Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shoe polish

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Shoe polish

edit

I've worked hard on this article, at first as an exercise to improve my editing, but then to see just how good I could make an article on such a prosaic subject. Thanks to a very helpful peer review, I think it's finally become a very good article, and I humbly submit it to become a featured article. Proto t c 13:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Mild object It lacks appropriate reference. A bit more pix are preferred. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC) It looks much nicer now...but the article seems to be pretty short in structure. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 07:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC) Support -- Jerry Crimson Mann 05:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. References are fine, IMO (though by convention they should be above external links, not below). However, the lead section is too short (should be one to three paragraphs, not two sentences). I also think the "using shoe polish" and "alternate uses" sections are too short and should be combined. Johnleemk | Talk 16:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, thanks! Amended as per Johnleemk's comments also. Proto t c 16:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking good, but I think the lead appears a bit incomplete. It should be a summary of the article in full, and it has been proposed that a print Wikipedia include as articles only the lead section. Therefore, a lead ought to encompass all the important aspects of the article's topic without going overboard. It might be relevant to mention its number one producer (Kiwi). Johnleemk | Talk 16:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've rewritten the introduction, summarising the rest of the article. It's now three cogent paragraphs. At least, I hope they're cogent. Thanks (yet again) for the advice. Proto t c 16:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Good work on a relatively insignificant topic. Johnleemk | Talk 16:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. But it needs references to printed sources instead of being entirely web-based. PedanticallySpeaking 17:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – 1) Too many subheadings. Please reduce them to top level headings. 2) Merge the trivia section with the rest of the article 3) =Manufacture= section needs to be written into prose. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • see one comment below. Oppose, based mostly on awkward structure and lack of comprehensive details. There is some good research here but it needs to go deeper. Did nothing happen to the shoe polish industry between 1950 and 2005 (maybe retitle section to 'Origin')? More detailed analysis can help the awkwardly titled section "Appearance / other products" (perhaps merge this with the Chemistry section as they both describe qualitative/quantitative details of the product):Why are they packaged in those small flat round tins (so it can fit in my pocket)? Smell? Feel? Probably shouldn't taste it. Are all the shoe polishes (Kiwi, Shinola, etc.) the same? No market niches? Deeper research can make those two-sentence paragraphs more clear and descriptive. Why the one paragraph sub-section at "Using shoe polish"? The "...now seen as racist." remark is a value-judgement stab at a past practise - reference, elaborate or omit it. Reference the "Shoe polish sandwiches" thing, I hear a lot of stories about people getting high/wasted off a lot of things, so I'm a little doubtful. The article says burning shoe polish produces COx and NOx. However, burning anything produces this. How does this make shoe polish special? Does the article mean there are no harsh or toxic polluntants? Are there no carcinogens in it? Can not the trivia be merged into the body? If it can't is it really that necessary? --maclean25 20:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Maclean, thanks for your thoughts. I think I've dealt with all the issues you raised, please take a second look. I've expanded on the appearance of the can, and branding. Remark omitted. The only one I haven't dealt with is the shoe polish sandwiches. I know it happened, but am having difficulty finding a verification online or in books. It is omitted for now, but if I can find a reference I'll put it back in. The burning thing means there are no harsh or toxic pollutants, so shoe polish can be disposed of safely through incineration. I have tried to make this clearer. Trivia merged as per your and others comments. Proto t c 11:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a perfect article but it is one of the better ones out there. I support it for FA status but would still like to see further work done to make it more comprehensive. There are numerous good suggestions in this FAC debate for further points/topics that could be addressed. --maclean25 05:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object:
    1. The image Image:Kiwi shoe polish.jpg is tagged as "fair use". For such a common object, there's no reason to use fair-use images of it.
    2. The image Image:Jeanbartpolish.jpg is tagged as "fair use", but is not discussed in the article. It does not qualify for "fair use".
    3. The image Image:KiwiExpress.jpg has the same problem as Image:Kiwi shoe polish.jpg did.
