Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/James Robert Baker/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC) [1].

James Robert Baker edit

Notified: WP Bio, WP LGBT studies, WP Anarchism, WP Calif, talk page notice 2022-04-16

Review section edit

This 2006 promotion has not been maintained to standard, and its only main editor has been deceased for years. The main issues raised on talk are reliability and quality of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having done a very, very brief skim, and notwithstanding the sources being replaced with others that may be stronger, there are definitely some bare citations that don't provide enough information to fully identify the source that we should improve. As of the current revision the most egregious examples are citations 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, and 28. There's also one CS1 maintenance message that needs resolving
We've also got some inconsistent mixing between CS1 and 2 going on, so we probably should chose now which cite style to use.
I'm happy to tackle the bare citations and the CS1 maintenance issues sometime tomorrow if there are no objections, and no-one else gets there first? I'll also do a check for dead URLs and ensure archiving as well when doing so. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sideswipe9th you might want to check whether the article can be reliably sourced before putting a lot of work in to it. It had a well attended FAC, with Supports from reputable reviewers, but you can see on talk that I came along in December 2006 and objected that the referencing was not up to snuff even when it passed FAC. Then Jeff died, and things got left in poor shape. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll certainly take a look for stronger sources while doing the above, but I think even clarifying some of the existing sources by providing ISBN/OCLC identifiers will help us for access and assessment of them. Some are just bare <ref></ref> tags, which I've been generally cleaning up on other articles anyway so filling these in isn't much hassle. And of course the same applies for any dead URLs that are missing archiving, but archive URLs do exist on Wayback Machine or archive.today. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any bare URLs ??? I looked at those you mention above (10, 15, 16, etc), and they are also complete citations ... sources are not required to be online, so URLs aren't needed. I'm confused about what you plan to do? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bare references, not bare URLs. Let me give you an example which should make it clearer what I intend. Here's reference 28, without processing: <ref name="Scott">Bressart, Scott. ''Anarchy'', Alyson Publications, 2004, pages 251–255</ref>. When rendered, this displays as: Bressart, Scott. Anarchy, Alyson Publications, 2004, pages 251–255. It's OK, we have a title, author name (which I'll come back to), publisher name, year, and page range. But we can do better! From the citation alone, we don't know if we're looking at a book, book review, research paper, or something else. Putting "Anarchy" Scott Bressart into Google only returns results for this page, or some derivatives of it (ie sites that scrape Wikipedia). We can gleam the missing information from the text of the article, but when we do so we discover that the citation is incorrect. Anarchy is a book, written by both James Robert Baker and Scott Bressart.
So what I normally do in situations like this is to wrap that citation up in either a Citation Style 1 or Citation Style 2 template. I like to make each citation as clear as possible, so that in the best case, when someone comes to read the article either they only need to click a URL for citations to websites, or enter an ISBN or OCLC identifier into WorldCat or their local library to find a copy of the source we're referencing In this case, the reference would become <ref>{{cite book |title=Anarchy |last1=Baker |first1=James Robert |last2=Bressart |first2=Scott |publisher=[[Alyson Books|Alyson Publications]] |isbn=9781555837433 |oclc=49297209 |pages=251-255 |year=2004}}</ref>. This then gets displayed as Baker, James Robert; Bressart, Scott (2004). Anarchy. Alyson Publications. pp. 251-255. ISBN 9781555837433. OCLC 49297209. Now we're giving the reader of the article a lot more information about the citation. We've corrected the dual author issue, and we've given them the information (ISBN/OCLC identifiers) to easily find this book on WorldCat, their local library catalogue, or in a book shop.
Now to address the URLs, you're correct that there aren't any bare URLs in the article. However we do have URL citations without archiving; 4, 6. We also have URL based citations that haven't been checked to see if they are still live since 2006; 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 22, 23 (which has other problems), 25, 26, 27. Or since 2016; 3, 5, 18. So concurrently, while filling in the bare citations as I've hopefully explained more clearly above, I will also check all the separate URL based citations to find out which ones are still live, and which ones are now dead. Where a citation is dead, as long as it's using a CS1 or CS2 template, all I need to do is to change the |urlstatus= parameter from live to dead, and then the reader will automatically be directed to the archived URL instead of the now dead URL. For example I've just checked whether citation 1 is a live or dead URL. It's a dead URL. At the moment, citation 1 renders as "Robertson's official Baker Website". October 18, 2006. Archived from the original on June 12, 2018. Retrieved December 8, 2006. If you click on the first link, you're sent to a blank page. However as soon as I change the urlstatus parameter, and adjust the retrieved date to today (because I've just checked it), it will render as "Robertson's official Baker website". October 18, 2006. Archived from the original on June 12, 2018. Retrieved May 18, 2022. Now the first link is swapped for the archive version, and when the reader clicks on it they get to see the content that was being used to support the article text.
Hopefully this helps, but if not I'm happy to try and explain another way. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, gotcha ... but just to be clear for future reference, templated citations are not a requirement, and many MANY editors prefer manual citations because of the huge and long-standing recurring issues with citation templates. If you want to do the work of converting to citation templates, while also adding additional information and archive links, that is cool, and there is no one around who is likely to object to converting to templates (as I would be the only person previously involved with the article who might do that :), but for other situations, you would need consensus before converting manual citations to citation templates. For this one, have at it ... I'm happy to see Jeffpw's work saved, as he turned in to a dear friend before his tragic passing (ie, I have a bit of a COI on this article, as I'd very much like to see Jeffpw's work saved if it can be). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it's why I asked if there was any objections before embarking upon these changes. I know sometimes it can be a contentious issue, so unless I'm doing it for maintenance purposes; like filing in a bare URL, I'll generally ask before doing any such changes.
That discussion makes for some interesting reading, not sure how I missed that back in January, unless I was still recovering from Christmas. I'll be interested to see if Template:Cite Q ever gets off the ground properly, and all the underlying citation information moves to Wikidata. It would make re-use of citations across multiple articles much easier to maintain, as you'd only have to update the citation (eg if a URL becomes dead) in one place to have that change replicate to all articles that make use of it. But that is perhaps a discussion for another time and place!
Back on topic of this article, I'll have to admit my unfamiliarity with the works of the subject. I'm only here because I saw one of your WikiProject notices and figured if I can get in early this time, maybe I can help more! From what I've read so far, I'm optimistic that we can keep this as an FA. I'd be particularly interested to see if there are any citations on Baker and his work more recent than the 2004-6 citations that currently make up the bulk of the article, and if the three books and two screenplays mentioned at the end of the legacy section have been published in any form since that was last updated circa 2006. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citation cleanup done. I identified a few problems that I couldn't address which I'll list in a subsection below. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for discussion

