Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Baron Munchausen/archive1

Baron Munchausen

Baron Munchausen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Baron Munchausen/archive1

Nominator(s): Lemuellio (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Behold the Baron! The brainchild of an 18th-century con artist who fled his country with a price on his head, the unbelievable Baron Munchausen flourished as an international pop-culture hero from the 1780s onward … much to the frustration of the real-life nobleman who inspired the character in the first place. This article is a GA and has been peer-reviewed. To the best of my knowledge, it's the most comprehensive introduction to the Baron available anywhere, but I look forward to any suggestions for improvement. Lemuellio (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Happy to take a look through. I actually looked at this article the other day for "research" purposes after coming across Nietzsche's mention of him and wondering what was going on.

• You say that "Most ensuing English-language editions, including even the major editions produced by Thomas Seccombe in 1895 and F. J. Harvey Darton in 1930, reproduce one of the rewritten Kearsley versions rather than Raspe's original text." and then immediately say "Raspe's English version of the Munchausen stories became the core text for almost all later versions, not only in England but also in Continental Europe." I'm struggling with this.
  • Yes, that is a bit weird. I've removed that confusingly worded second sentence.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• "an original German sequel was published in 1789" Title and translated title?
  • Fixed. This info was in the collapsible table of translations and sequels.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• "which circulated widely soon after the book was published" Which? The original German translation?
  • Fixed.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• I'm all for tying the various Wikimedia wikis together, but is a link to the German Wiktionary really all that? How about knocking together an entry for the English Wiktionary and linking to that instead?
  • Now that you mention it, a link to anything seems like overkill here, since the word is clearly defined in the paragraph. I've unlinked it.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• What's an "academician"?
  • Fixed.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• "a film version was made in 1980" The version you're linking to is apparently 1979? The same film is mentioned further down, again with the 1980 claim.
  • The cited source claims the film is from 1980. IMDb says 1979, but that info is of dubious reliability. So to be on the safe side, I'm siding with the source.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• "was the second most popular series on the air" In the US, I assume? I must confess that the article occasionally seems to have a slight US-centric tone.
  • Good point! Please point out any other American-centric wordings so I can fix them.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• "as a modern-day descendant of the Baron" Hardly- "modern-day" to those 75 years ago, I'm guessing!
  • Fixed. Thanks for your comments; I look forward to more!--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading this article, and I'll be "back for more" in the coming days. I've made a few copyedits. I want to pre-emptively defend my redlinks; per WP:REDLINK (and see also my Signpost piece on the subject) redlinks are not something to be scared of; while I see the value of interwiki links, they are of minimal interest to the large number of readers who are unable to read German/French/Russian/Italian/etc. We can have both a redlink and an interwiki link if we make use of the template I've added. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Josh, good to see you at FAC, I've been a fan of your work for a long time. To start off, I've reverted your addition of a link to de.wp in running text when we had a perfectly good page here (on the 2012 film) ... I can't think of a single case where putting such a link in the text itself has been okay at FAC, but maybe others know more than I do about that, since I don't focus on link issues. I also reverted your addition of the {{ill}} template, based on the discussion we already had about this at PR, I'll reproduce it here: - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

"His cousin, de": The {{ill}} template is fine while an article is being developed, but it's not fine at WP:FAC (and I would argue, not at PR or GAN either), because non-Wikipedians are unlikely to know what "(de)" means, and even if they know, it won't help them unless they read German. It would be better to write a stub on en.wp and link to that; the stub can then link to de.wp.

@Dank: Thanks so much! I'll polish up the article.

One question: can you give me a source for your assertion that the {{ill}} template is "not fine at WP:FAC"? I can't find anything in the MOS to discourage it, and indeed H:ILL seems to encourage it.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I remember seeing it rejected once, and rarely brought up in the first place, but that's not much of a source. It doesn't seem like a hard call to me, for two reasons: 1. The purpose and effect of the template is a big "under construction" sign, in the hope that someone will notice that there's work that needs to be done here, and get to it. FAC is for articles where the work that obviously needs to be done already has been done. 2. I don't always keep up with new trends so I could be wrong, but it looks like a honking big Humpty-Dumptyism to me. Do you know of any professionally copyedited print text that uses "(de)" to mean "better information can be found for the thing immediately preceding, if you follow this note or reference, in German"? If not, then let's have a look at where it's used on the web, and see if the tone is suitably encyclopedic. - Dank (push to talk) 23:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Good points. I'll remove the template from the page. Thanks again!--Lemuellio (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• End of quoted text. I'll stop there for now, I just wanted to jump on this to see if we can get everyone on the same page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

