Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jane Austen/archive2

< 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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2016 [1].

Jane Austen

edit
Nominator(s): Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Jane Austen, as the article of her biography, which now has been expanded to include a Themes section and a Novels section as requested by editors. I tried to have the article assessed without the Themes section and the Novels sections, but failed, compare Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jane Austen/archive1. Afterwards, the article received copy-editing by J Milburn, Rothorpe and (for GOCE) by Miniapolis, who were attentive to a precise reading of details in the article. Users Bishonen and Johnbod also made helpful comments on improving the lead section. The two added new sections are now complete. With thanks for all helpful comments and improvements, I am submitting the article once again for assessment, in the attempt to participate in the nomination process in time for the completion of the six-volume Harvard critical edition of Jane Austen's works due in its fully completed form in October 2016. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:CassandraAusten-JaneAusten(c.1810)_hires.jpg: source link is dead and the given tag does not make sense - what is the copyright status of the original work?
  • File:CassandraAustenSilhouette.png needs a US PD tag. Same with File:SteventonRectory.jpg, File:Jane_Austen,_from_A_Memoir_of_Jane_Austen_(1870).jpg, File:Henry_James_by_John_Singer_Sargent_cleaned.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first one appears to have been the subject of revert-warring between the initial upload and retouched versions; the CC licence pertains to one of the derivatives. IMO it should be changed back to PD-Art, as the artist died over 170 years ago—the licensing just seems to have been missed when the relevant over-write was reverted. The original is in the NPG, so I don’t think it’s very important where the particular reproduction came from (pace the perennial legal question regarding reuse outside the US). At any rate the source document is still on the Austen website, at a different URL.—Odysseus1479 18:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I don’t think the above PDF can actually have been the source of our file: the embedded image there has only about one-sixth the resolution, less than 3% as many pixels.—Odysseus1479 20:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tags ammended and updated by User:RexxS this morning. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility comments

I don't believe there is an easy solution at present for the information in the family trees being inaccessible to a blind visitor, at some point the long description attribute may be usable. --RexxS (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Lingzhi

edit
  • Oppose. The nominator dragged this nom in with massively messed up refs; the reviewers then took it upon themselves to disavow the existing format despite its long-standing presence and explicit request in the refs section to retain it ("LISTS OF WORKS ARE IN MLA — PLEASE FOLLOW — THANKS"), change it overnight without consulting previous editors, and while doing so, toss WP:Consensus into the trash bin.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Editors are not free to dictate the format of an article indefinitely. The difference between "MLA" and the present reference style is so minor that only a pedant could possibly claim that it significantly altered the previous format - particularly as the citations did not adhere to a single format. Using templates reduces the opportunity for editors to make mistakes and shows up problems/errors more readily - there are even scripts to rigorously check templated citations for errors. I showed that the principal authors of this article are no longer active on Wikipedia, except for Fountains-of-Paris, the nominator, who has endorsed the reference clean-up. It is sad that a reviewer without any contributions to the article should criticise the stated preference of a major contributor, especially when a consensus of editors has agreed to that. Allowing one single editor who dislikes change through no more than person preference to block reasoned consensus between multiple other editors would indeed "toss WP:Consensus into the trash bin". --RexxS (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The notes and refs are very inconsistent and will require large amounts of manual labor to check. This is partially due to Wikipedia's wholly indefensible lack of an MLA standard template that would make it easy-peasy to keep track of consistency issues. Please do feel free to complain to Those Higher Beings Who Deign to Maintain Templates and Dictate All Matters Thereupon (with benevolent disdain for lesser beings). I will add things one by one as I find them:

  • Why is this in Notes instead of in the Monographs and articles of Secondary Works: Aiken, Joan (1985). "How Might Jane Austen Have Revised Northanger Abbey?". Persuasions, a publication of the Jane Austen Society of North America. Retrieved 18 April 2016.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar question for: Beer, Gillian (1998). "Introduction". Persuasion....  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doody, "The Short Fiction", The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen, 85–86.
  • Doody, "The Shorter Fiction", The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen, 87.
