Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2014
- 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC) [1].
Ramones (album)[edit]
I am renominating the Ramones (album) because I have put a substantial amount of work into it since the last FAC, as well as since it was a start class article (see difference). I believe it now meets all the criteria, as I've added more information and done some major copyediting. I recently rewrote the lead, which happened to be a major issue in the previous FAC. Anyways, please feel free to comment or ask any questions! CrowzRSA 21:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- The paragraph under the quote in "Touring" needs a source. I'll probably return here for a full review soon when I get the time. Have you fixed all issues brought up in the last FAC? FunkMonk (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Added reference. And yeah everything has been fixed except the fact that File:Ramones Toronto 1976.jpg still does not have an OTRS tag, as requested by User:Fasach Nua. The files uploader, Plismo at WikiMedia, has been off wiki since July 2011. CrowzRSA 21:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- There are multiple overlink problems, the background section alone has the band linked twice.
- I saw a few things, like engineer and Midtown Manhattan, but I didn't see the Ramones overlinked. The Professional ratings Box, Track listing, Personnel, and Release history sections all relink several things, but that is typical in albums (i.e Thriller (Michael Jackson album), Christ Illusion, etc.) CrowzRSA 16:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comments
The article seems inconsistent on whether the band is to be called "Ramones" or "The Ramones". Looking at a similar example, Talking Heads' Remain in Light, the definite article seems to be dropped when the band's name doesn't include it. I don't really mind either way which this article uses (I'd defer to what the majority of sources go with) but it should be internally consistent.
- Doing...
- Fixed. I used "the Ramones" because it fits the context much better and is typically used more often than just "Ramones". The band is, in fact, just Ramones, but since each of the band members go by the last name of Ramone, the group is generally called the Ramones, with a lower case "t" in "the." I think it reads better now though. CrowzRSA 05:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
At a glance, there's a lot of unnecessary linking that tends to detract from the more useful links—I don't think we need record producer, sound recording and reproduction, recording contract, etc, being linked, especially so close to one another.
- Fixed. Removed several links (view edit)
Spotted a "recognisable" in there; the album has strong ties to the US so the "-ize" spelling is the one to use. The only other one I spotted was "comprised", which, while spelt right (I'm pretty sure it's -ise worldwide) is being used incorrectly (should be "composed of" or "comprises"; User:Giraffedata/comprised of is worth a glance).
- Fixed.
"Rombes described the structure of the piece as "both line in a song and song line across a line in a song."". I'm not really sure I understand what this is trying to say; perhaps it's worth paraphrasing instead for clarity?
- Fixed. I just removed it since I can't make much sense of it either and it does not seem to be contributing anything significant.
The first sentence of "Reception" seems to indicate contemporary reception ("and was well received") but is immediately followed up with a modern review from AllMusic. The Rolling Stone review is from the time of release, and is from a bigger name to boot, so lead in with that one; if possible, it might be best to try ordering the reviews roughly chronologically so as not to confuse retrospective criticism with contemporary material.
I think the box quote from Christgau could be trimmed a little, at 80+ words it's a little long for a snippet. My suggestion would be to replace "You couldn't say they condone any nasties, natch—they merely suggest that the power of their music has some fairly ominous sources and tap those sources even as they offer the suggestion" with an ellipses, though you might prefer to cut something else.
- Fixed.
Again with the quote box, I know that having images parallel to one another, sandwiching text, is to be avoided and my assumption is that this applies to all floating elements too—given that the review box makes more sense up at the top of the section, I'd move the quote down a paragraph. It would still fit as it comes after Cristgau is mentioned in running prose.
- Fixed.
- "
In 1999, Classic Albums by Collins GEM recognized Ramones as the start of English punk rock". This might be worth moving down to the section that expands upon this influence, as it seems a little confusing here; upon reading it I had to double check why England would be the focus and found that it was discussed later in the article, an unexpanded-upon statement like that would generally be better after the point is discussed, or during. I make sense to myself, anyway, if not to anyone else.
- Fixed.
The rowspans in the custom track list tables being used will cause some problems with screenreaders, which goes against WP:ACCESS. The usual {{Track listing}} template should offer everything that you're getting from the current tables (there are options for extra fields so you can fit the backing vocals and refs in there), while having the benefit of being screenreader accessible. I would also manually remove the rowspans from the release history table for the same reason; repeating the cells for each row is no real loss given the gain for visually impaired readers.
- Fixed.
Remove "Rovi" from the AllMusic refs; the sites have split again and "Rovi" appears not to be a thing any more.
- Fixed.
