Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shelley Archer/archive1

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 18:12, 25 August 2007.

Shelley Archer

[edit]

Self-nomination. I've been working on this article for a while now, and I believe it is up to FA standard. It is the most comprehensive biographical article of the subject, cites pretty much every useful WP:RS in existence on the subject, and I think achieves a neutral balance on a reasonably controversial figure. Rebecca 13:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Why are reference 1 & 2 of the same speech? There should be 1 reference there, not two.
  • Picture might help this article
  • This article doesnt talk about her as far in depth.
  • I would prefer the references to be in the cite format, but that isnt nescessary.
  • having 2 or more citation marks next to each other is plain ugly. Look at FA's like Hamersley, Western Australia - which has some quite cool ciation bits, which make things like this less messy. For me, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Twenty Years 13:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The speech references are fixed. The article covers everything that is notable and important, and uses essentially every WP:RS in existence. What have I left out? There are no free use images of the subject available, no fair use images would be permissible under Wikipedia's policies, and I do not believe it is essential to understand the topic. I've changed the citations accordingly where there were two adjacent to one another, as per the Hamersley article. Rebecca 13:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why have 2 references that can say the same thing as one. By using the ref name you can do this. Twenty Years 13:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is also fixed. Rebecca 14:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just say, having more than one citation next to each other is perfectly acceptable, and not really an actionable objection. Each reference should go into its own reference tag. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicks. I think this is pretty much ready for FA as-is, but here are some thoughts. Numbered for convenient reference.

  1. A picture should probably be possible for this article. This is easily sufficient commentary to justify a non-free image, and I'm given to understand that Archer doesn't spend enough time in public for a free image to be practical.
  2. The "Corruption and Crime Commission investigation" section is actually her political life since 2006. Since she's still active in politics and the section already has a little bit of info on later happenings (the stem-cell research vote), resectioning or renaming of the section may be in order. I can't figure out how, though.
  3. There's a lot of redlinks. I realize most of them are subjects that need articles at some point, but it may be best to explain the significance or role of some of the redlinks.
  4. Is there no reference with her year of birth?
  5. The reference cited doesn't seem to state that she joined the Australian Labor Party at 16; did I miss it?

None of these are the end of the world, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand the fair use policy, I don't believe that any fair use justification would be possible, as she is alive and the article does not refer to any image itself. However, a free use image would be so difficult to get as to be essentially unobtainable, and I do not think it would add substantially to this article. She hasn't really done much since the height of the Burke affair, and I think a two-sentence section would look rather strange, so I think that might have to wait until if or when something else happens to warrant creating a new section. There is no WP:RS for her date of birth - believe me, I've looked. I've removed the sentence about her joining the ALP - I'm a bit miffed as to what happened there, and can't for the life of me find the actual source I used. As for the red links, I'll take care of them over the next couple of days. Rebecca 14:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Her being alive isn't the issue with the image; it's whether it's possible to get a free image of her or not. I understand that it's not possible, and a single image illustrating a biography is typically fine if no free image is possible. It all hinges on whether a free image is possible. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been over this with the fair use obsessives numerous times, and as far as I understand, "no free image possible" is defined such that the person being alive is enough to deem it theoretically possible that a free use image could be obtained. As this makes it impossible to use a fair use image, and because it is practically impossible to obtain a free use, I think we'll have to settle for no image. I don't like it any more than you do, but it isn't like it's vitally necessary to understand the topic. Rebecca 14:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am a fair-use obsessive, and I recommend that you not give up hope. If you upload an image, we can work on a rationale for it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AMIB, I tried to look for photos myself and the only ones that exist are under a do not use commercial/do not modify license. Unless we can ask her office for a photo, I am not sure if we will even have one for the article. However, I will not let that stop the article from being FA. Once some of the other comments are addressed, I am ready to support the article being FA. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Note sure I like the intro. Lines like "The partner of powerful unionist Kevin Reynolds, she is associated with the right wing of the party." especially when this figure is redlinked come off as strange.
  2. Doesn't tell me much about her views/voting history.
  3. Too many redlinks, at least for a page of this size.
  4. The number of sections/length seems out of balance. Something feels amiss. "External link" section seems odd.
  5. I'd really like a picture here (nitpick)