  Sorry- it did occur to me that the interwiki template might cause a bit of controversy. I don't like the idea of interwiki links dropped into the text in the place of links to enwp (red or blue), but I know that some people are frustrated at the thought that we redlink when there are perfectly good articles on other language Wikipedias. The template offers a degree of compromise between the two, but I agree that it's not ideal for many of the same reasons you're concerned about it. That said, you are wrong that we have a perfectly good article on the 2012 film, unless I misunderstand the claim- there's an article on dewp, but not here on enwp. If we have to make a choice between an interwiki link (useless to most readers, who cannot read all of these languages) and a redlink (actively encouraged by our guidelines) then it's an easy choice- we should be redlinking, or, if we're really opposed to redlinks (an attitude contrary to our guidelines!), creating stubs. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

  Sorry, I thought I remembered an article on the film, must have been hallucinating. I think the bottom line is: at FAC, we can and regularly do ask people to create stubs, for all kinds of reasons, this is just one more reason. It's not a problem for me if the stubs link prominently to de.wp. - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

  For now, I have replaced them with simple redlinks; I of course have no objection to people creating stubs, and hope that someone (at some point) will! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

  Sure, not a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Continuing.
• Regarding the collapsed tables, see MOS:DONTHIDE at WP:MOS. - Dank (push to talk) 23:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Since the tables merely provide further details of a bibliographic history already covered in summary form by the article text, it seems to me that this sentence from MOS:DONTHIDE addresses the situation: "Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text." It sounds like the two of us are reading this MOS section differently.--Lemuellio (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The table contains information not already present in the main text, so it doesn't "consolidate information covered in the main text". "sections or cells ... in tables" can't mean "the whole table". This subsection of MOS has AFAIK had a consistent interpretation since the beginning of the style guide. - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'll uncollapse the tables.--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Very readable and engaging. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Corinne

• In the second paragraph of the section Baron Munchausen#Historical figure is the following sentence:

• However, Münchhausen was considered an honest man, rather than a liar.

I recommend reversing the order of the parts of this sentence:

• However, rather than being considered a liar, Münchhausen was seen as an honest man.

Putting "rather than being considered a liar" first creates a link to the previous sentence, and putting "was seen as an honest man" second creates a link to the next sentence. If you feel that the phrase is too long, then it could be shortened to:

• However, rather than a liar, Münchhausen was seen as an honest man. (or)

• However, instead of a liar, Münchhausen was seen as an honest man. Corinne (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I like your first suggestion. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment By trying to be "about [both] the literary character and his historical namesake", this article becomes confusing. It's as if the Jerry Seinfeld (character) article had all the Jerry Seinfeld stuff as well. As I see it this article is basically the character article; but unlike in the Seinfeld case the real person's article doesn't need to exist as he isn't notable.

You should therefore treat this article as a straightforward fictional biography, with the real guy's info there only to provide background to the character. In effect though, none of the content will drastically change, just remove the WP:MOSBIO elements: the real guy's infobox, the bolding of his name in the lead, and his birth/death dates (move them to Historical figure). And start the article with "Baron Munchausen is a fictional German nobleman in literature and film, created by the writer Rudolf Erich Raspe in 1785". That'll make it crystal clear what this is article is about.—indopug (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I, too, am sympathetic to this approach, and was thinking about it as I read through the article. On the other hand, I suspect that the real-world Munchausen is notable. Perhaps the shift in focus suggested by Indopug along with the creation of a short article (there's easily enough here for a good start class, and that'd give you somewhere to put the infobox/categories, which don't really belong here) would be the best way forward. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the namesake is notable by WP standards; since inspiring the fictional character is the reason he's remembered and written about, he strikes me as a pretty clear case of WP:BIO1E. On the other hand, that's exactly what makes this article's focus a bit tricky to pin down: in order to explain the fictional character sufficiently, the historical storyteller has to be given good coverage as well. The fiction/reality overlap seems unavoidable. As one of the writers quoted in the article says, "These two barons are the same and they are not the same…"

