Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Early life of Hugo Chávez/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Early life of Hugo Chávez edit

Withdrawn FAC (two months ago — late November). Peer review 1 (no comments). I've worked through and copyedited this article, which I wrote up late last year. I also overhauled the weird Harvard referencing, converting it to use the new m:Cite/Cite.php mediawiki citation style. Saravask 10:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Well written. well referenced, comprehensive. --Oldak Quill 20:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Not enough info on this guy yet? Eh, just because I think his politics are awful doesn't mean the masses shouldn't be able to read about him. Nice article, seems to flow nicely. I'd suggest adding some of the best external links from the main Chavez article to this one, just to round it out nicely. Also, why not use the same lead box as is used in Military career of Hugo Chávez? These aren't a big deal; just some suggestions on how to improve this further. I don't see any major problems. --Spangineer (háblame) 06:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support, as long as a paragraph or two summary is inserted under "Childhood". It looks to be a very complete and pretty well-written article. Tuf-Kat 15:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I think adding anything directly under the superheading "Childhood" would detract from the flow of the article. Andrew Levine 17:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I support adding general info under "Childhood" (eg. physical description of him as a baby or child) or removing the two sub-headings ("Early childhood with parents" and "Later childhood"). Also, when was he married? and when did he meet Herma Marksman? Perhaps you could clarify his dealings with Marksman and his wife. I couldn't figure it out with the (Guillermoprieto 2005) reference. And are there a lot of rotting donkey heads on the streets of Venezuela? That was pretty weird. --maclean25 07:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the critique, copyedits, and fact-checking. I made some changes in response ([1]). As for the asinine heads ... wouldn't know too much about that ... Saravask 23:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but I have some fundamental problems with this article. It seems to exist not because Hugo Chavez's early life is inherently notable but because the author wants to write far more about Chavez than can possibly fit in one article. The opening sentence sets the scene - 'The early life of Hugo Chávez spans the first twenty-one years...' shows clearly that the article is not about the early life itself as a notable subject but is just a subsection of a now very lengthy set of articles, describing an arbitrarily chosen number of years of Chavez's life.
    Hugo Chavez is notable and deserves a thorough article, but I do not see the point in creating so many articles which do not stand alone but simply mean that in addition to his (far too large anyway) 100kb main article he has another 90kb article spread over several pages. I don't see why his early life is notable in and of itself, and the article doesn't make a case for why his early life deserves such highlighting rather than being described in his article, where it has context and is much more useful to the reader. Worldtraveller 01:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. You should renew your object vote here, since you already know my opinions regarding these concerns. This time, the FAC director can weigh the arguments' validities and sort it all out. But I do have questions: what is the difference between this article and History of saffron or Trade and usage of saffron? Do you consider the question of notability to be unique to this one article? Saravask 05:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I haven't properly read those articles, but they do seem to have considerable overlap, even using exactly the same sentence in the opening paragraph. I could believe that the history of saffron may be worth writing about separately from the seasoning itself but I am not entirely convinced. I definitely do not believe that the early life of anyone is worth writing about separately from the rest of their life - that just doesn't make sense to me. All our articles should stand alone and be able to be read in isolation, and as an encyclopaedia is supposed to summarise and synthesise, many detailed articles on narrow aspects of a single topic begin to defeat our purpose. In my own field of professional expertise, I would have no trouble writing lengthy articles about many aspects of NGC 6543 - I could do Temperature of NGC 6543, Chemical abundances in NGC 6543, Kinematics of NGC 6543, History of NGC 6543 observations, and perhaps more. I am sure I could make them all quite readable and could certainly make them comply with all the FA criteria. But, I won't because I think the paragraph or two given to each in NGC 6543, which is a featured article, is more than sufficient for even the biggest encyclopaedia in history. If I had the time and the energy to write so much about NGC 6543 and other planetary nebulae, maybe I'd consider wikibooks as an outlet, but here I think an encyclopaedia, even one with theoretically virtually unlimited space, needs to retain sight of what it is and what its readership is interested in.