The following is a list of citations that require discussion to address some issues. Citation numbers are per this revision.

1 - What Title should we use here? While the domain name was Baker's full name, the operator of the site, at the time of archiving appeared to be Ron Robertson. Can we clarify this title in any way? The URL itself was just a link to the main page on that website, so there's no other obvious title to chose from amongst the text.
2 - This citation doesn't actually mention Baker in any way. Is it being used to support the description of beatniks? Is this citation needed?
6 - This citation is a link to a specific book (Testosterone) on Amazon. Even in the archived version it is a link to that book. While it does support the text, I'm sure there must be a better version available somewhere. Note: There was a better source available, I've replace this now with a piece in The Austin Chronicle.
8 - This citation links to Variety's search engine. However from the state of the citation prior to my cleanup I believe the intent was to link to Baker's obituary from 1997. I've changed the URL to that obituary, but wanted to note it here in case I was mistaken.
15 - This was an ambiguous citation previously. I was not able to find any information on a publication called "Book World", however a review by the same name and from the same author was published in The Washington Post in 1993. As it seems to support the claims used, I've swapped it to the Washington Post version for clarity.
19 - Prior to my cleanup this citation had See Also text, as if it was previously part of a citation bundle. I/we need to do a quick search through the article history to find out if we have a missing source here. Note: dug through the history, discovered it was part of a citation bundle which previously included the review from 3AM Magazine, which is now citation 7.
22 - Has a see also text, but I'm not quite sure how to interpret it. What was on page 65, of the September 11, 2000 issue of Publishers Weekly? Note: Request for a copy of this, plus additional information so we can improve this citation filed at REREQ. Another note REREQ has saved us again! Updating the source now with a link to the paywalled archived version.
23 - Alibris citation only links to the (former) front page of that website. In the archive version this does not make any mention of Baker's works. This is also true for the Biblio website, though that website is still live. This use of these sources seems rather like original research to me, is there a source we can actually use here? Note: I can't find any reliable sources that assert this, however I can find that a first edition of Boy Wonder is currently on sale for US$285. Unfortunately this looks like original research, so excising it may be best.
24 - No page number available, don't know the author's full name. I'm unable to find any archived copies of this online. Is there anywhere we can source this from? Do we know anyone in Australia, who has library access, and stores the Herald Sun in its microfilm archives? Note: After a request at WP:REREQ, a copy of this text was supplied, and I've added as much information from it as was relevant.
26 - While the source text is positive about Boy Wonder, it seems to be a review of only one person. Even in conjunction with citation 25, I'm not sure how this demonstrates Boy Wonder to be Baker's "magnum opus". Do we have any stronger/other sources for this claim? Note: As with source 23, I cannot find any reliable sources that can corroborate this beyond the opinions of an individual reviewer. At least one other reviewer on Amazon considers Fuel-Injected Dreams to be Baker's magnum opus, so this too looks like OR and should probably be removed/changed in some way.