- GRAPPLE X 03:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
-
- I'm happy with these changes; just giving it another wee comb through for any prose issues but that's all I have left to do and I'll fix anything I see myself; after that I'm satisfied. GRAPPLE X 06:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Noticed one more thing combing through it—"...usually opening for an identified cover band". If they're identified, name them; unless this was meant to be "unidentified". GRAPPLE X 06:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
-
- I think this is a fantastic article. Maybe I'm overstepping my bounds, but I figured I'd do a quick review to input my opinion (From Wikipedia's featured article guidelines):
- 1.It is-
- a). Well written: ✔ Your prose is definitely engaging and interesting.
- b). Comprehensive: Only comment I have here is you could maybe say more regarding the cover of Let's Dance towards the bottom of "Lyrics and Comprehension" and I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend in the same section. With all of the information about each of the other songs, not having the same information about these two songs kind of stick out to me.
- c). Well researched: ✔ I think this is the high point, even with all the other great things about this article
- d). Neutral: For the most part, I think this is good, because with such a significant album, you're going to have a lot of overwhelmingly positive viewpoints, but nevertheless, I think having a negative review under Reception might be a good way to make it come across as being unbiased.
- e). Stable: ✔ Speaks for itself
- 2. Follows Style guidelines: ✔ Don't see any errors, somebody with more experience might, but it looks good to me
- 3. Media: ✔ Great usage of the media that is present
- 4. Length: ✔ Longer article, but needs to be given the historical significance
- 1.It is-
- All in all, it looks absolutely fantastic to me! Great work Baltergeist (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose, sadly. Despite the nominator's claim otherwise, several of my (and others') criticisms from the first FAC remain unresolved. I found these problems with the article just from a quick readthru:
- Reception: this section is highly confusing and needs to be completely rewritten.
- First of all, it doesn't clearly distinguish between contemporary reviews (from the 70s) with retrospectives. These shouldn't even be in the same section.
- For eg: AllMusic, which features twice, comes just after a 1976 Rolling Stone review. There's also an uncited and undated Time review.
- Contradictions abound: "released on April 23, 1976 through Sire Records and was well received by critics" but "early reviews of the album are hard to come by" and "many early critics giving somewhat negative reviews". What?
- This reflects in the lead too, where retrospective adulation from the 1990s/2000s is used to prove that the album was released to acclaim in 1976: "Ramones was very well received by critics. It was rewarded numerous five-star reviews, with many writers commenting on the album's establishment of the punk-rock genre"
- That review box also only makes matters worse, presenting the above-mentioned negative RS review as "favorable". Again, retrospectives and contemporary reviews are mixed up.
- Poor sourcing: one review is from Envato, a "privately held company that specializes in the start-up, promotion and operation of multiple online marketplaces which facilitate the exchange of digital goods". Also, blurbs from a Sire Records flyer have been used as reviews here. I also see Amazon. These issues mean that all the sources must be looked at carefully.
- All those book sources: have you seen the entire books or are you relying on Google Books excerpts?
- Prose: needs a thorough copyedit. I started one a few weeks back, but had to stop, defeated, at "The recording process was a deliberate exaggeration of the techniques used on the recording sessions of the Beatles from the early 1960s, with a four-track recording representation of the devices. ... The mixing of the recordings also used more modern techniques such as overdubbing, a technique used by recording studios to add a supplementary recorded sound to previously recorded material."
Fixed
- Excessive detail on tangential topics: the article often goes into too much detail about individual songs, many of which have their own articles. Examples of this include the Singles sub-section, which lists out commercials on which "Blitzkrieg Bop" featured. Also, the pointless "Cover versions and tributes" section which, by the way, also prevents the article from ending with a great line (from the Classic Albums book).
- I concur on the singles subject, I removed the commercial info. But why do you think the "Cover versions and tributes" is pointless? It explains how so many different bands have found these songs so intriguing that they covered them. Are you suggesting that this article neglect the fact that these songs have been covered by so many different bands? That goes against criteria 1b. CrowzRSA 01:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Lyrics and compositions: probably needs a rewrite. This section should be about the overall musical and lyrical themes on the record, not the music and lyrics of every song listed sequentially. That I can find at the songs' articles.
- The song's articles need additional verification and the section is entitled "Lyrics and compositions", not "Musical style". And why would I not give the lyrical meanings in this article? Is this not what the majority of people want to know? The lyrics portray different themes, and each song's concept can be verified with reliable sources, so why wouldn't it be put into the article about an album containing these songs? It's not like this section only talks about the lyrics. CrowzRSA 01:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Reference formatting: needs to be made consistent. Why do cites without a link have "retrieved on"?
