The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3talk 00:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment: November 19th will be the 128th anniversary of his death. Image pending.
5x expanded by Gulbenk (talk). Self nominated at 23:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC).
Some problems here, I think. 2b: This article did have a 5x expansion, although as best as I can tell, that was after the nomination was made. I'm not sure what usual procedure is here, but I'm personally inclined to be fine with the length/newness requirements. However... 3b: There's no citation for the claim that Foster was a polymath. D3: Many of the references have a starting page and an en dash, but no ending page, making it somewhat challenging to confirm sourcing. MoS: The presentation of quoted text in italics instead of quotation marks isn't standard practice, and there's an awful lot of quoted text. I spot-checked some of the citations for close paraphrasing; "When the city of Eastman was incorporated in 1872, Foster served as its first mayor." / "In 1872 the town of Eastman was incorporated, with Gen. Ira R. Foster as mayor..." might be okay in general, but given just how much text is directly quoted already, I'm a little nervous about this level of similarity in an unquoted passage. I also don't think the images are licensed correctly; they're both tagged as Creative Commons Attribution 3.0, but since Foster died in 1885, we're well past creation + 120 years for public domain (unless first published 1978–2002 inclusive); in any case, there are no sources provided. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for undertaking this review. The polymath wording can certainly be amended. He was not called that in his day, and there is very little written about him (one way or the other) in modern accounts. The term is more of a self-evident observation, and can easily be deleted. The referencing issue originates with our Wikipedia referencing tool. The display can be easily amended, since the vast majority of the quotes come from the page cited, but occasionally continue onto the following page. Nearly nothing beyond that. When the same reference (book) is cited, with a different page number, I have listed that as a separate reference. There is, no doubt, some was to consolidate the two (or three) but I don't know the proper protocol. As for the Eastman, Georgia paraphrasing...I'm not sure there is much one can do with that particular short sentence. One must include (1) Eastman (2) first Mayor (3) Foster, and (4) 1872 in any sentence that is constructed. The substantial number (and length) of quotes in the article, and the way that they are presented is troubling to me, as well. I have recently spoken with others about ways to improve the presentation, without losing the great quirkiness of expression and passion that is so evident in these historic quotes. That, I believe, is just a matter of finding the proper style, since they are otherwise truthfully quoted and referenced in all respects. And those photos...they came directly from Iris Smale, Foster's great-granddaughter, who has the originals on display in her home. She edits here, but has never uploaded images. I explained the copyright issues to her, and she was perfectly fine in giving unrestricted rights away. I suggested that she be credited as originator, since she did take the digitals. No doubt, I got the Attribution wrong. I normally don't post other people's photos for them. The photos are well over 120 years old, and have never been published. Mrs. Smale was happy to give up her rights, in return for a wider recognition of Foster's works. If we need to amend, or re-submit the images (for proper Attribution), that can certainly be done. Gulbenk (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted "polymath". Corrected open-ended numbers in references. Conformed quotes to MOS. Iris Smale is listed as the source of the images (on WikiCommons file)Gulbenk (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
DYK requires that any claims made in the hook be specifically referenced in the article text, so we'll need an alternative hook that doesn't refer to Foster as a polymath (since there's no reference calling him that). The article changes clean up most of my other policy concerns, although I'm not sure we need quite as big an excerpt as we have in that blue box (and, at least in Firefox, that box is breaking the article's structure's formatting). As for the pictures, if they were never actually published (or, at least, never published before 2002, they're old enough to be public domain now (creation + 120 years), and can have the licensing templates changed to reflect that (noting something like "unpublished photo from the collection of Iris Smale" for the source and commenting that any photo of a subject who died in 1885 will be at creation + 120 years at this point). Do you have an alternative hook you'd like to suggest? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I have three (alternative) hooks to offer for your consideration.
(ALT1)... that Ira Roe Foster was a teacher, doctor, lawyer, brigadier general, and businessman; served as Quartermaster General of Georgia and was elected to two state Legislatures?
(ALT3)... that Quartermaster General Ira Roe Foster was the target of a "malicious falsehood", alleging that he sold socks donated to Confederate soldiers?
If possible, I would also like to add an image from the article to the DYK nomination. Gulbenk (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the display concerns: (assuming that length alone isn't the problem) I could try deleting the color, or converting from the quotebox to blockquote. But, since I don't use FireFox, I have no way of seeing/testing the result.Gulbenk (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I like ALT2 or ALT3. Both have a sense of the unusual to a modern reader, and that's always good for DYK. Plus, as required, they're directly sourced in the article. That said, that box is a problem, both both length and format reasons. I think the way its positioning and width are described are what's breaking the formatting. There are a couple standardized forms of quote boxes that tend to avoid these problems. But, as I said, length is a problem here. Can you summarize events instead of just relying on panel-sized quotations? Ideally, Wikipedia articles quote (especially long quotes) only where necessary, describing events in the encyclopedia's voice based on the sources, rather than just repeating them directly. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Squeamish Ossifrage, while I was away from my computer, I was able to access the article using FireFox 22.0, to see the display issues you reported. I -may- have corrected the problem with a width/alignment adjustment. Other measures (like blockquote) can also be tried. I would like to try, if at all possible, to preserve the quote, for its use of achaic language ("lunatic asylum", etc.), history (Brown, Foster, Gen. Wayne, the cadets at Marietta & Milledgeville), and imagery (Gov. Brown lining up prisoners to give them a patriotic speech in the midst of bedlam and chaos). A summation can convey the information, certainly, but it would be most difficult to capture the sense of the moment. Please let me know if these adjustments have addressed your concerns. Cheers. Gulbenk (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Quote has been reduced. Please review and advise. Gulbenk (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I think this is probably good to go with ALT 2 at this point, although if a third party wants to give this an eyeball to make sure the blockquotes wouldn't be considered excessive, that might not hurt. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Squeamish Ossifrage for your review. Is it possible to include the Brigadier General image in the nomination at this late hour? Gulbenk (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll need to punt that question to folks more familiar with the DYK system's process minutiae, I'm afraid. If so, the licensing templates will almost certainly need updated first to show that these were previously unpublished photos now in the public domain (creation +120 years). One of the local image experts ought to be able to be more helpful in both regards than I would be! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
ok everything checks out and I corrected the license on the image. Also, the blockquotes are appropriate imo and they look fine on my computer (Chrome/Win7/1900x1080px). Thingg⊕⊗ 00:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)