    --Carnildo 21:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not have a digital camera. The Kiwi shoe polish image was taken from a website which stated all images were not subject to copyright (see the image for attribution informaiton. I am not expert with fair use tags, but I think this would be sufficient. Please advise if I have misunderstood. The Jean Bart image is fair use. Images of historical characters were often used in association with shoe polish advertisements in the early 20th century. This is now discussed in the article, better qualifying the picture as fair use. Again, please advise if this is incorrect. Proto t c 11:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: (But I have to confess I'm eager to have my objections dealt with and turn this into a support— I really like this article. I just gave it a copyedit for things like &mdash;s and &nbsp;s.)
    • Images, per Carnildo.
    • Overly-short sections. Sections should be at least two big paragraphs or three or four short ones long. Struck
    • Agree with others that the article would be much-improved by finding a home in the main writing for the items currently under "Trivia." Struck.
—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provided that the image use and copyright problems are fixed, please consider my vote a
  • Support. Excellent work. The succinct three paragraph introduction (when it is so common to have overblown or single sentence introductions), the crisp, easy to read, and encyclopedic tone, and the extensive referencing all factor into my conditional support. Again, please correct the image use problems somehow. If these image problems are not fixed (as per Carnildo), my input should be considered as just a comment instead. Good luck. Saravask 18:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I think (with the advice of Bunchofgrapes) that we've got it down to just one image of dubious copyright, which is the tin of Kiwi shoe polish. I am trying to loan a camera so I can take a photo. Thank you for your other comments also. Proto t c 09:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Non-relevent wikilinking, especially of dates. As a random example, animals and children are not relevent wikilinks for an article about shoe polish. Article is too vague about what types of shoes shoe polish is used for. —jiy (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your thoughts, jiy. Shoe polish is used on leather shoes. I have clarified that in the introduction. I have also removed the extraneous wikilinks. Proto t c 09:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—jiy (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Object It's coming along, but in order to represent Wikipedia's very best work it still needs some more copyediting. The information in the article is scattered and overlapping in places. As one example (but not the only one), the Ingredients section talks about applicators and sponges when that should be in the Uses section, while the Uses section talks about toxicity when that would be more approriate in the Ingredients/Chemistry section. I'm of the opinion that entire article needs to be restructured and information be consolidated under appropriate headings. I've been working on this article a bit myself but it still needs more work. As a side note, the "burial place" reference is 404.—jiy (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the article is well done for a pretty dull subject and the changes made during this FAC have made a big difference. I have made some additional images if you need them Image:Kiwi polish black.jpg and Image:Kiwi with brush.jpg. One question, the article doesn't mention the liquid wax shoe polishes in the squeezy bottle made by Kiwi and other companies is there a reason for leaving them out?--nixie 11:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those images are loads better than mine, so I will use them! Thanks. I will also put in a mention of the squeezy bottles (think they're the ones with the sponge applicator at the top). Proto t c 11:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Dull subject? Nonsense, shoe polish is almost by definition shiny! I really like this article; all my objections above have been handled. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this great over-view of shoe polish. A few too many commas at points but otherwise no complaints. Marskell 18:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like this article very much and support it. One niggling criticism, however. It might be appropriate to include a short section—or at least a link at the end of the article—on shoe polishing, i.e., the actual act of using shoe polish to polish shoes. It is of course arguable that such a section would not be about the material of shoe polish, but I think it's a very closely related subject. As I've said, though, I think it would be very good to at least include a link to somewhere else on the internet or perhaps a link to a related article on shoe polishing, if it exists. Hydriotaphia
  • Comment. User jiy (who offered an Object vote above) is in violation of Wikipedia's FAC objector guidelines by not reevaluating his object vote in a timely fashion. I believe Proto has addressed his/her concerns, yet he/she has not removed the objection nor has he explained why his vote is still an object. I left him a message in an attempt to remind him of the guidelines. Regards, Saravask 23:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support. Great read. Wim van Dorst 23:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support. Object. If it says in the "usage" section that "shoe polish is not a cleaning product," why is the article in Category:Cleaning products Neutralitytalk 23:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although it would be nice if the market section were expanded. Ambi 23:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I loved it! InvictaHOG 03:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Shoe_polish&oldid=1080989935"