Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mirth & Girth/archive2

< 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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:57, 17 December 2008 [1].

Mirth & Girth edit

Nominator(s): User:Lpangelrob
previous FAC (15:26, 26 May 2008)

Second nomination; previous nomination was closed with no consensus to the support or oppose side, and only a minor bit of commentary has been added since. I hope to have a larger set of reviewers to work with for this nomination! —Rob (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Image:Harold Washington at the commissioning of USS Chicago (SSN-721).jpg - I can't find this image in the archive myself. Usually these images have description pages, at which I can verify the licensing, but I can't seem to find this one. Can you help me out? Perhaps by linking directly the image description page? Awadewit (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can confirm that the license is a direct copy of what was in the archive. I uploaded it and personally copied the information word for word to commons. Taken by PH1 RICHARD C. GRANT, (photographers mate first class), US Navy. PD-USN. It is DoD image number DN-SN-87-00161 is still on the server. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure you did copy everything correctly, but other users need to be able to verify that. I, for example, need to verify the license. The image is there, yes, but no description of it. I'm trying to find the page that you copied from initially - each image in that collection has an image description page (which we should really link to, anyway). That is what I spent time trying to find and could not. Awadewit (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fortunately there is no requirement that images uploaded to commons be available forever on external servers or at their original locations. DoD has reorganized their servers since that image was loaded to commons, and if it is no longer locatable via their image search it's a server problem on their part. Unfortunately DN-SN-87-00161 doesn't come up in their new search. Luckily we have all the information we could possibly need in the image's description, which quite clearly shows that it is PD-USN. At the time I uploaded the image, there was no apparent link for the description page, just a pop up page from a search page that had no usable link to the server's description. Now that the server has been changed, there is no linkable description page that is easily found, so when I upload images I normally just list the DoD image number. It's never been a problem before. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was under the impression that we had to be able to verify the license externally, but I'm checking with a Commons admin on that. Awadewit (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You can view the image information in the image itself (at the DOD site) by looking at the EXIF data. The image description page is correct. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • "The faculty adviser to the school's monthly publication, Joel Davies" - It wasn't until I read the source that the inclusion of this quotation made sense. Might want to describe the context a bit better; the monthly publication is a student one, of which Nelson was the illustrator.
      • This should be clear now. —Rob (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "however, this was denied by the DJs during the interview" During the interview with the Tribune?
      • Clarified. —Rob (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "By now, word of the controversy had reached the Chicago City Council." Now = ?
    • When were the resolutions described in the "Initial display" section drafted and passed?
      • Immediately, more or less. I added that. —Rob (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Nelson returned to the painting at about 8:30 am" - the next day?
      • Changed this to be clearer.—Rob (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Aldermen Edward Jones (20th) and William C. Henry (24th) were the first aldermen to arrive at the scene." When was this?
      • Shortly after he returned; this was confusing, though, because it was slightly redundant. Fixed. —Rob (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The shorthand "the institute" is variously presented lowercase and capitalized.
      • I've seen it 'abbreviated' as "Art Institute" in various places, so I've standardized on that. —Rob (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "At some point during the meeting, the police department..." Is this separate from the incident in which the aldermen took the painting to President Jones's office? If not, there is no earlier mention of police presence at the President's office.
      • I rewrote this section to be a bit more clear...
    • In general, it seems as if the timeline of events (especially in the Display and confiscation) needs to be described better and with more precision.
      • ... and this section as well. I'll review it again just to make sure it makes sense. Posner provides the basic framework for this section. —Rob (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Parts of the incident were later broadcast widely on television." This seems to suggest that the press arrived on the scene fairly quickly. What was the press coverage like? Local television or national television? "widely on television" is rather vague.
      • That's as quoted from the source... I'll see if I can rewrite that to be as clear as possible without running afoul of the source. —Rob (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "was also involved in a conspiracy" Conspiracy to do what? BuddingJournalist 20:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarified. —Rob (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Newspapers should be in italics, such as Chicago Tribune, etc. If you're using {{cite news}} you put the paper in the work field, and the publisher (if its a lesser known newspaper) in the publisher field.
    • This should be fixed. —Rob (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bunch of overlinking going on here. I don't think we need to link to bra, stockings, inch, falsetto, brownshirts, Jewish, philistines, social justice, etc. Also, date links are depreciated per the MOS.
    • Whether or not there is overlinking, I doubt the majority of readers would understand the meaning of brownshirts or philistines. I don't know what they mean without reading the linked article. Why would the average reader know the terms. I doubt that they would. Some of these links are useful for information reasons.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm going to go back and only keep links assuming a 12th grade reading level, or if it's a link expected to be followed for informative purposes (Mayor of Chicago comes to mind). —Rob (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is done. —Rob (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 6 (Hamilish Levinsohn...) is lacking a page number
    • The reference is intended to refer to the whole book - if that's inappropriate, let me know. —Rob (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • How big is the book and does it ONLY cover information that's referenced? If there is a lot of extraneous information that's not being referenced, it'd be simpler to provide page ranges. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I found 2 pages that are representative. —Rob (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a US article, why are the retrieval dates in the footnotes in European format?
    • This is what accessdate=2008-11-30 does, and I don't have any idea why the format changed - I thought it was written to be specific to the user's preference? —Rob (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe switch to using the accessday accessmonth? Or just manually formatting them behind? It's not a biggie, just kinda jarring. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Evidentally, this is related to the deprecation of date wikilinking. Fun. I'll have to change these all manually now... —Rob (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 37 (Dubin, Steven..) is lacking a page number.
    • Same as above! —Rob (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • See above. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I removed it. A second look at the source and I couldn't find what I was referencing; for that sort of statement, I'd also rather go to newspapers and factual accounts, rather than commentary. —Rob (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments/concerns I haven't read the whole article, but I checked out the law section (I'm a law student, so when I see law-stuff at FAC I'll check it out). The law part needs to be improved before it's at FA level. Especially since we don't have an article about the case (and I don't think there's enough secondary commentary for it to meet WP:N by itself), the coverage of the case in this article should be top-class. First, I've changed the citations from a newspaper article about the opinion to a link to the opinion itself. (This change should also be made for the district court opinion.) Often newspapers aren't good at summarizing what legal issues are, so it's generally best to look at the case itself to write what the case says. The top-level problem I see: the article doesn't clearly present what the legal issues at hand were. Essentially, the officials were asserting they had qualified immunity because the law wasn't clear that what they did was illegal. I don't have time (finals!!!) to go through the whole section and review it, but I recommend reading the actual decision and going through that section of the article and making sure it reflects what happened in the decision and making it clear to the reader what the legal issues and holding were. This case appears in several art law books that are in google books so I might check that out to see if they say anything interesting. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I'm totally confused about the procedural history of the lawsuits. (It appears there's actually more than one, so the title should be changed.) There was a case against the city that was settled later on, but at one point the city was "dismissed from" the lawsuit. So how was the suit against the city reincarnated? (I put "dismissed from" in quotes because it's really bad journalism and doesn't mean much. Was the lawsuit against the city dismissed? Did the judge hold that the joinder of the claims against the city and the claims against the alderman was improper? I would imagine the latter is what happened, and then they brought a separate suit against the city. But that's just a guess.) Anyways there's a lot to clear up here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I'm a bit late on this... been a busy 10 days. The suit went through district court first. Is it required to have a source for that case as well? (That's where the newspapers come in handy.) —Rob (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2008 (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/Mirth_%26_Girth/archive2&oldid=284026749"