- Release history: another unnecessary section. Why would the general reader need to know about so many release dates and catalogue numbers?
This is just a smattering of the problems with this article, which seem to run very deep indeed.—indopug (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- unlink the dollar in the lead and other sections of the prose per WP:OVERLINK
- Done
- "the instruments took three days and the vocals four"; this should be modified somehow, let's say "the vocal parts were recorded in four days" or something else; in this state, it sounds slightly confusing and there's a big chance it could be misinterpreted
- Fixed
- "initially had mixed review" is it "reviews", because this implies that the record had received one review which was mixed
- Fixed
- Robert Christgau gave the album an "A"→avoid stating grades already visible in the table; "and continued with a positive review"→were there some negative aspects in his review? If so, write what Christgau criticized. If not, omit "continued".
- Fixed
- link punk rock in the opening sentence of "Legacy and influence"
- Done
- must say the tables are quite original (a comment aside from the review)
- Yeah I originally had the Track listing section in table form but removed it per WP:ACCESS.
Generally speaking, pretty solid article. This definitely has my support.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support: 4 —User:Grapple X, User:Baltergeist, User:Вик Ретлхед, User:Seabuckthorn
- Oppose: 2 —User:Indopug, User:Tezero
CrowzRSA, the article is fantastic! I SUPPORT it unconditionally.
WP:LEAD: The lead can be improved in order to Provide an accessible overview and to give Relative emphasis.
- Major Point 1: Background "After Craig Leon agreed to produce the album, the band recorded a demo for prospective record labels. After much encouragement, Sire president Seymour Stein offered the band a recording contract" (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body, first para involving Lisa Robinson should be summarized.)
- Major Point 2: Recording and production "and the Ramones began recording in February 1976." & "Needing only seven days and $6,400 to record, Ramones used similar sound-output techniques to those of the Beatles." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
- Major Point 3: Photography and packaging "The album cover, photographed by Punk magazine's Roberta Bayley, featured the four members leaning against a brick wall in north-side New York City." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
- Major Point 4: Promotion "After its release, Ramones was promoted with two singles and several tour dates." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
- Major Point 4.1: Singles "… two singles …" (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
- Major Point 4.2: Touring "… several tour dates." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
- Major Point 5: Lyrics and compositions "Lyrical themes center around violence, male prostitution, drug use, and Nazism, but the albums also incorporates relationship issues and humor into lyrics. It opens with "Blitzkrieg Bop," which is among the band's most recognizable songs. Most of the album's tracks are noticeably uptempo, with many songs clocking at well over 160 beats per minute. The songs are also rather short; at two-and-a-half minutes, "I Don't Wanna Go Down to the Basement" is the album's longest track. Ramones also contains a cover of the Chris Montez song "Let's Dance."" (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body, the individual themes of these tracks can be highlighted, also I could not find the "which is among the band's most recognizable songs" in the body, although I can guess from the statement "three-chord assault" and the Cover versions and tributes section.)
- I think that if the lead were expanded to include each of the song's lyrical themes, it would no longer conform with WP:LEADLENGTH. CrowzRSA 19:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Major Point 6: Reception "Despite peaking at number 111 on the US Billboard 200, Ramones was deemed influential by many critics; however, initial reviews for the album tended to be neutral." (summarised well in the lead)
- Major Point 6.1: Accolades "The album has received many accolades as well, earning the top spot on Spin magazine's list of the "50 Most Essential Punk Records."" (summarised well in the lead)
- Major Point 7: Legacy and influence "Ramones went on to inspire many bands like the Sex Pistols, the Buzzcocks, the Clash, and Green Day. Aside from sparking the punk-rock scene in both the US and UK, it has had a significant impact on other branches of rock music, such as grunge and heavy metal." (summarised well in the lead)
Other issues:
- The lead says "After much encouragement, Sire president …", the Background section says "After persuasion from …", the lead can be closer in meaning, I think.
- I think the statement "Needing only seven days and $6,400 to record, Ramones used similar sound-output techniques to those of the Beatles" should be broken into two "Needing only seven days and $6,400 to record" and "Ramones used similar sound-output techniques to those of the Beatles". How is speed and expenditure related to techniques of the Beatles?
- "Despite peaking at number 111 on the US Billboard 200 … . The album has received many accolades as well, earning the top spot on Spin magazine's list of the "50 Most Essential Punk Records." Both sides of as well are rankings, so how is this transition relevant?