  • Why are these formatted inconsistently, and why are they in Notes instead of References: Claire Tomalin, (1997) Jane Austen: A Life, New York: Random House, Inc., p.155. ISBN 0-679-44628-1; Claire Tomalin, Jane Austen: A Life (New York: Vintage, 1997), p. 230.; Claire Tomalin, Jane Austen: A Life (New York: Vintage, 1997), p. 231.
  • Why are these formatted inconsistently: Duffy, "Criticism, 1814–1870", The Jane Austen Companion, 94–96.; Duffy, "Criticism, 1814–1870", The Jane Austen Companion, 97; Duffy, "Criticism, 1814–1870", The Jane Austen Companion, 98–99; Duffy, 94–96.; Duffy, 94–96.; Duffy, 97; Duffy, 98–99.
  • What is this? In the Notes we have multiple cites of Fergus, "Biography" and Fergus, "The Professional Woman Writer" and one cite of simply Fergus, 18–19 and one of Fergus, Jan (1997). "The professional woman writer". In E Copeland and J McMaster. The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-49867-8. BUT in the references we have "Fergus, Jan. Jane Austen and the Didactic Novel." and "Fergus, Jan. Jane Austen: A Literary Life.". What refers to what, and why are there expanded references in the notes sometimes but sometimes abbreviated, and why are the two Fergus sources in the ref section apparently never cited?
  • Why do we have three sources by Fullerton in the references which are nowhere cited in the Notes?
  • Why are these formatted inconsistently: Honan, 93.; Honan, Jane Austen, 287–289, 316–317, 372–373; Honan, Jane Austen, 289–290.
  • Two Gilson sources in Notes but not in Refs. Also Grundy.
  • Why are these formatted inconsistently: Johnson, "Austen cults and cultures", 218.; Johnson, "Austen cults and cultures", 219; Johnson, "Austen cults and cultures", 219; Johnson, "Austen cults and cultures", The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen, 211; Johnson, "Austen cults and cultures", The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen, 213.; Johnson, 211; Johnson, 211.; Johnson, 213.; Johnson, 218.;; Johnson, 219.
  • Koppel, Kordich, Kozaczka in refs but never cited. Ditto Page, Poovey and Said. Ditto Miller, Mudrick and Myer. Ditto Sedgwick, Wiltshire.
  • In both sections, Le Faye is a huge mess in multiple ways.
  • Comment: The references and bibliography desperately need to be converted to use templates (e.g. {{cite book}}) and links (e.g. {{sfn}}). Doing so would have turned up many of the inconsistencies and omissions noted above. I am willing to do the conversion if there is consensus that it should be done. For an example of a previous conversion that I have done, see these diffs for Euthyphro dilemma. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Jonesey95 that an appropriate mix of CS1 templates and {{sfn}} would force consistency on the citations and allow the short notes to be directly associated with the corresponding full book citation. I must add that that Lingzhi's inability to work out which section is which between Notes, References and Bibliography makes his comments very difficult to decipher. --RexxS (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agreement with these last two comments and I have left a message on Jonesey95 page that we are in support of his offer on the references. @Prairieplant: has also offered to join in as needed for the references for further enhancement. Jonesey95, I think, can start in whenever its convenient to start. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jonesey95:, @RexxS:, @Prairieplant:, @Fountains-of-Paris:, I agree with the general desired results of consistency and of linking the inline citations to the reflist. However, I very strongly disagree that {{cite book}} must be used. I am very very, very, happy to see someone resisting the dull tyranny of standardization that is being implicitly enforced by the template maintainers. I am very very very happy to see MLA here. The desired goals can be accomplished using using the wikicite template.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Consistency of citation format, both now and going forward, using wikitext or visual editor, can be conveniently implemented by the use of CS1 templates. Manually-crafted citations produce exactly the sort of inconsistencies that you complain of above, so it does not seem logical to reject a scheme that addresses your concerns, without supplying a good reason. Template:Wikicite is an archaic kludge that is only needed to create the links for handwritten citations; it does absolutely nothing to address the many inconsistencies in formatting that you itemise above. If @Jonesey95: hasn't had time, I'll make a start on upgrading to CS1/sfn citations tomorrow. --RexxS (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. And NO.Consistency is created by careful editing. Cite Book is a wikipedia-only standard that is in practice shoved down everyone's throats because the template maintainers flatly refuse to make MLA and APA templates. They are in fact disctating style by default. No No.