Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Howard Dean/archive1

Howard Dean

After having read this article many times, I have found it to be exhaustively researched, minutely detailed, and remarkably even-handed. I believe that it meets all of the criteria in spades and I therefore submit it as a candidate to become a featured article. --12.217.121.245 02:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, while I agree the article is well written and quite balanced it comletely lacks references of any sort.--nixie 02:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean aside from the "Further Reading" section and the rather lengthy list of websites at the end?--12.217.121.245 02:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, facts should be easily verifiable, this is important for things like $ in campaign donations and so on to be given as inline cites.--nixie 02:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - How difficult is it to verify information by scrolling down to the bottom of the page? (By the way, I count seven in-line citations in the presidential candidacy section.) --12.217.121.245 02:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Html links in text should not be used in the place of a proppper footnoting system which allows the reader to view the URL and records the URL for future reference if the site goes down. These links also don't address the verifiability of other parts of the article, the reader should not have to guess which one of 20 external links or books contains the information they may want to check.--nixie 02:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I note that the articles on Barack Obama, Margaret Thatcher, Jean Schmidt, Joshua A. Norton, Sid McMath, Ralph Yarborough, and John Major all lack proper footnoting. Shall we strip them of featured article status? --12.217.121.245 03:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Mabye, but rather than being combatitive why don't you fix this article, it shouldn't take very long since you appear to know the subject matter well?--nixie 03:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        1. I don't know how to footnote. 2. Even if I did know how to footnote, I don't know which link goes where because I didn't write the article. The fact is that nowhere does it say that a featured article has to have footnoting. It says that it must have sources, which the Dean article has in spades. If a skeptical reader doesn't believe what he reads and wants to check the facts, I fail to see how the writers have any responsibility to him other than to provide their sources. --12.217.121.245 03:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The Schmidt article went to great lenghts, even without using a footnoting system, to make that article easily verifiable. It would benetit the reader if this article at least attempted to verfiy some of the more specific facts mentioned.--nixie 03:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Nixie - The featured article criteria call for inline citations (which html links in the article are a perfectly acceptable form of), and a complete listing of references in a references section at the bottom. →Raul654 06:18, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
        Even if that's the case, there's still the fact that the article already has seven inline citations. --12.217.121.245 06:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Using the footnote style is definately neater and more helpful. You may also see the print version where the raw link displayed spoils the text. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:21, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
To clarify (1) More things in the article should have inline cites for verifiabily (2) It is not clear if the external links listed at the end of the article are in fact references that were used to write the text or if they are general interst articles about Dean the same is true for the further reading section, where those books actaully consulted to write the text (3) 3/6 html links in text that were assumedly used as refernces are dead, and one is a link to an ad - not a reference (4) There are incomplete citations in the text like the Time one, that are not included in a list of references, and the websites linked to in text are also not listed in a list of references.--nixie 07:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. The images Image:Howarddean.jpg and Image:AlGoreHowardDean.jpg are claimed under "fair use". However, I see no reason to use them, since we've got a GFDL picture of him at Image:DSCN4189 howarddeanstatehouseportrait e.jpg. --Carnildo 04:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'm pretty sure that Image:Howarddean.jpg qualifies as a publicity photo. The Al Gore photo, on the other hand, is clearly the property of Reuters and is therefore banned under Wikipedia policy. I'll just nip over to the page and remove it, then mention why in the talk page. --12.217.121.245 04:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, Image:Howarddean.jpg needs a fair use rationale, as described in Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. --Carnildo 18:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, Image:Howarddean.jpg does not need a fair use rationale, because publicity photos are not considered fair use. Wikipedia policy says, and I quote, "Since such photos are distributed for reuse by the media, there is an implicit license for their use. Such photos are not fair use, and are not subject to the fair use restrictions." As I read it, that means there is no problem with using the picture. --12.217.121.245 21:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support with reservations. The article is well done, well researched, and balanced. The main controversy here seems to be over the use of citations. I personally prefer inlined cites that look like this [1]; not all websites referenced in cites like that need to appear in the bibliography (or "references") section IMO; however, if the FA guidelines specify a particular format, I guess that's the law. In general, I don't see any statements in the article that are controversial or strange enough for me to be like "woah, WTF, let me see the source." Also, I am a little worried -- we just had an FA about Jean Schmidt, should we have another US politician so soon? Sdedeo 22:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with you in many aspects, perhaps you should start editing the way the featured articles would have you edit, as every article has FA potential. In response to your worry about too many US politicians, I should let you know that those who select the order of the FAs make sure that their order gets varied. (This is to nominate for FA status, it doesn't go directly to the front page, look at the WP:FA page). -[[User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]}_{11:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]