Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2008: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
GimmeBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
75,273 edits
m GimmeBot updating FAC archive links
archive 2
Line 1: Line 1:
== July 2008 ==
== July 2008 ==


{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Artaxerxes III of Persia}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Déjà Vu (Beyoncé Knowles song)}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thriller (album)/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thriller (album)/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nguyen Van Nhung as a military bodyguard/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nguyen Van Nhung as a military bodyguard/archive1}}

Revision as of 00:44, 4 July 2008

July 2008

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Artaxerxes III of Persia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:28, 2 September 2008 [1].

Déjà Vu (Beyoncé Knowles song)

Nominator: Efe (talk)
previous FAC (00:44, 4 July 2008)


This is the third time. I almost got this to FA but there were three opposes that I failed to address as quickly as it should. I believe all comments have been given attention and there has been a pre-FAC feedback that helped this one to reach some level of readyness. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images/Nonfree content
    • Image:Deja Vu.jpg- thorough fair use rationale, source and license present
    • Image:DejaVuSample.ogg- thorough fair use rationale, source and license present
    • Image:Beyonce-Deja Vu in Sweden.jpg- free image, source and license present
    • Image:Dejavu-video2.jpg- non-free with proper rationale, although I think it might be a bit weak. "intended to represent the nature of the single"... but does it significantly aid understanding of the topic? Generally I would say no, but it does have a tie-in by illustrating the sexual themes commented upon in the article body. I'm iffy about inclusion, but if others agree it can be kept, I would make the rationale more explicit for purpose- something like "illustrates sexual content commented upon by reviewers and which provoked a fan response, commented upon in the article".
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Efe (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still think there are issues with Image:Dejavu-video2.jpg, I would certainly imagine the text would justify a screenshot, I dont think this is very clear what is going on, and it is quite dark. I havent seen the video, but is there a better shot? Fasach Nua (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In some sources, the scene is where the "unacceptable interaction" best shown. Its Knowles detaching Jay-Z's belt and seems "about to give a fellatio". Which part is wrong? The caption or the fair use? --Efe (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would maybe increase the image quality, I think the caption and FU rationale are probably okay Fasach Nua (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'll try uploading clearer one. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did a screencapture off Beyonce's official site and uploaded a new version which is a tad less grainy and pixelated than the previous iteration. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Any more concerns? --Efe (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in addendum to David's comment, Image:Dejavu-video2.jpg contains what I think is an unacceptable trademark (the MTV symbol). We are not giving free advertising to MTV — please get a video still without the symbol. --Laser brain (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed watermark. --Efe (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • ""Déjà Vu" is influenced by late-'70s funk elements,[6] soul and hip hop genres.[7]" - Isn't this merely the opinion of the reviewers in question? Unless the songwriters confirm the influences, then this is speculation, and should be written as being merely their opinion.—This is part of a comment by LuciferMorgan (of 22:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
    • Yes. Knowles mentioned the influences of this song and many reviewers were the same. --Efe (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is hook-laden, similar in this respect to Knowles' 2003 single "Crazy in Love" from her debut album Dangerously in Love.[10]" - This is a comparison, so someone has arrived at an actual conclusion. Can you please clarify in the article whom has drawn that comparison? Whether something is similar isn't factual, and opinions differ from person to person.—This is part of a comment by LuciferMorgan (of 22:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
    • The writer is not disclosed, an AP. Is this a big issue? "Crazy in Love" is hook-laden (see the article). --Efe (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not referring to the term "hook-laden" in any instance. I am referring to two songs being compared to one another, and yes, this is an issue, or else I would not have raised it. I am vehemently against music articles misleading readers, and so is FA criteria. LuciferMorgan (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any idea how to rephrase it without tending to be POVic or ORish? --Efe (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checked the article, and I can't seem to find anything that is an issue. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Meets all criteria: well written, succinct, informative. Good job. Orane (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if IPs can support. Nice coverage. I would still make a few edits: the bass player is mentioned under the name John Webb and then under the name Jon Jon Webb; that certainly needs to be clarified somehow. More optional stuff: the last caption perhaps needs a little work, and the use of the phrase blow job seems incongruously informal given the tone of the article (perhaps "oral sex"?) 86.44.27.122 (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. The former is correct if based on the source. The latter is taken from the liner notes of B'Day. I will change it to John Webb since the source was an interview with him. Same through with blow job. Seems informal. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for an article that has come along way since the first version I reviewed in the Spring. An incredible amount of time, effort and dedication has gone into this piece. I am not a fan of most popular culture articles, and I find them difficult to judge (unless the prose is poor). In this case I'm sticking my neck out and supporting because I think the readers who Google this subject will not be disappointed with Wikipedia. Graham Colm Talk 16:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Unlink common terms like "American"
  • "was already completed" – why the "already"? It seems out of place to me.
  • "One month over" – one month over what?
  • All done. Please check. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support

