Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Louis Riel/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | Louis Riel
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 kept 19:01, 11 December 2007.

Louis Riel

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Manitoba, WP:BIO, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada, Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan

This article seem to be totally without any sort of referencing - 1(c) Xdamrtalk 22:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the article pretty much lacks inline cites, and some images lack detailed source information and have depreciated tags. As well, what is a list of "Graphic Novel Biographies" doing there? I say take this to FARC. Green451 00:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Began inline citations and referencing, and miscellaneous peer review checks. Will revise section listing of reference books - re-named Further reading. SriMesh | talk 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed depreciated tags which were in use on the images. SriMesh | talk 00:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Started to add inline citations and references - as of this date and time about half way through article. Also contacted major contributors who originally brought article to feature article status. SriMesh | talk 02:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So far the edits mentioned are very easy to do - have been started already. The biography is of someone very notable in Canada's history and of the west in particular. SriMesh | talk 03:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added quite a few inline citations throughout article - should there be more? SriMesh | talk 02:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Note that I was one of the editors to help get it to FA status the first time. I believe that the major concerns have been addressed. The tags on the pictures and the "Graphic Novel Biographies" has been addressed by SriMesh. She has also added a number of inline citations. The lack of inline citations was actually discussed in the original FAC discussion. The rationale was given that the bulk of the biography aligns with the consensus in all of the major biographies written about Riel. As such, verification of the vast majority of the facts contained in the article is then quite easy. Given this and the fact that SriMesh has added a fair amount of citations already, I believe all the concerns have been addressed. If there are additional concerns, I'll help address them within a week of being raised. -- JamesTeterenko 18:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep. Very impressive work in such a short amount of time! There are still a few things that I can see that I would like addressed. Notably, citations are supposed to come after punctuation (including commas), the image of Riel on trial lacks source info, and the "Montana and family life" and "Riel remembered" sections need more references. After these are addressed, I'll be happy to change my vote to keep. Green451 19:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found another copy of that photo that is slightly better quality, so I have uploaded it (with source information) and replaced the existing picture. That should knock off that concern. -- JamesTeterenko 04:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep Impressive work, getting all that referencing done so quickly. That is certainly my major concern dealt with. I'll take another look at the article as a whole and see if anything else strikes me, but once Green451's concerns are dealt with I see no reason why this should not remain a FA.
Xdamrtalk 21:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the instructions at WP:FAR; Keep or Remove are not declared during the review phase, which is for discussing deficiencies or improvements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pah, bureaucracy - WP:IAR :) --Xdamrtalk 23:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I started, but too much to do. WP:MSH issues, massive redlinks in dates in refs need to be fixed, inline URLs on refs need to be fixed, WP:DASH problems in refs, mixed citation and cite templates give inconsistent results, WP:MOS#Captions punctuation attention needed, and I stopped there. Unlinked dates everywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I started on the refs, but there's a smorgasborg of MOS fixes needed; maybe someone else has more time to continue. The cite templates and the old (yuk) citation template handle dates differently, which invalidates global replace. Also see MOS:CAPS#All caps, WP:MOS#Images (size). I haven't looked at the prose or citation level yet because I got stuck in basic cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good: Sandy is dealing with these minor matters herself, rather than insisting that others do so; this is the right collegial spirit, which not all reviewers have. Please do look at the prose and references first, however; if they need to be rewritten, Sandy's cleanup will be wasted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second look; still a smorgasborg. I got through about half of the article, but there are still MOS issues, problems in the citations, missing publishers, and I found multiple instances of non-reliable sources or info not verified by sources.[1] Sustained work still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are references and their formatting (1c, 2c) and MoS issues (2). Marskell 19:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stalled? No progress since earlier comments.[2] Uncited sections, for example, Riel reconsidered is uncited, and Arts, literature and popular culture and Commemoration are two sections covering the same territory that could be merged with trivia reduced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS breach: logical punctuation required: "Father of Manitoba." (done punctuation moved outside of parenthesis)
  • Hard to believe he's only 14 yo in the pic.
  • "Red River Rebellion"—Why the last upper-case R? (done is the title of an event)
  • "Fifty", yet "48"—which is it to be, words or numerals? (done words)
  • What kind of $? Specify on first occurrence. (done Canadian Currency)
  • Do we really need to link "United States"? And "whisky"? Sift through and weed out all trivial links. Tony (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain if these are the worst that can be said against it.
    • Red River Rebellion is a proper name, like, say, "War of 1812"; both should so capped.
    • The rest of this MOScruft should be ignored, like the page itself. I regret that Tony feels the need to ride his hobbyhorses here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I regret the same of you. Marskell 12:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced and / or added citations for tags covering unverifiable citations, and tags for facts needing citations. SriMesh | talk 04:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Citations are required in several places:

  • "credited with ending the monopoly," Credited by whom?
    • p.13
  • "Riel was therefore well known in the Red River."
    • pp. 13,16, 17
  • "The Riels were noted for their devout Catholicism and strong family ties." Noted by whom?
    • pp. 19-20
  • "Descriptions of him at this time" Described by whom?
    • p.26-8. His contemporaries, but the source does not say which. Stanley has several pages on Riel at Montreal college, and cites descriptions by different classmates, but the moodiness is mentioned without a name.
  • "but his fiancée’s family opposed her involvement with a Métis,"
    • p.33
  • "Compounding this disappointment, Riel found legal work unpleasant,"
    • p.33
  • "He is believed to have worked odd jobs in Chicago, Illinois" Believed by whom?
    • The account of his fellow-student Louis Schmidt, and some other sources which Stanley does not name. p.34

This is just in the first section. The remainder of the article similarly needs extra citations. DrKiernan 11:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finally raising substantive issues; it's a pity it's so late in the process. Most of these appear to be the consensus story of Riel's early life; they are largely supported by Dict. of Canadian Biography, the first external link, the devoutness of his parents is also mentioned here, under the second. As a curious reader, I would consider the life by George Stanley (which is mentioned as the principal source) to be the obvious place to check; I have not yet done so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that the Teller matter is resolved, I will see if I can lay hands on a copy of Stanley. This reads like it was written out of one principal source, presumably that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was. I have rephrased slightly, and noted the page numbers from Stanley above. Since I was doing so, I added a collective note to the end of the section; but I'm not sure this aids the reader more than the general note in the bibliography. We can add additional such notes to the end of each section, I suppose, but why?
    • A reader with Stanley's book should be able to find any such reference in less than 5 minutes, note or no note; one without it will not actually be helped by any footnote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have struck my objection but need to look over the rest of the article before switching to keep. DrKiernan (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "Riel reconsidered" and "Commemmoration" sections could do with a copy-edit and some of the websites used as footnotes don't qualify, in my opinion, as reliable sources (they're self-published). However, the information in the article seems to correlate well with the one reliable biography that I have looked at. DrKiernan (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will someone please deal with the WP:OVERLINKing? Samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I will be giving this article extra time because I feel that the concerns raised are minor and can be addressed in a short amount of time. Joelito (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove—Awkward prose, such as these, from just one small section:
    • "The majority population"
    • "a scholar of science"?
    • "progressed to the point of Riel having signed a contract of marriage"—ouch.
    • Unencyclopedic vagueness (also a MOS no-no): "He remained in Montreal for a period". Insults our readers. Same for "and perhaps as early as 1866 he had resolved to leave Quebec"—Perhaps? Where's the reference, or is it the whim of a WPian editor?
      • Stanley, again, p. 33. The "period" could be refined, to "for somewhat over a year", but the vaguemess reflects the vagueness of the source, which itself is plainly dealing with inadequate evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Sandy, like you, is under no obligation to perform any work at all on nominations, PMA. Tony (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove; although Joelito allowed extra time, these are the only changes since my last comment several weeks ago, before Tony's comments. There are still prose issues, large amounts of uncited text, and MOS breaches as mentioned (for example, WP:MOSDATE links needed, and WP:OVERLINKing not addressed). Nothing happening here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Always ignore MOScruft. This case is aggravated by the irrelevance of the complaints here made to the quality of the article; also by the lack of actually relevant examples. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This can still be saved. I've added three refs (two per above) and also three fact requests. The over-linking is quite bad and I've trimmed some. If there specific prose examples, I'll edit myself. Marskell (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • ah, ha, in addition to your work, the good Doc Kiernan has also been in there,[3] so I can now strike my Oppose. Nice work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing: I'm going to go ahead and keep this; I know Joel was leaning that way. Stray sentences can still be found but this is within criteria in general, especially after the work today. The one thing that stands out is the first paragraph of "Reconsidered". It does, in-phrase, cite historians, and the content isn't particularly drastic or challengeable (to a Canadian). So good. Marskell (talk) 19:00, 11 December 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Louis_Riel/archive1&oldid=1144514712"