Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joshua A. Norton

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted 01:10, 7 July 2007.

Joshua A. Norton edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture
See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Joshua A. Norton

This article was a former featured article (promoted January 19, 2004) that appeared on Main Page on April 3, 2004. It was sent to WP:FAR and on October 7, 2006, the consensus was to demote the article. The problems addressed at FAR were the lack of in-line citations, prose issues, and an excess of trivia (there's now an entire article: Emperor Norton in popular culture). I think my work and the work done by Paul.h (talk · contribs) back in September 2006 have addressed the concerns of the FAR, and I think it's back to FA standards. I thank all users in advance for whatever comments they may have at this FAC. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: if featured, re-categorize to re-promoted at bottom of the WP:FFA page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks for the heads-up, SandyGeorgia. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I loved this article when I first read it a few years ago and love it even more now. Kudos. --mav 12:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see maybe a bit more of the stuff in the pop culture article explained in the main one. The "Posthumous recognition" section hints at his popularity in literature in the 19th century and mentions the bridge thing, but there's an overall lack of information about any 20th century popularity. Are readers going to come away with the notion that he is anything more than an old dead guy? Will they understand his modern-day importance, if any? For example, is the Principia Discordia possibly noteworthy here? --- RockMFR 00:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was a mention about José Sarria, but it was removed by another editor who thought it was irrelevant to the section. I'll add it back. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I have added some more. Tell me what you think of it now. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've cut this edit way back to include just a bit more on popular culture. Remember this article was demoted because "It degenerates into a list and trivia by the end of the article, including a ridiculous section on the dead Norton posting to Usenet via a spiritual medium!" Personally, I think the amount of trivia was fine in the current article, but I'm willing to experiment with the short paragraph I just added. --Paul 19:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, but when the article was delisted, it was because we had this. I really don't think the section I had was too problematic. It mentioned some 20th and 21st century works and Jose Sarria (who basically revitalized the interest in Emperor Norton). Nishkid64 (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still think it might be good to list a few more specifics. Calling him "an inspiration to eccentrics everywhere" seems even worse than what was there before - this is far too generic to be of any use, especially considering that it is probably not true. --- RockMFR 18:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "...an inspiration to eccentrics everywhere" has been changed per your suggestion. Also, Discordianism is now included and linked as suggested above, plus the same paragraph has a link to the Emperor Norton in popular culture article. I disagree about adding more than this, as most of the stuff in the popular culture article has very little or nothing to do with Norton and is mostly quite obscure with nothing rising to the level of notoriety of Mark Twain's or Robert Louis Stevenson's use of Norton as an inspiration. Finally, there is the clear example of how lists of trivia took over the article when lists of trivia were included. Starting a new list now, after they have all been removed is just an invitation to a maintenance headache. No information has been lost, it is all in the popular culture article.--Paul 16:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NeutralSupport - The article is well-referenced and well written, but there are two details I think should be cited. I have added two citation requests.--Bryson 19:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am satisfied with the referencing of the article.--Bryson 20:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First citation request complete; second one removed because it is already addressed in reference #18. I didn't want to over-reference the lead, so I tried not to source every itsy-bitsy detail there. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - you've made a nice job of cleaning it up. The caption for the bridge photo could be a little more imaginative though, and some explanation of how his banknotes came to be printed would be good (they are rather too official looking to have been produced with a printing set in his room). Yomanganitalk 00:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - much improved and well referenced. I agree some peripheral detail would be nice but there's plenty of flesh on the bones! Mallanox 00:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support quality stuff. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't have the time to meticulously review it, but a careful glance reveals that this is well-written, nicely balanced and quality article. Support. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think footnote #2 (There are a number of disputed claims regarding Norton's date of birth. Many scholarly sources pinpoint Norton being born sometime in 1819, while a few sources stating that he was born on 4 February 1819.) is inadequate. It needs to mention the sources specifically. Also, the note gives no clue as to why we think the 1819 date is the preferred one, used in the lead and info box.--Paul 22:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    [1] might help (it's a scanned version of the article with the 4 Feb 1819 date). And 1819 is given on his headstone for what it is worth. Yomanganitalk 23:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually the birth date uncertainty is covered in the opening "Early life" section (including the ref I gave above), so you could just drop that footnote from the lead. This suggests 1818 for what it is worth, but it seems to be self-certifying so I wouldn't put too much faith in it. Yomanganitalk 23:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I basically repeated some of the stuff I had in the "Early life" section when I just expanded on Ref #2. I think it's a bit more explanatory now. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is much more clear now. Thanks for the additions.--Paul 23:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks good to me. Rebecca 05:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Like Phoenix from the ashes, this appears to have risen again as a featured-quality article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fun and well-written article Dinojerm 17:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nicely referenced, well-written, and all around good article. Cbrown1023 talk 17:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great work, guys! --Hemlock Martinis 21:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Joshua_A._Norton&oldid=1144732574"