Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mirth & Girth/archive2

Add links
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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:57, 17 December 2008 [1].

Mirth & Girth

[edit]
Nominator(s): User:Lpangelrob
previous FAC (15:26, 26 May 2008)

Second nomination; previous nomination was closed with no consensus to the support or oppose side, and only a minor bit of commentary has been added since. I hope to have a larger set of reviewers to work with for this nomination! —Rob (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Image:Harold Washington at the commissioning of USS Chicago (SSN-721).jpg - I can't find this image in the archive myself. Usually these images have description pages, at which I can verify the licensing, but I can't seem to find this one. Can you help me out? Perhaps by linking directly the image description page? Awadewit (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can confirm that the license is a direct copy of what was in the archive. I uploaded it and personally copied the information word for word to commons. Taken by PH1 RICHARD C. GRANT, (photographers mate first class), US Navy. PD-USN. It is DoD image number DN-SN-87-00161 is still on the server. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure you did copy everything correctly, but other users need to be able to verify that. I, for example, need to verify the license. The image is there, yes, but no description of it. I'm trying to find the page that you copied from initially - each image in that collection has an image description page (which we should really link to, anyway). That is what I spent time trying to find and could not. Awadewit (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fortunately there is no requirement that images uploaded to commons be available forever on external servers or at their original locations. DoD has reorganized their servers since that image was loaded to commons, and if it is no longer locatable via their image search it's a server problem on their part. Unfortunately DN-SN-87-00161 doesn't come up in their new search. Luckily we have all the information we could possibly need in the image's description, which quite clearly shows that it is PD-USN. At the time I uploaded the image, there was no apparent link for the description page, just a pop up page from a search page that had no usable link to the server's description. Now that the server has been changed, there is no linkable description page that is easily found, so when I upload images I normally just list the DoD image number. It's never been a problem before. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • "The faculty adviser to the school's monthly publication, Joel Davies" - It wasn't until I read the source that the inclusion of this quotation made sense. Might want to describe the context a bit better; the monthly publication is a student one, of which Nelson was the illustrator.
    • "however, this was denied by the DJs during the interview" During the interview with the Tribune?
    • "By now, word of the controversy had reached the Chicago City Council." Now = ?
    • When were the resolutions described in the "Initial display" section drafted and passed?
    • "Nelson returned to the painting at about 8:30 am" - the next day?
    • "Aldermen Edward Jones (20th) and William C. Henry (24th) were the first aldermen to arrive at the scene." When was this?
    • The shorthand "the institute" is variously presented lowercase and capitalized.
    • "At some point during the meeting, the police department..." Is this separate from the incident in which the aldermen took the painting to President Jones's office? If not, there is no earlier mention of police presence at the President's office.
      • I rewrote this section to be a bit more clear...
    • In general, it seems as if the timeline of events (especially in the Display and confiscation) needs to be described better and with more precision.
    • "Parts of the incident were later broadcast widely on television." This seems to suggest that the press arrived on the scene fairly quickly. What was the press coverage like? Local television or national television? "widely on television" is rather vague.
    • "was also involved in a conspiracy" Conspiracy to do what? BuddingJournalist 20:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments/concerns I haven't read the whole article, but I checked out the law section (I'm a law student, so when I see law-stuff at FAC I'll check it out). The law part needs to be improved before it's at FA level. Especially since we don't have an article about the case (and I don't think there's enough secondary commentary for it to meet WP:N by itself), the coverage of the case in this article should be top-class. First, I've changed the citations from a newspaper article about the opinion to a link to the opinion itself. (This change should also be made for the district court opinion.) Often newspapers aren't good at summarizing what legal issues are, so it's generally best to look at the case itself to write what the case says. The top-level problem I see: the article doesn't clearly present what the legal issues at hand were. Essentially, the officials were asserting they had qualified immunity because the law wasn't clear that what they did was illegal. I don't have time (finals!!!) to go through the whole section and review it, but I recommend reading the actual decision and going through that section of the article and making sure it reflects what happened in the decision and making it clear to the reader what the legal issues and holding were. This case appears in several art law books that are in google books so I might check that out to see if they say anything interesting. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I'm totally confused about the procedural history of the lawsuits. (It appears there's actually more than one, so the title should be changed.) There was a case against the city that was settled later on, but at one point the city was "dismissed from" the lawsuit. So how was the suit against the city reincarnated? (I put "dismissed from" in quotes because it's really bad journalism and doesn't mean much. Was the lawsuit against the city dismissed? Did the judge hold that the joinder of the claims against the city and the claims against the alderman was improper? I would imagine the latter is what happened, and then they brought a separate suit against the city. But that's just a guess.) Anyways there's a lot to clear up here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I'm a bit late on this... been a busy 10 days. The suit went through district court first. Is it required to have a source for that case as well? (That's where the newspapers come in handy.) —Rob (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mirth_%26_Girth/archive2&oldid=284026749"