That's my view, anyway, and I'd be interested to hear what you and others think. Worldtraveller 23:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good Lord, please, please get to work on those proposed articles. It is painful to think that all that potential is being wasted because of a misguided philosophy. Everyking 08:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great well done article. You would be hard pressed to find a better (free!) biography of his young life. Focus is all too often on politics and sensationalism later on. A great fresh look at the man so many admire. This should be recognised-- Colle 02:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunate oppose. Unfortunate, as in the nuts-and-bolts sense there is absolutely nothing wrong with this article and obviously a lot of work has gone into it. But I think I largely agree with Worldtraveller. This reads to me like the first few pages of a bio, not as an encyclopedia entry. For instance:
    • Chávez's mother wanted him to become a Catholic priest, and so he was made to serve as an altar boy for one year. One of his duties was to clean and polish figurines depicting the saints and Jesus; Chávez developed a dislike of Jesus' depiction as a simple figurine. Specifically, Chávez was offended by what he saw as his church's portrayal of Jesus as "an idiot" and not, as Chávez considered Jesus to be, "a rebel". These experiences resulted in Chávez's lifelong distrust of religious hierarchies. This should be a quarter the length at best and the bit about the figurines doesn't belong IMO.
    • One of his childhood dreams was to become a pitcher for the San Francisco Giants, following in the footsteps of his childhood hero, Venezuelan pitcher Isaías "Látigo" Chávez (no relation). When Látigo died at age 23 on March 16, 1969 in Zulia in the second worst airplane crash in Venezuela's history, Chávez was saddened to the extent that he refused to go to school for two days. I don't think any of this is relevant.
  • These and other parts of the article are not summary style. Now, if you pruned or compressed stuff of this nature I wonder if you'd be left with an article weighty enough for FA so it is a bit of bind. Marskell 17:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is my opinion that those sections are interesting and valuable, and are important in understanding the true character of young Hugo Chávez. Futhermore, I do not see anything wrong for an encyclopedia article to be on the early portion of such a major figures life.-- Colle 03:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with User:Marskell. Sijo Ripa 19:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks good to me. Gflores Talk 00:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A good article. --Siva1979Talk to me10:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object on the basis of 1. It should exemplify our very best work. and 5. It should be of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it should use summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any "daughter" articles. In short, I absolutely agree with Worldtraveller's well-stated, well-illustrated, actionable argument. This is an important issue in FAC, and IMO fully within the wording and spirit of the FAC criteria as an objection. (I would have made a similar objection to the Saffron sub-articles as well, but I've found there is a kind of practical bias in FAC that makes certain types of objections, if made alone against several supports, kind of a waste of time.)
Another way of putting this argument, as I see it, and as reflected in 5., is that a fundamental characteristic of an encyclopedia article is that it be brief, self-contained, readable, and not aspiring to be a condensed book. If the basic characteristics of an FA don't include the basic qualities of a good encyclopedia article, what's the point? Simply because the format, the writing, and the references are in place--because it LOOKS like an encyclopedia article--doesn't make it so. Taking a mountain of material and a solid contextual understanding of the subject, and distilling it into a short summary is exceedingly difficult for many topics (and always to some degree arguable in its choices) but that is the point, for better or for worse, of an encylopedia and of what FA seems intended to celebrate, or at least, highlight. Breaking up articles OFTEN unnecessarily defeats this purpose, by reducing accessibility to the topic.
More insidious, there is a criticism of general encyclopedias (one that I personally grew up with) as a lazy approach to learning, like reading the Cliff's Notes instead of the book, and unnecessary subarticling only increases the chances that the reader winds up with superficial and quite possibly over-simplified information, by creating a false sense of "in-depth" understanding (having navigated one or more subarticles and spent maybe an hour or more reading and cross-comparing what was originally one encyclopedia look-up). And that is only if the reader makes it through the various articles in the first place, rather than leaving with a feeling of, "OK, but what did I miss by not pursuing the rest...?"
