Wikipedia:Featured article review/David Helvarg/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by User:Marskell 15:00, 25 October 2008 [1].
David Helvarg edit
Review commentary edit
- Notified: TheoClarke, WP Journalism, WP Bio, WP Bio A&E.
Primarily 1(c), 2(a), (b), and 3 issues. The article has a bit of a résumé feel to it, and there are obvious fair-use issues with many of the images. Cirt (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cirt, if I understand correctly, you're objecting to (among other things) the self-promotional tone? Would it help to move the sentence "Helvarg has produced more than 40 television documentaries broadcast by PBS, The Discovery Channel, and others." up into the lead section? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The issues
As the original 'author' of this article (and it is essentially all my writing), I am happy to help with its improvement. As I understand it, the issues are:
- Cirt has concerns about factual accuracy. I believe all the material to be correct on the basis of the cited sources.
- Cirt considers the lead section to be "a bit inadequate". A more detailed criticism would help me here.
- Cirt considers the structure to be inappropriate. Again, specific criticisms would help me here.
- Cirt has concerns about the fair use of the images of book covers. I have never been able to understand how one can depict a book without fair use. Helvarg's books do not merit their own independent articles so this is the place that they should be described and, I contend, illustrated. We could ask the rights holders for consent, I guess.
- Cirt identifies a 'résumé feel' to the article, which is a shortcoming of my writing style. If this is hagiographic, then we need to tone it down. If it is some other problem, then I need a clearer explanation.
—Theo (Talk) 13:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes that is basically a restatement of what I said above. I'd like to hear what others think as well. Doubtful that this article would sail through WP:FAC in its current state, and would most likely have difficulty passing a WP:GA review as well. Cirt (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hard to know where to begin here; I've never seen quite such a strange layout and citation system, and am not sure how to begin fixing it. The article is largely lacking inline citations, has some inline URL citations, and needs a complete reworking of images for WP:MOS#Images. I'm at a loss for where to start with this one; if the original author intends to work on it, perhaps another experienced FA writer can be enlisted to help. I just don't understand the citation material that is only available in edit mode. The article needs to be correctly cited, and something needs to be done about the WP:LAYOUT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At the time of the creation of this article Wikipedia had no consensus on citation and the use of the inote template was advocated because (it was suggested) this could be used to automate conversion to whatever format gained consensus. The automation never happened so this is an exercise in data conversion, which I am now undertaking. I imagine that the layout issues flow from the clunky citation mechanism but I am sure that you can clarify the problems if they sustain. —Theo (Talk) 16:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hard to know where to begin here; I've never seen quite such a strange layout and citation system, and am not sure how to begin fixing it. The article is largely lacking inline citations, has some inline URL citations, and needs a complete reworking of images for WP:MOS#Images. I'm at a loss for where to start with this one; if the original author intends to work on it, perhaps another experienced FA writer can be enlisted to help. I just don't understand the citation material that is only available in edit mode. The article needs to be correctly cited, and something needs to be done about the WP:LAYOUT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary edit
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), MoS (2), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Per my comments, above. Cirt (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove not many sources and most of them are autobiographical ones. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 05:04, 13 October 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.