I'd be glad to hear others' opinions on how to handle this. If removing the second infobox and unbolding Hieronymus's name will make this article less confusing, I'm happy to oblige.--Lemuellio (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Almost all barons are "notable by WP standrds", certainly this one. But I think the existing approach is correct, though a little clarification at the start of lead would help. I too was briefly unsure of the subject here, but it did not last long. Johnbod (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose, for the purposes of this review, that we needn't decide whether the real-world baron is notable. That said, a slight shift in focus to make sure that we're clear that this is an article about the character (so, debold the real name in the lead, remove the infobox but keep the image, remove the categories added for the person) is likely appropriate either way. If someone chooses to create an article on the baron, it can be linked as appropriate (or taken to AfD if we/someone is of the view that he is not notable, though I remain fairly sure that he is). Josh Milburn (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and shift the focus, and see what happens. Thanks.--Lemuellio (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this is an improvement; I am leaning towards supporting, and will take another look through in the coming days. (Shout at me if I haven't said anything in a week...) Josh Milburn (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Leaning support. I think the article is very good, but there may be elements I have missed. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Struck due to the reintroduction of the topic ambiguity. This needs to be sorted before this can be promoted to FA status. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: I think I've successfully undone the ambiguity; please do let me know what you think of the article as it now stands. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, agreed- I'm happy to support on the condition it stays as-is in that regard. Sorry for running you around a little. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Dore-munchausen-illustration.jpg: source link is dead, and should use original rather than upload date
  • Thank you for this image review! I've done my best to remove the problem on the Commons page.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• File:Rudolf_Erich_Raspe.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:G_a_buerger_sw.jpeg, File:Gottfried_Franz_-_Munchhausen_Underwater.jpg
  • Same as above.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• File:Stamps_of_Germany_(BRD)_1970,_MiNr_623.jpg is tagged as being non-free
  • Thank you for catching this. I'll remove the image from the page.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• File:Muenchhausen-1lats.jpg: the given tag states that Latvian coins no longer circulating by 2004 are PD, but this coin is dated 2005
  • According to the tag: "Per 2004 amendments of Latvian copyright law … reproductions are allowed … [if] criteria for reproduction set by issuing national bank or country are met. … [T]he criteria limit reproduction of coins as actual objects (i.e. tokens, medals etc.), which could be mistaken for genuine coins, but have no requirements for images that are flat (i.e. drawings, paintings, photographs, etc)." So, unless I'm misreading the tag, it would appear that any photograph of any Latvian coin is free for use as long the photograph itself is freely licensed.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• File:BaronM.jpg: freedom of panorama in Russia does not extend to sculpture, so we need a licensing tag for the statue itself as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The sculpture is by Andrey Orlov (b. 1961) and was unveiled in 2004, so it most likely cannot be used here. I'll remove the image from the page.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Never do an FAC too close to Christmmas though! Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• "However, rather than being considered a liar, Münchhausen was seen as an honest man." What does the "however" relate to? The preceding sentence does not seem to indicate anyone considered him a liar. FunkMonk (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The sentence beginning "However" is to clarify that despite the unusual nature of Münchhausen's performances (he told long outlandish stories about things he claimed happened to himself, and told them as casually as if they had really happened and were not at all astonishing), his contemporaries were able to recognize that what he was doing was storytelling rather than lying.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I think "rather" would be enough to make that point (seems a bit like a pleonasm now), but no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• There seems to be a bit of a potentially confusing issue, in that the original German books use the exact same name for the fictional character as the real person, while only the English translations use a slightly different name. I've listed some resulting issues below.
  • On the contrary, "Munchausen" is the original name of the fictional character (see the Fictionalization section). It was only in translation into other languages, including German, that the spelling shifted to "Münchhausen" to match the real-life man's name.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the issue was that the German version is identical to that of the real life person, unlike the English version. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Raspe, probably for fear of a libel suit from the real-life Baron von Münchhausen" But was the real person actually a Baron? It seems "Baron" is considered a type of "Freiherr" in Germany, according to the German Wikipedia. Yet it seems the real life person was never referred to specifically as a Baron there? If "Baron" simply substituted "Freiherr" in English translations, this should probably be stated somewhere, and the real life person should perhaps not be referred to as one.
  • The German WP says that the honorific "Baron" can be applied to a Freiherr (bisweilen mit der Höflichkeitsformel „Baron“ angesprochen). So, to the best of my knowledge, the real-life person can accurately be called "Baron von Münchhausen". Raspe, at the very least, seems to have considered "Freiherr" and "Baron" equivalent.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Is "von" used in the name of the fictional character as well? If only in translations, this could be noted, as the lack of umlaut is noted too.
  • I've never seen the "von" used in versions of the English original; only in German translations.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Perhaps the full name (or the words "real life") should be added to the caption of the image that shows the real life person ("Münchhausen circa 1740 as a Cuirassier in Riga, by G. Bruckner"), to differentiate the two.
  • Fixed. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Could dates be mentioned in relation to the various reviews under "Critical and popular reception"? Now it is unclear whether commentary is contemporary or from much later.
  • I'm not sure how necessary that is, since the commentators are all wikilinked and so their time periods can be easily checked. (There's a year given for the one unlinked exception, Sarah Tindal Kareem.) I can definitely add a few words to clarify that the review in The English Review is contemporary, though.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Not sure what others think about this, but I think it would be helpful to add date after the name of the artists in the captions of the illustrations.
  • I'm not sure either, but I'd be happy to do so if there's a consensus in that direction. So I'd value a second/third/fourth opinion on this.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• "Pearl's popularity gradually declined between 1933 and 1937, though he staged several comebacks before ending his last radio series in 1951.[9]" I'm not sure if this is really relevant to the subject of the article?
  • It seems like a good way of establishing how long the Baron-as-radio-phenomenon lasted, so I would recommend keeping it in.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but as is, the reader wouldn't know that the two issues (Baron's/Pearl's popularity) are connected, since you don't mention whether Pearl used the Baron as a character until the end. If he didn't, there isn't much relevance. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Good point; I'll fix it. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Since a lot of text is devoted to von Münchhausen's telling his stories, an image like this[1] that is used on the German Wikipedia might be fitting to illustrate that.
  • For a while, that very image was indeed used to illustrate this article. However, it's unclear when exactly that image was made—and, therefore, whether or not it's fallen into public domain—so it was eventually removed.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, since the artist died in 1934 (more than 70 years ago), and the images were published before then, those images are definitely in the public domain. Where was this concern raised? FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The Herrfurth images are definitely PD in their country of origin, but WP has to follow USA copyright laws, which (alas!) are considerably weirder; see WP:PD. In brief, for these images to be in PD in the USA, there needs to be proof they were published before 1923. I can't track down the publication date, so the copyright status remains a mystery to me.--Lemuellio (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