Like Graham, I rarely even read pop music/games articles, but I found this engaging, apparently comprehensive (I'm no expert) and without significant issues. jimfbleak (talk) 06:08, 2 September 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.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:43, 3 July 2008 [2].

Thriller (album)

Nominator(s): Realist2

previous FAC (22:37, 9 April 2008)

Hello, I would like to nominate Thriller for FA. It's last FA resulted in the article being "not promoted" as I withdrew the nomination on April 09 2008. I withdrew because of a certain episode of racial taunting I received and my erratic behaviour in response to it. Another issue was the content that is now Thriller 25. At the time this article was actually a part of the Thriller article. A number of reviewers opposed FA because of the lengthy detail dedicated to the reissue. The reissue was eventually merged out and passed GA in its own right within days.

Since the withdraw, Thriller has been peer reviewed 3 times. The Reviewers were; Efe, Indopug (twice), Matthewedwards, Ruhrfisch, Kakofonous, Ealdgyth and Giggy. The article has also been copy edited by a number of editor that includes; Efe, Kodster, Kakofonous and Andreasegde.

As the article stands, the lead presents a neat overview of the article I have presented. I went for an unsourced lead with the references in their relevant section of the article. This has always been my favoured style. The article then documents the recording of the album, the "Themes and genres" expressed by Jackson in the record, the albums release & the reception both critical and commercial. The article then presents an overview of a number of events that tipped the record into becoming the worlds best selling album, a critical component that helps answers the complex question "how did Thriller outsell any other record?"

The reader is then presented with a section dedicated to the influence and legacy of the record. The affect it had on the recording industry, how it broke down racial barriers, rebuilt MTV and finally where it stands today, 25 years later. The article has 70 individual references and is sourced approximately 100 times. Sources include biographies, interviews, online news articles & websites. Could I remind all reviewers that English is not my first language. Could reviewers make any concerns crystal clear in full sentances to avoid any confusion on my part. Cheers. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 01:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, the article still requires some attention:

  • ''Jackson himself rarely commented on the work's recording - redundancy.
  • wrote and played the drums- he wrote the drum part?
  • Temperton wrote the spoken portion in a taxi, on the way to the recording studio. Jones and Temperton said that some recordings were left off the final cut because they did not have the edginess of other album tracks - some of the spoken recordings?
    • I'm confused by what your asking me to do here, sorry, could you clarify your concern. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 18:35, 29 June 2008
  • Despite the light pop flavour of these two records, Thriller, more so than Off the Wall, displayed foreshadowings of the contradictory thematic elements that would come to characterize his later work. - the pronoun should be changed to Jackson's
  • and was Jackson's first successful rockcross over piece. - a mistake here.
  • Thriller was followed by the release of a large number of singles - singles from the album or singles in general? If the former, the number was not large.
  • The pop duet led some to believe that the album would be a disappointment. Others suggested that Jackson was attempting to attract a white audience. - What pop duet?
  • The ballad "For All Time" supposedly dates from 1982, but leaks often credit it as being from Dangerous sessions. Both the leaked vocals and new performances were included on this track. Two singles were released from the reissue: "The Girl Is Mine 2008" and "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' 2008". - What leaks? And this needs a citation.
  • There is U.S. throughout, (often U.S.. with a double period), but UK is used.
    • I followed what the actual articles do. U.S. & UK. Dots are not used for UK apparently whereas for America they are. Is this ok or should I change something? — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 19:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, Change U.S. to simply US, don't worry about the articles' usage; we have our own rules. GrahamColmTalk 19:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At some point, Thriller stopped selling like a leisure item – like a magazine, a toy, tickets to a hit movie – and started selling like a household staple." - The Emdashes need fixing.GrahamColmTalk 14:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • DONE — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 19:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ive resolved your concerns as much as I can, I just need a little clarification on some of your points. Thankyou for your points. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 19:10, 29 June