That covers all the issues I ran into when doing the cleanup, and couldn't resolve at the time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without Jeffpw, I doubt if anyone has these answers; we shall see. This is why I feared the article might not be saveable ... Jeffpw is really the only editor who worked on the article ... all others who contributed (like me) were only doing cleanup and maintenance ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still early days yet, we've only been open 24 hours so more people may come along. And worst case, I like to think of these as notes/prompts to bust out some Google-fu when I'm not quite so tired! The only one I'm pretty non-confident on finding more information about is #24, just because of it needing somewhat esoteric source access, on a continent far far away. But we may get lucky if we go through WP:WRE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Been busy the last couple of days on an RfC closure, so only getting around to looking at this list in more detail now.
Source 24. I've so far been able to establish that there are no copies of it online. The Herald Sun website does not have archives of articles that old, and none of the newspaper archive websites available through LIB have it in their collections. The State Library Victoria, in Melbourne says they have it in their microfilm archive though. So I've filed a request at REREQ, with as much information as I can, in the hopes that some editor local to that library can find the piece.
I'll try and set aside the time to dig deeper into the other sources over the next day or so. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good news on source 24! REREQ have found a copy. I'm not quite sure what to make of it as a whole, aside from a throwaway reference to Tim and Pete, it does say that at the time of writing (August 1995), an "autographed hard cover first edition" of Fuel-Injected Dreams cost the author $75. As this the purchase was from a book shop in San Francisco, the currency appears to be US dollars and not Australian dollars. I'll hopefully add the relevant quote to the citation, just as soon as I can check whether or not that would be a copyvio. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quotation added to source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos for your work, Sideswipe9th; please ping me when I should have a fresh look, as real life is kicking my arse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will do @SandyGeorgia:. I hope things start to ease up for you soon! Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could I get your opinion on the following with respect to these citations please @SandyGeorgia::
  • 1 - How should we title Baker's website? At present we call it "Robertson's official Baker website", but that seems overly verbose.
  • 2 - Citation 2 is currently being used to support the following sentence Rebelling against his parents, he became attracted to the fringe elements of society, including beatniks (anyone living as a bohemian, acting rebelliously, or appearing to advocate a revolution in manners), artists and gays alongside citation 1. As far as I can tell, it's to support the description/definition of beatniks. Do we actually need a citation supporting the definition, or can we get away with just the wikilink?
  • 23 - I'm fairly certain this is original research, and I've been unable to find any supporting citations from secondary sources on this. This citation is being used to support the sentence By 2006, first editions of Adrenaline, Boy Wonder, Fuel-Injected Dreams and Tim and Pete had become collector's items and commanded high prices at rare book stores. alongside citation 24. While 24 does mention the price the author of the piece paid for Fuel-Injected Dreams, it does not remark upon whether or not that is considered a "high price". I think we may need to remove this sentence?
  • 26 - Alongside citation 25, this is being used to support the text Though Tim and Pete was his most controversial work, Boy Wonder is generally considered his magnum opus, and remains his most popular book. Unfortunately this seems to be the opinion of a single reviewer and I'm not able to find any reliable sources that support this claim. I've also found at least one review on Amazon that says Fuel-Injected Dreams is Baker's magnum opus. As with citation 23, I'm fairly certain this is original research and as such I think we may need to remove this sentence? Unless you know of a source that ranks books by their popularity?
That's about it for the problematic citations. There's one REREQ request I've just filed and hopefully I'll get a hit back on. Aside from that, I think we may need to now progress on to looking at the text on a per section basis? I was able to find one source that was published in 2017, so I'm hopeful that we can find other sources more recent than circa 2000-2006. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. I have formatted the citation, but there are considerable issues with this source. As one example, consider "Baker was born in Long Beach, California and raised in what he considered a 'stifling, Republican Southern Californian household'.[1]" First, I can't find that in the archived versions of the source. Second, that statement should be attributed to his partner; we don't know it to be true in his own words, so I'm not sure we should be using it at all, as his partner is not an independent source. I suspect we may find similar with everything sourced to Roberson. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. The second citation never mentions Baker, and is WP:SYNTH; it should be removed. On the first citation, ditto to 1. above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