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Consistency is created by careful editing." But you showed in the section above that this well researched, well written article has wildly inconsistent citations, missing citations, and unclear citations. Using templates is the best way I know to resolve these inconsistencies. What is your proposal for making the article's citations and references consistent, easy to maintain, and verifiable? Manual (mostly) MLA-style citations are clearly not getting the job done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The heroic volunteers who began and expanded this article selected MLA because that is the format that is most commonly used outside of Wikipedia for literature articles. We should honor this. The proposal is two-step, but one is beyond the scope of this FAC. I'll mention that one first, just to get it out of the way: we need templates that do MLA and APA and Chicago [insert multiple exclamation points and a "highlight" template here]. The second one, more relevant for this forum is: use wikicite, and fix the damn MLA.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm confused. If I go back a few days and look at the references in the version of the article from 26 July 2016, I see inconsistent citations and can discern no particular dominant style. Here are a few:
  • Kordich, Catherine. How to Write about Jane Austen (How to Write About Literature Series), Chelsea House Publications, Oct 31, 2008. ASIN: B00CZ2GOCO. (where do the italics end?)
  • Austen, Jane. The History of England. Ed. David Starkey. Icon Books, HarperCollins Publishers, 2006. ISBN 0-06-135195-4. (editor after title)
  • Le Faye, Deirdre, ed. Jane Austen's Letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. ISBN 0-19-283297-2. (editor before title)
  • A Truth Universally Acknowledged: 33 Great Writers on Why We Read Jane Austen. Random House Publishers. 2009. 320 pages. Edited by Susannah Carson. ISBN 1-4000-6805-3. (total page count?!?, and editor after date, shown as "Edited by" rather than "Ed.")
  • Elizabeth Bennett: Major Literary Characters, Chelsea House Publications; 2004. ISBN 0-7910-7672-5. (no italics for the title? no author? comma before publisher? semicolon between publisher and date?)
  • Emma: Modern Critical Views, 142 pages, Chelsea House Publications; New edition (2010). ISBN 1-60413-816-5. (page count, comma/semicolon separators, date in parentheses)
  • Austen-Leigh, James Edward. A Memoir of Jane Austen. 1926. Ed. R. W. Chapman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967. (one way of showing the original publication year)
  • Lascelles, Mary. Jane Austen and Her Art. Original publication 1939. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966. (a different way of showing the original publication year)
  • Footnote 112: Le Faye, Deirdre (2003). Jane Austen: The World of Her Novels. London: Francis Lincoln. p. 278. ISBN 978-0711222786. (cite book template - I count 24 cite templates, none of which match the rough mix of styles in the Bibliography)
Can you see our confusion? Again, what is your proposal for fixing this mess and making it so that future editors can easily add and maintain sources? – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A proposal: It looks like Lingzhi's proposal of using {{Wikicite}} is compatible with using {{sfnref}} within the body of the article. Can we continue adding {{sfnref}} templates to the body of the article? This will help standardize the References section while leaving the ultimate formatting of the Bibliography for later. It will also help reveal missing targets for existing short References, like Bronte and others. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Yes, the sole and only reason to add {{wikicite}} would be its option to add the ability to link body text to references.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: I reject the proposal of using {{Wikicite}}. Its documentation states "This template is only needed for handwritten citations, or citations using non-standard citation templates, that are linked to by a shortened footnote or a parenthetical reference. If you don't mind using a citation template, it is more standard to use {{sfn}} or {{harv}} with a template such as {{citation}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, etc. The way to reduce inconsistency is via {{cite book}}, at which point you should use {{sfn}} (and {{SfnRef}} within the cite book if needed). I'll make a start. --RexxS (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lingzhi, no personal attacks please. Let's talk about improving the article's formatting, content, and verifiability.