- "Aside from sparking the punk-rock scene in both the US and UK, it has had a significant impact on other branches of rock music, such as grunge and heavy metal." I could not find the fact that it sparked only in these two countries. Also, I believe that this sentence can be more effectively paraphrased. I’m not sure there is a link between the two clauses, the punk rock is mentioned in examples of genres impacted in the Legacy and influence as are grunge and heavy metal.
- It gives examples of bands which were either involved in US or UK punk rock
- "Regardless of this critical acclaim, Ramones was not as successful commercially." Compared to what? I think as is redundant or may be sentence can be more clear.
- I think the Heading 3 Accolades can be removed and merged with the Heading 2 Reception to improve the flow of the prose.
- I’d prefer mixed here "initial reviews for the album tended to be neutral" in the lead.
- Do you think the "unsuccessful commercially" needs a mention in the lead?
Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. CrowzRSA, it's my first review at FAC, so please feel free to strike out any recommendation which you think will not help in improving the article. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 17:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Note -- Indopug and Tezero, can you pls revisit in light of changes since your comments and let us know how the article appears to you now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ian, my initial review pointed out issues that couldn't possibly have been fixed during the course of an FAC. Further, the nominator has not even attempted to address several of these significant problems—lack of focus (excess details on individual songs rather than the overall album), comprehensiveness (not a word on Johnny Ramone's iconic rapid-fire guitar style!), poor prose (needing an independent copyeditor) and poor sourcing. Most of the 1976 reviews of the album are sourced to an advertisement, and the first sentences of Reception remain incomprehensible:
Ramones was released on April 23, 1976 through Sire Records and initially had mixed reviews. Being reviewed by few critics upon its release, many writers leaned towards a neutral rating. Music critic Adam Brown explains that early reviews of the album are hard to come by, calling initial reactions "basically, non existent." Despite some early critics giving it a somewhat negative reviews
- I haven't the time to look at the rest of the article in detail again. But I will say that given that the album is one of the greatest, there is no paucity of scholarly literature on it and the band. These need to be extensively researched (I don't think this has happened—for one, the nominator has admitted to relying on Google Books excerpts) before it can reach the standard of album FAs such as Loveless, Be Here Now or In Utero.—indopug (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Tks, I needed to see where we were at. Clearly there's no chance of this achieving consensus to promote, even after remaining open six weeks. The passage above is a good indication that a thorough copyedit is still needed, and is not an isolated example. On the briefest of scans I noticed "The mixing of the production also used more modern techniques such as overdubbing, a technique used by studios to add a supplementary recorded sound to material. The band also used a technique known as doubling, where the vocal line used is sung twice." -- seems to me that "of the production" is redundant; "techniques" is used three times in the two sentences; "also used" appears in both sentences, which each employ "used" twice on top of that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC) [3].
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl[edit]
This article is about a Supreme Court case dealing with the Indian Child Welfare Act, and is only the second case on the Act to reach SCOTUS. It had been previously submitted, but I withdrew it to get a peer review and a copy edit. I just closed the peer review, and Eric Corbett was kind enough to proofread and copy edit the article for me. Eric said that he didn't see too much wrong with the article (here), so I wanted to resubmit it for FA status. GregJackP Boomer! 17:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- I am too involved with this article to be a neutral peer reviewer, but I do support this FAC. Montanabw(talk) 04:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Comments from Hamiltonstone[edit]
Remains a good article. I really struggled with the tense shifts (and a missing word) in the first para of the lead, though i think i could see why it was constructed in the way that it is (that was a joke, sort of). It currently reads:
- ...was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that several sections of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) do not apply to Native American (Indian) biological fathers who were not custodians of an Indian child. The court held that the procedures required by the ICWA to end parental rights do not apply when the child had never lived with the father. Additionally, the requirement to make extra efforts to preserve the Indian family also not apply, nor was the preferred placement of the child in another Indian family required when no other party had formally sought to adopt the child.
I think it perhaps should read:
...was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that several sections of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) do not apply to Native American (Indian) biological fathers who are not custodians of an Indian child. The court held that the procedures required by the ICWA to end parental rights do not apply when the child has never lived with the father. Additionally, the requirement to make extra efforts to preserve the Indian family also do not apply, nor is the preferred placement of the child in another Indian family required when no other party has formally sought to adopt the child.
Other points:
"The stay was lifted in September 2013, and the child was turned over to her adoptive parents on the same day." If you are going to refer to a "same" day, then "September 2013" needs to be modified to include an actual date, otherwise it should read "same month".- "Testimony in the House Committee for Interior and Insular Affairs", I suppose "in" is OK, but would have thought "to" was more conventional.
- "...and stated that the interests of tribal stability were as important as that of the best interests of the child". If "interests" are plural, then "that" should be "those". Actually, probably better still would be "...and stated that tribal stability was as important as the best interests of the child".