In that case, the images would also need to be nominated for deletion on Wikimedia Commons. I'll do that[2], and the resulting discussion will decide what will happen. FunkMonk (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The image was kept by an administrator[3], so it should be safe to include. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It's in. Thanks so much for looking into this!--Lemuellio (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• "The character is loosely based on a real baron, Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen" Perhaps bold this name in the intro, as it is also a subject of the article?
  • For a long time, Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen was in bold on this page; then, during this FAC discussion, there was some conversation about whether or not the real-life man really counted as a subject of the article, and eventually the name was unbolded. I could go either way on it; please don't be afraid to reopen the conversation above. And thank you for all your comments!--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Since the real life person doesn't have an article, and has a substantial amount of text devoted to him here, I'd say he's a subject, but well, I guess it's a matter of taste. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree - me, I'd re-bold. Johnbod (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

At the moment there's a 2-2 tie, so I'll take a stand myself now. I'll be bold and re-bold (pardon the rhyme).--Lemuellio (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hehe, makes sense, also since the article has categories about the real life person as well. FunkMonk (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverted per LEAD. One of the burdens of FAC (for better and worse) is MOS compliance. Bolding is for synonyms of the title. - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back, Dank! I think the "To bold or not to bold" problem stems from the ambiguity, already raised on this page, about what the article's subject is. If the subject is the fictional Baron, full stop, then clearly Hieronymus's name should not be in bold. But if the subject is both Barons—in other words, if the article is for all intents and purposes a joint biography—then both names should be in bold, as is done on all the rest of Wikipedia's many joint biography articles.