2008 (UTC) I've made some suggestions, [3], I hope they help. GrahamColmTalk 20:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "of U.S.$750,000. " – "of US$750,000. "
  • "Instead, he would dictate into a sound recorder, when recording he would sing from memory." – needs a break between the first and second phrases, like a conjunction or a semicolon

Gary King (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, first time for everything, I usually stumble at that hurdle. :-) — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 14:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Issue with numbers: numbers less than 11 are written out; from 11 to 100 can be words or figures (consistent within the article), and above 100 are usually figures. Examples:

  • "3 million copies" - "three million copies"

Keep it consistent. I didn't find any other errors, but keep a sharp eye out. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 16:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just went through it, its all correct now, people should stop tinkering with my numbers lol. :-) — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 16:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing. In the "Themes and Genres" section, I don't really think it's necessary to summarize the songs. For example, "In "Billie Jean" Jackson sings about an obsessive fan who alleges he has fathered a child of hers." That sounds like there really IS "an obssessive fan who..." when really it's only part of the song. I think it's important to not have more of a "real life" POV when doing this, as opposed to the "universe" of the song. Maybe it's just me, but I don't really think that all of those summaries are really necessary for the article. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 17:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I kind of disagree, the title is called "Themes and genres", the obsessed fan thing actually happened in real life to Michael Jackson. The song is about his personal relationship with a crazy fan that stalked him for much of the 80's before she was sent to an mental home. So yes it was real life. The "Theme" of the song is about jackson's paranoia over a real life incident. :-) — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 17:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, okay. I thought that the crazy fan was NOT real. It makes perfect sense in that case. Nevermind. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 19:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • He he, a lot of people don't know its a real story. Actually the poor women is very very ill.— Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 22:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First of all, very interesting read. Written well and seems very comprehensive. A few minor things:
Many references do not have a published date.
It quickly became the best-selling album of all time, with sales between 45 and 108 million copies worldwide. I am a little confused on the wide range of 45-108 million? Can this not be more closely estimated? ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that complement. Firstly regarding the sales; It caused edit wars, I have been blocked twice for edit warring over this issue (the second block was removed because the admin made a mistake). Archived talk page consensus said we should put the mix of sales in and let the reader decide for themselves. Happy to say there are no more edit wars on this issue and I would like to keep it that way. Regarding the publishing date; if the source doesn't give one then I cannot add it myself. I will take another look at this issue most definately and upate you on my findings. I imagine I will find it hard to find more publishing dates. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 10:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I finished adding the dates. :-) — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 11:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent, thank you. I have re-read this article and I believe the prose to be very good, interesting, and comprehensive. I did some minor copyediting for a few punctuation issues (which I find easier to do myself than to list the problems here). Great work. Good luck. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Meets every standard of FA; good prose, comprehensive, sources good, etc. A fine article. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 22:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion 1c, which demands that the article is "factually accurate". The entire "Themes and genres" section presents the opinions of critics as though they are bona fide fact, when in truth they are merely opinions. For this reason, I feel the section is misleading, and not "accurate". For example, this statement; "Thriller refined the strengths of Off the Wall; the dance and rock tracks were more aggressive, while the pop tunes and ballads were softer and more soulful.[7]". Says who? Which critic? This is an opinion, and not a fact. It isn't a "fact" that the album "refined the strengths of Off the Wall", but merely the opinion of one critic. Each opinion should be presented as an opinion, and attributed to the critic in question within the actual paragraphs. LuciferMorgan (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (comprehensiveness concerns) Features just one contemporary (1983) review--the Rolling Stone one. Any reason why reviews by the NME, Melody Maker, CREEM, Q, Sounds etc aren't included here? Also not sure why reviews from websites such as Slant and Blender are included at all; surely far more respected and acclaimed publications (such as those I have listed before) should be preferred. Further, you need to differentiate between the contemporary and the retrospective reviews; not entirely sure you would want to use Allmusic's review (written at least a decade later) to back up the claim that the album's reviews upon initial release were almost entirely positive. indopug (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also puzzled why the New York Times preview for Bad is used as a review for Thriller. indopug (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NME doesn't have one I have already checked. Its been really hard to get hold of original reviews, most are contempory. I will look for more and try to find them but I really cant promise this. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Q and Melody Maker don't have reviews either.
[4] Found original NYK review which I will add. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above examples you gave contain reviews on the Thriller album, I checked them all. I managed to add one from the new york times. I also checked TIME's database and they don't have one either. Not sure what you expect me to do about this, the material just isn't available im afraid, I'm not sure if you specifically found some thus opposed but I certainly can't see them. You suggestions mostly document white rock music not black R&B. Could you clarify what I should do here, cheers. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 23:01, 3 July 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.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:24, 3 July 2008 [5].