Ping me if these change. I'll be bit busy with dev stuff. Seems doable though. Voice-of-All 03:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've included as much information about her views and voting history as is on the public record. A notable difference between the US and Australia is that, because MPs are expected to follow the party line on all occasions, their views don't really tend to become public knowledge unless either they start publicly advocating for a policy (as occurred here with nuclear power) or the party allows a conscience vote (as occurred here with stem-cell research). I've explained above why a picture here is impossible. I'm not sure I understand the issues with the intro and the sections - could you explain? The red links, on the other hand, will be taken care of within the next couple of days. Rebecca 03:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, better. I quickly changed the word "powerful" to something less loaded sounding. It still does not have the kind of sense of "completeness" and elegance of form (yeah, it's just the words form blocks on the page, but still). Just noticed, no birth date/location bothers me. Voice-of-All 04:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I'm still not sure what you mean by "sense of completeness" and "elegance of form", and our conversation on IRC has left me none the wiser. If I'm to address your concerns, I need to know in a non-vague manner what they actually are. Rebecca 04:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support at the moment, although not much has to be done in my opinion. For an interesting subject, Rebecca deserves to be commended on a fantastic article. A couple of minor things I picked up:-
    • Birthdates etc. - if they're known, could they be added to the lead per the MOS?
    • Could there be a link for "right wing of the party" in the lead, for those who don't understand right/left politics?
    • "began seeing unionist" - the word 'seeing' isn't terribly encyclopedic for this meaning, especially for an international encyclopedia. I have no alternative proposals at the moment :|
    • "due to claimed harassment by colleagues" - source, and clarify whether colleagues were claiming they were harassed by Archer or Archer was claiming that she was harassed by them.
    • "a position which she held until her election to parliament" - would tacking which year (2005, as far as I can work out) to the end of this sentence be better?
    • "referring to Burke as "my mentor" and described her "undying friendship" with him" - 'described' seems to be in the wrong tense. Should it be 'describing', given the use of 'referring' earlier in the sentence?
    • "He was accused both in parliament and in the media of being afraid to take action against Archer because of her relationship with Reynolds, by now a powerful factional leader within the party, a charge which Carpenter strongly denied" - although I understand the use of the word 'charge' here, I think given the legal nature of this article that another word may be better, given there were never actually charges made.

Very nice, and kudos to Rebecca :) Daniel 04:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the in-depth feedback. I've looked everywhere for a birthdate, and there just doesn't appear to be a WP:RS for it. I've changed "right wing" to conservative - does that improve things? I've tried to find a better way of phrasing the sentence than "began seeing", but it was the best that I (and a few people in #wikipedia) were able to come up with. (Better suggestions would be appreciated.) The harassment is cited - it's just at the end of the next sentence, because people whinge if there's two references to the same source in two contiguous sentences. I'm not sure how I could word that sentence better to make it clearer that she was being harassed - do you have any suggestions? As for the last three, I'll go and fix them now. Rebecca 04:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "conservative" is difficult as it isn't classically a term used on the labor side of politics, yet right-wing isn't instantly obvious to those outside. Maybe "right wing (conservative)" - i.e RW bluelinked and conservative in parentheses.
The lead should be longer.
The article's prose is repetitive in places with In (month/year), x happened..... - mixing up some of these would be helpful > can tweak a few of these if you want.
The article is brief but I can appreciate the limited direct information. In which case it is a good idea to add colour and context - where did she grow up in Perth? If not suburb then inner/outer north/west/east/south. Adding some background on the history of urnaium mining and bans/viewpoint here would be great to put it in context. Younger readers and those outside oz may not get why this is such an issue. Also gambling/pokies. When she was elected where was she on the ticket -was she an acrimonious or contested preselection?

The last line isn't part of the last section but sort of belongs in a current... bit

disgraced former-Premier-turned-lobbyist.. - not in lead - just "disgraced former Premier" I think is fine, remember it is a summary.
...she began seeing unionist.. sounds unencyclopedic - "began a relationship with" (?)

