet.
  • "The Balfour Declaration was a British public statement made during World War I to announce its support for the establishment of a "national home" for the Jewish " Who is "its"? (if it's the British government, remember to use "their"; note the first sentence of the Declaration is similar.)
  • The lede seems to me too long with five paragraphs plus the lengthy blockquote. My understanding is the maximum is four paragraphs. The blockquote seems a bad idea to me as the prose in the lede should be as concentrated as possible to give the reader information and I don't think a blockquote of an original source can fit the prose. I'll wait and see before discussing further what you have to say on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resuming my review.
  • '"the US" I would say "United States" on first usage.
  • "intentionally unclear as to whether a Jewish state was contemplated." I might say "vague" rather than "unclear"
  • "The second part of the declaration " I might say "second half" instead of "second part", or possibly better "latter half"
  • "Whilst the declaration provided political rights in Palestine for Jews" I might say "called for" instead of "provided"
  • "had motivated Lord Shaftesbury and other lobbyists" I'm hesitant to term Shaftesbury a lobbyist when he was in Parliament most of his adult life, and lobbyists usually aren't legislators, that is why they are out in the lobby.
  • In the "Early Zionism" section, you have Balfour ask Weizmann what his objections were to the Uganda Scheme but you don't answer the question.
  • " Constantinople in 1901" I might say "In 1901, the imperial government in Constantinople" I might also add a "in Palestine" after "to buy land"
  • The information that Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire is contained in the World War I section, but it probably would be usufully in the Early Zionism section instead, as you discuss the Turks without mentioning the relationship.
  • "Lloyd George was however, the Prime Minister at the time of the Balfour Declaration, and ultimately responsible for it.[40]" I might say "by" for "at"
  • "On the basis of the correspondence, the Arab Revolt began on 5 June 1916. " This reads a bit obscurely. Possibly you should mention the quid pro quo, Arab independence if they revolted against the Ottomans.
  • Your capitalisation of "War Cabinet' does not seem consistent.
  • "Avi Shlaim says there were two main schools of thought on the origins of the Balfour Declaration,[61] one represented by Leonard Stein,[78] the other by Mayir Vereté.[79] He says that Stein does not reach any clear cut conclusions," I personally avoid the use of the word "says" as a bit unencyclopedic. Asserted, wrote, stated, averred, etc. A:*" :*More recently, Historian Martin Kramer " historian should be lower case (similarly "Holy Sites". And more recent than what? Than "modern scholarship"
  • "assays" You may mean "essays". The dictionary Google pulled up showed "assay" as in to "assay a joke" as archaic, but "essay" in a similar sense as current.
  • The capitalization of the section titles doesn't seem consistent for example, Sykes-Picot Exposed, why is Exposed capped?
  • "On 19 June, Balfour met with Lord Rothschild and Weizmann, and asked them to submit a formula for a declaration.[102] Following receipt of Lord Rothschild's 18 July draft declaration by the Foreign Office, the matter was brought to the Cabinet for formal consideration." These two one-sentence paragraphs could be combined, but you should alter the prose to connect them better.
  • "Consent from the U.S. President was sought over the same time period.[104]" This seems topically related to the next paragraph, not this one.
  • "British officials asked President Wilson for his views on the matter on two occasions – first on 3 September, when he replied the time was not ripe, and later on October 6, when he agreed with the release of the Declaration" You may want to avoid using multiple date formats in the same sentence.
  • "Wilson's advisor and leading Zionist Louis Brandeis.[r]" He was by then a Supreme Court justice and should be referred to as such. I'm not thrilled about the "Wilson's advisor" given such.
  • "With respect to the War Cabinet, in order to aid the discussions, the Cabinet Secretariat solicited interministerial clarification as well as the views of President Woodrow Wilson," this is written as if the article had not just discussed Wilson and his views. Additionally, the prose in this subsection seems a bit choppy, and this sentence seems a bit obscure. I don't know what interministerial clarification is, for one thing. Still more: the term "Cabinet Secretariat". You refer earlier to a War Cabinet Secretariat, is this what is meant? Or do you mean the senior civil servant, the Cabinet Secretary (United Kingdom)?
  • "and in the British Guardian on 26 November 1917" At the time, the Manchester Guardian. (note, I happened to look ahead and saw this)
This is probably going to be a bit piecemeal. If the nom is archived, I'll complete on the talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Wehwalt edit

I agree with you that the verbatim text is not needed in the lead. It was discussed 18 months ago at this talk thread with Hertz1888 and Rjensen, and consensus was for keeping. However, the article and lead have developed a lot since then, so consensus may have changed. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a memorial plaque or similar with the words written on it that would do instead, say as the lede image? I would urge you to discuss making a change.==Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. When this was last discussed, we had a lower quality image on the page ([8]). Now we have a much clearer lead image with the words on it. I will open a request on the talk page. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On "its" to "their" - thank you, I will fix this. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where to make comments, so I'll do it here. It seems to me that the text belongs in the lead. Reasons:

  • From what I remember, every word and punctuation mark of the Balfour Declaration was crafted with a lot of behind the scenes maneuvering.
  • Without the text the subsequent two paragraphs would be incomprehensible ("The first part", "The second part" and discussion of the various phrases like "national home".
  • MOS:LEAD recommends four paragraphs as a rule of thumb, but AFAIK there's no prohibition against having five. More importantly, the guideline says that the lead should "stand on its own". I, for one, can't read the image easily on a desktop and mobile is probably even worse.

Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any advantage to removing the text from the lead. Having it buried several sections below, at the end of the "Drafts" section, after several earlier versions, is not the same at all. The lead should "stand on its own" and explain what "it" is, "it" being the subject of the article. In this case "it" can be shown, verbatim, in a single legible paragraph. Let's leave it be. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a pity about the images, not much you can do with 100 year old stuff; is there any way of somehow putting the nicely typed version together with the image or is that just impractical? I did as well wonder about having a face or two on the page somewhere, maybe a little shot of the authors or even just Balfour?
Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion re verbatim text in lead, since resolved via RFC
::: Just messing about a bit:) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Selfstudier/sandbox Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea on the bottom right - where you have the full text in the infobox.
I don't like having Balfour's photo in the lead as it's misleading - sure his name is attached to it, but he was just one of many players in the story of its creation. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, three of them here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Times_history_of_the_war_(1914)_(14577979888).jpg
I don't like Balfour's photo either, probably can just remove it. As for the infobox stuff, does the infobox count as part of the lead? Perhaps it might work. I am not sure I like it though: it would still be awkward to talk about "first part" and "second part" without actually stating the text in the lead. It might be the least of all evils. I don't know. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, how about this one, then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Selfstudier/sandbox Selfstudier (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had a go at amending the one on your sandbox. What do you think? Onceinawhile (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like Kingsindian says, its an awkward choice, I hadn't paid much attention to it before, its not good that the text in the infobox is difficult to read tho it is nice to see a copy of the original. However I think I prefer a popout version at least some users can then see a legible version. It says that infoboxes should still contain what is in them in the main text somehwere, they are supposed to be a fast summary of some key data, having the long block of text is also frowned on apparently /:
I suppose that in the end, the reason it is in the lead is because it is short enough to be able to do that (cf United_States_Declaration_of_Independence has a single line quote from it in the lead).Selfstudier (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will wait and see what other FAC reviewers think of the text in the lede. Please ping me when you want me to take a second look. .--Wehwalt (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about a "no infobox" version? Starting something like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Selfstudier/sandbox A picture could be inserted somewhere later in the article.Selfstudier (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As to photographs, there are no known photographs of the protagonists together from the time of the declaration. This is likely a function of the wartime and secret nature of the discussions. The available photographs are usually posed portraits which give the reader no relevant information other than these people's facial features. I prefer going a little later, either to the 1918 Zionist visit to Palestine (see Weizmann, Edwin Samuel, Ormsby-Gore, Israel Sieff, Leon Simon, James de Rothschild and Joseph Sprinzak) or the 1925 Balfour visit (see Sokolow, Balfour and Weizmann or "The Palestine Trio", in which a few of the protagonists can be seen side by side.) There are also a few out of copyright videos from 1925: [9] [10] [11] [12], [13]. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wehwalt: do you have any further comments on the article? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it another look.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: thanks for taking another look. I have made all the changes you proposed. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: thanks for the further comments, which I have put through. You'll note I used "Sublime Porte" instead of "imperial government in Constantinople", which I think is more elegant not least because it avoids the Constantinople / Istanbul debate. Looking forward to any further comments you may have. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I'll keep plugging at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Wehwalt: these are all great comments - thank you. I have processed all comments received so far. On the last few, you'll see I've gone for slightly more detailed solutions to address three of your comments (Brandeis, the Cabinet Secretariat, and the events between 19 June and 18 July). I hope these are satisfactory. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Image review (let me know if discussion above results in further changes)

