Wikipedia:Featured article review/Oroonoko/archive1

Oroonoko

Review commentary

• Featured article candidates/Oroonoko

• Featured article review/Oroonoko/archive1

Notified: Geogre, WikiProject Books, WikiProject Novels

I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails the featured article criteria, primarily criteria 1c. The article contains numerous unsources statements, with many sections being wholly unsourced.

• The first paragraph if Biographical and historical background - entirely unsourced. All but one sentence of "Fact and fiction in the narrator" - unsourced.
• "Models for Oroonoko" - all but a few sentences, again unsourced.
• "Slavery and Behn's attitudes" - two sentences cited, the rest not.
• "Historical significance" not a single citation.
• "Literary significance" - two cited sentences.
• Three cited sentences in "The New World setting" - the rest not.
• "Character analysis" has one whole cited sentence.
• "Women in Oroonoko" appears to possibly be cited, but with the issues in the rest, I'm inclined to think its only those three sentences that have citations
• "Adaptation" uncited except one sentence.

It also fails criteria 2a - as the lead does not summarize the article adequately, or really at all. The second paragraph focuses on the author's history rather than the novel. It fails 2b in that it lacks the basic novel infobox. Being an older FA (passed in 2005) it does of course lack alt text on all images, though by itself would not be a reason to delist.

Attempted to tag the article for needing references to give time for improvement and left a note explaining the problems on the talk page, but tag was removed and was attacked for it by another editor who claimed "you are merely vandalizing the page by adding what amounts to graffiti. Please either list your concerns so someone can address them, or cease this" despite my having already listed the areas uncited (same as I've now noted here). In my original message, I noted that if the article was not corrected soon, it would be brought to FAR for review and delisting, but no work was done, only attacking me for daring to point out it does not meet the criteria.[1] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the personal attacks above per TPG, and advised C to pursue resolution regarding individual editors with them, but C has restored comment. For the record, I dispute this version of events. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

  Done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 10:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for adding the alt text. There are two problems with it, though:

  • Alt text is missing for File:Behn Oroonoko title page.1688.jpg. Here, I suggest simply transcribing the text as per WP:ALT#Text.
  • The alt text that is present is mostly just a repetition of part of the caption. It should not repeat the caption; see WP:ALT#Repetition. Also, the alt text often contains proper names and other details like "at age 30" that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image; these details should be removed or moved to the caption as per WP:ALT#Verifiability.

  Eubulides (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks, I will correct those issues. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: <offtopic bluntness redacted following agreement> Giano (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Unsourced"

Collectonian, I've studied the argument on Talk:Oroonoko, including the sections you have removed, and I can't agree that you were in any sense attacked for "daring to point out it does not meet the criteria". Perhaps you're referring to Outriggr's attempts to explain that it does meet the criteria, since lacking footnotes doesn't mean an article is unsourced? It's a common notion that only footnotes are properly to be called "sources" or "inline references"; but that doesn't make it correct. There are other ways of giving the sources of an article; for instance, by incorporating them into the text. That is not in any way an inferior kind of sourcing. That (plus 21 footnotes) is the way Oroonoko is sourced. I quote Outriggr:

Do you not understand what it means for attributions to references to be incorporated into a sentence? Here's an example: "Also, as Ernest Bernbaum argues in "Mrs. Behn's 'Oroonoko'", everything substantive in Oroonoko could have come from accounts by William Byam and George Warren that were circulating in London in the 1660s. However, as J.A. Ramsaran and Bernard Dhuiq catalog, Behn provides a great deal of precise local color and physical description of the colony."

The references incorporated here are then complemented by the "References" section at the foot of the page, with full publishing information plus page numbers. Of course the sourcing wouldn't be complete without that. With it, it is. This happens to be the way sources are given in my own academic field. Why is it better that Wikipedia be peppered with unattractive superscribed and non-consecutive note figures? Does that in any way give more information? No, it doesn't.

Why are you so angry? Bishonen | talk 23:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC).