Nguyen Van Nhung as a military bodyguard

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... it's an exhaustive, 3rd party RS account of the subject. And there have been shorter FAs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The system appears to be default implicit oppose unless otherwise. It was there for 9 days instead of the usual four. I guess people were perhaps too polite to can the article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take it his date of birth isn't known? (just checking)
No. Nothing is recorded before the coup. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had repeated stabbed and shot the Ngo brothers" - repeated --> repeatedly?
Fixed. blind monkey. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nhung was an army officer who served as the bodyguard of General Duong Van Minh, who was among the plotters" - doesn't read great... could you reword?
Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a group of ARVN generals" - I don't think it's been made clear what ARVN is.
Fixed. blind monkey. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The em dash in ref 15 stands out compared to the other refs.
Fixed. blind monkey. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

giggy (:O) 07:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments sources look good, the links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments The article is pretty well-written, comprehensive enough (although, I do believe you should include some details of Nhung's early life, if any info exists). I have a few questions:
    • What's JGS?
    • I dislike the organization of the first two paragraphs of "Diem and Nhu assassination". You tell readers that the Ngo brothers had escaped from the Gia Long Presidential Palace, but didn't explain why Minh left for the palace until the next paragraph. I think it would be best to first note Diem and Nhu's communication with the plotters and then say, "In the meantime, Minh left JGS..." The second paragraph would start, "When Minh found the Ngo brothers were nowhere to be seen in the palace, he dispatched..."
    • How did Minh know where Diem and Nhu's safehouse was? To clarify, was the church (in Cholon?) the safehouse? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. The prose looks reasonably well-written. I only had one question: "The other generals had little sympathy for Tung, because the special forces commander had disguised his men in regular army uniforms and framed them for the Xa Loi Pagoda raids in August" - framed the special forces men or framed the men of the other generals? I'm a bit confused on which is the pronoun antecedent. I am also concerned that the article has very little personal information about Nhung. If this were Role of Nguyen Van Nhung in the 1963 South Vietnamese coup I would agree that it is comprehensive, but as it is the reader is not given a good idea of who he was. I won't oppose on this basis because you've said the sources aren't available, but I don't think I can support either. Karanacs (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. With the article rename, I think this article now satisfies the comprehensiveness concerns that I had. Karanacs (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I just read through the opposes again, and I can see where those reviewers are coming from. While I do think that the article is comprehensive under this title, given the dispute over whether the title is appropriate, I don't know that my support is appropriate. Karanacs (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have to say Oppose. This simply doesn't look like an article on its own (cf. Karanacs above). There is no information on Nguyen's life of its own (e.g. When and where was he born? In which army units, if any, was he trained as a hitman?). I really don't see much in this article that wouldn't be (or isn't already) better covered in the various articles it already links to prominently (Le Quang Tung, Arrest and assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm, 1964 South Vietnamese coup). Most likely a summary of this can be put in (say) 1963 South Vietnamese coup and the other articles can link back to the section instead of to this. In short, this is not an article about a person. Circeus (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes but this person was involved in two different coups and it isn't possible for us to create a redirect from Nguyen Van Nhung to two pages. If there was only one event involved, then obviously a redirect would be used, or it would have just been left as a stub. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why links from the 1864 article can't send straight to a 1963 section. That's at best a poor excuse to have such an incomplete article. Circeus (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I too wonder about the issue how we deal with an article which is apparently by necessity a very restricted summary of a person's life. But I also wonder if this article wouldn't benefit from some expansion in terms of political/historical/social context. I would like a bit more information about the various governments, presidents, reasons for the coups etc. Slp1 (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While I understand little is know about this person, esp his early life, that should not be an excuse for let's go ahead and make it FA anyway. However, I think this is GA material. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why I believe the article would be much more appropriate under the title proposed by Karanacs. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Nishkid and Karanacs. giggy (:O) 03:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree a rename would make it a better FA candidate. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          It's so rare to see an article title about a specific person during a specific period of time, excluding articles that were spun off from main biography articles, of course. Gary King (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't like the renaming. It leaves the reader wondering whether there is another article about him lurking somewhere, and offends the norms of titles in traditional encyclopedias and basically every sort of biographical compendium. It also imposes a straitjacket on the article so that if other information is later unearthed about his early life, it will be hard to incorporate. I don't see a need to rename the article merely for the sake of having a "complete" picture of whatever the title dictates the article should be about (and for the sake of appeasing FAC reviewers with such completeness). Mangostar (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If more general information is found, we can always move it back. As to the probability of this, I would say that it would be approximately zero. No proper inquiry was ever held by the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, or the government, to investigate the killings during the coup. Because all the people who were in the government after 1963 were usually opponents of Diem or were directly involved in the coup, they would obviously not want to. As for whether the ARVN is likely to have kept information on him, he is notable mainly for a few extrajudicial activities for the army, so the army obviously won't record it. He is an army major, which isn't a high rank, and because he was a bodyguard, he can't have been in the field fighting the Vietcong, so he can't really distinguish himself in any other way apart from the hitjobs. Communist historians are pretty unlikely to care about this stuff, they have a habit of simply referring to South Vietnamese military officers as bandits/traitors/imperialist lackeys etc and they wouldn't care about internal South Vietnamese army squabbling. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - After considerable thought, I am opposing this article on two grounds.
    • First, I do not believe the current title satisfies WP:NAME and so should not be used for a FA-class article. I know that there is considerable discussion on this above and that this name was chosen as a compromise, but I do not believe it is acceptable. It violates two rules: "Use common names of persons and things" (which would be Nguyen Van Nhung) and "Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles". It also appears to violate the conventions in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), especially the sections "Qualifiers not between brackets" and "Descriptive name". As such, I would encourage that we move the article back to the non-descriptive name.
    • Second, the article fails 1b. I know that the name was changed in part to get around 1b requirements, and I admit that it is possible that such information as would be required to pass 1b does not exist in secondary sources. I am uncertain what the official policy about this is. Is there a history of granting an exception on 1b to articles that involve persons or things where additional information is unavailable? (Sandy, do you have an answer for this?) If so, I will withdraw this complaint.
  • I know that my reasoning is partially circular: I'm insisting on a less restricted name which increases the scope and causes the article to fail 1b on the increased scope. And also that increasing the scope would require the article name to be changed. But, after significant thought, this is the conclusion that I come to. I'm sorry. JRP (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand your concerns about the title and the scope of this article. I see it as similar to the way that Isaac Newton is organized. There are subarticles on Isaac Newton's early life and achievements and Isaac Newton's later life. If a great deal of biographical information could be found on Nguyen Van Nhung, then within that model it would make sense to have an article titled Nguyen Van Nhung as a military bodyguard. The problem is that we do not have the biographical information to write a biography of Nhung that this article could be summarized in. I don't see that as something to stop an FAC, but that's me. Karanacs (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That example doesn't hold water, unfortunately. Issac Newton is organized in that way because it is coming from excess. It's the best way to express a large amount of information. This article, on the other hand, is organized in this way because of a shortage of information. That's not the same thing. You have created a leaf when the branch doesn't exist. JRP (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for article focus reasons, as others have stated above, plus, more specifically:
    • The article title, "Nguyen Van Nhung as a military bodyguard", strongly implies we have other articles about Nhung.
    • The article belies its title directly because it isn't really about Nhung as a bodyguard, it's about Nhung as an assassin. It says as much in the lead: "The bodyguard of General Duong Van Minh, Nhung was a professional military hitman". If it was about Nhung as a bodyguard, presumably it should talk about how he became a bodyguard, what he did as as a bodyguard, etc. It doesn't.
    • Nhung is a supporting character in his own article! He is mentioned only in passing in almost every paragraph; I don't think there is a single paragraph that is even half about him, they're all mostly about the various presidents and plotters he served.
    • It's really, really short. 3 sections, one two paragraphs long, one only one paragraph long. I've seen one-paragraph sections used as a reason to deny GA status, much less FA.
  • There are also less important points that could be more easily fixed, or I could even live with:
    • "He was taken away by Nhung, all the while shouting" - Nhung was shouting?
    • At nightfall, Nhung took Tung and Major Le Quang Trieu—his brother and deputy - Nhung's brother?
    • the brothers were shot into their graves - I imagine them being loaded into a cannon here...
    • "Ngo Dinh Nhu (pictured) shaking hands with United States President Lyndon B. Johnson." - What does (pictured) mean here? It's the caption to an image, surely (pictured) is implied ... and if it isn't, why doesn't Johnson get one as well?
    • "As they left, Minh gestured to Nhung with two fingers, taken to be an order" - is there any dispute that this was an order? If so, please say explicitly that there is such a dispute, and who took it as an order; in fact who is testifying to this event, presumably this is a rather important point?
    • Minh then ordered Nhung to execute the Diem loyalist. Tung had failed to convince the president to surrender and still commanded the loyalty of his men. The other generals had little sympathy for Tung, because the special forces commander had - "Tung" is the same person as "the Diem loyalist" and "the special forces commander"? If there isn't some kind of rule against referring to the same person three different ways in as many consecutive sentences, there should be. --GRuban (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nothing but respect for Karanacs, but I feel that her concern about comprehensiveness was unactionable and the rename actually detrimental, and that in attempting to address her concern you've violated the guidance of WP:NAME. The guidance specifically is this: "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." Here we have renamed an article from its common sense name (someone looking for the most comprehensive available information on this subject would literally never search for this title and would always search for simply Nguyen Van Nhung. Appropriate Wikilinks would also be simply to the name.) to a name that pedantically fulfills the criteria. We need to be able to allow for common sense exceptions, especially for the sake of readers. The rules exist only to ensure quality for our readers. When we start to insist on rules for their own sakes, even when they confuse the readers, then it's the classic example that the rule is being interpreted incorrectly. --JayHenry (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a slightly random note, I view "Nguyen Van Nhung as a military hitman" to be a better title than this, since that is basically what the article is talking about. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 02:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Or how about The role of Nguyen Van Nhung in the assassinations of Colonel Le Quang Tung, President Ngo Dinh Diem and Ngo's brother Ngo Dinh Nhu? --JayHenry (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Along with the JayHenry and Jrp, I feel that this article violates WP:NAME. They have outlined the problems well. While I know that the "comprehensiveness" criteria is supposed to indicate that an article comprehensively covers the published material on a subject, which presumably this article does, I still think we need to take a hard look at whether this article is necessary. As GRuban states, "Nhung is a supporting character in his own article! He is mentioned only in passing in almost every paragraph" - I definitely had this feeling when reading it as well. I did not feel that I learned much about the article's subject while reading the article. If the article does not really describe its ostensible subject - even using all available sources - I do not think we should feature it. I would suggest merging this article with the relevant coup articles. Awadewit (talk) 15:48, 2 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/July_2008&oldid=223424988"