  • Suggest scaling up 1915-16 maps
  • File:The_"Basel_Program"_at_the_First_Zionist_Congress_in_1897.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • I'm not entirely sure that textual documents of this sort would qualify as "artistic works", which is the wording of PD-UKGov. Does provision of Crown copyright differ for nonartistic works?
  • File:1918_British_Government_Map_illustrating_Territorial_Negotiations_between_H.M.G._amd_King_Hussein.png is of poor quality; is a better-quality image available?
  • File:Balfour_Declaration_in_the_Times_9_November_1917.jpg should explicitly state author's date of death
  • File:Filastin_(La_Palestine)_March_25th_1925_editorial_addressed_to_Lord_Balfour.pdf needs author date of death, and given the 1925 publication date what is the rationale for that US tag?
  • File:2011-08_Desk_Balfour.JPG: what is the copyright status of the pictured wall art? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikkimaria, a few initial reactions:
  • Basel - have added as suggested
  • Times - Since no known writer (to be expected, since it looks like a government press release), I have added the date of death of the editor (1944)
  • 1918 map - no, unfortunately there is no better quality version available anywhere. I have looked high and low (this was discussed at the talk page a few months ago). It is the only known government map illustrating the 1915 agreement, so is highly notable.
  • Filastin - the editor and owner (El Isa) was the author of the piece. He died in 1950. I have removed the other tags, as Mandate Palestine copyright laws apply
  • Bit confused here: if he died in 1950, and the Mandate Palestine copyright term is life+70, why would this be PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 70 years is for Israeli copyright post 2008. For creations prior to 2008 (as this was), the British Mandate laws apply, see [14]: "The term for which copyright shall subsist shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, be the life of the author and a period of fifty years after his death." Onceinawhile (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so we need now to determine the status of the work in the US - not sure how the Mandate laws mesh with URAA. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an interesting question as the El Isa family would likely not have recognized Israeli descent of their Mandate copyright. It's not relevant though as the paper was almost certainly published in the US without a copyright notice or copyright registration. I have added a tag and an explanation onto the file page. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Desk - a tricky one. The Hebrew text is simply a verbatim translation of the letter and declaration. But the artwork, I don't know. An option is to replace it with a cropped version (e.g. he:קובץ:שולחנו של בלפור.jpg, but i'm not sure how to transfer the hebrew otrs to global commons).
  • I don't know the answer to that one, maybe ask over at Commons? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • UK Crown Copyright - I read this [15] as applying to all Crown material, not just art. Following [16] gives the same conclusion.
  • Hm. That flowchart does differentiate between artistic and non-artistic works, though: artistic works have their copyright expire 50 years after creation, whereas for other works it's 50 years after publication, assuming that happened before 1989. So the question becomes, when were all the textual documents pictured here published? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were all published before 1961 (the date of Leonard Stein's seminal publication on the topic which incorporated most of them as core primary sources; the others are in other works from the same time period). I will figure out the dates and add them to each file. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the details against each of the files on commons. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. I'm wondering whether there is a UK tag more reflective of the situation for textual works, as UKGov is specific to artistic works. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a note above each of the tags on the file pages to clarify. To clean things up for future users of the tag, I have also proposed an amendment to the template at [17]. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scaling up - do you mean make larger on the page, or zoom in further?
  • Make larger on the page, ideally using |upright=. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nikkimaria: do you have any further comments on the images or the article as a whole? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton edit

While you are deciding what to do with the lead/infobox, here are a few other minor points you should address:

  • The form "Lord Walter Rothschild" is wrong; it would only be right if he was a younger sone of a duke or a marquis, which he wasn't. Just "Lord Rothschild" would be correct everyday form.
  • "Mark Sykes" was "Sir Mark Sykes" at the time, and was rather more than "a British War Cabinet secretary", which makes him sound like a typist. "A senior member of the British War Cabinet secretariat" might be a better indication of his rank.
  • The way it's currently written, it sounds as though Sykes began discussions with Weitzmann on his own initiative, out of the blue. I would preface this sentence with "In accordance with government policy, which was increasingly favouring Zionism,..." (or some such wording)
  • Repetitions in second line of final paragraph: "ongoing...ongoing", and "conflict...conflict".
  • Like others, I think including the text of the declaration in the lead as well as in the infobox is unnecessary. Do you actually need the infobox at all? It contains nothing of note that's not in the first paragraph of the text. A possible alternative to the infobox is illustrated here - replacing it with a quote box containing the declaration's text, and obviating the need to repeat it in the body of the lead.
  • The image in the current infobox gives an impression that the declaration document was headed "Balfour Declaration", which was not the case. Incidentally, it would be interesting to know when the document first acquired this name – was it from the very outset, or a later appellation given by historians?

Aside from these minor issues, I have a major problem with the article as presently constructed. In addition to its main text, there are more than 10,000 additional words of "Primary supporting quotes" and "Explanatory notes and scholarly perspectives" – considerably exceeding the length of the article itself. Some of the notes are, individually, quite lengthy essays running to several hundred words. I don't believe that this approach is what is intended for Wikipedia, which is about providing articles in plain style for the general reader, not for researchers or academic historians. The authors should reconsider the nature of their intended readership, with a view to removing much of this explanatory material. WP:NOT might be a useful guideline. Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Brianboulton edit

Many thanks Brianboulton. Comments on your points in turn:

  • I agree that "Lord Walter Rothschild" is wrong. However, we need a way to differentiate him from two other contemporary Baron Rothschilds (in England Baron = Lord), much better known in politics, his father Nathan Rothschild, 1st Baron Rothschild who died a couple of years before the declaration and his distant cousin Baron Edmond James de Rothschild (who was, I believe, not an English Baron but an Austrian Freiherr, but who used the style Baron in England). Walter was not a particularly political or financial man, so it is notable that it was him in particular.
  • Agreed re Sir Mark. It seems his entitlement as a sir was in his Baronetcy inherited from his father, rather than being knighted. I have made both these changes
  • Agreed re Sykes's authorization; I have added wording to clarify
  • As to the infobox, that's an interesting idea. I am neutral on this and will wait to let consensus form.
  • The caption below the picture in the infobox is intended to explain that the declaration itself is within the letter. The name "Balfour Declaration" formed very early. It was used frequently in the reports of both the 1919 King–Crane Commission and the 1920 Palin Commission
  • As to the notes, in the original nomination above I linked to the ANI discussion on the topic. The subject of this article is the origin of perhaps the most controversial and hotly debated of all modern conflicts. I have edited in the Israel Palestine area for some time, and have learned that quotes in footnotes are a must in order to avoid edit wars on controversial topics. As it says at WP:IPCOLL, every topic is described differently by both sides. Israelis, Palestinians and their respective supporters come to read this article all the time - when they see something that doesn't fit the narrative they thought they knew, let's just say that they do not bother to go and check the source book out of the library before editing. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded, on the last point. Some quotes are useful to get some insight into the topic. Around the time of the ANI discussion, I made an attempt to shorten the quotes, but judging from the overall discussion, people didn't find the practice problematic; so I discontinued the attempt. There were some concerns raised about copyright, but from what I saw, most people agreed that it did not fall into copyvio territory. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I disagree with both of you. I accept that, to an extent, explanatory footnotes which incorporate verbatim source material can have some useful function in backing up possibly contentious statements in the article text. But this should be done sparingly; when the notes amount to considerably more in size than the text they are supporting, and when some of the individual footnotes are essays of several hundred words, my eyebrows remain raised. Were you writing for a scholarly journal, the argument might be different (though I think the editor of such a journal might well insist on some cutback in the notes). But this is an encyclopedia; we should be writing principally for a general readership who require a clear straightforward summary account of the topic and, I am certain, will not read the notes and may well be intimidated by them. The subject is controversial, but not more so than many other subjects, none of which as far as I can see have adopted your pre-retaliatory approach. Alas, those who are determined to challenge your coverage will find ways of doing so regardless – you simply can't anticipate every point of contention, and I worry that attempting to do so creates further problems, not least a great strain on readability. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this part of your comments "when the notes amount to considerably more in size than the text they are supporting, and when some of the individual footnotes are essays of several hundred words, my eyebrows remain raised"(although even adjusting just this may itself cause controversy).Selfstudier (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Brian's "considerably more" comment appears to be mistaken; the notes are 9,000 words vs. the article at 11,000 words. But of course his point stands. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I am referring only to specific notes rather than the totality ie the size of some specific notes could perhaps be reduced (f goes off the bottom of my screen as I read at the moment) or some notes content incorporated in the main text. In regards to the totality, I hold the view that if a thing is deserving of an expanation (admittedly a matter of opinion), then it ought to be explained whether in notes or text. Selfstudier (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, by way of example, I would (personally) not object to removal of primary source note f (the first lengthy one I come to going down the page); while of interest, its removal (imo) would not affect the article in any significant way.Selfstudier (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: please could you share any thoughts on how we might address your concern on the notes in the least damaging manner? Removing all the notes is a quick job, but putting them back again would not be; so I am keen to agree here exactly the scope of what you consider necessary.

In this context, below are two additional thoughts on the two components of the notes section:

  • The "primary supporting quotes" subsection is a specific reflection of the way the topic of this article is dealt with in ALL the best reliable sources; the key points in the history are always illustrated in the literature with quotes from the relevant parties involved. We can speculate why this is; my guess is that the heart of what most readers want to understand when reading this article is exactly why this declaration was issued, and primary quotes from the various protagonists are the purest way of cutting through the mythology which has been built up around every detail. We could easily take all these notes out of the footer and spread them around the article, but to my mind this would make reading it too clunky.
  • With respect to the explanatory notes and scholarly perspectives section, we have only 29 explanatory notes versus the 20 at Jesus - one of the very few WP:FAs on a subject so deeply disputed in the scholarship. We can cut some down and incorporate others into the main prose; any sense of a target number we should aim for would really help.

