Wikipedia:Featured article review/John Vanbrugh/archive1

John Vanbrugh

Review commentary

John Vanbrugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/John Vanbrugh

• Featured article review/John Vanbrugh/archive1

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cheshire, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography [ie all of the projects listed on Talk:John Vanbrugh]. Original nominator has retired.

Per the FAR instructions, have the top contributors been notified? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really, no. Not formally, nor on a level with important stuff like WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. Other users have kindly informed us, though. Giano and I are the main contributors, as I would have hoped was easy to see via for instance the edit counter Sandy links to, or by clicking on one of the three links straight to the article's FAC at the top of the talkpage.[1]. At that time, by the way, the nominators of featured articles were usually not contributors to the article, and the nominator User:ALoan had, in fact, little to do with it. Though not quite as little as those WikiProjects... In my opinion, it's time to stop referring to all those more or less far-fetched projects on FAR; the mechanical reference to the mass of them surely tends to obscure the actual contributors (if, indeed, such contributors are mentioned at all). I don't write this to complain of Ed17, but to suggest that the FAR customs w r t such matters are bad, and have slipped away, as per Sandy, from the actual FAR instructions. Can we have more handiwork and less mechanics in the notifications, please? Bishonen | talk 17:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC).

My sincere apologies to you and Giano; I didn't think to look for the top contributors, just the FAC nominator. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I found this article through WP:URFA. Article easily fails 1c. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Only 5 notes, but otherwise seems a fine article. Johnbod (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with the_ed17 (talk · contribs), blatant referencing deficiencies include lack of citations for direct quotations of material. -- Cirt (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Where in fact? The Boswell is cited to a diary entry date, which is fine. I hope you're not one of those people who want OED page numbers? Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It might be easier to illustrate where there could be improvements and more specific citations in certain key places such as after direct quotations of material by adding helpful templates like {{fact}} tags. Unfortunately, however, I will refrain from doing that, in this particular case. -- Cirt (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• It doesn't easily fail 1c - it is thorough and representative of the critical literature, and is verifiable against appropriate sources. The only question is whether or not the low number of inline citations meets or fails to meet the "where appropriate" criteria. I don't see anything in the article that is "likely to be challenged." DionysosProteus (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Current FA standards mean that virtually everything in the article needs to be cited. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
    • • I am not aware of that requirement; will reviewers please focus here on exactly which text they believe needs citation? Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I assessed the article using Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Are you working from a different set of criteria? Where are they? DionysosProteus (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
      • You think the article would successfully gain support at WP:FAC and be promoted to WP:FA with the current standards at FAC, in the article's present state? -- Cirt (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I have no idea. The issue that you raised, however, is whether or not it fulfils the criteria. If those that I linked to are the ones in question, then the article fulfils them, as far as I can see. I assume from your response that those are the correct criteria? If the present practice is to pursue a different set of criteria, then the policy document needs to be adjusted to reflect that practice. As I understand it, the purpose of this assessment is to examine whether or not the article fulfils the FA criteria detailed in that policy. DionysosProteus (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Not sure whether or not those are rhetorical questions - as the account DionysosProteus (talk · contribs) has been active on English Wikipedia for quite some time now... Nevertheless, it is quite clear that this article would not pass WP:FAC muster at current standards. -- Cirt (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
            • No, there is nothing rhetorical about them, they are genuine questions. Either the criteria given are the ones against which this article ought to be assessed, or else we should have access to a different set of approved criteria. The criteria are there to provide an easily accessible description of the standards to which all articles are to be held, as determined by consensus. I understand that you are arguing that that consensus has changed. If that is the case, then the criteria need to be ammended. Having done that, we may then have an opportunity to assess this particular article in light of those new criteria. Whether the policy and practice are not longer in synch or not, this article's assessment is not the appropriate place to debate that. The only relevant criteria for this assessment are those given in the policy statement. I tend to confine my comments to articles that fall under my areas of expertise. I'm not sure what you are implying with your description of the length of time with which I have been involved with Wikipedia--perhaps you could state it more explicitly? DionysosProteus (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
              • The FA criteria are not the be all and end all of FA standards, rather, the standards of what is of FA quality are determined by the community at WP:FAC as informed by the FA criteria, and I highly doubt this article would pass muster at this point in time. According to its contributions, the account DionysosProteus (talk · contribs) has been editing since 2007. -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
                • Correct. And your point in making that observation is what, precisely? If, as you argue, the standards to be applied in this assessment are not those of the featured article criteria, then the Featured article review needs to state that and to give explicit guidance about what further considerations ought to be made. As far as I can see, it does not. A fair assessment may only be made according to criteria that have been agreed upon and are explicitly stated in a policy document. The subjective preferences of particular editors is not an appropriate consideration, whether they participate in WP:FAC or not. DionysosProteus (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
                  • Determination of FA quality status is based on the criteria, and the standards as informed both by the criteria and by WP:CONSENSUS at WP:FAC. Hope that clarifies it a bit. -- Cirt (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
                • If you wish to alter the critera according to which the assessment is made, then you need to seek consensus for that alteration and make the change to the policy documents mentioned above. Your assertion that other considerations are relevant remains an assertion in lieu of those changes. And the reason you mentioned how long I have been involved with Wikipedia was what, exactly? DionysosProteus (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
                  • Merely pointing out that this article would not be likely to pass WP:FAC at current standards for present WP:FA expectations. And DionysosProteus (talk · contribs) posed questions above that seemed confusing for an account active since 2007, but perhaps it has simply not yet been active at FAR and thus this may have been the cause of its protested confusion about FA standards. -- Cirt (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly short of "consistently formatted inline citations" (2c is it?) by current standards. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed it is 2C, and boy, does this fail miserably. Inline citations are indeed needed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't fail 2c at all. Close inspection of the criterion reveals that it demands consistency "where required by 1c". The citations are not in any way inconsistent. The only question concerns 1c. And the discussion above concerned the appropriate criteria for making this assessment, which are given in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Those are the only FA standards relevant in this case, as detailed in Wikipedia:Featured article review. DionysosProteus (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to continue arguing your interpretation of the FA criteria all you want, but if significant work isn't done, consensus will be vastly in favor of a stricter 1c/2c application and the delisting of this article. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no argument--the criteria are explicit and unambiguious. If you wish to alter the criteria, by all means seek a consensus for that and have it implemented. Until doing so, the appropriate criteria for this assessment remains those given in the policy, not what other editors imagine it to be. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Again: consensus here will determine that this article does not meet the current criteria. If you wish to loosen them, feel free to start a conversation on WT:FA?—but the burden is on you and the minority viewpoint. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The burden is on reviewers to demonstrate precisely what text they believe is uncited and requires citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not propose to "loosen" the current criteria. The terms in which objections have been made above are clearly applying criteria not given in the published policy. Whether other criteria are applied when assessing new featured article candidates is irrelevant to this assessment. Those that govern this assessment are unambigious and hardly subject to a "strict" or "loose" interpretation: Inline citations are necessary "where required by 1c" (a direct quotation from the criteria); claims in the article are verifiable via citations "where appropriate" (again a direct quotation), linking to Wikipedia:When to cite, which gives anything that is likely to be challenged. Those are the exact criteria that I have applied. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that this is established, can reviewers please focus on the task at hand, to minimize the length of this FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like the article still meets the requirements established at WP:FACR. Although I think a case could be made for more stringent requirements for citation formatting, I find it inappropriate to coatrack such a discussion onto a single article review. I'd strongly suggest having the debate at WT:FACR, or a similar high-visibility venue, where more editors are likely to contribute to a consensus. --RexxS (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There are uncited quotations scattered throughout the article. Please add citations to them. We can move on to other items that might need citations after that. Awadewit (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not altogether well, so perhaps people could wait for the citations, or else defeature the article. Bishonen | talk 22:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC).

