Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inauguration of Barack Obama/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 by SandyGeorgia 02:00, 3 August 2009 [1].

Inauguration of Barack Obama

edit
Nominator(s): Lwalt, Aaron charles, TonyTheTiger
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I would find it hard to believe that with all the improvements to this article that there would not be consensus that it is among the finest on wikipedia. Although I started the article and undertook the GAC nomination myself, the article is hardly my work anymore. Before GAC the other two main editors listed here did heroic work while it was one of the highest trafficked articles on wikipedia in January. More recently they have done incredible work responding to concerns in prior FACs and PRs. I think this is ready now.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment.
  • Fixed; thanks. The infobox has a caption but no image? Surely an image is intended there.
  • Fixed; thanks. The alt text needs work. For example, for File:ObamaInaugurationCapitolPreparation.jpg the alt text "Inauguration preparations at the United States Capitol" is weak because (1) it nearly duplicates the caption, and (2) it says little about the appearance of the image. Better would be "U.S. Capitol at dusk, mostly darkened but with dome floodlit from within. Just below it is a lit area with several dark figures.". Please see WP:ALT #What to specify and WP:ALT #What not to specify.
Eubulides (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much all of the alt text has a problem. Much of it simply duplicates the captions, which isn't helpful to the visually impaired. Also, the newly-added image lacks alt text. Eubulides (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's much better, but I'm afraid that it still needs work. Too often, the alt text explains the image rather than describes it. If there's repetition between the alt text and the caption, that's a sign that there's something amiss: the alt text should talk only about visual appearance, whereas the caption should assume that you can see the image (or the alt text) and should not repeat what is already obvious about visual appearance. Also, alt text should not presume expertise on the subject: it should be immediately verifiable by a reader new to the topic. (For more on this please see WP:ALT #What not to specify.) For example, the lead image's alt text is currently "Barack Obama holds his right hand in the air as he and Michelle Obama both smile toward Chief Justice Roberts whose back is to the camera during the oath of office of the President of the United States." (my italics). Only the italicized part is about appearance. The rest is interpretation or explanation or identification, which doesn't belong here. A reader new to the topic won't know that the bald-headed guy is Roberts, for example. We might make an exception for the two Obamas (most educated readers know already know what they look like) but not for anybody else pictured. Eubulides (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still needs work, I'm afraid. There is a typo "walt past". More important, the alt text assumes details that a non-expert reader cannot verify simply by looking at the images. Here are the problems I noted: "the Bidens" (most people don't know what the Bidens look like), "large portion of the seated section of the U.S. Capitol" (most readers won't recognize that nondescript image as being from part of the U.S. Capitol), "From left to right: Itzhak Perlman, Gabriela Montero, Yo-Yo Ma and Anthony McGill" (most readers don't know what these folks look like), "National Statuary Hall at the United States Capitol" (most readers don't know what it is, much less what it looks like), "President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama walk" (it's not clear from the image that they're walking, or that they are President and First Lady (it might be before O. was inaugurated), "From left to right: the Obamas, Bidens and the Clintons stand with their heads bowed in a pew" (again, few know what the Biden's look like; also, Hillary Clinton is not recognizable in this photo); "View of the entire length of the National Mall from the U.S. Capitol" (most people don't know the National Mall well enough to know that this view is from the Capitol), "military personnel and hummer in the street" (it's not a hummer, surely; also, please capitalize); "Barack Obama holds his right hand in the air as he and Michelle Obama both smile toward Chief Justice Roberts whose back is to the camera while a large crowd watches." (most people won't know what Roberts looks like and even if they knew couldn't tell from this image). Eubulides (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor comments
  • "People in the United States and from around the world paid unequaled attention to the inaugural event, with reactions ranging from celebration and praise to cautious optimism and indifference." Seems like a lot of peacockery and words to avoid crammed into a single sentence: Assert facts and substantiate
  • I suggest we replace the sentence with a statement that reviews what is referenced in article text like: "Based on combined attendance numbers, television viewership and internet traffic, it was among the most observed events ever by the global audience." Aaron charles (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:* "the historic occasion of the 56th inauguration" every inauguration is historic, this claim seems a bit excessive

:* "Everyday American citizens", "41 "everyday" American citizens" are there biannual American citizens?

