Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Lithuania (1219–1295)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 promoted 20:38, 3 February 2007.
I believe this article meets all the criteria.
- It is extensively referenced, up to the point where almost every sentence has a reference attached.
- Almost all sources are printed books. I used only a couple of online sources (but they come from known historians anyway).
- It is comprehensive, and cut-off dates are carefully chosen.
- It is also illustrated with free images and useful maps.
Hope you will agree. Renata 04:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very well written and balanced. I particularly like the photo of the monument of Mindaugas with the children ;-) Personally, I prefer alternate left-right placement of illustrations, but that's the matter of personal preferences and style of course. Well done! --Lysytalk 08:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! But you forgot the mounds of Kernave pic :) Renata 12:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very nice work. Maybe just references should be split in two columns. M.K. 10:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm... Didn't know it can be done. But the columns are only possible in Mozilla. Renata 12:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support referenced and without a slightest weaselising. Good job.--Lokyz 19:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional Support. Well-written article, comprehensive, well-referenced. My only issue is that the image placement causes stacking issues and white-space problems in several combinations of user-preferences and monitor and resolution settings. Please remove the size/pixel parameters on the thumbnailed images to accommodate user-preferences. Once that is fixed, my conditional support becomes an enthusiastic support. —ExplorerCDT 23:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed 200px specification from regular images, but left 300px for maps because at thumb size they are way too small. Hope that solves... Renata 01:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All of them need to go. Policy around here is to accommodate user preferences, and we do that by not constricting photos, maps, etc. in thumbnail format by any pixel parameters and let the user's chosen (or default) preference kick in. If they want to see a bigger map, they'll click on the map. —ExplorerCDT 04:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I must respectfully disagree. The article has 5 maps that at default thumb size are impossible to make out. I don't see any reason why a regular reader should be forced to click on 5 different maps just to get an idea what they are about... By accommodating the very few with special preferences, we would be unduly punishing the wast majority of users that use defaults settings. Renata 12:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree all you want. I could care less if the map was impossible to make out or not. The purpose of a thumbnail image format is to have reduce the size of a big image so it doesn't interfere with the article text but announce itself saying "click here if you want to see more". Your disagreement doesn't change the fact that by leaving this unchanged the article doesn't comply with the Featured Article Criteria...and that you're refusing to abide by Criteria No. 2 (complying with the WP:MOS, WP:IUP, policies etc.) with regard to accommodating user-preferences and the sizing of thumbnail images. Contining to refusal will make my potentially enthusiastic support turn to a strenuous objection until this article complies with the criteria and the relevant policies. Imposing your own personal pixel parameters limits the viewability of wikipedia for others, because your pixel parameters, personally set, cater to a special few who match your personal preferences. In order to make the article universal, for everyone that reads Wikipedia, the pixel parameters need to be removed. —ExplorerCDT 13:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I'm removing the pixel parameters in order to comply with Wikipedia policy. If you reinstate them, I will object strenuously. There's no reason this article should fail just because you stubbornly refuse to comply with wikipedia policy. —ExplorerCDT 13:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:MOS: Specifying the size of a thumb image is in general not recommended... Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include: ... When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts. Renata 15:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Read on a bit further. Taking one line that supports your position out of a half dozen that might not is problematic, and disingenuous. Continuing (after parenthetical): However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width in order to enhance the readability and/or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include: (1) On images with extreme aspect ratios (2) When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts (3) When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region. Bear in mind that some users need to configure their systems to display large text. Forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. I find these images to be completely useable at even the minimal user preference...2/3 of the default size. You forget that they are "thumbnails". They do not have an extreme aspect ratio requiring a fixed parameter, and are not excessively "detailed" to demand a fixed paramater. Sure they're maps, but they're not the most detailed maps I've ever seen. If you're going to quote WP:MOS to someone who knows it rather fluently, don't ignore important parts just because one line (lacking the context of the whole) agrees with your position. That's bad form. —ExplorerCDT 20:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, the arcana of the MOS is one of the few times that i think WP:IAR applies. But more to the point, Renata3's reference to the relevant passage is fine, it is not taken out of context at all, and certainly is not cause for veiled accusations of deceitfulness.