In the Trial court section: It states "the "Existing Indian Family" exception was inapplicable in this case". However, the reader has not been told what this exception is, so this is rather confusing. Can the text tell us about this in an earlier section, to prepare the reader?- I think it is vital to somewhere introduce the reader to the concept of "continued custody" as it appears in the Act, before we get to the opinions.
- I'll have to think about this one some more. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Just let me know what you think. I'm not saying I won't change it, I just don't think it's a good idea to get into that area, any more than I felt that the blood quantum issue (see talk page) should be addressed. They are on opposite sides of the issue, but both are overly contentious without an up-side, IMO. GregJackP Boomer! 03:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
"and Brown has stated that he will fight the order in Oklahoma, with the aid of the Cherokee Nation." Surely, given what is stated in the para following, this should read "Brown stated that he would fight..."
Excellent work. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Addressing:
- Lead tense shifts.
- "The stay was lifted in September 2013, and the child was turned over to her adoptive parents on the same day." If you are going to refer to a "same" day, then "September 2013" needs to be modified to include an actual date, otherwise it should read "same month".
- "Testimony in the House Committee for Interior and Insular Affairs", I suppose "in" is OK, but would have thought "to" was more conventional.
- "...and stated that the interests of tribal stability were as important as that of the best interests of the child". If "interests" are plural, then "that" should be "those". Actually, probably better still would be "...and stated that tribal stability was as important as the best interests of the child".
- In the Trial court section: It states "the "Existing Indian Family" exception was inapplicable in this case". However, the reader has not been told what this exception is, so this is rather confusing. Can the text tell us about this in an earlier section, to prepare the reader?
- I think it is vital to somewhere introduce the reader to the concept of "continued custody" as it appears in the Act, before we get to the opinions.
- The entire subsection reads "No termination of parental rights may be ordered in such proceeding in the absence of a determination, supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child." There is not really a concept in the Act, this is more a case of Justice Alito finding a way to justify the removal of the child from the Indian home. Although not in the article (due to NPOV concerns), there were allegations that Chief Justice Roberts was biased as an adoptive father of two children adopted somewhat irregularly (see Adoptive father John Roberts: Not impartial in the Baby Veronica case, Birth Mother First Mother Forum blog, Aug. 13, 2013); both Roberts and Justice Thomas were adoptive parents. Those three (Roberts, Thomas, & Alito) often vote together in a block. I really don't want to get into an in-depth review of "continued custody" due to the large can of worms that it would open up in discussing it. GregJackP Boomer! 12:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- (TPSer weighing in) "Continued custody" isn't really a concept in the way I think you are thinking, Hamiltonstone; it's not "custody" as in people playing ping-pong with the child as happens in a divorce case, "Custody" has a different meaning in ICWA; read this and see if that clarifies matters. And yeah, getting into the whole "were the justices biased" thing is to open a huge can of worms. Also the fact that they clearly didn't even interpret the law correctly, in that tribal membership is a political,not a racial, determination to be made by the tribe. But it's the SCOTUS, so they are always right... sigh... Montanabw(talk) 22:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- The entire subsection reads "No termination of parental rights may be ordered in such proceeding in the absence of a determination, supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child." There is not really a concept in the Act, this is more a case of Justice Alito finding a way to justify the removal of the child from the Indian home. Although not in the article (due to NPOV concerns), there were allegations that Chief Justice Roberts was biased as an adoptive father of two children adopted somewhat irregularly (see Adoptive father John Roberts: Not impartial in the Baby Veronica case, Birth Mother First Mother Forum blog, Aug. 13, 2013); both Roberts and Justice Thomas were adoptive parents. Those three (Roberts, Thomas, & Alito) often vote together in a block. I really don't want to get into an in-depth review of "continued custody" due to the large can of worms that it would open up in discussing it. GregJackP Boomer! 12:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- "and Brown has stated that he will fight the order in Oklahoma, with the aid of the Cherokee Nation." Surely, given what is stated in the para following, this should read "Brown stated that he would fight..."
Just one quick suggestion: I think it would be a good idea to establish the time frame (a range of dates) at the beginning of the Indian Child Welfare Act subsection, rather than just saying 'Historically'. delldot ∇. 06:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. FYI, the lead editor is out of commission for a few days, so I am taking over the FAC fixes here, let me know what's still outstanding here and I will work on it; I babysat the article the last time the other editor was not available to work on it too. Montanabw(talk) 19:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment, leaning oppose: not to rain on anyone's parade, but the use of the legal profession's Bluebook style violates provisions of the MOS.
