Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Helvarg/archive2

David Helvarg

Self-nom. I submitted this prematurely on April 11 2005 and moved it rapidly to Peer Review. You can see that first submission here. I have expanded it substantially since that submission and I have addressed all the peer review comments. --Theo (Talk) 09:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support. My concerns have been adressed. Object The article is comprised almost only of a listing of his books. Phils 10:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Approximately 20% of the article is devoted to a description of his books. Are you suggesting that this should be abbreviated or that the other sections should be expanded? --Theo (Talk) 11:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Plus about one third of the article is just a list of his works. I expect more of a featured article about a person than five ten-word sentences about his "Early Life". The subsections about his books are good. Looking at the article in detail (which, quite unprofessionaly, I did not do until now), I think the article might need some restructuring more than anything else. For example, wouldn't it be a good idea to separate the treatment of his works —the paragraphs about his books are really good, BTW— from his life? Some information is in subheadings it clearly does not belong into (like the paragraph about his awards and the following sentence, about his activities outside journalism; both are in the "Broadcasting" subsection). Once these structural issues have been fixed, and sections about the man himself are expanded, I will support this FAC. Sorry for the harsh first reply, but as I said, the current heading structure doesn't do the article's content justice. Finally, and on a completely unrelated note: what's up with having pictures on the FAC page to "illustrate" nominations? These pictures clearly serve no purpose; I can understand Piotr putting one to celebrate his 10th FAC, but I hope this doesn't become a general habit. Phils 11:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The article has now been refactored to address you objections. They were all helpful. The picture flowed from Piotr's suggestion endorsed by two other editors on the FAC talk page. --Theo (Talk) 15:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• To be perfectly blunt, while I am deeply impressed with the amount and high quality of the work that Theo has done on this article, I personally don't think the guy's that notable. --Dcfleck 11:48, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Notability does not, in fact, appear to be a criterion... therefore my objection is moot. Currently, however, I think the article could become a better one by paring it down - there is some duplication of information here that careful editing could probably eliminate. I will try my hand at it this weekend. --Dcfleck 12:04, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
  • If he's notable enough to be covered at all, then the article can become featured. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I agree with DCfleck. I think a lot of effort seems to have been put into the page, but I don't think Mr. Helvarg is especially notable in any way. He seems to be a minor author who has not made much impact in any of the fields he's been involved in. In fact, he is so un-notable, that the lead intro text mentions Mr. Helvarg's commentary on the totally un-notable Spongebob controvery, a spat which lasted all of 5 seconds. If that is one of his major accomplishments, I'm not sure why this article even exists. That being said, my objections center around the writing/content: the article reads like a promotional text taken from bios or blurbs about the man. An encyclopedia article should centrally contain information about why this person is important, and what he has done that has had an impact. This article certainly details the things Mr. Helvarg has done, but the article fails entirely to demonstrate that he has achieved anything important. It needs a significant rethinking, and either additions, or rewriting, in order to demonstrate what is important about this subject. —thames 14:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • On notability, you are missing Filiocht's point. If a topic is notable enough to be an article, it can become a featured article as long as it meets the criteria. The criteria, if you look at them again, have nothing at all to do with the topic, thus, any article able to meet them can be a FA, no matter how obscure or unimportant the topic. The rest of your commentary seems valid though; if the article does nothing to tell why he is important that is a problem. - Taxman 15:06, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

    It seems to me that I have failed to demonstrate the importance of the Blue Frontier Campaign of which Helvarg is president. I take the point that he would be of no interest if his greatest achievement was to write about Spongebob; I only mentioned this article because it brought him to the attention of people outside the fields of politics and marine conservation, in which he works. In an early draft of the article there was more about the Campaign but, since that has its own significance outside Helvarg's ambit, it seems inappropriate to repeat that material in this article. Am I mistaken in this? Should there be more about the Campaign in this article? I have made his presidency more obvious in the opening paragraph and slightly reduced the emphasis on his journalism in the second.