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think that WP:IAR applies here, you shouldn't be trying to review FA candidates when MOS-compliance is one of the considerations in the criteria. Perhaps you should review the criteria before passing judgment. —ExplorerCDT 00:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, the arcana of the MOS is one of the few times that i think WP:IAR applies. But more to the point, Renata3's reference to the relevant passage is fine, it is not taken out of context at all, and certainly is not cause for veiled accusations of deceitfulness.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Read on a bit further. Taking one line that supports your position out of a half dozen that might not is problematic, and disingenuous. Continuing (after parenthetical): However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width in order to enhance the readability and/or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include: (1) On images with extreme aspect ratios (2) When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts (3) When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region. Bear in mind that some users need to configure their systems to display large text. Forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. I find these images to be completely useable at even the minimal user preference...2/3 of the default size. You forget that they are "thumbnails". They do not have an extreme aspect ratio requiring a fixed parameter, and are not excessively "detailed" to demand a fixed paramater. Sure they're maps, but they're not the most detailed maps I've ever seen. If you're going to quote WP:MOS to someone who knows it rather fluently, don't ignore important parts just because one line (lacking the context of the whole) agrees with your position. That's bad form. —ExplorerCDT 20:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:MOS: Specifying the size of a thumb image is in general not recommended... Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include: ... When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts. Renata 15:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I must respectfully disagree. The article has 5 maps that at default thumb size are impossible to make out. I don't see any reason why a regular reader should be forced to click on 5 different maps just to get an idea what they are about... By accommodating the very few with special preferences, we would be unduly punishing the wast majority of users that use defaults settings. Renata 12:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All of them need to go. Policy around here is to accommodate user preferences, and we do that by not constricting photos, maps, etc. in thumbnail format by any pixel parameters and let the user's chosen (or default) preference kick in. If they want to see a bigger map, they'll click on the map. —ExplorerCDT 04:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed 200px specification from regular images, but left 300px for maps because at thumb size they are way too small. Hope that solves... Renata 01:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support quality work. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very interesting with compelling writing.--Riurik (discuss) 07:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment with all of the images on the right-hand side and the same size, there's a "photo-strip" effect that's awkward at any size, overruns the length of the text on my screen (admittedly unusual 1920x1200 resolution), and bunches the edit links. (Weirdly, they're also out of order, but I hope that's my browser's fault.) You could try putting some on the left, or using {{ImageStackRight}} perhaps. I don't want to turn this into a catch-22 situation, so I'll just say that the above "I could care less if the map was impossible to make out or not" is just about the worst possible argument for any way of formatting the images. (Neither cited policy page mentions what anonymous users who don't have preferences to set will see for images without size parameters; I see them quite a bit larger logged out.) Opabinia regalis 04:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:IUP, a policy cited above you claim doesn't say anything about user preferences and sizes says clearly: In general, there is no need to specify thumbnail size. Users can select their ideal size in preferences.. The relevant passage from WP:MOS, the other thing I cited which you claimed had no relevant text, is italicised above in a comment to nominator. You might want to read a little more carefully next time. I don't care if he thinks it's impossible to read (it isn't). It's policy. And policy should trump his "preference." And the criteria says as much. —ExplorerCDT 06:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, what? I said neither page mentions (as far as I see) what happens to anonymous users who don't have user preferences. You might want to read a little more carefully next time ;) Opabinia regalis 07:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Read again, default for users who don't set preferences and anons is 180px. It's not on WP:MOS regarding Images, but the main article entitled Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. It's usually wise to read relevant pages discussed on MOS and other policies. And while Picture Tutorial tells you how to size photos, it's the policy that matters...which says not to include size parameters with thumbnail images unless specific reasons are met. The maps on this page do not meet those requirements based on my understanding of the images at question and the words of the policy strictly constructed. —ExplorerCDT 08:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any explicit mention of anonymous users