Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wesley Clark

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

Wesley Clark

Very, very old previous FAC

There were a lot of issues brought up in the old nom that are now moot. Nomination reset. Raul654 04:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support again, still seems good to me. Trebor 07:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support — engagingly written and well laid out with interesting photographsAhadland 13:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - fair use Image:Clark logo.bmp does not add substantially to article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Corrected. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note It's been replaced with a png version per request. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply What? It's an image purposefully distributed to be reused, so it's not like the fair use is contentious. Beyond that, it's a campaign sign for a campaign section. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to believe this fair use image does not add substantially to the article. I suggest you replace it with an image that shows a campaign appearance, perhaps? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can contend that but it flys in the face of basically every other featured article on Wikipedia where logos are useable fair use images to display the subject (in this case the logo of his 2004 campaign used to display his 2004 campaign). And I've sent his campaign a request for free 2004 images. Examples of fair use logos in featured articles include Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Cheers, The West Wing (TV series), Avatar: The Last Airbender, Blade Runner, and the list goes on. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That things have been done wrong in the past does not make doing them wrong again ok. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But why do you alone get to redefine what fair use is? Fair use is clearly allowed to include an image, such as a logo, that is freely distributed to represent the subject. That's exactly what this is. Heck, even Barack Obama shows his campaign sign. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. Review Wikipedia:Fair use criteria - "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." This image does not contribute significantly to the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound argumentative, but yes you are. Why does {{logo}} exist? The fair use is specifically stipulated there, "This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos to illustrate the organization, item, or event in question qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." Unless you're suggesting that every image under Category:Logos be deleted, you are arbitrarily picking this particular logo out. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not suggested deleting logos from articles about the campaigns themselves, rather from the bios of the candidates. I'm also focused on fair use in featured article candidates, which this is, not on not-featured-article candidates. Our best should be free as in speech, not free as in beer. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this is the effective article on Wesley Clark presidential campaign, 2004, but it is not broad enough to warrant it's own article (John Kerry and George Bush are the only such articles I know of). It exemplifies the section, it is used exactly as the fair use template dictates, identical images in identical situations have been used in other featured articles. Please do not try and act like this is you voting based on policy, this is your opinion, which is not an actionable complaint. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My oppose stands. Replaceable fair use should be replace. Decorative fair use should be removed. This is both. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then your objection is not actionable and I'll let Raul handle it whenever the FAC is closed. It is not replacable as there is no free way to display a campaign logo (though, just for you, the next time the woman I've been talking to emails me about photos I'll ask if WesPAC can release this particular logo image) and it is no more decorative than any other logo. So I expect you to propose, at the Village Pump most likely, that every single logo image be deleted or else this is just an arbitrary oppose. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, gee, two actions you could take would be to replace the fair use image (you did that, but apparently you MUST MUST MUST have the image in) or remove the fair use image. Are those not actions? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked User:Persian Poet Gal for an independant administrator's opinion on the issue, and I will not comment further until she has to avoid violating WP:DICK. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest if you cannot keep a level head you either remove the image, thus fully satisfying me, or withdraw the FAC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not lost a level head... I asked for independant review, the proper next step when two parties cannot reach an agreement... Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, that was easy. Image deleted due to community consensus at WP:FUC. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It would be better if this image could be uploaded in the PNG file format. Harryboyles 02:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If only for the work that has been done since it was nominated. Harryboyles 02:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ - The entire article is nothing but campaign propaganda. Staxringold even deletes, repeatedly, the usual non-partisan links (such as FEC campaign finance records) in External links. Instead we are treated to old campaign websites and someone's personal blog about Clark. Flatterworld 23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Usual such as in what featured article? Because unless I'm mistaken, trimming external links to as slim as possible is a very basic requirement for good articles. I'm not being biased, I'm trying to keep this already very long article trimmed. I'm removing the Wes Clark Democrat now, just to make it clear. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Look at the politicians included in Featured articles - Politics and government, such as FDR, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and Barack Obama. 'Slim as possible' doesn't mean taking out everything, regardless of merit. It means don't include spam and don't include material of only slight relevance. Flatterworld 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added back some of the links to keep it trimmed, but with the campaign contribution site and such to keep it fair. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Change my Oppose to a Support. Flatterworld 03:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've done some copy editing to the article and if the one citation needed tag I added to the 2004 Presidential campaign section is addressed, I would be happy to offer my support to the article gaining FA staus. It meets all criteria. Good job to those who worked on it. Regards, --Jayzel 18:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Jayzel 21:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. For the completeness, fully documented sources, and NPOV writing stance, this should be an example of where Wikipedia should go in the future. --CTwikipedier 04:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, looks good. Minor issue, though: while I appreciate the desire to use named ref tags, the situation with notes 32–37 is simply atrocious. Could you please combine those into a single note? Kirill Lokshin 19:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I'll do that now. It is quite a long line of refs when they're one by one. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I certainly learned something from that article after reading it. It's very well-written, very well-cited, neutral and stable. I don't see a reason why not to support it. JonCatalan 21:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.