23 and 24; agree on remove, also WP:NOTPRICE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
25 and 26; agree on remove.
I missed the FAC on this article; it was already quite troubled when I first looked at it post-promotion. Not only did standards change after 2006; I don't believe this article was worthy of promotion then, and the review was lax. I'm not convinced it can be saved, but applaud you for the effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'm ready to throw in the towel just yet. At this point all I've really done is look at the existing sources and clean them up into a more consistent format.
1. So I've tried searching that "stifling, Republican Southern Californian" quotation, and the only results that return for me are pages that appear to have copied the text from this article at some point in the past. You said it's attributable to Baker's partner, what's the source for that?
Wasn't is supposedly cited to his partner, Robertson's, website (not an independent source), although I am not finding it even there ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found the first archived version of the original site, which does make that claim (click where it says Original site), attributed to Ron Robertson, as the entire website ... Robertson says that James Robert wrote the original website ... I can sorta/kinda attest to that, as that was what I viewed in 2006 ... apparently Robertson took it over later, but we have no earlier archived versions to prove any of this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know. Searching the quotation as a whole, I only find results for this article and various websites that have copied it in the past.
Relaxing that search slightly did turn up two sources. The LA Times piece by Rivenburg which is already in the article, and a book called Sex, Needs and Queer Culture: From Liberation to the Postgay by David Alderson Google Books preview which seems to have several pages on at one of Baker's books Tim and Pete.
The book by Alderson seems as though it has a number of citations for what it asserts, though I cannot seem to access those through the preview. It may be worth seeing if we can find a copy of it for anything useful. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The LA Times is paywalled ... what is the date? The google books is 2016, so they could have taken it from our article ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry. I forgot I have the Bypass Paywalls extension in my browser. You should be able to access the LA Times piece through this archive link. It was originally written 8 April 1993. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2, and 23-26. Agreed. Removing those now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I've been searching high and low for additional sources, with the intent of finding one or more biographies about Baker. While there's a few sources we haven't used, which I'll link at the end of this reply, I've been unable to find any biographies on Baker or research papers that discuss the author instead of one of his works. I was able to find a few research papers that cite and discuss Tim and Pete, but unfortunately they only seem to discuss the work and not the author who created the work.
I was chatting with another GA/FAR regular, and they suggested that given the circumstances we may be better working on getting this article to GA status, and look at maybe trying to bring Tim and Pete up to FA status given that there seems to be stronger sourcing for that article. That way we're still doing what we can to respect the memory of your friend.
Most kind of you to have made such an effort on this; Jeff was a dear, and the work is appreciated. Should we let this one go, then? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding a miracle while doing a section by section cleanup, or someone else finding a biography that I've missed in my searches, I am tending towards this not being savable from an FA perspective. But we might still be able to get it into GA status? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, although the article is considerably improved, it was not at standard when promoted, and still is not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: while I did what I could to improve sourcing, and removing any obvious OR sadly I couldn't find sufficient sourcing to bring this up to FA standard. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above. Hog Farm Talk 18:15, 26 June 2022 (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_review/James_Robert_Baker/archive1&oldid=1096200123"