Wikipedia:Featured article review/George F. Kennan/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by Marskell 15:49, 26 October 2009 [1].
Review commentary
[edit]| Toolbox |
|---|
No editor has made more than a dozen non-minor edits, and the nominator is long since inactive. Biography, Cold War, and International Relations WikiProjects have been notified.
Main concern is 1c. "Early life and his career" and "X" sections particularly deficient in citations, and quotes attributed to Kennan are not all cited. I think the article can be easily salvaged, since much of it seems in order to me, but I don't have the resources to do it, hence directing the issue here. Otumba (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I am no longer inactive... I have restored a cleaner version of the article, which has eliminated a lot of the recent poorly written and unsourced content. The article should now be up to standard at the moment. 172 | Talk 18:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my apologies 172. The new version is an improvement, but I think the same problems I highlighted still exist (uncited quotes, lack of citations particularly in sections highlighted). The citation criteria has become much tougher since 2005, and even 2007 when I was first around. Otumba (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the reply. I have taken another look; I do notice that some uncited quotations were added that were not in my original version. From a quick glance, though, off the top of my head I beleive they are all accurate. I'm sure I'll be able to add the relevant citations.... I'll let you know when I'm done. 172 | Talk 20:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work, and your plan. Do you want me to add citation needed tags to sentences which I think need to be cited, or can you see what I meant regarding the lack of citations in particular for the sections noted? Otumba (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thanks. Please go ahead and add citation tags. Two sets of eyes are better than one. 172 | Talk 22:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, and done. :) On another note, per WP:IBID, ibid references are no longer ok, but if it's ok with you I don't mind converting the ibid references. Otumba (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, it was very interesting for me to learn more about Kennan. When I studied the onset of the Cold War, I did learn about the Long Telegram, and I gained an impression from the standard interpretation of the telegram, that Kennan was a hothead against the Soviet Union. Of course, reading the article, clearly that was not the case. Otumba (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has added a section entitled "Criticism". I raise this because when I was last around in 2007 that sort of section seemed ok, but from what little I have read on the issue since then I gather that sort of section is a no-no now, so please could I have some clarification or a direction to where I can read up on posting criticism sections? I guess the most important query is whether FAs should have criticism sections. Cheers in advance for replies. Otumba (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would seriously consider taking both that and the preceeding "Historical assessment" section right out. Both consist of ideologists fitting Kennan into their sets of toy figurines, the first as Hero, the others as Villain. It may be possible to make use of those claims, but Gaddis' and Cockburn's own articles seem a better place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. If there is a decent summary of Kennan's work by somebody who isn't a doctrinaire with an agenda, that might be worth summarizing; but it may be much too soon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will also lend a hand with adding references. I had planned on adding citations to this article a while back, but now that we're at FAR, I might as well get on top of that. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I've picked up some books at the library. I should hopefully get done with referencing in a week or two. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will also lend a hand with adding references. I had planned on adding citations to this article a while back, but now that we're at FAR, I might as well get on top of that. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. If there is a decent summary of Kennan's work by somebody who isn't a doctrinaire with an agenda, that might be worth summarizing; but it may be much too soon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Slowly moving forward on this page. I've been a bit busy, so I have not been progressing as planned. However, I'd appreciate it if the FAR reviewer could leave this open until I finish, which I hope will take only a few weeks. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to panic. But I'm moving to FAR to see what the folks think YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As YellowMonkey said, no hurry. Nishkid is still working on the article, so let's give him time before re-assessing. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I'm a bit swamped with work this week, so I might not get a chance to do some research. I still need to add a historical assessment section and run through the article once more to make sure everything is sufficiently covered. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I haven't finished what I had planned on adding to the article, I believe it currently meets the criteria for featured articles. I believe FARC voting can be opened now. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for doing all that.
The two images still need alt text to conform to the criteria; please see WP:ALT#Portraits and the "alt text" button in the toolbox at upper right of this review page.Eubulides (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. Good? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thanks. Eubulides (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for doing all that.