Any finally, a broader reflection, having spent the last week or so struggling over the right philosophical approach to your challenge regarding having all these detailed footnotes here. My personal view is that it will be a travesty to be forced to cut out these detailed quotes and footnotes, not just because in its current form it will be a shining example of WP:FACR requirements 1b. and 1c., but because in the context of Wikipedia aiming to become more reliable and more trusted (per the current draft 2030 strategy), the kind of robustness and confidence which these footnotes imbue will help Wikipedia on its quest to gain the respect it deserves. Having said which, I am conscious that your description above of what Wikipedia articles are trying to achieve comes from a very different yet equally important angle, and I have no doubt that this FAC will fail unless you are content. Stepping back from our own views, I am also conscious that there are many differing views on this question in the broader community. At the ANI I linked to in the opening post of this review page, one uninvolved editor wrote "The length of these quotations is appropriate as a means to provide critical documentation in a controversial article. This is a model of what we should be doing across articles in Wikipedia as a best practice." and another wrote: "Quotations of the length exhibited here are absolutely the norm in serious scholarship and can greatly enhance the quality of an article. Whether the quotations in Balfour Declaration are appropriate must be considered on their merits as part of the article, not on a priori grounds." These apparently passionate views are on my end of the spectrum, and I'm certain we could also find many on yours. Of course with everything on Wikipedia, multiple views will continue to abound.

Which is a long way of saying that I hope to be able to find a way to address your concern in the most thoughtful manner possible, and any specific guidance you can provide us on where exactly to draw the line would be greatly appreciated.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the minor point of the precise text-to-notes ratio, I based my original statement on the basic page size wordcount, which is currently 7,987. The 11,000 figure you mention presumably includes the quoteboxes, blockquotes and tabulated text.
As to the main issue concerning the justification for notes of this volume and detail, your arguments are well made and forceful, and I don't think anything I say will alter your position. Likewise my own view stands; if other reviewers interested in this article are prepared to contribute to this discussion, and if they share your standpoint, that's fine by me – I will not press my point further. But I think the debate should be widened by taking into account the views of others. Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re verbatim text and infobox edit

In response to comments from reviewers above, an RFC was opened at Talk:Balfour_Declaration#RfC:_Location_of_verbatim_text. Limited interest was shown, but there seems to be consensus for option 3. Unless anyone objects here, I propose to end the RFC and make the change. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now implemented this. So I believe the infobox / verbatim quote / lead paragraphs discussion is now resolved. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Corinne edit

1) You may have discussed this elsewhere, but upon reading the first sentence of the article, which begins:

The Balfour Declaration was a British government public statement made during World War I, which read:

I found "a British government public statement" awkward. May I suggest alternatives? –

  • a public statement issued by the British government
  • a public statement made by the British government

It would then read:

  • The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government during World War I, which read:...

2) The first sentence of the second paragraph reads:

During the period of the British War Cabinet discussions leading up to the declaration, the wider war had reached a period of stalemate; the United States was yet to fully deploy, and the Russians were distracted by internal upheaval.

(a) I think "During the period of the British War Cabinet discussions" is awkward. Also, using "the period of" doesn't make 100% clear that the "discussions" were directly related to the declaration; also, the phrase "period of" is used later in the sentence. I suggest either removing "the period of" or using a verb instead of the noun "discussions:

  • During the British War Cabinet discussions leading up to the declaration,...
  • While the British War Cabinet was discussing the declaration,...

(b) I suggest a colon (:) after "stalemate" because the subsequent details are illustrating the stalemate.

(c) Instead of "the United States was yet to fully deploy", I suggest "the United States had yet to fully deploy", making "deploy" an active verb.

If these changes are made, it would then read:

  • During the British War Cabinet discussions leading up to the declaration, the wider war had reached a period of stalemate: the United States had yet to fully deploy, and the Russians were distracted by internal upheaval.

I'm not sure "period of" before "stalemate" is really needed. A stalemate is a stalemate. If it is removed, it would then read:

  • During the British War Cabinet discussions leading up to the declaration, the wider war had reached a stalemate: the United States had yet to fully deploy, and the Russians were distracted by internal upheaval.

3) The second sentence of the second paragraph of the lede is as follows, with the word "that" highlighted in bold:

Historians agree that the first high level contacts between the British and the Zionists can be dated to a conference that took place on 7 February that included Sir Mark Sykes and the Zionist leadership that ultimately resulted in Balfour requesting, on 19 June, that Rothschild and Chaim Weizmann submit a draft of a public declaration.

You'll see that the word "that" appears five times. This can be reduced to three with these changes:

  • Historians agree that the first high level contacts between the British and the Zionists can be dated to a conference that took place on 7 February that included Sir Mark Sykes and the Zionist leadership. This meeting that ultimately resulted in Balfour requesting, on 19 June, that Rothschild and Chaim Weizmann submit a draft of a public declaration.

It would read:

  • Historians agree that the first high level contacts between the British and the Zionists can be dated to a conference on 7 February that included Sir Mark Sykes and the Zionist leadership. This meeting ultimately resulted in Balfour requesting, on 19 June, that Rothschild and Chaim Weizmann submit a draft of a public declaration.

4) The last sentence of the second paragraph of the lede reads as follows:

The Cabinet discussion on approval described perceived propaganda benefits amongst the worldwide Jewish community for the Allied war effort.