Finally, with biographical sub-articles like this one, the content requirements, the need for NPOV, are much higher than for the "main" article. By focussing on one artibitrary and independently "non-notable" period of Chavez' (or any notable figure's) life, particular care must be taken with accuracy and balance. A critical (historiographical...) analysis of the sources should be included. For example, can we really "know" a person's early life from a handful of newspaper sources and interview excerpts? As a section in a main article, a series of common facts and well-referenced conclusions may be assembled for, say, an "early life" section; by isolating that "early life" as a separate topic/article, its statements are given new, independent weight that have to be judged much more stringently, especially as the "verifiable sources" have likely not spoken in particular detail with such a precise focus. Again, in this case, I didn't particularly see why "Early life and military career..." was necessary for Chavez, but, OK, I didn't object to that FAC review (on that basis), then. I certainly don't see why that has been further subdivided into two articles. It makes it more convenient for FAC reviewing, perhaps, but not for the "poor reader" faced with half a dozen articles about the same person. This is still an encyclopedia first, no? --Tsavage 16:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - relatively short, reads like story rather than encyclopedic entry. Also, what defines "early life" as 21 years? No cites provided for any of the what seems to be arbitrary dates. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. referencing not tight enough...the whole idea of a subarticle on a person whose 15 minutes of fame are just at halftime is absurd...agree with tsavage remarks that are quite on targetAnlace 00:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Agree that this article can't be featured on the main page since few people will be interested in Hugo Chavez's early life but given that this daughter article exists, IMO it has all that is needed for an FA. Only solution to Tsavage's concern is deleting the article itself.--Raghu 12:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've heard this somewhat puzzling argument here before: "If it's good enough to exist as a WP article, it can become an FA. Period." I understand (and agree with) it all, EXCEPT for the full stop. Many, many articles (thousands?, tens of thousands?, hundreds of thousands?) could be tagged and quite reasonably argued, if not for deletion, then certainly for merge/redirect. But of course, they're not. And that's good. Articles develop, raison d'etres sometimes appear. But in the specific area of FA, where the #1 criterion is "It should exemplify our very best work" seems both explicitly and implicitly to demand the highest standard. And that must include the topic being accepted as distinct and of standalone merit (else, it is not serving the interests of an encyclopedia: to summarize by neutrally synthesizing vast quantities of information into succinct articles). What if I slapped a merge tag on "Early life...", with, say, my objections as above in the discussion page? I certainly could do that in good conscience, without any consideration whatsoever of its FA candidacy. Could we promote an FA that is a well-argued Merge candidate? Personally, I wouldn't do that, because it's quite outside the scope of FAC, and I'm not particularly more opposed to that article EXISTING (someone else may be, then, they can push for merging...that's how IMO WP works: you pick your interests, and there are enough of "us" to hopefully eventually even it all out...). The point is, FAs should simply meet the highest encyclopedic standard, OUR VERY BEST WORK. IMHO... --Tsavage 20:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it really appropriate to write a paragraph attacking someones process of thought? I find that quite rude, this should really be about the article at hand, not the individuals supporting it.--Colle| |Talk-- 22:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Colle: If you're referring to my comment, it wasn't about a person's thought process, and it's certainly not an attack, or even directed particularly at that persion, it's about "Only solution ... is deleting the article itself." I believe the general interpretation of FA criteria is that, "if it's an article, it can be a featured article", and my last comment refers to my (and others, in this case) argument that if an article isn't "standalone" (notable on its own, or however you want to put it), then that's "actionable" as an objection. Since this view, from what I've seen, is not exactly the status quo here (as in, someone saying, "this or that is not a valid--actionable--objection"), I was following up my own objection, which was specifically addressed in this Support comment. (BTW, I find it rude to put "warnings", in the form of condescending advice or otherwise, on my user page...) --Tsavage 22:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • That wasn't a warning. Condescending advice, maybe.. It just looked to me, that you were responding to someones one sentance comment with a paragraph long rebuttal. Nonetheless, lets keep this relavent to the article at hand! --Colle| |Talk-- 23:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tsavage I am indeed of the opinion that if it's an article, it can be a featured article. You are entitled to have your own opinion regarding that. Featured article's are defined as follows at Wikipedia:Featured articles The Featured Articles are what we believe to be the best articles in Wikipedia. Prior to being listed here, articles are reviewed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates for style, prose, completeness, accuracy and neutrality according to our featured article criteria. My support is based on this definition of an FA. IMO it also satisfies all the criterions listed Wikipedia:What is a featured article (can you say which it does not). What you are proposing is that we have another criterion of being standalone-enough and notable-enough.