on any of those pages; I'd agree that it makes sense to assume that the defaults are used, but observation disagrees. I've never done a thing to my image preferences and I see the images differently sized when logged out. (Incidentally, I've never had to adjust my image preferences because editors helpfully clue my browser in with an image parameter ;) I would also expect a strict constructionist to be careful with terminology; WP:MOS is a guideline, not a policy, and that WP:IUP punts to the MOS for size issues other than a rough maximum. Opabinia regalis 02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Read again, default for users who don't set preferences and anons is 180px. It's not on WP:MOS regarding Images, but the main article entitled Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. It's usually wise to read relevant pages discussed on MOS and other policies. And while Picture Tutorial tells you how to size photos, it's the policy that matters...which says not to include size parameters with thumbnail images unless specific reasons are met. The maps on this page do not meet those requirements based on my understanding of the images at question and the words of the policy strictly constructed. —ExplorerCDT 08:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, what? I said neither page mentions (as far as I see) what happens to anonymous users who don't have user preferences. You might want to read a little more carefully next time ;) Opabinia regalis 07:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:IUP, a policy cited above you claim doesn't say anything about user preferences and sizes says clearly: In general, there is no need to specify thumbnail size. Users can select their ideal size in preferences.. The relevant passage from WP:MOS, the other thing I cited which you claimed had no relevant text, is italicised above in a comment to nominator. You might want to read a little more carefully next time. I don't care if he thinks it's impossible to read (it isn't). It's policy. And policy should trump his "preference." And the criteria says as much. —ExplorerCDT 06:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I've had a chance to actually read the text, support; this is a very well-written and well-organized article. A general suggestion, only somewhat relevant to this article, would be to organize history of Lithuania and create a set of navigational templates that link the successive period articles. This would be very helpful for people like me who have no particular knowledge of the subject. Renata, on the matter of image positioning, can you take a look at this mockup for moving some of the correctly sized images to the left? I'm hesitant to do anything to the actual article because my layout is nonstandard, but any reasonably high resolution will see these images dangling way down into and past the references on the right-hand side. Opabinia regalis 02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't format images like this, with a right and left aligned at the same vertical position:
- [[Image:Lithuanian state in 13-15th centuries.png|300px|thumb|Map of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania during the 13th - 15th centuries]] [[Image:Mindaugo aktas su antspaudu.jpg|left|thumb|200 px|Act of transfer of [[Selonia]] to the Livonian Order, marked with Mindaugas' seal. This is the only original document from Mindaugas' times surviving to this date.]]
- It crunches the text to a very small column on anything but the most enormous monitors. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I said above that I am using an enormous monitor ;) See this screenshot for what it currently looks like to me - an entire screenful completely blank except for a tower of right-aligned images. Perhaps putting two images side-by-side in a right-justified table would help. Opabinia regalis 05:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh yes. One possibility is to add {{clear}} or {{-}} just before each section header. On a monitor like yours, this would leave a small (or at least smaller) amount of whitespace at the end of each section, but prevent the big whitespace at the end. It would also make sure that each section is together with its relevant images. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I said above that I am using an enormous monitor ;) See this screenshot for what it currently looks like to me - an entire screenful completely blank except for a tower of right-aligned images. Perhaps putting two images side-by-side in a right-justified table would help. Opabinia regalis 05:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I give up on the image question. Do whatever you want. I don't own the article and you can edit it! :) On background note, I started the article in hopes to clean up history of Lithuania (at a very horrible state right now), but grew to become a project on its own. I plan to create more of such history articles and then clean up the main article with navigational templates and other stuff. Renata 12:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't format images like this, with a right and left aligned at the same vertical position:
- Support, excellent. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Image:Europein1328.png covers parts of the references in Firefox 2.0.0.1 Windows XP. Anyone else have this problem? gren グレン 15:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. The images are perfect for me, running Firefox 2.0.0.1/Windows XP at 1024x768 on a 15-inch TFT LCD display. Fvasconcellos 20:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The image also covers part of the references on my screen, resolution 1280x800 with Firefox (screenshot here). At this resolution, all of the images on the right stack on each other and run longer than the article text. If some of the images were left aligned instead it might fix the problem. --Tntnnbltn 13:57, 3 February 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.
