Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fawn M. Brodie/archive1

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 not promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

Fawn M. Brodie

I went on a wiki-surf after commenting on the Book of Abraham-FAC below and came across this very impressive biography. The writing is very good, as is the referencing, content, and balance. I'm sure various editors will find some ways to improve it, but it is a very good example of how good a wikipedia article can be. Semperf 18:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC) and John Foxe 22:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article seems largely cited to one source. Of the 57 notes, about 14 cite a source other than Bringhurst. I'm not saying that's wrong, but it might be helpful to add a note explaining why Bringhurst is the definitive biography. Gimmetrow 21:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. (For FAC full disclosure: I worked on a relatively crude draft of this article based only on the chapter in Mormon Renegades.) This article has been dramatically improved in the last few months by User:John Foxe. It's a tricky subject on several fronts, but I think the article navigates these troubled waters well. Since Bringhurst has written the only scholarly book-length biography on Brodie (and one of only a handful of chapter-length biographies), it's not surprising the article uses him extensively. Controversial points, like the validity of her conclusions, appropriately employ a variety of sources. Cool Hand Luke 01:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - but only because of the one source issue - Fawn Brodie is a complex person and deserves more breadth of coverage from other sources. --Trödel 03:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object several problems: 2a (Lead), 2d (POV) - see WP:LEAD, concern about lack of sources, and please put further reading in some sort of order. More importantly, original author didn't nom this article, and POV concerns are raised on talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't understand why it matters if the original author nominated the article. Obviously this is now moot, but shouldn't a bona fide independent nominator be even better than a self-nom? Cool Hand Luke 05:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added some lead, and the POV concerns are no longer current. At least the article has been stable for some time now. If there's a virtue to the author nominating his own article—I should think the opposite should be true—then I hereby nominate it. There's not much I can do about Trödel's complaint about my use of Bringhurst. His is the only full-scale biography, and I've tried to step away from his interpretations when I could. I'd be happy for anyone to order the "further readings." In this case, none of them are very important.--John Foxe 22:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've been bold and added Mr. Foxe as co-nominator. Semperf 04:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Should have Template:Infobox_Biography or a similar template. Footnotes aren't consistent, some are references and some are actual notes. Lacks a wide range of references from different reliable sources (mostly all from the same source). Also, no sources in the lead. — Wackymacs 14:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What policy or guideline requires the use of the bio infobox, which is obnoxious at times? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WikiProject Biography highly suggests it, and all of the featured biography articles I have seen have an infobox. It doesn't hurt to add one. — Wackymacs 07:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've seen enough valid objections to those boxes that I don't consider them obligatory, nor a reason to object on FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll second Sandy's objection. It simply restates the facts of the lead. We shouldn't try to put Ms. Brodie in a box, nor anyone else. It doesn't add anything to the article other than a mess. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Thirded. I fiddled with the infobox while Charles Atangana was a nom, but I ultimately removed it because it was ugly. No one objected. As for the other objections, I'm not sure of a better way to do inline citations and footnoting but the way this article does it. I've used a similar system on every FA I've put through this process with no problems. Finally, the lead does not require sources as long as the information in it is repeated in the body of the article with sources. As for the supposed over-reliance on a single source, it's inevitable with some subjects that this will happen. This isn't an article on George Washington. The FAs on Charles Atangana and George Washington Dixon lean heavily on the authors who have actually written anything of substance about the guys (one person in both cases). That the same would be true for this guy doesn't surprise me. — BrianSmithson 01:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what it's worth, I added the Template:Infobox_Biography. The lead has no sources because it's a summary of the article. The footnotes do indeed contain both notes and supplementary material; that's the nature of footnotes. If you believe that there are not enough sources for this article, name any serious treatment of Brodie not included or linked.--John Foxe 20:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes: I don't think they should be obligatory, simply because they often over-compartmentalise a person's achievements and positions, and omit vital information because they need to be short. Tony 15:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For the record, I wasn't objecting on the basis it should have a Bio infobox - that was merely an improvement suggestion. I was objecting because: "Footnotes aren't consistent, some are references and some are actual notes. Lacks a wide range of references from different reliable sources (mostly all from the same source). Also, no sources in the lead.". — Wackymacs 17:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose fair use images should have fair use rationales. --Peta 01:05, 8 January 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.