--Raghu 15:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(I hope and trust you didn't take my reply to your comment/vote as a personal attack, as suggested by Colle. This is a discussion process, I believe, to achieve consensus. In any case...) No, I'm not suggesting a "new criterion, only that we discuss things in a case like this on a higher level, for brevity. But fine... If an article is really an "unnecessary" subarticle -- a topic that is best covered in the main article -- then it will likely break other FA criteria, and WP policies. In this instance, I think that is the case. I mentioned guideline 5, It should be of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it should use summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any "daughter" articles. This can first be applied to to Hugo Chavez. Is "early life" insufficiently covered there? #5 doesn't say "start daughter articles...willy-nilly, to take up info that was excised from a main article" (although that unfortunate interpretation is open), I believe the intent is that any daughter article then falls under the WP guidelines on its own. So, should "Early life..." be merged (essentially, "deleted"), or does it stand up on its own? Notability guidelines WP:N suggests pros and cons in extra articles. One is "category clutter": Do we need half a dozen different biographical articles on HC? Notability tests like the Google test give only three results, all WP, for key phrase "Early life of Hugo Chavez"[2] -- my suggestion here is that the "notable topic" is "Hugo Chavez" and as a topic title, "Early life...", while clear in meaning, represents "nothing more" than the main article, further expanded somewhere else. There seems to be no specific guidance for bio subarticles in WP:BIO and WP:NOT, though "not an indiscriminate collection of items of information" IMO in some measure applies here. Moving to the article and FA criteria specifically:
  • 2b "comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety - Well, if "early life" is a distinct TOPIC, then I'd expect better sources than what is almost completely an impressive collection of newspaper items. Has anyone explored and analyzed HC's "early life", or is this only a collection of bits and pieces that refere to the "first 21 years".
  • 2d "neutral" Based on the sources, can this be a "neutral" view of HC's early life? Source-wise, it seems more like chronologically assembled trivia than synthesis of analysis. We discover that he "saw as his church's portrayal of Jesus as 'an idiot'", that he was an altar boy, and that his mother wanted him to become a Catholic priest. So, what of his personal religious development: did he continue to attend Church, what was his young view of Catholicism, and so forth? We learn that he had "unusually large feet" and was nicknamed "Goofy"; how did that affect him, was he regularly pummeled by local bullies and develop some sort of persecution complex that fuelled his rebel tendencies? Did he beat up or others who called him Goofy behind his back? What relevance at all does "big feet" have to HC's future accomplishments...? This pattern of facts without context characterizes the entire article. Summary and synthesis is encyclopedic, not collections of info... And, by being apparently arbitrary, it creates a certain impression that is...POV.
  • 3a a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic The lead states its topic as the "first twenty-one years (1954–1975) of the current President of Venezuela's life" which begs the question, what about the rest of HC's life? Apart from notability issues, the subject as stated is entirely overlapped by the main article. Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages suggests as a reason for merge: "two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. ... there doesn't need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe." What is important about HC's life here, that isn't important enough for the main article? Does what is here exclusively have independent merit in covering HC? The lead doesn't state what particular extra relevance the "21 years" has on HC. Is the concept of "Early life" so distinct form "Hugo's life"?
  • "Early life... hasn't existed long enough to see whether it is considered 'valid' This article was only created in the last month or so. At any time, someone with interest in improving quality by merging may decide to take up the HC cause. Letting artcles "self-vet" at WP is I think a good FA principle...
Bottom line, I think when interpreting FA rule #1 "It should exemplify our very best work" we must see "best work" in the context of WP, not treat articles as isolated chunks of text. (I'm aware of the possibly fine line between discussion with reference to "rules", and some mutant form of wikilawyering, which is so NOT the intent.) Hope it's helpful. --Tsavage 17:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No I took your comments in the right spirit. Well now you have given four specific object points. I will leave those points to be discussed and addressed by more experienced user's. No more comments from me regards --Raghu 17:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as I think it looks quite good and have no problem with the idea of an article on this topic. Tuf-Kat 18:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some fun facts — Saravask 00:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think putting FAC comments in elaborately formatted, tri-tone tables is unhelpful because it makes it difficult for people to reply. --Tsavage 08:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To save time, I ripped this table's code directly from Saffron. Saravask 12:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fun Facts™
Fact I Fact II Replies
User:Tsavage: "This article was only created in the last month or so." Article was created on 18 October 2005 I stand corrected, maybe. I can't quite follow the Chavez article proliferation trail, but what's this History comment: 15:31, 25 January 2006 Saravask m (moved Early life and military career of Hugo Chávez to Early life of Hugo Chávez)[3]? And what was "Early life of..." while "Early life and military career of..." was a FAC last December? --Tsavage 08:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tsavage: "almost completely an impressive collection of newspaper items" 11 of 27 footnotes point to books (print sources). By my count, 16 out of the 18 reference sources are news articles, speechs, web articles, a book review, and similar, two are books... 11 of 27 footnotes point to the two books... --Tsavage 08:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Marskell: "not summary style" article is 22 kilobytes long; Wikipedia:Summary style does not discuss anything related to "reads ... like ... a bio, not as an encyclopedia entry"
User:Anlace: "referencing not tight enough" Article has 38 inline citations (more than two per paragraph) pointing to 27 footnotes and 18 reference sources, both print and online.