:* "extends from U.S. Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial" Wikify

:* "including big name donors" notable? wealthy? celebrities? surely something more formal

  • Group of citizens on train ride includes some tangential information, especially on Kuntz and Ledbetter that interested readers can click through to find out more
  • International reaction has some peacockish words as well that should be "neutral-ized": heralded, extended heartfelt congratulations, etc.
Overall a solid and excellently referenced article. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Although the article has clearly undergone massive improvement since the last FAC, there is still something about the article that leaves it short of the "well-written" criteria. The article's forte has always been its depth and good referencing, and I think it's a symptom of the subject's specific nature and the lack of precedent for writing about such a subject that it remains intellectually unappealing, and certainly not for want of effort or contribution by its main editors. The prose just doesn't hang together in the way that an encyclopedia article is expected. In places it lacks justification for the informational value of a fact; in others, it remains unclear why a certain aspect of the inauguration is a notable exception to inaugural tradition, or how other inaugurations have planned. Coverage of some aspects, like the outreach to ordinary people, come across as platforms for the inaugural committee's desired presentation, leaving it open to debate whether in third-party observation it was actually of any notable interest. As a whole, it seems to document what the event was like, rather than what it was. It's not far off a featured quality, but right now it still doesn't stand as a compelling case for promotion. Bigbluefish (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have yet to be successful at FAC on any topic resembling politics (Jack Kemp and Jesse Jackson, Jr. have also failed). Instead of a constructive review of particulars for improvement, I feel your concerns were an indictment. The bickering with political subject seems to the nebulous. I can correct specifics, but changing the tone from one focussed on what it was instead of what it was like is a little mystifying to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I was able to get Richard Cordray through the process, but my Byron Brown FAC attempt was puzzling and I received no feedback for Antoine Thompson. I should tone down my categorical statement against political noms. Maybe my Michelle Obama attempt was premature.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is not first and foremost a political topic; it's a ceremony, something in between a short historical event and an individual performance of a performing art. I'm not sure if the latter has any featured articles, and I'm not sure that if promoted this wouldn't be the least noted and least documented historical event by a good margin.
          • I am not sure whether to take the double negative of that last sentence as outrageous sarcasm or what, but I can not fathom a group of ceremonies among which this was the least noted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Less sarcasm, more clumsy syntax on my part. I meant that if it were a featured article, it would be one of the least notable historical events. Since most of the historical event FAs are things like Night of the Long Knives, I think we probably agree there. Bigbluefish (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't know what dimension you are measuring notable events by, but did you read the first paragraph, which includes the following text: "The inauguration, which set a record attendance for any event held in Washington, D.C., . . . Based on combined attendance numbers, television viewership and Internet traffic, it was among the most observed events ever by the global audience." You seem to be reacting as if the inauguration of Barack Obama was event that no one attended or watched.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • However, I do understand that a fan of the SS might oppose this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I despair. If you cannot see the difference between saying that something isn't notable enough to be an FA and saying that it is a different kind of subject to what is already featured (and hence that getting such an article to featured standard for the first time should be expected to be tough) then you may be way out of your depth trying to evaluate articles against the FA criteria. Bigbluefish (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I cannot accept the insistence on a list of specific local points for improvement. First of all, FAC isn't a peer review process, it's an administrative process for selecting FAs. If you don't think an article is going to be promoted without first responding to comments by others, it should be going through peer review first. The potential for some objections to promotion to be addressed during the period of the process doesn't mean that if the objection isn't simple to solve it's not valid. Second, the problem with the article is one of overall tone, phrasing and perhaps structure. To present a list of individual changes to make would be to do the job itself. That job is difficult and requires extensive rigorous understanding of the subject, and if I were able or willing to make that time commitment I'd have fixed the article and supported its promotion instead.