• Although I greatly respect the article's primary editor, it does appear to need more inline citations. I would suggest having at least one at the end of every paragraph so that there isn't any dangling, uncited text. With that, the article should be good to go. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd wonder if that would be possible, however? Looking at the original FA that passed in 2005, a much larger amount of content has been added, without a similar increase in sources, which would beg the question, where is the information coming from? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I trust that the sources listed contain the information in the article. Someone with access to those sources just needs to take a few minutes and add the citations. It's not necessarily the primary editor's fault. This FA was done in 2005 before the current emphasis on having all text with cited sources. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

We can always go to FARC early if that's what people want. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey, for months I have noticed comments from you at FAR talk that are not becoming the holder of a position that needs to be seen as neutral by the community. I would have commented about this sooner, but I prefer to stay as far away from FAR (and drama) as possible. Above, you appear to be using your position to threaten an early closure of the discussion. Here, you appear to be siding with the initiator of the FAR, suggesting that there are article "owners" (which is ridiculous, and which I find insulting, given that I simply find no merits in this case—has anyone noticed Outriggr on any "cabals"?—and it seems to me the main contributor to the article has left); and implying that you've already made a decision on the case. You have tried to implement quite "pointy" changes to the FAR "introduction text", against consensus from FA-related editors who show a great sensitivity to conflicts of interest. All of these are very non-neutral comments for any moderator of this forum. If this is your approach, can we go back to Marskell et al? It's kind of like a bureaucrat stepping into an RFA half-way through and saying, "well, this is kind of looking like an unsuccessful bid isn't it? Maybe close it now, speed it up a bit?" Due process please, or leave it for someone else. Outriggr (talk) 04:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would now request that another FAR administrator be responsible for closing this. Outriggr (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Outrigger, you should have made this post on YellowMonkey's talk page, not here. I personally don't have a problem with the way YellowMonkey is administering this forum. Cla68 (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The comment is directly related to FAR, and to this FAR. I'm afraid I don't follow that logic. Outriggr (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The above comment by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) may be referring to individuals choosing to bold their "votes" early, prior to the FARC segment of the FAR process... Cirt (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[ec with Sandy] I'd considered that, but there is actually only one individual who has "voted", so the suggestion still comes across, on balance, as rather "pointy" to me. The nomination has been open some 12 hours. The FAR introductory text says "Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks". One possibility: show me that this is YellowMonkey's usual approach and I'll retract my concern (although the concern remains that it doesn't follow the stated protocol). Outriggr (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• To my knowledge, there has never been a case of "go(ing) to FARC early" since the new FAR/FARC was instituted in mid-2006, and I would be seriously alarmed if that was ever done; I'm hoping that was a joke that I missed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe it probably was intended as such. Cirt (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• It just seems extraordinary to me, that any editor consistently contributing well-sourced and well-written, knowledgeable and informative Wikipedia articles should want to expose himself to this kind of process. Even reading this page is unenlightening. Why should any editor want their article to be featured in this atmosphere? --Wetman (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think there is a hope that the featured article process with result in a useful critique. Unfortunately, too often the result is something like the nomination here which consists of footnote counting and detecting the lack of an infobox. It's far from being a useful or interesting critique; there's little evidence in the nomination that Collectonian has even read the article. Nominations like this would be well served if the nominator were to step back and ensure that they've at least demonstrated a command of the English language and not just basic counting skills. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - There are no problems as the sources at the bottom cover most of the whole page. Direct quotations are directly cited. This can later be fixed to put citations throughout. But there is nothing to suggest that there is original research or the rest in the article, which would be the only reason to delist it here. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll assume as well that moving this early was meant in jest. The only early moves out of FAR are default keeps. But Collectonian raises fair points so this can get its time here. (Mostly fair points: the lead is meagre but an infobox is not required.) As for 1c, the newer material has significantly more than the older, which makes the referencing uneven. And there are areas that clearly call for a reference (e.g., "One potential motive for the novel..." or "...likely designed to awaken Tory objections"). "The New World Setting" mixes parenthetical citations with footnotes; it's also a single massive paragraph.

In any case, I don't see that YM needs to step aside from handling this. Marskell (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, lead. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delist concerns never met, article still has large amounts of content with no clear citations (despite claims above that they are "obvious" in the text or in the footnotes). Lead also still does not summarize article properly or adequately. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delist, agree with Collectonian (talk · contribs), as well as FA criteria concern noted by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delist per above concerns. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Far too good for the likes of Wikipedia these days. A few of Geogre's featured articles have not been torpedoed yet: who will be the first to find fault with Ormulum or Colley Cibber or Jonathan Wild? -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)