Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ayn Rand/archive2

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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 February 2023 [1].

Ayn Rand

Nominator(s): RL0919 (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a few years since my last FAC, so I decided to return with a bang. This is a level-4 vital article about one of the most controversial authors of the 20th century. Rand wrote Broadway plays, Hollywood screenplays, and bestselling novels, but she is most commonly discussed today because of the ideas she championed in her later novels and nonfiction essays. She is sometimes considered a key figure in "libertarianism" or "neoliberalism" – labels she rejected or never heard of (respectively). This longtime GA article has been updated with recent scholarship about her background, impact, and academic reception, to make it ready for FAC feedback. RL0919 (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde

I'd quite like to review this in depth, but I'm not sure I'll have the time: I'm scrambling in RL. So I'm leaving two drive-by comments, in the hope that I will revisit this later. First, I was pleasantly surprised by the extent to which scholarly work is represented in the source material; for such a contentious figure, I would have assumed that media sources would have crept in over time. On a quick read through, however, I get the impression that in many places the text mentions the existence of reviews or critique rather than summarizing their substance. I'm also a little hesitant about the structure, in particular the distribution of critical material across five sub-sections. Thanks for bringing an article this important to FAC! Vanamonde (Talk) 21:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest, Vanamonde. Any actionable feedback to improve the article is welcomed, even if you aren't able to provide a full review. --RL0919 (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vanamonde. I note that you are under pressure, but I just wanted to let you know that I shall be timing out this nomination in the next day or two if there is no movement towards a consensus to promote. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Afraid I can't give this the sort of sustained attention it deserves for at least another week. If this stays open beyond that I can try to review; if not, and it's taken to peer review, I can try to engage there. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Ayn_Rand_signature_1949.svg: source link is dead
File:Aristotle_Altemps_Inv8575.jpg needs a tag for the original work
File:Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick review, Nikkimaria. I made the following changes:

For the signature, archive link added.
For the photo of the Aristotle bust, added "PD-art-70-3d" license tag.
For the photo of the Kant painting, changed license tag to "PD-art-old-100-expired", which includes US status.

Let me know if you spot anything further that is needed. --RL0919 (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a general support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is now more than four weeks in with no sign of a consensus to promote. I will nudge those who have expressed an interest, but the nomination is liable to time out very soon. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, after five weeks there is no further movement and so I am reluctantly going to archive this nomination. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

Recusing coord duties, I've been meaning to put a placeholder here but had a few other things on the plate. I'm quite familiar with Rand's works but will try to remain severely objective (if not Objectivist)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian. I note that you are under pressure, but I just wanted to let you know that I shall be timing out this nomination in the next day or two if there is no movement towards a consensus to promote. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure? Moi...?! Actually I've already read through once, just need another pass for tweaks and comments... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although my comments might be academic as far as this nom goes, given the lack of other reviews, I've completed a light copyedit, and have the following queries/suggestions...

Lead

There shouldn't be a need to cite so much material in the lead. Quotes and info not cited in the main body are valid exceptions but I see none of the former and I wouldn't have thought there should be any of the latter.

Another exception is controversial points that have actually been challenged, which is probably the reason for every one of those footnotes. That said, in some cases those challenges may have happened over a decade ago and/or relate to wording that was subsequently changed for other reasons. I cut the citations for some points that have not been challenged recently, but left them for some of the points that are more commonly disputed.

Hmm, I sympathise with your point of view, it's difficult to maintain the page of a polarising figure, but I'd still be inclined to remove citations from the lead if something is clearly cited in the main body. If somebody throws a fact tag on anything in the lead that's cited in the main body, it's appropriate to revert with an edit summary pointing this out. That said, I doubt I'd oppose just on this point. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who writes a lot of contentious material, I actually think this isn't a problem at all. I make about an edit a week reverting someone who has removed lead content claiming it wasn't cited. I see why we don't require citations, given that the lead is a high-level summary; but we shouldn't be requiring their removal either. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Shrugged as "best-known" work? "Best-selling" yes, "magnum opus" yes, but "best-known" is a little trickier I think, given The Fountainhead as competition -- perhaps go for one of the aforementioned epithets?

Changed to "best-selling".

The Objectivist movement attempts to circulate her ideas -- I don't think you need "attempts to"; you circulate ideas or you don't, whether they take root or not is another matter.

Removed.

Main body

volatile mood swings -- I think mood swings implies volatility, do we mean "violent" mood swings?

Rand would go on verbal tirades, but the term 'violent' seems too physical. I've reworded to "mood swings and outbursts" to try to make it more clear – let me know what you think.

returned to Hollywood to write the screenplay -- perhaps I missed something but from where did she return to Hollywood?

New York, but the fact that she moved there in the 30s got cut at some point, so I've reinserted it.

The images of Tara Smith and Tibor Machan seem superfluous as neither is mentioned in the body of the article.

Removed.

Summary

The article generally reads quite well and, given my knowledge of the subject's life and works, seems reasonably comprehensive and neutral in tone.
That said, I'd need to check some of the sources to satisfy myself of their accurate use (a source spotcheck in other words).

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. Updated per your comments, with a couple of partial demurs mentioned in my replies above. Let me know if you have any other feedback or find anything to address in source spotchecks. --RL0919 (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tks RL, I appreciate your quick response to my comments. I'll try to have a look at some of the sources when I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Gog the Mild you didn't sign this (and a couple other in archives), so FACbot is not triggered. Check the FAC archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.