Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Not My Life/archive1: Difference between revisions
→Comments from 1ST7: reply |
starting |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
:Thank you very much for your support, [[User:1ST7|1ST7]]! I have removed the duplicated link to [[Death by burning]]. Using the "Highlight duplicate links" tool, I don't see any other duplicated links, unless you count links in image captions, which I believe are supposed to be included even if they also appear in the body text, but please correct me if I am incorrect on this point. I greatly appreciate your encouragement with respect to the article. [[User:Neelix|Neelix]] ([[User talk:Neelix|talk]]) 18:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC) |
:Thank you very much for your support, [[User:1ST7|1ST7]]! I have removed the duplicated link to [[Death by burning]]. Using the "Highlight duplicate links" tool, I don't see any other duplicated links, unless you count links in image captions, which I believe are supposed to be included even if they also appear in the body text, but please correct me if I am incorrect on this point. I greatly appreciate your encouragement with respect to the article. [[User:Neelix|Neelix]] ([[User talk:Neelix|talk]]) 18:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC) |
||
::You're very welcome! Most of the links I was referring to are in the lead, and then linked again later in the article, and sometimes in the image captions as well. I was under the impression that terms that are linked in the lead don't need to be linked again later in the article, but, while reading [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking]], I found this sentence: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, ''image captions'', footnotes, and ''at the first occurrence after the lead''." So you are correct about duplicates being fine when they are in the lead or the image captions. Best of luck with the rest of the FA review! --[[User:1ST7|1ST7]] ([[User talk:1ST7|talk]]) 23:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC) |
::You're very welcome! Most of the links I was referring to are in the lead, and then linked again later in the article, and sometimes in the image captions as well. I was under the impression that terms that are linked in the lead don't need to be linked again later in the article, but, while reading [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking]], I found this sentence: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, ''image captions'', footnotes, and ''at the first occurrence after the lead''." So you are correct about duplicates being fine when they are in the lead or the image captions. Best of luck with the rest of the FA review! --[[User:1ST7|1ST7]] ([[User talk:1ST7|talk]]) 23:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC) |
||
====Cliftonian's thoughts==== |
|||
Will jot thoughts as I read through—body first, then lead and infobox. |
|||
''Themes'' |
|||
*Have copyedited a bit here. Last sentence of the first paragraph in particular needed some redrawing as it included the word "international" four times. |
|||
*"The film provides a variety of evidence for its assertion that human trafficking is slavery." Like what? |
|||
*Have reconstructed somewhat the part about the other movies' presentation of slave imagery. Admittedly I have not seen ''Blake Snake Moan'' but so far as I know Ricci's character is not identified as a slave. The source (Rhodes) does not make such an assertion, instead stressing the usage of slave imagery in the marketing. |
|||
''Contents—Live footage'' |
|||
*Copy-edited here. |
|||
''Contents—Interviews'' |
|||
*Copy-edited here a bit. |
|||
*I think this section is too detailed and focusses too heavily on Angie. I would suggest some trimming. |
|||
*Do we really need to say Sheila White is black? (Are we then to automatically assume that Angie, Melissa etc are white?) In my opinion it is better to avoid describing people primarily by their race. |
|||
I'll come back to continue later. Hope this helps. <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—[[User:Cliftonian|<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">Cliftonian</b>]] [[User talk:Cliftonian|<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b>]]</b> 10:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:19, 6 September 2014
Not My Life (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
This article is about a 2011 American independent documentary film about human trafficking and contemporary slavery. The article received a copyedit from a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, and was later promoted to good article status. The people who made the documentary have been very generous with sharing production images, and I believe the article is now feature-worthy. Neelix (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment from EddieHugh
As a first step, please reduce the quantity of wikilinks. I count 18 in the first para that could be removed without any likely reader suffering. EddieHugh (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for the recommendation, EddieHugh! I have gone through the article and removed 57 wikilinks that might be considered superfluous. I assume that 13 of the 18 links you count in the first paragraph are the country names. Please correct me if I am wrong. These links are not to the articles about the countries themselves, but rather to the articles about human trafficking in those respective countries, which I think directly relevant to the subject of this article. Do you disagree? I would prefer retain these specific links, but I am willing to remove them if consensus is in favour of it. Please let me know if there are any remaining wikilinks you think unnecessary, or if you have any further recommendations with respect to the article. Neelix (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's a start, but there are still lots that just don't need to be there, as they're well known (e.g., New York City, New York, Americans, United States, child abuse, brothel) or self-explanatory even on the off chance that a reader doesn't know the term (e.g., investigative journalist, international economics, international security, international health, addicted to sex, sex slaves). See what other people suggest; to me, a sea of blue in the lead, especially of links to things that I (think that I) know about, is off-putting. EddieHugh (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have gone through the article again and removed more wikilinks, including all of the ones you mention except the one to Sexual slavery, because sexual slavery is one of the main topics discussed in the film. Again, I am certainly willing to remove this and other links if there is consensus to do so. Please let me know if you feel that the wikilinks should be diminished further. Neelix (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's a start, but there are still lots that just don't need to be there, as they're well known (e.g., New York City, New York, Americans, United States, child abuse, brothel) or self-explanatory even on the off chance that a reader doesn't know the term (e.g., investigative journalist, international economics, international security, international health, addicted to sex, sex slaves). See what other people suggest; to me, a sea of blue in the lead, especially of links to things that I (think that I) know about, is off-putting. EddieHugh (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Comments from 1ST7
Support. The article appears to meet the FA criteria—it is well-written, with no typos or grammar errors as far as I can tell; everything is well-sourced, with no dead links; and the subject is covered comprehensively and in a neutral manner. Regarding the wikilinks, I would recommend not linking to any article more than once. "Death by burning" is linked twice in the first paragraph of the interviews section, and a number of the terms, individuals, and organizations are linked two or three times throughout the article. However, after reading over Wikipedia:FA criteria, I don't believe that the linking disqualifies the article from meeting FA standards. --1ST7 (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your support, 1ST7! I have removed the duplicated link to Death by burning. Using the "Highlight duplicate links" tool, I don't see any other duplicated links, unless you count links in image captions, which I believe are supposed to be included even if they also appear in the body text, but please correct me if I am incorrect on this point. I greatly appreciate your encouragement with respect to the article. Neelix (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- You're very welcome! Most of the links I was referring to are in the lead, and then linked again later in the article, and sometimes in the image captions as well. I was under the impression that terms that are linked in the lead don't need to be linked again later in the article, but, while reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, I found this sentence: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." So you are correct about duplicates being fine when they are in the lead or the image captions. Best of luck with the rest of the FA review! --1ST7 (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Cliftonian's thoughts
Will jot thoughts as I read through—body first, then lead and infobox.
Themes
- Have copyedited a bit here. Last sentence of the first paragraph in particular needed some redrawing as it included the word "international" four times.
- "The film provides a variety of evidence for its assertion that human trafficking is slavery." Like what?
- Have reconstructed somewhat the part about the other movies' presentation of slave imagery. Admittedly I have not seen Blake Snake Moan but so far as I know Ricci's character is not identified as a slave. The source (Rhodes) does not make such an assertion, instead stressing the usage of slave imagery in the marketing.
Contents—Live footage
- Copy-edited here.
Contents—Interviews
- Copy-edited here a bit.
- I think this section is too detailed and focusses too heavily on Angie. I would suggest some trimming.
- Do we really need to say Sheila White is black? (Are we then to automatically assume that Angie, Melissa etc are white?) In my opinion it is better to avoid describing people primarily by their race.
I'll come back to continue later. Hope this helps. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)