- Small caps as a case style is to be "avoided" per MOS:SMALLCAPS.
- Italics are supposed to be used "Works of art and artifice: Books ... Periodicals (newspapers, journals, and magazines)" as well as court case titles per MOS:ITALIC.
- Articles and chapters in books are supposed to be in quotation marks per WP:Manual of Style#Names and titles.
Bluebook style reverses the use of roman and italic text between the components of larger publications and those larger publications. Yet this reversal is not supported by our Manual of Style. In addition, there are a number of inconsistencies in how citations are formatted.
- Some authors are in small caps (FN 2–5) but others are not (17, 18, 23).
- At least one article from a TV station is cited using the station's call letters (FN 78) while others are using station "branding" (FN 77).
I'm neutral on the conflict on Bluebook vs. the MOS issue, but my preference would be to have the citations conform to the MOS. However, there needs to be consistency in the application of formatting in the citations, something which is currently lacking. The article cannot be promoted until that inconsistency is repaired at a minimum, and preferably until the citation style is harmonized with the MOS. Imzadi 1979 → 09:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- OK, Imzadi, is your "leaning oppose" SOLELY due to the citation issue, or do you have other concerns? If you have other concerns, can you list? In the meantime, I am going to research the question of Bluebook citation style for legal citations mixed with more standardized style for other, non-legal citations and get an outside opinion on your concerns, I know that within some of the legal wikiproject talk, Bluebook citation is quite strongly advocated, and I would hate to go through this and change everything only to have someone else come back and blast the article for NOT using Bluebook. I also don't know if there is a policy on mixed citation format, but I shall ask. I wasn't lead on this, so I'm going to seek a consensus on the issue and try not to take any position on it one way or the other (other than to grumble if I have to fix several zillion citations, but hey, I volunteered to see this FAC through, so I'll do what I gotta do...). Stay tuned and if anyone else here has advice or comments, please weigh in. I will wait to make the changes until there is a consensus from those who have taken more legal articles to FAC than I. Montanabw(talk) 03:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- In short, our MOS says that articles are supposed to in roman (aka plain) text surrounded by quotation marks and that the full publication (book, magazine, etc) is what is put in italics. However, Bluebook style says that articles are in italics and the full publication is in roman or roman small caps. Small caps are to be "avoided" per our MOS. FAs must comply with the MOS, per the criteria, but WP:Citing sources lists Bluebook as a style that "exists" but it doesn't endorse its usage, per se. We have a conflict that must be resolved before any article using Bluebook can be promoted, period. Imzadi 1979 → 04:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- OK, Imzadi, is your "leaning oppose" SOLELY due to the citation issue, or do you have other concerns? If you have other concerns, can you list? In the meantime, I am going to research the question of Bluebook citation style for legal citations mixed with more standardized style for other, non-legal citations and get an outside opinion on your concerns, I know that within some of the legal wikiproject talk, Bluebook citation is quite strongly advocated, and I would hate to go through this and change everything only to have someone else come back and blast the article for NOT using Bluebook. I also don't know if there is a policy on mixed citation format, but I shall ask. I wasn't lead on this, so I'm going to seek a consensus on the issue and try not to take any position on it one way or the other (other than to grumble if I have to fix several zillion citations, but hey, I volunteered to see this FAC through, so I'll do what I gotta do...). Stay tuned and if anyone else here has advice or comments, please weigh in. I will wait to make the changes until there is a consensus from those who have taken more legal articles to FAC than I. Montanabw(talk) 03:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that statement does not appear to be accurate. On a cursory glance, here is what I have so far. All reviewers please advise:
- From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(legal) : "Cite to legal materials (constitutions, statutes, legislative history, administrative regulations, and cases) according to the generally accepted citation style for the relevant jurisdictions." For the USA, that's Bluebook or AWLD, which is similar. Doesn't say that (for example) news sources also have to go to Bluebook. Montanabw(talk) 04:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- There are 59 FA-class articles tagged by WikiProject Law: http://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=Law&quality=FA-Class > Of these, a handful are SCOTUS decisions, and a cursory glance is as follows:
- United States v. Lara, Menominee Tribe v. United States, - SCOTUS decisions, appears to use Bluebook small caps for some citations, may be some mixed MOS. Appears to be similar to this article and passed FAC.
- United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Afroyim v. Rusk, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke -- SCOTUS decisions, do not use small caps, so not pure Bluebook style, but otherwise is consistent and proper legal citation. Also passed FAC.
