Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
cut to archive
m →‎Kept status: +Tolkien
Line 45: Line 45:


==Kept status==
==Kept status==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. R. R. Tolkien}}



==Removed status==
==Removed status==

Revision as of 16:19, 2 May 2009

Pages are moved to sub-archives based on their nomination date, not closure date.

See the Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/archive for nominations under the previous FARC process.

Archives

Kept status

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 by Joelr31 16:19, 2 May 2009 [1].

J. R. R. Tolkien

Review commentary

Messages left at Deor, Ed Fitzgerald, Carcharoth, WP Children's literature, WP England, WP Middle-earth, WP Bio, WP Constructed languages.

Multiple issues, see Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also has several images that violate WP:NFCC. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note, Sandy. I'm going to list the 'cleanup listing' entries here. Calliopejen1, could you expand on the NFCC violations you see here? Could you and others also list any other issues? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of 'cleanup listing' concerns

Summary of concerns about the J. R. R. Tolkien article from Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing

  • The listing is based on a database snapshot of 6 March 2009.
  • 6 cleanup categories assigned, but it is actually seven (the Jan 2009 seems missing from the actual 'cleanup list' page): three from January 2009, and the MEfact template piggybacks on the fact template, so it duplicates the "October 2007" entry. All seven template-flaged problems listed below.

I also searched for and checked all the templates in use. The above seem to be all the issues that have been noted. More issues may have been raised on the talk page and in its archives, and other issues not mentioned so far may be raised here, but the above is a start. I can probably source all the above if no-one gets to it before me. That should leave only the NFCC concerns, and hopefully Calliopejen1 (or someone else) will start a new section on this. Carcharoth (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No feedback on the talk page yet (follow bolded link above). Shall I move my comments back here? I'm not sure, as I moved the comments to the talk page based on this edit summary "remove sub-sections, this level of detail would be better placed on article talk". Carcharoth (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unresolved talk page issues

There are only a few unresolved issues currently on the talk page.

  • Mantyxc felt Tolkien's religion should be listed in the infobox. There was no response or apparent action.
    I've replied in this thread on the talk page. Pi zero (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 92.229.172.12 mentioned a contradiction between the English and German versions over the etymology of Tolkien's name, which may indicate the English version is incorrect. Again, no response or action.
    Now addressed by 92.230.2.104. -- Avenue (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Darth Predator complained that the last sentence about Wagner's influence on Tolkien's writing did not reflect the source, following up on a similar earlier concern. This seems confusing, as that sentence is apparently unsourced, and has been since it was added in July 2008 by PauloIapetus. But I think the paragraph would benefit from being rewritten anyway, and certainly the citations need reformatting.
  • PauloIapetus. The comment isn't "unsourced" Darth Predator, the quoted phrase was, indeed, of the linked text, the fact that it is totaly discordant of the main thesis of the article of David Harvey is a logical error commited by the author himself that, IMO, should exclud his essay as a balanced source, since that Edward Haymes and T.A.Shippey seem to be so much more complete and unbiased. —Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC).
  • Calliopejen1 raised concerns about NFCC violations in August 2008; two people disagreed. Given Calliopejen1's comment above, this may not have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

I haven't looked through the archives yet. -- Avenue (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC issues

This article uses six or more (depending on how you count them) non-free images. This is an article about a writer, not an artist, not a model. He is not known for his visual work or for his appearance. We should be able to give readers a clear understanding of JRR Tolkien without so many non-free images. I have no problem with one image in the infobox to show what he looked like. The non-free images that seem marginal are:

  • File:Jrrt 1972 tree.jpg - this one is purely decorative. He is standing by a tree. We already know what he looks like from the non-free infobox image. Yes, it is the last known photo of him. But there is a last known photo of practically everyone in the world- this alone cannot justify its inclusion.
  • File:Jrrt 1905.jpg - yes, this dates to 1905 but appears not to have been published until 1977, making it nonfree. readers can understand tolkien perfectly well without seeing a childhood photo of him.
  • File:Jrrt 1911.jpg - same issue as above.
  • File:Tolkien 1916.jpg - even though marked free, appears not to have been published until 1992? more research is needed here, or removal. not necessary to see a photo of him in uniform to understand his military service.
  • File:JRRT logo.svg - logo. not sure really of the value of this. i could be convinced that this one should stay in the article, but the problem here is mostly cumulative (this is the sixth nonfree image the reader encounters)
  • File:Jrrt lotr cover design.jpg - three nonfree images in one. the article does not discuss the design of these covers at all. even if it did, one illustrative example (rather than three) would probably suffice. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the infobox image (File:Jrrt 1972 pipe.jpg) also violates WP:NFCC because it does not identify the copyright holder. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My personal view would be to have a minimum of one picture of the person (either free or with a non-free use rationale), and then to consider the merits or otherwise of the other pictures (childhood picture, and pictures at other stages in life). That should come after a search for free pictures. I'm not aware of any freely-licensed pictures, but that possibility should always be kept in mind. It is also possible to get creative and think of where you can go and take pictures in public that could be useful for this article. A shot from a distance of a bookseller's stall dedicated to Tolkien books, for example. An arty picture of the entry for "Tolkienesque" in the OED (I did say these would be creative). Some suitable picture of the Marquette Collection (or sign thereof). That's about all I can come up with. The book cover artwork, I agree, can go (it can stay in the book article, though). So I'd say keep the main, pipe-smoking one, and the monogram logo, and lose the rest (though possibly keep one of the childhood pictures). The credit for the photos (not clear if they are the copyright holder, but I presume they are) are given for some of them in the Carpenter Biography. For the one you question, it is the third in a series between pages 174 and 175, labelled "15. In the study at Merton Street, 1972." In the list of illustrations, the credit is given to a "Billet Potter". I'll add that information to the image. Carcharoth (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on each of the images:
In summary: (1) Keep File:Jrrt 1972 pipe.jpg. (2) Copyright information now provided for File:Jrrt 1972 pipe.jpg. (3) Keep File:JRRT logo.svg. (4) Possibly keep either File:Jrrt 1905.jpg or File:Jrrt 1911.jpg. (5) Remove all the rest. Carcharoth (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced. For example, the modern photo is just an old man with a pipe. It doesn't actually contain any information which cannot be imparted by saying "Tolkien was old, clean-shaven and smoked a pipe." So, does fair-use really apply? If you're desperate for an image, there is a free one: File:J.R.R. Tolkien, da morto (2739646598).jpg, which shows an old, clean-shaven man smoking a pipe. I'm afraid the other images have similar problems: they don't really impart information which can only be imparted by a picture. DrKiernan (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That painting should be deleted. It's clearly a derivative work of this non-free photo. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that painting would require a fair use defense too, so it doesn't get us anywhere. But I don't agree that the photo shows nothing beyond an clean-shaven old man with a pipe. It shows what he was wearing - probably not atypical for an Oxford don of that era, but probably also difficult to sum up in a few words. I think some measure of his character also comes through in his face and posture. Whether this sort of thing justifies fair use is a valid question, but please don't oversimplify it. -- Avenue (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the painting is a derivative work, but the reason that photo was copied is because the image of Tolkien smoking a pipe has actually become iconic in Tolkien fandom. I did a search, and ironically one of the hits that came up was a mirror of a Wikipedia article deleted two years ago. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous smokers (2nd nomination). Tolkien was on that, but it was a pretty rubbish list. Have a look at this search for an idea of how the sort of pictures many people associate with Tolkien. See also here. My point here is not that this is an argument to include this picture as a non-free image, but that if we are going to include any non-free image at all, then it should be one of him smoking (or holding) a pipe.
The crux of my argument is more general though. My basic premise is: If there are no relevant free images for an article, then any non-free image used must be the one that is the most appropriate and relevant for the article. My contention is that for biographical articles, the most relevant lead image is one of the person the article is about (that should be beyond dispute). The question then becomes, in my view, whether for dead people we have no lead image at all, or whether we use a non-free image with a fair-use rationale. This question applies to all biographical articles of dead people where no free image is available. This general question should be raised at WT:NFCC. What might also be useful is to do a survey of featured articles on people who are not living, and see how many of them use a non-free lead image of the person who is the subject of the article. Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found one so far: Michael Woodruff. My point here is that if non-free pictures just to show what the subject looked like are not acceptable, then all articles (and particularly featured articles) should be checked. And if they are acceptable, then a general principle should be enshrined at WP:NFC. And I've done so here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we move this section to the talk page, per Sandy's comment here? Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A single fair use image for a dead person for identification (where waiting for a free image is not reasonable) is one thing, but i don't see any arguement from fair use for any others. As free images of adult Tolkien are in the article, i don't think being "iconic in fandom" is a reason to breach someones copyright.YobMod 09:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"As free images of adult Tolkien are in the article" - are you sure? I can't see any free images in the article. Carcharoth (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my bad - i believed the PD tag on the 1916 image. If it is not PD, then you are right, there are no free adult images, in which case i would support keeping one fair use adult image.YobMod 08:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, image copyrights. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Image copyrights - in this edit, I have removed five images that are non-free or of uncertain copyright status (per the comments above) and leaving two non-free images (the lead image and the logo), per my comments above. Apologies for not doing this sooner. I was waiting for more comments above. There is support above and here (may be archived soon) for a non-free image being used to identify the subject of a biographical article (where no free image exists). Examples are Anne Frank and Michael Woodruff. I would suggest that a bot request be made to identify all non-free images being used in featured articles, and to do a review from that angle. I made such a request, (see here) but nothing got done.
    • Citations - the work done so far has been documented here. I was waiting for feedback on that as well, but as no comments have been received, I will carry on dealing with the "citations required" and aiming to clear them all by the end of this week. I also spotted a problem with close paraphrasing and need to rewrite that paragraph and check for others. There is also a concern (on the current talk page) about the Wagner paragraph and citations, which will need checking.
  • I believe this work, once done, will address all present concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: I believe that this diff (showing the work done during a series of 15 edits by various editors) has adequately addressed all the 'citation needed' points (and the issue of non-free images), except one. I will attempt to address that now, and that should remove this article from the "articles with unsourced statements" categories. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is FAR is filed on completely spurious grounds. Our JRRT article is easily FA quality, and remains one of the best articles on Tolkien's biography available online. Seriously, this isn't what FAR was intended for. --dab (𒁳) 16:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you missed what the article looked like at the time it was brought to FAR; it was the FA most in need of cleanup on the Cleanup listing. Thanks for the kind words, at any rate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spurious? Are you even aware of the current FA criteria? Anyway ... I liked the article; it reads fine, and it is indeed a well-written and well-referenced biography. Some remarks:
  • Wikilinking needs some attention. I saw Lewis linked at least three times.
  • "Tolkien also may have felt jealous about a woman's intrusion into their close friendship, just as Edith Tolkien had felt jealous of Lewis' intrusion into her marriage.[citation needed]" It needs fixing.
  • What I do not like (but this is maybe a personal preference) is the presence of so many quotes in certain sections, which break the prose. Maybe this is a reason why, for instance, the second half of "Politics" looked to me a bit listy (He ... He ...) .
These are my concerns, but the article in general is high quality—I clarify that I did not read all of its sections, but selectively some of them. Thus, and despite concerns, weak keep.--Yannismarou (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The one remaining "citation needed" point has been addressed. Will be going through the article with a fine tooth-comb over the next month to polish it up, but I believe major concerns have been dealt with. Carcharoth (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup still needed: this article is not yet ready to be kept; there is still extensive need for cleanup in the citations. There are raw URLs, unformatted citations, and incorrect bolding, just on a quick glance. I haven't looked deeper, other than doing a bit of quick MOS cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Sandy. Some of the stuff you point out wasn't picked up or listed in the "cleanup listing" (which seemed to be based on the 'citations needed' and other tags) - presumably what is needed here is at the level where a good copyedit would fix things, rather than a detailed review of the content? It has been ages since I read the Manual of Style in full, but I will try and see what is needed. Are there any copyeditors active at FAR and FARC at the moment? Failing that, if examples are given on the talk page of the article, I could go through making the necessary fixes - and there are others watching the article as well - hopefully they can pitch in and help as well. Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The incorrect bolding in three of the citations has turned out to be citation templates that link to the author, but in this case the citations are to books where Tolkien is the author (or one of the authors). This means that the author link shows up as bold in the Tolkien article, and as a link in other articles. This might be a good thing, but to remove the bolding, I did the following clunky workaround: [2], [3], [4], [5]. If there is a better way to handle this, please let me know. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Raw URLs (or citations needing better formatting, or just dodgy refs) are (from this version) the following ref numbers: 13, 26, 27, 30, 44, 79, 82, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 130, 131, 132, 138. Refs 68 and 124 are the same source and can be consolidated. Various access dates needed and all external links need checking to see if they work. Carcharoth (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've addressed the formatting of the citations numbered above, and some others. A few are not formatting issues: 130 (now 128) is too vague, 107 (now 106) is a dead link I couldn't track down, and 30 may not be the best source as it refers to Shippey. The citations could still do with further review, but I won't be able to get onto that for a few days. Most of the glaring problems with them are fixed, though. -- Avenue (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed status

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive&oldid=287468012"