    The suggestion that the text is promotional gives me more of a problem. I knew nothing of the man before I stumbled over his stub so any promotion is a matter of style rather than intent. What makes him encyclopedic? Publication of three books, of which two were influential, and establishment of a lobbying group that has attracted the explicit support of senior US politicians. All this is in the article (which, frankly, includes everything that I know of the man) so it is a matter of emphasis rather than material: rewriting rather than expansion. How do I recast it to address your concern? --Theo (Talk) 16:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

    I do suggest playing up why the Blue Frontier Campaign was important, and what exactly those two of this books achieved. Always make sure you highlight the most important things up top. Editors have a slogan: say it, say it again, and say you said it. Don't assume the reader knows what effect this guy had--make sure they know after reading the first two sentences, and then make sure they know after reading the first section, and make sure they know after reading the whole thing. It's probably best to drop the Spongebob thing from the intro text: it would be like mentioning the effect Bill Clinton had on the cigar market in his intro text. Right now the article reads like: David Helvarg did this and this and this and this and this and this and this. It should read: David Helvarg did this really important couple of things, also, here is some background information and details. —thames 17:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

    I have taken all your advice to heart. Does the latest refactoring adequately implement your suggestions? --Theo (Talk) 19:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

    It's a very solid start. I'll change my vote to Abstain. —thames 20:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

    Looking at the course of your edits over the past two weeks one can clearly see how much work you've put in. You deserve the highest kudos for your unflinching ability to take constructive criticism with grace. One area which did not receive any revision is the section on Mr. Helvarg's books. When I made my original comments about sounding a bit too much like "promotional text", the section on books was one of the principal sources of my frustration. Again, I think each description leans a little bit too much toward saying what the book is about, rather than explaining why the book is important enough to have two or three paragraphs written about it. Address that and you'll have my vote. —thames 13:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

    Thank you for the praise. I am, however, at a loss to see what changes you seek to the books section. The War against the Greens subsection contains one paragraph describing the book's contents, one reporting key ractions and one explaining its significance. This seems to be the format that you describe. Likewise, the Blue Frontier subsection has a paragraph about the contents and a second about the book's consequences. The other two subsections do not meet your criteria; largely because they cannot do so. The Conservation Guide is too recently published to have any appreciable consequences and and Feeling the Heat has had no significant effect beyond being placed on some academic reading lists. While reviewing the article in the light of your comments, I did notice and fix my omission of the genesis of Feeling the Heat, but that hardly addresses your concern. I feel faintly foolish at my inability to see what changes you seek. Can you be more explicit? --Theo (Talk) 18:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Article, and lead section in particular, reads very much like the sort of promotional writing style I would expect to find in a publication for which Helvarg worked. Not that it's necessarily poorly written, but it's not close enough to NPOV for a featured article. In the lead, for example, playing up the John Kerry angle, or the list of places where his work has been published. This looks like a CV, not an encyclopedia article. While I disagree with the earlier comment and think he is notable enough for an article, the article needs to spend more time establishing what effect he has had on the world. Instead of being a recap of highlights in his career, it should place his work in context to allow greater understanding. Areas where I would be interested in seeing more detail - his broadcasting career and work prior to his current environmentalist emphasis, and his role in the Spongebob brouhaha (it's difficult to figure out how the brief mention here fits within the controversy as outlined in the Spongebob article). --Michael Snow 21:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

  Thank you for your comments. To take your points in order:

  1. I added the reference to John Kerry to address Thames suggestion that I demonstrate the effect of Blue Frontier Foundation. The organization exists to shape opinion. I explored "support of some politicians"/"some senior politicians"/"at least one Senator" but these all seemed weasely. What do you suggest?
  2. Helvarg is a journalist with wide geographic experience. Stating it as being on every continent seemed like a happy medium between "all over the world" and listing the many countries in which he had worked. What kind of phrase do you favour?
  3. I am at a loss to see how the article might do more to establish his effect on the world without resorting to opinion. He has reported on all manner of significant issues, which has presumably increased understanding of those issues. Is that not implied? He has published books that garnered responses that are described. He has established a special interest that has engaged the attention of the people that it is lobbying but has yet to demonstrate any significant effect upon legislation or behaviour. What, specifically, needs to change for the article to address this concern?
  4. I have expanded the material about his broadcasting and journalism. Is this the kind of thing that you advocate? Similarly I have expanded the material about Helvarg's contribution to the Spongebob debate.

  --Theo (Talk) 23:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

  Trying to respond in order.