- Prose mostly looks OK. "expansive tendencies... Soviet pressure"—I presume it's not the end of a sentence after "tendencies". Please see Ellipses at the style guide. Please check elsewhere for other instances of this. There's "Hitler" linked within a quotation ... try to avoid (and "Nazi" is linked elsewhere). I've reduced the overlinking at the top. I see common words that English-speakers are expected to know: "autonomy", "arthritis", and more. There are lots of high-value links—people, institutions, so let's minimise their dilution? Tony (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing question Is this "Gaddis, John Lewis (1990), Russia, the Soviet Union, and the United States: An Interpretive History (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw Hill, ISBN 0075572583." a text book? Its heavily relied upon and has a title and publisher that make me suspect it is. Amazon and Google Books provide no help. Amazon's citation service reduces my confidence further. This is a question going to over reliance, source quality, and the potential of finding a "better" source. It shouldn't roll the article back. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that textbooks are of a lower caste? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends, entirely, on the textbook. Some "textbooks" are scholarly monographs, which happen to be eminently suitable for teaching, and are marketed as such. Some "textbooks" are scholarly monographs aimed at a universal public (Think Zinn's People's history), which happen to be eminently suitable for teaching. Some textbooks are yearly revised magisterial summaries of a field of study, and duplicate the consensus academic opinion (I'm thinking Econ, Law, Eng). These three are high grade sources. Some textbooks are course-notes writ large. Some textbooks are out of date consensus (Gaddis' was first published in the 1970s). Some textbooks at University level bend disciplines towards a... hmmm... "Uniquely American" perspective on disciplinary practice. Some textbooks omit or obscure topics, sources, debates, methodologies which are vital in the academic debate, but difficult to teach at first year, second year, or a community college. Textbooks in the Humanities and Social Sciences which were generated to support specific courses, or low level college teaching, rather than being works in their own right bent towards college teaching later or at marketing stage, can obscure major points that an Encyclopedia would want to cover. Gaddis' title pings some textbook marketing elements, but my attempts to check the book via Scholar or Books or Reviews or Amazon failed. Depending on, if it is a textbook, and, what kind of textbook it is if it is a textbook, the source reliance on it could be reconsidered and a higher quality source located. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Gaddis is the official biographer of George F. Kennan. Although some of his theories on containment have been controversial, I believe I've only used Gaddis to reference factual statements about Kennan's life, not any interpretive statements regarding his policies. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing wrong with that source. Foreign Affairs calls it "an excellent survey". [2]. Reviewing the book for The Journal of American History, Lisle Rose writes (of the first edition) that it is "carefully researched" and "judiciously written" and "a valuable summary", and the book (which is a monograph) is widely cited — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.214.112 (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Gaddis is the official biographer of George F. Kennan. Although some of his theories on containment have been controversial, I believe I've only used Gaddis to reference factual statements about Kennan's life, not any interpretive statements regarding his policies. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends, entirely, on the textbook. Some "textbooks" are scholarly monographs, which happen to be eminently suitable for teaching, and are marketed as such. Some "textbooks" are scholarly monographs aimed at a universal public (Think Zinn's People's history), which happen to be eminently suitable for teaching. Some textbooks are yearly revised magisterial summaries of a field of study, and duplicate the consensus academic opinion (I'm thinking Econ, Law, Eng). These three are high grade sources. Some textbooks are course-notes writ large. Some textbooks are out of date consensus (Gaddis' was first published in the 1970s). Some textbooks at University level bend disciplines towards a... hmmm... "Uniquely American" perspective on disciplinary practice. Some textbooks omit or obscure topics, sources, debates, methodologies which are vital in the academic debate, but difficult to teach at first year, second year, or a community college. Textbooks in the Humanities and Social Sciences which were generated to support specific courses, or low level college teaching, rather than being works in their own right bent towards college teaching later or at marketing stage, can obscure major points that an Encyclopedia would want to cover. Gaddis' title pings some textbook marketing elements, but my attempts to check the book via Scholar or Books or Reviews or Amazon failed. Depending on, if it is a textbook, and, what kind of textbook it is if it is a textbook, the source reliance on it could be reconsidered and a higher quality source located. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The concerns noted above have been addressed. The sections in question are now well-sourced, and alt text is present. Eubulides (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.