Source: Common sense


FYI, attacking people isn't the way to get the article featured. We're here to promote the best articles on wikipedia, and if some people don't think that this is one of them, they're entitled to their opinion. I know it's annoying to not have your FAC fly through with a dozen supports and no objections, but it doesn't happen very often. Ask them to clarify their concerns and then address them, but don't insult them by claiming they don't have common sense. --Spangineer (háblame) 00:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do the words "Source: Common sense" (as in "the source for the table's info was my own common sense") violate WP:ATTACK? Furthermore, who gave you the right to direct slanderous suppositions against others, all while not providing not one jot of evidence? I did not state that "the objectors have no common sense". I did not state anything remotely resembling the allegation that I've "insult[ed] them by claiming they don't have common sense". This is precisely why I no longer post point-by-point responses to objections: to deny people the ability to latch onto my words, pervert their meaning and twist them out of context, then fling about specious accusations. At least for FAC nominators, silence is golden. Saravask 00:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your first response matched the tone I had in mind when I wrote the above. I did not refer to WP:ATTACK; I meant "attack" in the sense of being confrontational. Simply using "common sense" to say people are wrong in this way unfairly characterizes their arguments and is not conducive to discussion. Honestly, it reminds me of how politicians make their points—"my opponent is dumb because he says insert stupid statement here when it's obvious that insert fact here is true". False dichotomy, taking things out of context, etc. Sorry for not assuming good faith (I see now what you were trying to accomplish), but I still think that normal discussion is a better option for working through this. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please do not put words into my mouth by claiming the following:
  • "Fun Facts™" = "confrontational" tone
  • "Source: Common sense" = "insult[ing] them [objectors] by claiming they don't have common sense"
  • "Source: Common sense" = "attacking people"
... or any transversion thereof. I've already struck out the five words and hope objectors do not take offense or read too deeply into them. Given the charged atmosphere here (just look at the above exchanges/accusations traded between User:Colle, User:Tsavage, and User:Raghu.kuttan), such facetious/jocose wording (I was in a good mood when I posted the table) may certainly have been extremely ill-advised. But IMHO claiming that they are "confrontational" or constitute "attacking people" is ... wrong. I have many positive experiences dealing politely with FAC objections this year (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5). As for discussion, note that most of the objectors don't think that biographical subarticles should be featured ... full stop. Other than my proposing to delete the article or withdrawing the FAC, there are really no actions to take, concessions to make, or discussion to be had. It's been tried in the past, and I'll leave it at that. Saravask 23:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of my comments was to give friendly advice, not to accuse. But forget I said anything, I'm sorry a million times, we're beating a dead horse, let's move on. --Spangineer (háblame) 02:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem — advice noted. Saravask 03:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Object I just skimmed thru the article, which seems to be a bit short for a featured article. Also, why not combine this article to Hugo Chavez article instead? I don't see the necessity of separating two parts of his life to two separate articles, it seems extraneous and unwarranted. 171.65.66.233 01:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC) — This user's first edit. Saravask 08:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Neutral—I am strongly in favor of having this as an article topic, and it is a good article, but I feel it is a little too short to be an FA. If it was a few paragraphs longer, I think I'd be comfortable supporting. Everyking 07:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all respect, as User:Ambi noted here and here at the Cynna Neele FAC in response to objections (eerily reminiscent of the ones here) posted by User:Zippedmartin, User:AndyZ, User:Wackymacs, and User:Giano, just about every encyclopedic fact that could be added already has been added. Nearly every relevant tidbit from two full Chavez biographies and more than a dozen other sources has been extracted, rephrased, and added to the article. I've read just about everything regarding his life reported by authoritative sources that has been published online (and in case you doubt this, just take a look at Hugo_Chavez#References). AFAIK, there's absolutely nothing else to add that wouldn't violate WP:NOR. Saravask 03:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not sure what "a few paragraphs longer" means, but otherwise, I too am in favor of this as featured article topic if it