I found "The Cabinet discussion on approval described perceived propaganda benefits" a bit dense. I assume this means discussion within the Cabinet regarding approval of the final draft of the declaration. ("On approval" almost sounds like when a store lets you take something home to see if you like it enough to buy it, you take it on approval.) The previous sentence had begun "Further drafts were discussed by the British Cabinet" and ended "the release of the final declaration was authorised", so I don't think "on approval" is necessary. Also, since the previous sentence ends: "the release of the final declaration was authorised by 31 October", the next sentence probably refers to discussion that took place before the release of the final declaration was authorised, so I would use past perfect tense in the last sentence, and "included" instead of "described". I suggest the following:

  • The Cabinet discussion on approval had included described perceived propaganda benefits amongst the worldwide Jewish community for the Allied war effort.

It would then read:

  • The Cabinet discussion had included perceived propaganda benefits amongst the worldwide Jewish community for the Allied war effort.

5) In the fourth paragraph of the lede is the following sentence:

Whilst the declaration called for political rights in Palestine for Jews, rights for the Palestinian Arabs who comprised the vast majority of the local population were limited to civil and religious.

I think ending the sentence with two adjectives, "civil and religious", is awkward. I think it should end with a noun. I suggest one of the following:

  • civil and religious issues
  • civil and religious areas
  • the civil and religious spheres

Also, if Palestinian Arabs lived only there, then "who comprised the vast majority of the local population" should be a non-restrictive (non-limiting, non-identifying, containing extra, non-essential information) clause, so should be set off within a pair of commas. If Palestinian Arabs lived in other places, and this sentence is referring to only those who lived in this area, then the clause beginning "who" is a restrictive (limiting, identifying) clause, so does not need commas. I suspect the case is the former. If that is correct, commas needed to be added around the clause. It would then read:

  • Whilst the declaration called for political rights in Palestine for Jews, rights for the Palestinian Arabs, who comprised the vast majority of the local population, were limited to the civil and religious spheres.

6) The very next sentence reads:

In 2017, the British Government acknowledged that the Declaration should have called for the protection of political rights.

The phrase "the protection of political rights" does not make clear whose rights should have been protected. I believe it probably means the political rights of the Palestinian Arabs. If this is correct, then perhaps the phrase "the Arabs'" should be inserted before "political rights: "called for the protection of the Arabs' political rights". The sentence would then read:

  • In 2017, the British Government acknowledged that the Declaration should have called for the protection of the Arabs' political rights.

I'm not sure "the" before "protection" is needed. If it is removed, the sentence would read:

  • In 2017, the British Government acknowledged that the Declaration should have called for protection of the Arabs' political rights.

7) The first sentence of the fifth (and last) paragraph of the lede is as follows:

The issue of the declaration had many long-lasting consequences.

Here, the meaning of "the issue" is ambiguous. It could mean "the topic of the declaration", or "the problem of the declaration", when I think it was intended to mean "the issuance of the declaration". I suggest changing "The issue" to "The issuance" or "The publication".

That's enough for now. I'll continue in a minute.  – Corinne (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

8) The first two sentences in Balfour Declaration#Early Zionism read (minus the references):

Zionism arose in the late 19th century in reaction to anti-Semitic and exclusionary nationalist movements in Europe. Romantic nationalism in 19th-century Central and Eastern Europe had helped to set off the Haskalah, or "Jewish Enlightenment", creating a split in the Jewish community between those who saw Judaism as their religion, and those who saw it as their ethnicity or nation.

I think the second sentence provides further detail, a kind of illustration, of what is described in the first sentence. Thus, I'm not sure it is necessary to repeat that it took place in the 19th century. Also, unless the romantic nationalism in Central and Eastern Europe took place before the events described in the first sentence, past perfect ("had helped") is not necessary. I think the second sentence describes in more detail what happened in the late 19th century, so past tense "helped" would be correct:

  • Zionism arose in the late 19th century in reaction to anti-Semitic and exclusionary nationalist movements in Europe. Romantic nationalism in 19th-century Central and Eastern Europe had helped to set off the Haskalah, or "Jewish Enlightenment", creating a split in the Jewish community between those who saw Judaism as their religion, and those who saw it as their ethnicity or nation.

The sentences would then read:

(a) Zionism arose in the late 19th century in reaction to anti-Semitic and exclusionary nationalist movements in Europe. Romantic nationalism in Central and Eastern Europe helped to set off the Haskalah, or "Jewish Enlightenment", creating a split in the Jewish community between those who saw Judaism as their religion and those who saw it as their ethnicity or nation.

In fact, the two sentences could be combined:

(b) Zionism arose in the late 19th century in reaction to anti-Semitic and exclusionary nationalist movements in Europe, with, for example, romantic nationalism in Central and Eastern Europe helping to set off the Haskalah, or "Jewish Enlightenment", and creating a split in the Jewish community between those who saw Judaism as their religion and those who saw it as their ethnicity or nation.

9) The last sentence of the second paragraph in Balfour Declaration#Early Zionism is as follows:

Herzl died in 1904 without the political standing that was required to carry out his agenda of a Jewish home in Palestine.