Me, I'd argue that the joint-biography approach makes a whole lot of sense; it would be ridiculous for (to take a random example) Maud and Miska Petersham each to have their own biography, since they're notable specifically for the work they did together. The same logic seems to be applicable here; without the fictional character Hieronymus comes dangerously close to being a WP:1E, and without the historical personage the fictional Baron has no context whatsoever.

Of course, I don't own the article, so I'm happy to go whatever way a strong consensus leans.--Lemuellio (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with this, once again. Johnbod (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The categories for the real life person were also removed at one point; perhaps they've been added back now. I think the best solution would be to create an article for the real baron; given the amount of information about him in this one, it probably wouldn't be too difficult. The worst solution, I think, is this ambiguous "two subject" article. I note that this isn't really a joint biography at all, but an article about a real person and a fictional version of that real person, and we have plenty of precedent for separating them. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against separation. But I think as long as the real life person redirects here, he is certainly a subject of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The redirect guidelines allow that a redirect can be appropriate for "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article"- this case seems to be an example of that. If we're not having a separate article, this should be treated as a subtopic rather than as a second main subject. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I guess the main problem here is that we don't seem to have a clear precedent, so that it becomes a matter of taste/opinion. I'd go with a split (with a summary about the real person, of course). The real life person seems to be notable enough. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

A split is fine by me, as long as the real-life Münchhausen really is notable on his own; that's the point that seems unclear at the moment. That he was adapted against his will into a pop-culture icon is remarkable, but it's only one event. It's true that he was born into a noble family, but to the best of my knowledge, nobility doesn't automatically imply notability.

This is where the article differs from, say, Jerry Seinfeld (character); the real Jerry Seinfeld has a public life separate from his fictional persona. Münchhausen was so much more private an individual that it seems difficult to pad his biography out any further without steering dangerously close to WP:PSEUDO.--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I think more info about him could be found in German sources, if one really wanted to be comprehensive. And considering that we have articles about the spouses and parents of various US presidents, who aren't notable past being just that, I think this case is notable enough as well. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand your position, but please note WP:INVALIDBIO: "relationships do not confer notability". (See also the essays "Other stuff exists" and "Inclusion is not an indicator of notability".) That more info could be found in German sources is probably true, but seems to fall under the category of arguments described in the essay "But there must be sources!".

Again, I have no personal reasons to oppose a split, but since several reviewers have indicated support of the article as it stands, it looks to me as we need a strong policy-based reason to leap the one-event hurdle and split the article.--Lemuellio (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that 1E applies. If tomorrow J. K. Rowling was to reveal that Harry Potter was based on Harold Lotter, a schoolfriend who is now an assistant manager in a shoe shop, the creation of an article on Lotter could be opposed on those grounds. The real Baron has significance as the source of the fictional character, but also as a member of the nobility, a minor celebrity of days gone by, a military man with connections to other notable people, a part of a somewhat-notable family and perhaps for other reasons. I suspect there would be sources available, and I'd be inclined to say that there's easily enough material in the current article/its history to create a decent enough start- or C-class article. If, on the other hand, you're of the view that he's not notable, surely that's all more the reason to clarify that the current article is very much not about him. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty close to supporting, but I'd like to see this issue resolved somehow... As Josh points out, the Baron seems to be historically notable in his own right. You could argue that he has of course been overshadowed by the fictional character, but that does not take away from his own achievements and significance. FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like the best compromise, at least for the moment, is simply to make it unambiguous that our focus in this article is the fictional character. I've re-removed "and his historical namesake" from the hatnote, as well as the categories describing the historical figure.--Lemuellio (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support - The new image layout looks good. I'll just go ahead and support this, as the remaining issues don't hold it back for me. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from delldot ∇.

This is an excellent article, I have no major complaints. I do prefer it with the real baron covered in this article, it is an important part of the story with their similarities and differences, and his feelings on the coverage. I think it would lose a lot if he were split out. A few nitpicks:

• "with each of the three trying to outdo one other" one another?

Good catch! Fixed.--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• "some of his most well-known stories" best-known?