RexxS, if following the WP:CITEVAR guideline means that the article should have MLA style in the citations, hand-written full citations are the only way to achieve that, as far as I know. The CS1 (cite book, cite web, etc.) citation templates do not implement MLA style. Happily, the change to using sfn templates for short citations, as Lingzhi agreed above, is compatible with using the wikicite template to implement the MLA style for full citations. The format of the Bibliography citations can easily be changed to a consistent MLA format, with CITEREF identifiers for the sfn templates, if it makes sense to do so. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Following the WP:CITEVAR guideline ("Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change.) means that you have to seek consensus for a change. In addition, removing inconsistencies that have arisen through hand-written citations is not merely on the grounds of personal preference. The remaining principal author, Fountains-of-Paris, has indicated agreement with the clean-up. A single dissenter does not have a blocking veto on consensus. --RexxS (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There appears to be FULL CONSENSUS among all 5 participating editors (@Jonesey95:, @RexxS:, @Prairieplant:, @Clpo13:, and myself) that Jonesey95 should continue with the reformatting of the citations throughout the article as was started yesterday with multiple supporting editors opposed by one hold-out editor named User:Lingzhi. The format being used by Jonesey95 is identical to one which is used in dozens and dozens of peer reviewed articles at Wikipedia for years now and has in no way detracted from those peer review articles in their current FA and GA status even though User:Lingzhi is opposed to this well established standard. Further, User:RexxS has made a generous offer to switch the article to an alternate cite style in trying to bring the one hold-out editor towards consensus, and was immediately turned down by User:Lingzhi. User:Lingzhi apparently is opposed to the general Wikipedia policy as written in WP:CITEVAR and is using this article's assessment as a forum for pressing his old preference for MLA formatting which is only one option at Wikipedia (WP:Forumshop). It is suggested that User:Lingzhi recognize that there is a full consensus for supporting Jonesey95 on the reformatting which was started yesterday and that when there is full consensus then it is up to User:Lingzhi to start to move closer to the consensus of five editors rather than remain a single hold-out. User:Lingzhi may move his discussion to the Village Pump policy discussion board if needed, and his Talk page is notified as to WP:Forumshop. User:Jonesey95 is free to continue the reformatting of the Jane Austen article given the FULL CONSENSUS of the five participating editors, with Lingzhi the sole hold-out. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying: I do not wish to be counted as a contributor to the article for CITEVAR purposes. I will abide by the consensus of other contributing editors. I am happy to implement the consensus using my technical and analytical skills, and I am always willing to engage in constructive discussions.
I also want to point out that while Lingzhi appears to be frustrated, that editor has been engaging in discussion and has not reverted any of our edits. I greatly appreciate this show of good faith. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that's well put. Since there is full consensus from the others we hope you can apply your technical skills with our constructive support for reformatting the references and citations in Austen. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many statements above are genuinely unfair characterizations of me and my position. An apology would be appreciated (but alas wouldn't alter my oppose). I am definitely not forum-shopping; I am responding solely to what I see here. I actually do not love MLA; my discipline(s) work solely and only in APA and I am tremendously more comfortable APA than MLA. I am not sure which laundry list of policies Fountains-of-Paris thinks I am opposing (and shopping my opposition). [I DO think that the template maintainers of cite book are massively remiss for flatly refusing to produce MLA, APA and Chicago flavors of cite book; they have an untouchable cast-iron WP:OWN on the issue, in flagrant violation of policy at WP:OWN.] I Opposed before I went to sleep based solely and only on one: WP:CONSENSUS. There was a huge note to retain MLA in the refs; editors disregarded in the space of only a few hours with zero-point-zero attempts to find out who had written it, when, and why it had stood for so very very long. Consensus doesn't mean "a pack of editors show up overnight and rapidly erase what's been standing for a long time." having said that, I now oppose for an additional reason: Do you have the sources, and are you (at least to a working degree) familiar with their contents??  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SarahSV

edit
  • Comment. There are a few citation mistakes/inconsistencies. For example, Tomalin 1997, pp. 47; Todd 2005, p. 256–257; Jenkyns, 31. There are several others like it. I would say better to leave out p. and pp. If you're using templates, you can do this by using "at =" instead of "page =". SarahSV (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The p and the pps have been added recently. This version from February 2016 doesn't use them. It might be faster to remove them than make them consistent. (This is just my opinion; the main authors can choose p and pp if they prefer them.) SarahSV (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Sarah. I'm sorting those out now. I can use a regex to (hopefully) find most of the problems. Perhaps you could have another look in an hour or so? --RexxS (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see it's using {{Harvnb}}, so forget what I said about "at =". I think that's {{Cite book}}. Perhaps no pp can be achieved with "loc = ". SarahSV (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These differences are being standardized. See the whole discussion above and the discussion on the article's talk page (and the note I made yesterday on the talk page about this very issue). If you see inconsistency right now, don't worry about it. We are working on it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are problems in the lead.