So there is no clear consensus. With this data, can additional reviewers contrast to this article and suggest changes, if any?? (Preferably the solution that is the least amount of revision, if possible?) I do not agree that the conflict has to be resolved on a meta-level, as both styles have already been promoted. Montanabw(talk) 04:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Failure to recognize the issue in past FACS does not resolve the issue. The small caps point is minor. Bluebook style puts newspaper/magazine/journal articles and book chapters into italics, which our MOS says are to be put into roman text enclosed by quotation marks. Bluebook style says to put the title of the newspaper/magazine/journal/book into roman, which our MOS say is supposed to be in italics. FAs have to comply with the MOS, period.
- Now, I've been taking some college classes last semester and this one. On my bookshelf are the current editions of the APA and MLA style guides plus the current edition of The Chicago Manual of Style. For a class that specifies Chicago, I used Chicago citations for all of my papers, period. When I cited the Michigan Bar Journal in a class that used Chicago style, the title of the article on John Voelker went into roman text surrounded by quotation marks and the journal title was in italics, as Chicago says. For another class, I used MLA, and now I have a class that requires APA. In all cases, the citations conform(ed) to the style requirements of the class, not the citation style of the subject matter.
- To be an FA, an article must comply with our MOS, and the provisions of our MOS on the usage of italics and quotation marks conflict with the proper usage of Bluebook style. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a legal journal. We have an MOS here that gives specific requirements, and FAS have to comply with them. So yes, I'm leaning oppose on the basis of citation formatting issues that conflict with our MOS. Imzadi 1979 → 05:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)That's BS. You need to recheck the citation standards. WP:CITEVAR states "[A]ny consistent style may be used. . . ." In addition, your statement that no article using Bluebook can be promoted is BS, as a number of legal featured articles use the Bluebook citation style. Your objections have been previously addressed in discussions on the promotion of those articles. All three of my featured articles use Bluebook referencing, and two have been featured on the main page. In addition, Wehwalt (who has more FAs than any other editor) did not find it to be a problem, nor did Eric Corbett (one of the best at copy-editing FAs) find it to be a problem.
- Our MOS does not require the use of a "house" style, does not require roman text for articles, nor italics for publications. All of the so-called standards you are speaking of are not in the MOS, nor are they in WP:Citing sources. Instead, it states "typically" when addressing how to "cite", which means that there are other ways to appropriately cite for articles.
- Consensus also does not support your position. The issues you address were recently brought up and failed at WT:Citing sources and at several other locations. Smallcaps are to be "avoided" but are not prohibited, and are required by the citation style being used. This is not a valid objection to promotion. GregJackP Boomer! 05:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Addressing:
- Small caps as a case style is to be "avoided" per MOS:SMALLCAPS.
- Italics are supposed to be used "Works of art and artifice: Books ... Periodicals (newspapers, journals, and magazines)" as well as court case titles per MOS:ITALIC.
- Articles and chapters in books are supposed to be in quotation marks per WP:Manual of Style#Names and titles.
Bluebook style reverses the use of roman and italic text between the components of larger publications and those larger publications. Yet this reversal is not supported by our Manual of Style. In addition, there are a number of inconsistencies in how citations are formatted.
- Some authors are in small caps (FN 2–5) but others are not (17, 18, 23).
- Correct. The authors are correctly formatted according to the Bluebook citation style. For example, in FN 4 & 5, the authors wrote a book, therefore they are in smallcaps. Authors of a webpage (FN 17), a newspaper article (FN 18), and a law journal article (FN 23) are properly formatted in normal text. GregJackP Boomer! 05:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- At least one article from a TV station is cited using the station's call letters (FN 78) while others are using station "branding" (FN 77).
I'm neutral on the conflict on Bluebook vs. the MOS issue, but my preference would be to have the citations conform to the MOS. However, there needs to be consistency in the application of formatting in the citations, something which is currently lacking. The article cannot be promoted until that inconsistency is repaired at a minimum, and preferably until the citation style is harmonized with the MOS.