          • My problem is that generally, concerns at FAC are suppose to be actionable. This article has satisfied two peer reviews. The tone to me seems professional. In fact, one of the primary editors is a professional copyeditor or something like that according to a prior FAC or PR, if I recall correctly. A comment that amounts to this article needs a general copyedit for tone, when it has undergone a half dozen such copyedits, is a little bit disconcerting to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sure if the professional copyeditor concerned is reading this, he or she would agree that excellent prose is the product of an iterative process. The last peer review was merely a list of example foci of attention for the article, offered by one editor, which were diligently addressed point by point. To suppose that this "satisfies" some metric misses half the value of the peer review in the first place. Even a point-by-point peer review is an illustration of where far more edits might be directed. If a peer-reviewer were to list everything that can be fixed, they might as well do the edits themselves. An article with specific things to fix cannot be said to be satisfactory until it has been re-analysed after the obvious points have been addressed. Bigbluefish (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • O.K. I dug through the prior FACs and PRs to find that in FAC1, Lwalt (talk · contribs) identifies himself as a professional writer. This article actually maintains a very high standard for prose, IMO. You do not offer any substantive or actionable points of opposition in this regard other than that it does not measure up to the SS article by some nebulous standard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • You may or may not be aware that Lwalt has now contributed 765 edits to the article to bring its prose up to a professional standard. He is now the leading editor by edit count and without him this article would not be worth considering for FA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you're having difficulty understanding what's wrong with it, consider an article about a film which tells you what kind of camera they used. This is inexplicable detail, unless the camera used to belong to someone important, perhaps, or was an amateur camcorder. Every film has a camera, and usually it's not worth mentioning. Similarly, the only automatically notable features of an inauguration are the names of the people involved. All the rest - invitations, speeches, ceremonies, parades, balls, etc. happen every year. The details of these become notable when their unique nature is appreciated separately from the fact that they routinely happened again. Another example: the article presents the formalities right after the oath as though they are specific to this inauguration. A quick visit to United States presidential inauguration reveals that this happens every year, and even expands with the specific regiment that issues the 21-gun salute. Tone or phrasing issues like this permeate the article. The only view I mean to add through this process is that these issues prevent the article from reaching a featured standard. Bigbluefish (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • First of all, this event does not happen every new year, but rather every four. There are numerous annual events that are FAs. There are annual Grand Prix events and annual Bowl Games, for example. What makes these articles FA-class is description of details in large part. That is what you are clamoring against here. I do not understand.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not sure where you get the impression that I disagree with the inclusion of detail in this article. It's the way it's presented that is unencyclopedic. The Grand Prix articles, for example, are constantly relating their detail to the outcome of the race, a critical aspect of the subject. None of them, on the other hand, mention that champagne was sprayed at the podium, though it undoubtedly was. Bigbluefish (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • If there were endless WP:RSs relating details of what people were wearing while spraying champagne, which celebrities MCed the spraying, which celebrities performed at the spraying, which celebrities attended the spraying and a motorcade throughout the night that travelled across town from location to location to repeat the spraying or if there were DVDs being sold with hours of footage of the spraying it should also be included in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is clearly a futile discussion. I've identified two specific actionable examples of what is wrong with this article. If you lack the imagination to transfer the concept across to other parts of the article then leave it and let someone more experienced deal with it. If others disagree that these are issues then go ahead and promote the article to FA. But I cannot and will not engage with an attitude that seems to believe FA status to be a mark of completion, FAC to be a game to be played to be won for personal gratification, and edit counts or the Midas touch of one user to be infallible mechanisms for achieving perfection. Rereading my original comment, it was anything but an indictment. To have devolved the FAC into such a childish spat begs the question as to whether Tony values the quality of an article above and beyond whether it has a little medal to go with it. Bigbluefish (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are getting quite off topic. In no way have you convinced anyone that the Inauguration of Barack Obama was a trivial historical event. Neither of your hair splitting differences (the article is not notable enough to be an FA or it is different kind of subject than any other previous FAs) counts against fulfillment of any clause of WP:WIAFA, thus you have not presented a valid argument against. The fact that it may not hold a candle to your beloved SS article in your mind is not a valid argument. The fact that this event recurs periodically is not a valid argument. Whether you believe I want a medal is not a valid argument. In fact, I would love to get a fifth WP:FOUR award. Heck I am hoping for 8 by year-end (Crown Fountain, McDonald's Cycle Center and Rob Pelinka are in the pipeline), but that is not an argument against this article. What makes no sense to me is that here I am going for my fifth WP:FOUR and then you make the case that I am out of my depth trying to evaluate articles against the FA criteria. Which is it? Am I trying to pile awards on top of my awards or am I too inexperienced in the process to pursue awards. P.S. I apologize none of my WP:FOUR awards are SS-related.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Although it is by no means required for reviewers to list every problem that they find with the article, it is often helpful to list a few specific examples so that the nominator has an idea on how they can improve the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:08, 1 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Inauguration_of_Barack_Obama/archive3&oldid=305752847"