  1. Since you note in #3 that there is no significant effect so far, it might be more appropriate to talk about where the Foundation came from (i.e., an outgrowth of his book) and what it is (a grassroots lobbying organization) than what its effect has been. Kerry is fine to mention in the article, but using him in the lead smacks of PR/marketing tactics that try to translate "Bigshot X has made supportive noises about us" into "Look how important we are because Bigshot X is one of our strongest supporters".
  2. Sorry, in writing "places" I was more focused on the laundry list of publications after the mention of continents. Given the context I should have narrowed this down better. Your happy medium is a fine solution with respect to the phrase in question, the stuff that follows is more the problem.
  3. It's difficult to point to any one item, and I think much of the problem is the overall impression created by the article, along with how the body interacts with the lead. Improving the lead section may help somewhat. The implied premise that journalism generally increases understanding of the subject matter is fine and need not be stated as such. But since it theoretically applies for all journalism, it would help if you can highlight any way in which Helvarg's contribution to the field is unique. Can you point to him as a pioneer in his field, even if this means pioneering in a rather specialized facet of the field?
  4. Yes, this helps, and I can now comprehend the context for Spongebob much better.

  To sum up in a way: it's difficult to get the feeling that it's a featured article when it sounds like it's about a run-of-the-mill environmental activist. The article need not show that he's more important than other environmental activists—featured articles on relatively minor topics are fine—but it does need to show what distinguishes him from other environmental activists. Otherwise, it just seems like a generic article about a generic subject. --Michael Snow 00:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

  In other words, the writing needs to be brilliant. :) --mav

  Thanks, Maveric. Perhaps my attempts to address Michael's further points has moved it more in that direction. I have excised John Kerry from the introduction, moved the illustrative list of publications into the Journalism section and emphasised the unique expertise that he brings to bear as a lobbyist. Is this enough? --Theo (Talk) 11:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support with a reminder that we are voting on the article, not the subject. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:39, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• object your references section is quite brief, but probably sufficient, however, it's difficult to see which reference has been used to provide facts for which area. A system of inline references such as footnotes would help considerably. Mozzerati 19:53, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

  Thank you. I have now attempted to clarify how to find the sources. --Theo (Talk) 23:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. There is a difference between bloating a short article and writing a quality article on a significant entity. The notion that "If he's notable enough to be covered at all, then the article can become featured" is one reason I don't like the whole "Featured Article" thing in general. -R. fiend 20:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

  I am not sure how to amend the article to address this objection. Please clarify. --Theo (Talk) 23:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

  There is no way to adress this objection, as it goes against established practice of FAC vote, and arguably against the spirit of Wikipedia. One reason this encyclopedia is so great is that you can find loads of detailed information about topics that recieve little coverage if any at all in printed encyclopedic reference works; this is what we need to put on display with our Featured Article sections. Very notable topics are covered just as well if not better in printend encyclopedias. Phils 23:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

  Exactly! Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:22, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

  Unactionable objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 18:55, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support as per Filiocht. Kudos to Theo on the massive rewrite since the last FAC--although not worthy then, it is now. Congrats. Meelar (talk) 15:28, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Outstanding objections at point of failure

• Michael Snow on May 18: "[...] article need not show that he's more important than other environmental activists—featured articles on relatively minor topics are fine—but it does need to show what distinguishes him from other environmental activists."

Article rewritten that day in attempt to address criticism. Awaiting comment from Michael Snow. --Theo (Talk) 23:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

To the extent that I've raised specific, actionable objections as is expected in the FAC process, it's probably fair to say that the changes have tried to address them. I think the article needs improvement and still feels as much like a promotional bio as an encyclopedia article, but I express that as a general impression and it's less easy to point to specific things that should be done. As a result, I'm not enthusiastic enough about the result that I would support renomination, but I'm not looking to pursue continued criticism of the article either. --Michael Snow 00:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Mozzerati on May 18: "it's difficult to see which reference has been used to provide facts for which area."

Annotated article with Template:Inote and added explanatory note to ==References== on same day. Asked Mozzerati to identify where further source citation was needed. Awaiting response from Mozzerati. --Theo (Talk) 23:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I responded with an comments in the article as requested. Mozzerati 20:31, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

• Dcfleck on May 20: "I think the article could become a better one by paring it down"."

Dcfleck condensed ==Career== section on May 23 and offered to do the same to the rest. Awaiting excision by Dcfleck. --Theo (Talk) 23:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)