- My two cents: I don't like Bluebook, and I wish we had a house style for referencing all WP articles. But we don't have one: MOS provides guidance, but I'm with GregJack that it does not mandate certain styles to the exclusion of others. The most important things are that referencing is comprehensive, and internally consistent. It appears to me that the referencing here meets those key requirements. I do have a concern that the MOSSMALLCAPS advice appears to conflict with the advice elsewhere that Bluebook is a referencing style people might choose to use; I think the problem arises not because Bluebook should be avoided, but because that advice was aimed at other issues, and Bluebook superficially is caught up by its injunction. In this case, I think it might help if the text at SMALLCAPS was tweaked for clarification. I would not let the referencing of this article be a factor in its FAC consideration. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- My view is that consistent style matters, and given Wehwalt did sign off on this, I tend to respect his views on the matter. But because it IS hard to find the original citation, we may want to also try to add more links to the citations that are pinpoint cites, so that non-attorneys can more easily find the material. I also have some concerns about the periodical citations also benefitting from wikilinking to URLs more than they do. I do think Imzadi's insistence that adherence to the purest form of the MOS is mandated is an exaggeration (as even the MOS has multiple acceptable citation formats, harv, sfn, etc...) and that there is room for some variation. Personally, I hate smallcaps, but it's not something I'd derail the FAC over, but I do think WP Law should address this issue, as ALWD manual and others have some variations. Montanabw(talk) 03:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- My thoughts (and COI): Greg, maybe we could avoid simply saying "that's BS"? It doesn't exactly put the reader in a happy and accepting frame of mind when approaching the rest of the comment ;p. COI: I believe I provided a GA review for this article a few months ago.
- So, on referencing: as Greg notes (however he chooses to note it), we don't have a single consistent style; much like the AmEng v BrEng v CaEng v InEng v...so on, debate, the standard is pretty much "as long as it's consistent within the article, leave it be". This is, of course, a rule designed to avoid precisely the situation we're now in, where people are spending hours of their time on an argument over italics in reference tags. My personal preference is away from Blue Book, which I find to be of limited readability (I much prefer OSCOLA), but my personal preference is irrelevant, as are those of Imzadi or Hamiltonstone or Montana, insofar as we didn't write the article. Blue Book is acceptable under the MOS, and the criteria for FA are "follow the MOS". This article meets that standard. Ironholds (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, Bluebook doesn't follow the MOS. The MOS specifies roman text surrounded by quotation marks for article titles and italics for the encompassing work. I will not retract my oppose unless the article meets the requirements of the MOS. The delegates are free to weigh it accordingly. Imzadi 1979 → 20:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- I will point out to the delegates that "typically" (which is the language used in the MOS) does not convey a requirement, much less "specifies" as Imzadi1979 claims. This boils down to a case of Imzadi doesn't like it, which is not a ground for denying promotion. GregJackP Boomer! 21:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Imzadi1979: this seems to be going over old ground yet again. Let's just make this simple: if you cannot show that the MOS requires these elements - not suggests, not considers it used by 51 percent of Wikipedia, or even 80 percent of wikipedia, requires - can you please withdraw your objection? Otherwise you're holding the article to the standard of "it must meet every potentially-contradictory requirement of every potential commenter", which, last time I checked, was not in the reviewing guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- I will point out to the delegates that "typically" (which is the language used in the MOS) does not convey a requirement, much less "specifies" as Imzadi1979 claims. This boils down to a case of Imzadi doesn't like it, which is not a ground for denying promotion. GregJackP Boomer! 21:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, Bluebook doesn't follow the MOS. The MOS specifies roman text surrounded by quotation marks for article titles and italics for the encompassing work. I will not retract my oppose unless the article meets the requirements of the MOS. The delegates are free to weigh it accordingly. Imzadi 1979 → 20:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- So, on referencing: as Greg notes (however he chooses to note it), we don't have a single consistent style; much like the AmEng v BrEng v CaEng v InEng v...so on, debate, the standard is pretty much "as long as it's consistent within the article, leave it be". This is, of course, a rule designed to avoid precisely the situation we're now in, where people are spending hours of their time on an argument over italics in reference tags. My personal preference is away from Blue Book, which I find to be of limited readability (I much prefer OSCOLA), but my personal preference is irrelevant, as are those of Imzadi or Hamiltonstone or Montana, insofar as we didn't write the article. Blue Book is acceptable under the MOS, and the criteria for FA are "follow the MOS". This article meets that standard. Ironholds (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Image check[edit]
- File:010 alito.jpg: The
{{Usc}}template is missing a parameter and misdisplaying - All other files look properly tagged & sourced—most are from US government sources and thus in the public domain
———Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Replaced Alito photo with another from Commons (File:Justice Alito official.jpg: since I don't have a clue how to fix the
{{Usc}}template. The new file is tagged and sourced as US Government photo. GregJackP Boomer! 17:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Replaced Alito photo with another from Commons (File:Justice Alito official.jpg: since I don't have a clue how to fix the
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Note -- Regardless of the merits of the concern raised over citation formatting (and I lean towards Ironholds' position of consistency within a given article being more important than a particular style), there isn't sufficient commentary here to establish a clear consensus to promote, nor has there been any activity since the beginning of the month, so I'll be archiving the nom shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