Overall a fascinating read and great topic to work up to FA but really needs some colour - if can think of some other things to add I'll give a hoy. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for these suggestions, Casliber. They'll take me some time, so I'll get to them in a couple of days when I have access to a computer again. Rebecca 23:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support excellent, and fascinating. Well sourced too :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 12:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose -- For me, the article just doesnt have enough content and body to it for an FA. An infobox is needed too. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it not comprehensive? What is missing? What have I left out? As for the infobox, as I said below, it is not in the featured article criteria, and would be absolutely pointless here, as the only information that would be in it is already nicely highlighted in the second sentence of the article. As such, these suggestions are unactionable. Rebecca 23:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I can't understand why no free (as opposed to fair-use) images are available for a current state politician, I would have thought we'd have someone around who could get one. Not that I'm going to fly to Perth for you though... User:AndyZ's automated peer review tool still has a fair bit to say about this article, most of which I agree with - in particular:
This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
Even that script thinks there should be an Infobox, as do I and others here who oppose FA in the current state.
I think there should be scope for seperating "early life" and "political career", being a public servant might provide a pathway into politics (particlualry the positions which are mentioned) but it isn't what she is known for.
In no way am I saying it's not a great article - just that there doesn't seem to be enough to say about her for it to become a featured article. Maybe when she's been a state MP for more than four years there might be more to say about her.
Garrie 21:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not at all surprised that there are no free use images available for a current state politician. If I were involved with the WA Labor Party, or a politically involved student at UWA, I might be able to get a picture of some state politicians, but it's actually very hard to do - it's not as if these people regularly appear at rallies or other places they're easily accessed and photographed. With the sectioning - it was done that way originally, but (at the suggestion of Golbez, who I agree with), they were merged together, as we felt it looked better that way.
  • As for the article being "not comprehensive" - what does it not include that it should include? Every article is supposed to be featurable, and I've cited every useful WP:RS there is. It isn't as if sources don't exist on anything substantial, either (apart from her birthdate and place) - the article covers anything notable that she's actually done. And an infobox? Andy's script may think it should have one, but it is not in the Featured Article Criteria, and I think it would be absolutely useless in this article - what would it contain that wasn't bleedingly obvious from the first two sentences? As such, I think I'm going to have to take these suggestions as being unactionable. Rebecca 23:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with Rebecca, this is pretty much as comprensive as you are going to get, without getting into ridiculous trivia that would be a violation of WP:BLP anyway. I don't see how it's an actionable objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as Becca says, it's probably the most comprehensive biography available anywhere, exhaustively referenced and researched. It would be grand to have a picture but apparently Aussie politicians are camera shy. --Golbez 05:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Given the limited resources you are going on, and the fact that the sensationalist language in the news articles themselves has not been carried over, this is excellent. One nitpick though—is there any way to scrap the word 'controversy'? It's used in excess all over Wikipedia, and it would be better to just explain the controversy than have the word. Michael talk 00:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to contact her office and ask for a freely licensed photo? Raul654 20:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt that such an endeavour would be successful, considering the content of the article. Wikipedia can't have it both ways - either it needs to allow fair use images where a free one is not feasible, or it needs to accept that articles may not end up with images at all, even at featured status, and stop expecting editors to pull a free image out of nowhere. As it is, it's just adding pointless stress for anyone who tries to take a living person article to FA. Rebecca 01:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These fixes needed:
  • PDF sources need a "format=PDF" parameter in their citation template
  • Only full dates or dates with a day and a month should be linked, as per WP:DATE.
  • "March 2, 2007" - dates shouldn't have a comma before the year, as per WP:DATE.
  • "another source of income for rural pubs" - – "pubs" is a slang term, "public houses" should be used
  • I don't think the lead adequately summarises the article.
  • I have doubts about the article's comprehensiveness. Could some items be expanded on, such as her welfare fraud, her sacking from union and her ALP presidency bid? Epbr123 12:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how to add the PDF parameter, and I've never seen it used anywhere else. Could you explain how one does that? As for your date preferences, they appear to be just that - and, as far as I can see, are not actually in the guideline you cite. "Pubs" is not a slang term - rather, it is the common word for such a thing here. "Public houses" is never used in Australia, and I doubt many people would know what it referred to.
  • There isn't really much that could be said about the issues you suggest could be expanded. In each case, the article says both as much as is sourceable via reliable sources and as much as is actually notable. The welfare fraud was not notable at the time, and is only in the article because of its minor (but important) role in the later political scandal - to spend any more time on it would be to both blow it out of proportion and create a BLP issue. The sacking from the union was just that - she was fired and successfully sued for unfair dismissal. The same issues arise here as with the conviction - there isn't anything much more that could be said about it, beyond what is already there (she was fired, she sued for unfair dismissal, she won, end of story), and to spend any more time on it, even if sources could be found, would be to blow it out of proportion, compared to the attention it warranted at the actual time. The ALP presidency was similar - she was one of about ten candidates, she was not one of the favourites, she ran, and she lost. There isn't really much more to say than that. Rebecca 14:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the remaining outstanding issues are a) the length of the lead, b) the minor prose issues noted by Casliber above, and c) the red links. I'll aim to have these finished within the next three or four days. Is there any actionable objections that I've missed? Rebecca 14:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the red links...too many looks ugly. I dont want to wait for the magical "red link man" to come and fix it. So just remove them, or even better - create stubs for them yourself if they are notable, maybe just delete them. Twenty Years 14:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added. I'll take care of it. Rebecca 22:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All my objections are actionable.