provides a well-written summary of research and analysis SPECIFICALLY to do with Chavez' early years. Yes, this is an interesting enough description of one period of Chavez life, but go back and consider it in context of the main article, Hugo Chavez: Do you not find that key pieces of information found in "Early life..." should also be placed there, in more summary form? This is a revolutionary political figure, his early life is of particular interest, the social forces that shaped him and all. Shouldn't his problems with how the Church displayed Jesus, leading to his "distrust of religious hierarchies", his fondness for American baseball at odds with his dislike of US foreign policy and cultural influence, his interest in Simon Bolivar from his earliest years, his high school-long friendship with sons of imprisoned political prisoner (?) Jose Ruiz, his personal meeting with Juan Velasco Alvarado, be in the main article. How much space would it take to summarize all that (I did it in one long sentence, imagine what could be done in a paragraph or two)? Doesn't that seem like important information for the MAIN ARTICLE. I get the impression of Hugo Chavez as a stripped down part of something bigger, which will eventually become an annotated ToC for all of the daughter articles. IMO, that's not "encyclopedic", it's plain annoying. Who wants to read a summary of a topic that interrupts them every three paragraphs to point out that, hey, if you want the "real" encyclopedia story, read this subarticle, and this one, and this one...?!!! And to this FAC review: if the info above is briefly presented in the main article, the "expansion" in "Early life..." (e.g. OK, so he didn't go to school when his favorite pticher died: we already know he had a "lifelong passion for baseball"...; OK, Alvarado gave him a book, we know of his meeting...; etc) doesn't really add much to the basic info we already know. As it is now, this article may be a good start (and I'm sure enough scholars will eventually analyze the hell out of Chavez early years and come up with all sorts of fascinating bits) but it can hardly be called comprehensive if it doesn't substantially add to what is already summarized elsewhere...? --Tsavage 19:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, my vision of the future of Wikipedia involves subarticles, branching off to subarticles, branching off to subarticles, and so on endlessly until the subject is covered in its entirety. Everyking 05:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought that was called the World Wide Web? And then, there's Hugo Chavez... --Tsavage 08:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The WWW ain't comprehensive, ain't organized, ain't NPOV, ain't free, and ain't collectively governed. But WP is. I get nervous when people say: well, you can just go to the library, or order a book, or Google it...they are ignoring the above ain'ts. Everyking 08:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • In all seriousness, yes, I agree in principle, and I suppose that's in the end the practical premise of WP. My general objection, at the risk of...over-summarizing, is that each article should still be self-contained. Here, and I don't seem to be entirely alone in the criticism, the core info mainly belongs first in the main article (where much of it is not), and what's here is not sufficient FOR FA, in terms of comprehensiveness. A finer FAC point than some, but IMO a clear one. "This is FAC, not AfD/merge" (my unfortunate mantra of the moment). --Tsavage 18:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: When I reviewed this article, the first time when it was part of Hugo Chavez and the second time when I voted in early February, I verified that all the online sources were used correctly and did a fact-check with those online sources with as much as I could (but some stuff was just in the books). --maclean25 00:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Somehow this exercise seems "deja vu." The no-matter-what effort at getting it as FA continues. Instead of writing a good article and then considering nominating it, in this case the thinking process has been the reverse: how do we get another article about Chavez as FA? Lets write one. The article now has started to get 'worse' than it was months ago in the sense that some of the romanticising of aspects about Chavez that are starting to become part of the "legend of Chavez," are being added back again. Sadly with so many supporters and so many detractors it is easy to find any quote one may want depending on one's own views; one example: saying Chavez family was poor is misleading. It may have been poor when compared to first word standards, but in Venezuela at the time, a family like Chavez was not considered "poor" -this I have said before and on thisan agreement was reached long ago - but now things are going back into the terrain of having a very subtle positive POV through the article. Somehow I have little hope on the majority here agreeing on the article -as we did months ago when working on the main article about Chavez. Egos and bias are getting in the way of a good balanced article. Anyway .... Anagnorisis 05:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Early_life_of_Hugo_Chávez/archive1&oldid=1138459110"