I wonder whether it would be a little more accurate to say:

  • Herzl died in 1904 without having gained the political standing that was required to carry out his agenda of a Jewish home in Palestine.

or "without having secured the political standing".

10) At the end of the paragraph that is the section Balfour Declaration#Ottoman Palestine is a quote. To me, the connection between the quote and the ideas in the sentences just preceding it is not clear. The preceding sentences say the Ottomans made it possible for Jews to buy land, the percentage of Jews in Palestine rose, Arab nationalism was on the rise, and "in Palestine Anti-Zionism was on the rise". The quote begins, "The Balfour Declaration was not, in and of itself, the source of trouble in a land that previously had been more or less at peace..." I can understand mentioning that the declaration itself was not a source of trouble, but the previous sentences (which I just summarized) do not suggest much peace. Is that is what is meant by "more or less at peace"? Perhaps it would help if the person who made these quoted statements were mentioned. The quote is kind of "out of the blue", not connected well enough with what precedes it.

11) In the section Balfour Declaration#1915–16: Prior British commitments over Palestine is a double image. Each image has its own caption. The one on the left does not need a period/full stop since it is not a sentence. In the one on the right, the date is written "Jun. 1922". I don't think June needs to be abbreviated. It's only one more letter to write it out in full. Perhaps it was abbreviated earlier because of space constraints, but here, I think there is enough space that it could be written out in full. The caption in the next image does not need a period/full stop, either.

12) I believe we had discussed the capitalization or non-capitalization of "declaration" where it is not in the phrase "the Balfour Declaration", and agreed that it should not be capitalized. For consistency, then these need to be made lower-case:

In the second and third paragraphs in Balfour Declaration#Response by Central Powers, I notice that the phrase "the Balfour Declaration" is used often. You might take a look and see if some could be changed to simply "the declaration".

Well, that's all for now.  – Corinne (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Corinne edit

Dear @Corinne: a big thank you for these comments. They have been prepared with an eye for exquisite detail, and are beautifully written and presented. I am embarrassed to say that your talk page prose is more elegant, and with better syntax, than any article prose I have been able to write! I will implement these comments, with a couple of small builds which I will describe here. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile Thanks! I'm glad to help.  – Corinne (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I notice that there has been some comment in the last couple of days here, but we don't seem much closer to achieving a consensus to promote at the moment. This has been open for some time, nearly six weeks, and has generated a lot of discussion, but nothing in the way of support. FACs like this, which are down the queue and have discussion but no support, often struggle to attract reviewers. As such, I think it is unrealistic to believe that we can get that consensus within the timeframe of this particular FAC. Therefore I am going to archive this shortly, but I would recommend that the nominator works with Brianboulton and Wehwalt (who I am aware was still commenting) on any remaining issues away from FAC and perhaps ask Corinne for any further comments (or maybe a copyedit). This article can then be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period, when it will hopefully have a smoother ride. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2017 [18].

Jesé edit

Nominator(s): Liam E. Bekker (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Jesé, a Spanish footballer who currently plays for PSG. He previously played for Real Madrid, where he made nearly 100 appearances and won five titles. The article achieved GA status on 8 January this year, featured as a DYK on 17 January, and has been improved regularly since. I look forward to your feedback. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
  • All of the images require ALT text.
  • The first two images in the body of the article should have the year in the caption.
  • These two sentences are awkwardly constructed and phrased and need to be revised (He became a father for the first time in the summer of 2012 at age 19, and named his son Jesé Jr. The boy lives with his mother, with whom Jesé is no longer in a relationship, in the Canary islands.). I would suggest completely rewriting these two sentences.
  • In what year, did he form Big Flow? Do you have any more information on the two singles (i.e. title, etc.)? It seems like this should be more developed.
  • I am not sure what is meant by "youth product".
  • The lead seems rather short and sparse compared to the what is presented in the body of the article.

Great work with the article. I am not familiar with these types of articles at all, but I just wanted to point out some areas that needed improvement (specifically the sentences on him being a father). Hopefully, you find my comments to be helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hi Aoba47, thank you for the comments. Your feedback is appreciated.

  • I have included the year in each of the image captions.
  • The section on his son has been reworded to read "His son, Jesé Jr., was born in 2012 and currently lives with the mother, with whom Jesé is no longer in a relationship, in the Canary islands."
  • It is a slight improvement, though I do not believe the phrase "with whom Jesé is no longer in a relationship" is good as it does sound somewhat awkward. I make the fact that Jesé is not in a relationship with the mother into its own sentence. Also, is there any more information on the mother (i.e. name, when they first starting dating, etc.)? The phrase "the mother" just sounds a little weird, so it would better to use the mother's name if known. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added more info on Big Flow - turns out the band has disbanded so it was good that you brought that up
  • Youth product is a commonly used football turn from someone who comes out of a club's youth academy - I have changed it to academy graduate which is clearer.
  • I've expanded the lead a little bit, added some elements from the body to the relevant sections and added a line on his musical career.