Comment unless there are significantly more citations added, 5 is probably a reasonable number if this was a C (or at best a B) grade article, not an FA. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added some citation needed tags to the top of the article, where I feel they are appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the count of the number of citations is not a Featured Article criterion. 17 references are given, in addition to the 5 specific citations – the FACR is "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". For example much of the Early life and background section is supported by Downes (although the article does leave it to the reader to verify that if they chose). I have some sympathy with the argument that it would be easier for the verifier if specific page numbers were given in places, but that does not alter the quality of the article, merely the ease of verification.

Secondly, you appear to misunderstand the purpose of the lead section. It is a summary of the rest of the article and relies upon that for its verification in almost all cases. Have a look at other featured articles and you'll find a absence of citations in the lead, since the text there is actually supported by the references in the main body of the text. A simple example is your {{citation needed}} tag following "Sir John Vanbrugh ... was an English architect and dramatist". It is abundantly clear from the rest of the article that he was indeed both an architect and a dramatist (as well as English), so there really is no need for a citation there – similarly for the other valueless tags you placed. I would suggest you revert those additions as they do nothing to help improve this article. --RexxS (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

WellI accept that the "citation needed" of 'was an English architect and dramatist' may have been a little silly. But I think your description of the rest of them as valueless is slightly odd. I've been to Blenheim Palace fairly often as I live reasonably close by and I hadn't heard of any of those things. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And to take Sex Pistols which is on the front page right now, and it has a few sources in the lead, though it has another 231 inline references in the rest of the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: The lede may remain uncited IFF that exact same information is cited in the body text of the article. In this instance, that was not the case. -- Cirt (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, that's not what WP:LEADCITE says. I find this useful: "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". In an FA lead, almost all citations are likely to redundant – in fact, I usually consider citations in the lead to be an indicator that new material has been introduced that is not present (and sourced) in the article (with the exception of the definition of the subject, the only part of the lead not a summary of the rest of the article). I would recommend when adding {{cn}} tags either that use is made of the |reason parameter, or that they are made one at a time with a precise edit summary to help editors find exactly what is being challenged. In this case, a Featured Article of considerable age, it is true that much of the work of verification is left to the reader (although the 17 references given are a good starting place). It would be much more helpful to editors wishing to improve the article if the focus were on refining the sources for text in the main body of the article – I'm sure the lead would then become uncontentious. --RexxS (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed my citation needed tags from the lead so we can avoid controversy over it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Per Bishonen's request for extra time to add references, this article will be held for an extra period of time in the FARC section. Reviewers should refrain from making delist declarations until Bishonen has had a chance to work on the references. A request for a time frame on this work is awaiting reply. Dana boomer (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)