Over the past month or so, I've rewritten this article – with the help of Lquilter, Kaldari, and Malik Shabazz – to bring it up to FA status. It has since received a set of peer reviews, and I believe it's now in FA territory. – Scartol • Tok 21:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Just a few minor comments/suggestions, really. Didn't spot much:
First para of "McKinley assassination", "July of 1901" – I think the "of" is frowned on by MOS;
"US$" repetition throughout. Again, minor MOS thing, should only be US$ on first occurrence, then just $
Curious on the Notes & References – citation#1 has full publication details, while most of them use Harvard style with the full details in References. There are a few like that.
If the source is referenced only once, the details are in the "Notes" section; others are pointers to the books in the "References" list.
No publisher detail on Havel's work? I realise it's pre-ISBN, but publication detail?
Done I've removed this pending more information; it's not referenced by the article, so it's not essential.
That's it. Carre (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, forgot - the 90% font size in the blockquotes: normal? Allowed in MOS? I don't know, but raising the question. Carre (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I did this because the blockquote in "Most and Berkman" is right beside an image on the left side (thus not indented on the left), and it wasn't clear that it was a quote. I did the others as 90% for consistency. MOS doesn't say anything one way or another.
Thanks for your careful attention to detail! – Scartol • Tok 17:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I take it then that you don't feel this is one of the special cases which the MOS allows for? How would you suggest we set apart this blockquote? – Scartol • Tok 17:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I've rearranged the images (and removed the Most pic) to avoid placing a left-aligned image beside a blockquote. The blockquotes are all at 100% now. Sorry for the confusion; I should have figured this out earlier. (Live and learn, I suppose.) – Scartol • Tok 18:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh wow, it's at FAC already? Well, support. I gave it a pretty thorough look at PR and it was quite good in my opinion. I do have a thought though: the bit about Petrushka reads almost as if there was (in our modern sensibility) some sexual abuse involved. To me the mention of Petrushka doesn't really seem to have major significance in Goldman's life. That really jumped out as peculiar during my second reading. --JayHenry (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I included it in light of Goldman's views on free love and sexuality generally, and she discussed it as being a moment of happiness in the midst of a relatively unhappy childhood. No abuse involved. – Scartol • Tok 13:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment, I'm a little worried about not having the intro referenced. grenグレン 21:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Are there specific points you feel are in need of a citation? Given the relative uncontroversial nature of the info in the lead (a simple rundown of the generally agreed-upon major points of her life), we didn't consider them necessary. If there are particular spots where you feel citations are needed in the lead, I'll be happy to add them. – Scartol • Tok 22:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
No... which is why I didn't oppose. But, since we are Wikipedia and not a scholar I thought standard practice was to not leave anything uncited because we aren't considered to be trustworthy. I assume most everything will be cited in the body, but, why make them wait to get the citation. Another thing is that it guards from vandalism added to the introduction since something added without citing new sources can easily be removed whereas now it is harder to justify its removal. grenグレン 00:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
A lead cluttered with citations looks a little unpleasant and intimidating (and since the lead races through topics to give a summary you'd want one for every sentence if you were going to give them with the same depth as you do in the body), and I've always thought of the body of the article as being the reference for the lead; so long as I know that's standard practice, or at least was when I was more active. --RobthTalk 04:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is my experience as well. My three previous FAs (Balzac, Achebe, and Tubman) all have uncited leads. As for deterring vandalism, I believe the only thing which truly does so is protection of the page. =) Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 13:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:LEAD, the lead "should be carefully sourced as appropriate". I have usually taken this mean that, per WP:V, any controversial or statements that might be challenged need to be sourced (such as X person was the first to do something). Nothing in the lead of Emma Goldman seems to me to require this kind of citation. I agree with the previous editors that we don't want to clutter the lead with citations - restricting ourselves to statements that really must be cited is the trend I have seen developing. Awadewit | talk 18:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Support, with some feedback. This is generally excellent, and quite neutral, especially given that it's a biography of someone who incites such strong opinion on either side. A few comments:
I had a bit of trouble following the chronology, particularly in the lead; dates here, ages, there, amounts of time with no dates given. I can see the stylistic reasons for it, which is why I didn't change it around myself, but I'd like to see it made easier to follow.
One statement that struck me as a bit oddly phrased, at least, was the statement that Goldman was sent to the workhouse, "where she was warmly received by the inmates." I don't have the source, so I don't know what information this is summarizing, but it's a strange thing to put in; ordinarily when someone goes to prison you don't mention what the other inmates thought of them, so an explanation of how she was well received might go well here.
That's all I got for now. Good work. --RobthTalk 04:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. While writing I am always nervous about drifting into WP:Proseline, so I suppose I've veered over into the other lane. I'll try to clarify. Because the source only says she received a "flood of support", I've altered the wording of the prison sentence to: …she spent two weeks in a prison workhouse, which she saw as an "opportunity" to reconnect with those rejected by society. Thanks again. – Scartol • Tok 13:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Support This is a carefully researched, well-written, comprehensive, and engaging article. I have peer-reviewed this article, and all my concerns have been addressed there. Wonderful work, all! Awadewit | talk 05:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.