  • Please read WP:DATE.
  • Copy and paste "|format=PDF" into the inline citation templates.
  • At least wikilink "pub".
  • "The welfare fraud was not notable at the time, and is only in the article because of its minor (but important) role in the later political scandal" - this is an article about Shelley Archer, not the political scandal. The welfare fraud was an important part of her life.
  • "she was one of about ten candidates" - that's an example of the kind of info that should be added. Epbr123 14:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • " I've tried adding that into the templates, and it still isn't working - perhaps you might do it by yourself if it's so important. I've read WP:DATE, and I think you're imagining things. Pub is now wikilinked. The welfare fraud was still not notable at the time - it received no public attention whatsoever, was formally declared spent five years ago, and only ever came to the public's attention because of its brief role in her end of that scandal this year. To go into any more detail, even if there were sources (which is there is not), would be a blatant BLP violation - just because it's salacious doesn't mean it is notable. I don't see how adding that "there were several candidates" would help improve the article - it would just make that sentence less concise. So yes, they're still unactionable. Rebecca 22:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're still actionable. Epbr123 22:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose that they're doable, but since they would make the article less worthy of featured status, they're not actionable for the purposes of this process. Rebecca 22:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how adding that "there were several candidates" would help improve the article - you delibarately misquoted me there. The fact that you even refuse to label the pdf files suggests to me that you're just being stubborn. I now agree that expanding on the welfare fraud is unnecessary, but more detail is needed on the notable events for the article to be comprehensive. Epbr123 22:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not refusing the label the PDF files - I can't. I'm quite happy for you to do it, seeing as you evidently know how, but when I do it, it doesn't work. As for the comprehensiveness, what "notable events" would you like expanded? I've already explained why the changes you've suggested so far would make the article worse, not better. Rebecca 23:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'll let you decide whether it's comprehensive or not. Regarding commas within dates, WP:DATE states "Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes or articles, or put a comma between month and year.". Regarding the linking of single years, WP:OVERLINK states "Only make links that are relevant to the context" and "there is hardly ever a reason to link the same term twice in the same section". WP:DATE states that only "full dates, and days and months" need to be linked for autoformatting purposes. Also, "2006-2007" needs an en dash. Epbr123 23:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't between the month and year (or at least, isn't as explained in WP:DATE, and dates in this form are far more common across the project than the alternative. As for the others, I believe these links are relevant to the context. I don't know how to do an en dash - perhaps it might be easier if you made these sort of changes directly? Rebecca 23:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the footnote dates have commas in. How does a link to 2007 add context? Why does 2005 need to be linked five times in one section? I think you're being stubborn again. I think you need to learn how to add en dashes yourself: your either type – or use the en dash button next to "insert" underneath the edit box. Epbr123 23:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is 2005 linked five times? This is all pure matter of personal preference, and it's ludicrous to have to argue over it in a featured status discussion. Rebecca 00:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Early life and political career" section. It is part of the FA criteria that articles comply with the WP:MOS guidelines and sub-guidelines. Epbr123 00:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Epbr, I think you are confused -- the dates in the footnotes are all full dates and properly use a comma. When the MOS says that Wikipedia articles don't put a comma between month and year, it means (as the example makes clear) that "In March 2007 the United States..." is preferred over "In March, 2007, the United States..." Hopefully this clears up the issue. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you seem to be right. MOS wasn't very clear. Epbr123 21:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Overall, I think the prose needs work. Most of the sentences begin with "She" or "Archer." Many sentences do not read well. Following are other concerns:
    • Single years should not be linked. Link only if there is a full date (January 1, 2000) or if the date is of particular importance.
    • Can you find out anything else about her early years? Where/when was she born? What was her mother's name? Did she go to university?
    • Why was her promotion considered controversial? If it was so controversial, any idea why she got it?
    • Add a wikilink for spent conviction. That is not a term used in US English, and I had no idea what it meant.
    • Did she appeal the firing or the conviction for fraud? You might reword these sentences anyway -- first talk about her being tried and convicted, then that she was sacked because of it.
    • Second paragraph in early life section, almost every sentence begins with "She" or "Archer." Can you vary your prose so that not all the sentences begin the same?
    • You mention in the lead that she represents the Western Australian Legislative Council, but this is not spelled out in the article and needs to be.
    • You need to explicitly mention what party she represents in the body of the article, not just in the lead.
    • I don't know how party selection works in Australia, so what is it about the affirmative action rules that allowed her to be selected? Is it unusual for someone to nominate herself?
    • Why was the fact that she won the top position "ensuring" that she won election to the Legislative Council? Did no one else run? Does that party always win?

Karanacs 20:00, 6 August 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Shelley_Archer/archive1&oldid=1128718446"