  • First paragraph: "Her most highly praised novel during her lifetime was Pride and Prejudice, her second published novel." The second paragraph repeats this: "Austen's most successful novel during her lifetime was Pride and Prejudice, which went through two editions at the time." No need to mention it twice.
  • The next sentence seems to introduce an inconsistency: "Her third published novel was Mansfield Park, which (despite being largely overlooked by reviewers) was successful during her lifetime", which suggests that others weren't.
  • All of Austen's --> "All Austen's
  • And again with the success issue: "From 1811 to 1816, with the publication of Sense and Sensibility (1811), Pride and Prejudice (1813), Mansfield Park (1814) and Emma (1815), she achieved success as a published author."
  • "Austen wrote two additional ..." --> "Austen completed two additional ..." (or two other).
  • "establishing her as a British author of international fame": I would leave out British. The response to her work did not establish her as British.
  • The lead mentions Pride and Prejudice four times (the book three times and the film once), and links to the book twice.
  • I would consider using Wadewitz's lead. [2]
SarahSV (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin: Tim Riley at GA had rather strong comments to make on the old Lede which you might want to glance at which are still on the Austen Talk page (Tim Riley's GA review is here [3]). After you see it please add further relevant comments on the lead section for comment. The current version was also proofed by Miniapolis for GOCE after Tim Riley's concerns were voiced. I'll look in later today or tomorrow for your comments. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tim seemed to be saying that some items in the lead weren't mentioned in the text. First, that doesn't necessarily matter. If it does matter, the solution is to add them to the text. The writing in the previous lead was better. If I were working on this, I would restore it. SarahSV (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first section is an introduction to her life and career (it needs a sub-heading, e.g. "Overview"). It is good until "Scholars have unearthed little information since," which is how it was left in the version last edited by Wadewitz.
Two sentences were then added: "Austen wrote during the period of British Romanticism leading to British Idealism. She admired a number of British Romantic poets, including William Wordsworth (1770–1850), Samuel Coleridge (1772–1834) and Lord Byron (1788–1824), whose influence on her novels has been studied." Those sentences would benefit from being rewritten, but they break the flow, so it would be better to remove them. SarahSV (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall these two sentences were added with the GA review and the GOCE review in order to make an accurate placement of Austen in her particular literary historical context. Previously there was ambiguity about whether to call her Modern or Romantic, though the citations clearly identify her in the context of Wordsworth and the Romantics with the citations added for clarity. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fountains-of-Paris, how would you assess your own familiarity with the scholarship and the sources in the article? It's a tricky article to get right because there is so much work to cover. SarahSV (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment the current Lede matches the contents of the article following the peer review by @Tim riley:. The Lede was rewritten based on the concerns which he listed for the Lede and were satisfied to his requirements. The discussion of Jane Austen as a Modernist or a Romantic was taken up with @J Milburn: during the expansion of the article with my adding the new Themes section and the new Novels section to the article which the late Wadewitz had not included in the old version of the article. Possibly Tim Riley or Josh M can add something further. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fountains-of-Paris, you didn't answer the question. To what extent are you familiar with the scholarship? The article needs to be written by people who know how to build on Wadewitz's work and who have read the sources she used (or know what to replace them with). SarahSV (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fully familiar with it, I have been editing the article for the past six months and added nearly half of its content bringing it to GA peer review quality. Possibly it will help for your to read comments by other editors also [4]. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I see two other editors objected to the new lead after the GA nomination in April. They were right. The previous lead was significantly better. There are problems throughout the article with choppy prose where people have copy-edited Wadewitz's work. (In fairness, some of those editors may not have been working with Wadewitz's text.) Victoria has pointed out below that the themes section was added in one diff in April, and bits (perhaps all) seem to have been copied, without attribution in the edit summary, from Reception history of Jane Austen. That explains why the long refs were missing; only the text and short refs were copied over. SarahSV (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Victoriaearle