Let me know what you think. Thanks again, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your response. I just had a quick comment about the revisions to the part about this child, but otherwise, everything looks good. I am going to stay out of the support/oppose votes as I am not familiar enough with this subject matter to cast a decision either way. Good luck with this! Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you mind having a look at the Personal Life section one more time - I've added some new info that I think makes it flow better. Thank you very much for the feedback and assistance. It is appreciated. Liam E. Bekker (talk)
  • It looks a lot better; the only small comment that I have is that I do not believe you need the descriptive phrase in front of Instagram (i.e. social media platform) so I think you can safely remove that. Aoba47 (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lemonade51 – Been a while since I've edited here, let alone review an article. Doesn't look as though the criteria has changed dramatically.

  • It's always worth having a look at FA-related articles for inspiration, and to get the gist of what is required in terms of sourcing and structure. If you have a look at Theirry Henry and John Wark for instance, their articles start chronologically. Both satisfy 1(b) of the criteria because it doesn't neglect any major info and there is context. Now when skim reading Jese's entry you'll notice it starts with his football career; his early years are tucked away in the personal life section. Think you should separate them.
  • Any ideas on how Jese got into football?
  • In the lead, "Outside of football he is also a musician," also is superfluous here  Done
  • "His form at youth level for the club saw him attract interest from La Liga sides Espanyol, Mallorca and Barcelona, but he elected to sign for Real Madrid's youth system," how about opted?  Done
  • "Jesé made his senior debut with the Real Madrid Castilla side," replace with for  Done
  • "...drew early comparisons to fellow Real Madrid teammate and multiple Ballon d'Or winner, Cristiano Ronaldo," again, superfluous
  • Not sure manager needs to be wikilinked
  • WP:WEIGHT could be an issue, how do you explain '2013–14' warranting one section?

My major concern is the article's stability, which is natural given Jesé's playing career is active. I think it could do with a copyedit and having a look at the reference section, some sources raise a red flag. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I haven't read this article yet, but I share Lemonade51's concerns about stability. Every article that I can remember at FAC about an active player has slipped appallingly after promotion as the nominator has not stayed around to keep the article up to date and of the required quality. Most have ended up at FAR. Part of me wonders how we can be certain that this will be stable? Perhaps this is something that should be discussed at WT:FAC, but this is a good starting point as I don't think we've had many nominations for current sportspeople recently. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1:The stability criterion was originally intended to address instability at the time of promotion -- editwars and so on -- which meant there was no stable version to be reviewed. The point you're making has come up before, though I don't recall it specifically in the context of sports figures. I don't think we've ever had consensus to regard articles on people whose noteworthy accomplishments are still in process as unstable in the sense of 1e. Personally I think it does mean an article is more likely to be demoted, since some primary authors will fail to maintain them, but I think it would be difficult (and unfair) to make that a criterion for promotion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
That's no problem, you are right and I'm just thinking out loud on this one. I wasn't going to oppose. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Lemonade51

Hi Lemonade51, my apologies for the delay in responding. Thank you for the feedback.

  • I'll try and tweak the page in the coming days to get it to flow chronologically and also to address the minor concerns.
  • As for the 2013–14 season, it was separated because it's kind of the period (though short) between his youth years and his struggles after injury. I can try and trim it and incorporate it into the other two sub-headings if you think that would work better?.
  • Please see below response to Sarastro re: stability

Thanks again for the feedback, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sarastro1

Hi Sarastro1, I understand yours and Lemonade's concerns given that he is an active player. I hadn't given stability much consideration in truth. For what it is worth, and you can have a look on my user page, I consistently maintain all of my created and GA articles as regularly as possible so the page won't be neglected while I'm here. What do you think would be the best way to proceed? Thanks for the feedback as well. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I've copyedited a little; please revert as needed.

  • "Jesé's success drew praise from several quadrants with the player being described as the jewel in the crown of Los Blancos' academy": the source doesn't really support "several quadrants": it's really about Perez's opinion, with an additional comment that the "training ground" considers him a future star, though it's hard to know if this is just journalistic hyperbole.  Done
  • "...off-field behaviour ultimately contributing to the club's decision": We haven't heard anything about off-field behaviour to this point, except for the comments about Mourinho years before. I think this needs clarification.

That's it for prose; the article is in good shape. I will try to find time to do a spotcheck and possibly a source review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 05:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Mike edit

Hi Mike Christie, thank you for the review. It is most appreciated. I'll try and tackle your concerns (and the remaining points from other reviewers) this weekend. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I'm afraid this FAC seems to have stalled. It has been open for over six weeks without any declarations of support and with no real movement for over two weeks. Therefore I shall be archiving this shortly. It can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2017 (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/Archived_nominations/September_2017&oldid=800480300"