Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Collyer brothers/archive1

Collyer brothers

I just discovered this article today: A fascinating and little-known story of two urban hermits living in New York City in the 1930s and '40s, obsessively hoarding tons of junk in their brownstone. Very well-written and well-organized biography, with free-use photos and a lot of Times articles listed in the references section.

• Nominate and support. Andrew Levine 21:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn; see below. Thanks to User:Tsavage for alertness. Andrew Levine 07:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unfortunately I see no evidence those images actually are free. It appears they are all mislabelled. Great topic, though.--Pharos 21:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• I recognize many of these images from Corbis. Modern photos are of no use; there is nothing but a little park on the site today. The story is interesting but works much less well without contemporary pictures. Also, the term "Collyerism" has been used to refer to a pathological refusal to throw things away. Uucp 05:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object Very interesting article, but the lead is too short and some of the images do not state where they are actually from originally. I am eager to support when the issues mentioned are fixed. — Wackymacs 22:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and, the ' House contents' and 'Contents of House' sections should be merged into one section. — Wackymacs 22:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• It is looking much better now, but I think the death sections should be merged together and named 'Deaths'. I will then support. — Wackymacs 08:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object - Fascinating article, but as above, the lead is too short. And just a small note, I'd say that a disambig is needed at the top, the Collyer brothers can also refer to the guys who created Championship Manager. Google Oliver Collyer Brothers and you'll see some links. - Hahnchen 02:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This may be generational: anyone over the age of 50 will have no doubt who "Collyer Brothers" refers to. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I have made the following improvements to the article:
  1. The lead section has been expanded slightly. I don't think the lead needs to be very long, and it's not, but it has been lengthened to provide better summary of the brothers' situation.
  2. A disambig has been added per Hahnchen's suggestion.
  3. The four images used in the article have been re-tagged as fair use. One is from Corbis and I'm in the process of finding out where the other three (stated to come from the NYPL) really originated.
  4. The "House contents" and "Contents of House" sections have been combined. Redundant descriptions have been dropped (although a few additional items described in the Times articles, like the eight live cats that the police found, have been added.)
  5. A sentence from one of the Times pieces has been added for closure. Andrew Levine 05:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Could I suppose be a bit longer, but this makes for a fascinating read and is well-written. Ambi 01:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Entertaining article, the length supported by the morbidly fascinating story. I have one major objection, and a couple of minor concerns. I also made a few minor edits and copyedits rather than include those here.

The article and its references seem rather close to the this article "The Collyer Brothers" in Useless Information. - I realize there can only be so many ways to write the story chronologically, but these articles are very close in content throughout, some of the sentences are very close in wording, and there is at least one identical list of items removed from the house. As for the References, are these direct sources used in the Wikipedia article, or is the list simply copied from the Useless Info article's reference list? I'm not sure what the policy is on rewriting other articles, where's the line? Or was that article written from this one?

The account of the tonnage of junk removed is unclear. A first figure of 103 tons is cited, next, an additional 19 tons is mentioned, then 103 tons is mentioned again. It's unclear what the final total is, and this makes the chronological sequence fuzzy as well, from "House contents" through "Manhunt" (the account was strictly chronological up to that point).

Reason for "Manhunt" section unclear" - The term "manhunt" doesn't seem justified by simply the bus rumor, and the police going back into the house. It seems to make more sense to include the following "Langley Collyer found dead" section by deleting that second heading (i.e. "manhunt" is a dry reference to the renewed house search, culminating in the body). (Perhaps irrelevant here, and in poor faith, but "manhunt" would better apply in the Useless article, where a repeated "where's Langley?" device was used, and in addition to the bus sighting, a dead body found in the river and briefly thought to be him, was mentioned.)

Is "disposophobia" a recognized medical condition? - A quick Web search, and the name itself, make me think not, but it's not made obvious either way. This should be clarified. The way it's written now could be interpreted to mean that this...behavior resulted in its very own clinical condition.

--Tsavage 03:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I followed the link from your first objection and found it very serious indeed: It looks like one of our article's authors simply took the Useless Information summary, stripped out the idiotic attempts at humor, and rewrote what was left slightly to avoid blatant copyvio. With that considered, I am withdrawing my nomination of this article. Andrew Levine 07:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Assuming that the immediate source was the Useless Information article (someone should look throught the article's history and see if this is likely), it should certainly be credited as a reference. Also, for any references that were not directly checked, but are merely "as cited in Useless Information", that should be explicit. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)