Very good. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• In the para beginning, "In the first published illustrations, which may have been drawn by Raspe himself..." wouldn't it be great to have examples of each type of illustration accompanying the para?

One of the images attributed to Raspe appears under "Fictionalization"; illustrations by the 1792 artist, Cruikshank, and Doré can all be found in the gallery "Illustrations for the stories".--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make sense to arrange these next to the paragraph that discusses them to illustrate the changes that take place? This is a minor thing and up to you, but it does seem like the perfect time for images. delldot ∇. 17:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Good thought. I've moved the Raspe image into the gallery, which appears just above the two paragraphs discussing illustrations; now the whole evolutionary process can be seen together. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• "The relationship between the real and fictional Barons is a complex one." Would it change the meaning if we cut out wording just to say, "The relationship between the real and fictional Barons is complex"?

Good idea!--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Really great work! delldot ∇. 01:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Support, everything looks great. delldot ∇. 17:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Support, although I should disclose that I have made a number of prose edits, both to improve article clarity and to ensure that all sections of the article are properly summarised within the lede as per WP: Lede. Well done to the primary authors of this article! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Coordinator note - Lemuellio, this will need a source review and, as this seems to be your first time at FAC, a source audit for close paraphrasing/copyvio. Unless I have missed them somewhere, please request at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Laser_brain. I've made the request.--Lemuellio (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Support Marvellous article. Coming in late but seeing none of the confusion between real-life and fictional baron. All is clearly signposted. Some comments regarding the sources:

Thank you! I've tried to address your concerns below. Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• A few books lack an ISBN.
  • Since quite a few of the books are older, they won't have an ISBN to begin with … so really, for sake of consistency, I'm not so sure that any of the books should have an ISBN listed. What do other editors advise? Consistency for books with ISBNs, or consistency across the whole bibliography? I'm completely open to suggestions. Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• There are some characters not rendering well in Balina, Marina; Goscilo, Helena; Lipovet︠s︡kiĭ, M. N. (2005)
  • I'm guessing those are the t︠, s︡, and/or ĭ characters. I'm sorry to hear you're having problems with them, but since they're part of the spelling of a person's name I'm not certain they can be replaced with plain old ASCII "t", "s", and "i". Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• At my first FAC I learned that placenames for publishers need the country or state, unless they are really obvious. Bayreuth for example needs Germany added
  • Thanks! I've added where it seemed appropriate, though of course "obvious" is a bit subjective (e.g. I've left Geneva, Edinburgh, and Boston as they are). If there's a specific policy in place to determine how detailed placenames should be, please do point me toward it. Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• Foreign language references need English translations as well. And also state the language they are in (I can spot only one "in German")
  • I've added language tags. Could you please clarify what you mean by "English translations"? I can't remember seeing anything in the MOS about this. Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• the Mitchel reference links to page 100 on Google books, but actually starts on page 98
  • Good catch. Thanks! Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• the Nietzsche book seems to be from 2009 and by Random House according to the link to Google Books. And Kaufmann was also editor.
  • Added "ed." for Kaufmann; thanks. Random House owns Modern Library, which would explain the Google Books attribution. As for 2009, I think that's an error. The usually reliable WorldCat lists the edition as 2000. Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• Inconsistency: Orly's first reference has only the initial R but the second one has first name
  • I think the usual practice is to give the author's name as it's printed in the source, even if that introduces an inconsistency. If there's something in the MOS to discourage that, please let me know. Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• Inconsistency: Raspe only has initials, whereas virtually everybody else gets full name
  • Same as immediately above. Again, thanks very much! Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Edwininlondon (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Source review by Cas Liber

• Earwig's copyvio check clear. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
• references - some use 2 digits for page range (e.g. "Investigating the Barons: narrative and nomenclature in Munchausen syndrome"), others use all digits. align them
• Willis, Donald C. (1984) and Schwartz, Alvin (1990), have no ISBNs
• ...references otherwise look in order.

Spot checking..

• Seccombe (1895) used multiple times - checks out ok.
• Apel source (used once) - all in order.
• Nagle (used once) - all in order.

i.e.very minor tweak above and good to go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Page ranges and missing ISBNs fixed. Thanks so much! Lemuellio (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)