Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Neville Chamberlain/archive1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m moved Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Neville Chamberlain to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Neville Chamberlain/archive1: archiving old FAC nom |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===[[Neville Chamberlain]]=== |
===[[Neville Chamberlain]]=== |
||
I stumbled across this excellent article some time ago. I went through [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Neville Chamberlain|peer review]] some months ago with no comments. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 11:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC) |
I stumbled across this excellent article some time ago. I went through [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Neville Chamberlain/archive1|peer review]] some months ago with no comments. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 11:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC) |
||
*'''Object''' - Completely inadequate [[wikipedia:lead section|lead section]], lack of inline citations, way longer than needed to cover the topic at this level (articles on sub-topics can go into more detail; see [[Wikipedia:Summary style]]). --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] |
*'''Object''' - Completely inadequate [[wikipedia:lead section|lead section]], lack of inline citations, way longer than needed to cover the topic at this level (articles on sub-topics can go into more detail; see [[Wikipedia:Summary style]]). --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] |
||
**Well, I did just write an expanded lead section but a database error ate my homework: I'll recreate it later. For my money, the cited references are sufficient: if inline citations are now the de facto norm I will give up nominating featured article candidates - particularly ones, like this one, that I didn't write. And your final objection seems to amount to a complaint that the article is too comprehensive, which seems somewhat perverse: which sections would you prefer to see spun out into sub-articles? -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 18:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC) |
**Well, I did just write an expanded lead section but a database error ate my homework: I'll recreate it later. For my money, the cited references are sufficient: if inline citations are now the de facto norm I will give up nominating featured article candidates - particularly ones, like this one, that I didn't write. And your final objection seems to amount to a complaint that the article is too comprehensive, which seems somewhat perverse: which sections would you prefer to see spun out into sub-articles? -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 18:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC) |
||
***Comprehensive is one thing, too detailed is another. The longer an article is, the less likely a reader will have the time or patience to finish it. A well-written article will present an amount of detail that is sufficient to be considered comprehensive for the given format (here, an encyclopedia article), without forcing the reader to read through more text than is needed. Subtopics can and should be covered in more detail in other articles (see [[Wikipedia:Summary style]]). The headings in this article need to be redone before a determination on what can be spun off and summarized here is made. ==Level 2== sections could be: Family, Early political career, Prime Ministership, Lord President of the Council and death, and Legacy. The other sections would be subsections of the above as appropriate. Adding invisible inline cites using [[template talk:inote|inote]] is very easy. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 16:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC) |
***Comprehensive is one thing, too detailed is another. The longer an article is, the less likely a reader will have the time or patience to finish it. A well-written article will present an amount of detail that is sufficient to be considered comprehensive for the given format (here, an encyclopedia article), without forcing the reader to read through more text than is needed. Subtopics can and should be covered in more detail in other articles (see [[Wikipedia:Summary style]]). The headings in this article need to be redone before a determination on what can be spun off and summarized here is made. ==Level 2== sections could be: Family, Early political career, Prime Ministership, Lord President of the Council and death, and Legacy. The other sections would be subsections of the above as appropriate. Adding invisible inline cites using [[template talk:inote|inote]] is very easy. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 16:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC) |
||
****OK - I have expanded the lead again, although someone with a better feel for the details could no doubt do better. Re summary style, I'm still not convinced of the need to restructure this article and break it up: it is around 60k long. Re inline citations, they are not a formal requirement: "enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations" does not mean "must contain inline citations". Save where a fact is disputed or controversial, where a specific source would clearly be required, I'm also not convinced that inline citations would add much value to this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an academic publication. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User_talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 13:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
*****'Appropriate use' certainly is not meant to include no use. At the very least, a cite is needed anytime a specific figure is given, exact date, or potentially controversial fact is given. As is, the article simply takes too long to read and thus will be of limited use. Wikipedia can and should have that much detail and more, but having it all in a single article is only going to be useful to a limited audience. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 16:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 20:10, 23 October 2008
I stumbled across this excellent article some time ago. I went through peer review some months ago with no comments. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- Object - Completely inadequate lead section, lack of inline citations, way longer than needed to cover the topic at this level (articles on sub-topics can go into more detail; see Wikipedia:Summary style). --mav
- Well, I did just write an expanded lead section but a database error ate my homework: I'll recreate it later. For my money, the cited references are sufficient: if inline citations are now the de facto norm I will give up nominating featured article candidates - particularly ones, like this one, that I didn't write. And your final objection seems to amount to a complaint that the article is too comprehensive, which seems somewhat perverse: which sections would you prefer to see spun out into sub-articles? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- Comprehensive is one thing, too detailed is another. The longer an article is, the less likely a reader will have the time or patience to finish it. A well-written article will present an amount of detail that is sufficient to be considered comprehensive for the given format (here, an encyclopedia article), without forcing the reader to read through more text than is needed. Subtopics can and should be covered in more detail in other articles (see Wikipedia:Summary style). The headings in this article need to be redone before a determination on what can be spun off and summarized here is made. ==Level 2== sections could be: Family, Early political career, Prime Ministership, Lord President of the Council and death, and Legacy. The other sections would be subsections of the above as appropriate. Adding invisible inline cites using inote is very easy. --mav 16:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
- OK - I have expanded the lead again, although someone with a better feel for the details could no doubt do better. Re summary style, I'm still not convinced of the need to restructure this article and break it up: it is around 60k long. Re inline citations, they are not a formal requirement: "enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations" does not mean "must contain inline citations". Save where a fact is disputed or controversial, where a specific source would clearly be required, I'm also not convinced that inline citations would add much value to this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an academic publication. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- 'Appropriate use' certainly is not meant to include no use. At the very least, a cite is needed anytime a specific figure is given, exact date, or potentially controversial fact is given. As is, the article simply takes too long to read and thus will be of limited use. Wikipedia can and should have that much detail and more, but having it all in a single article is only going to be useful to a limited audience. --mav 16:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- OK - I have expanded the lead again, although someone with a better feel for the details could no doubt do better. Re summary style, I'm still not convinced of the need to restructure this article and break it up: it is around 60k long. Re inline citations, they are not a formal requirement: "enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations" does not mean "must contain inline citations". Save where a fact is disputed or controversial, where a specific source would clearly be required, I'm also not convinced that inline citations would add much value to this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an academic publication. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- Comprehensive is one thing, too detailed is another. The longer an article is, the less likely a reader will have the time or patience to finish it. A well-written article will present an amount of detail that is sufficient to be considered comprehensive for the given format (here, an encyclopedia article), without forcing the reader to read through more text than is needed. Subtopics can and should be covered in more detail in other articles (see Wikipedia:Summary style). The headings in this article need to be redone before a determination on what can be spun off and summarized here is made. ==Level 2== sections could be: Family, Early political career, Prime Ministership, Lord President of the Council and death, and Legacy. The other sections would be subsections of the above as appropriate. Adding invisible inline cites using inote is very easy. --mav 16:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I did just write an expanded lead section but a database error ate my homework: I'll recreate it later. For my money, the cited references are sufficient: if inline citations are now the de facto norm I will give up nominating featured article candidates - particularly ones, like this one, that I didn't write. And your final objection seems to amount to a complaint that the article is too comprehensive, which seems somewhat perverse: which sections would you prefer to see spun out into sub-articles? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)