edit

Strongly oppose changing from MLA style. I can do it in my sleep, (well practically), but this article (which borrows text heavily from Awadewit's other articles in her Jane Austen suite of articles) should respect the style originally introduced per citevar. The citation clean up is outside the purview of the FAC and should be discussed on the article talk page. Until it's sorted and consensus achieved there suggest withdrawal. Victoria (tk) 17:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many of us continue to have respect for the edits of the late Wadewitz to this day. The current article has now had 6 different editors contributing substantially to the article over the past five years which has had an effect on the references and citations in the article. The current suggestion to move forward with support for Jonesey is a highly respected form of citevar used successfully in dozens and dozens of peer reviewed articles at Wikipedia. The discussion you wish to defend concerning WP:Citevar can be taken to the policy discussion at the Village Pump for a fair hearing of all sides. At present, we are fully supporting Jonesey in his widely used and successful approach to making the citations and references consistent in the Jane Austen article fully in accord with WP:Citevar and following many years and many editors making contributions after the early editors of the article years ago. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm oppposing on the basis that as an literature article, the citations are being changed incorrectly. Victoria (tk) 17:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As has been said multiple times here and on the article's talk page, the full citations before I started my work yesterday were highly inconsistent, some full citations were missing, and many short citations were ambiguous as to what source the short citations were referring to. Fixing these errors is imperative for verifiability. Changing the full citation format after the verifiability work is done is easy to do, if that is the consensus that emerges. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It was not previously in MLA style. Perhaps if editors were not asleep when they added cites, we wouldn't have had the muddled mix that was complained about. Please explain how you reach the conclusion that "the citations are being changed incorrectly", as I see a consensus to update to a consistent format. Please cite the Featured Article criterion that your oppose is based on, because I can't find it. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, RexxS, they were very close to MLA style but a lot of text was copied from other articles using only the short cites without also copying over the proper bibliographic entry. Cross posting this comment: [5]:

::This work cannot be done during a FAC nor should these citation be put in templates because Wikipedia templates don't support MLA style, yet most of our literature FAs follow MLA. I only stopped in for a moment, had the page on watch and am very disturbed to see how this unfolding, would love to help but this is a huge task. A small example is that MLA no longer uses pp. or even p. They simply give the page number. Beyond that, it's impossible to sort these out without being immersed in the sources and having them all available. If the nominators don't have the sources available, how can they respond to comments? Will crosspost to the FAC. Victoria (tk) 17:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Opposing per WP:WIAFA 2. c. If changed, please use MLA as Lingzhi explained above and achieve consensus for the change on the article talk. I'm willing to show you all how to do this, but won't do it in a flurry. It takes time and shouldn't be done during FAC. Victoria (tk) 17:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article as nominated, and as currently written, fails both 1.c (verifiability, because some short citations do not have corresponding full citations) and 2.c (the citation format is inconsistent). I am working on both, but it will take at least a few days. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to give more of an explanation/reason for my oppose. Because the article is on my watchlist, I noticed when this edit was made. One issue is that from a quick dip, "The Regency period" is an exact match to the second and fourth paragraphs in "1812–1821: Individual reactions and contemporary reviews" of Reception history of Jane Austen (it's probably since been copyedited and now the refs have been changed). Except for the very beginning, "The Victorian Period" was an exact match to the Reception history's "1821–1870: Cultured few" section (again, probably copyedited and now the refs have been changed). I've not gone beyond those two sections, but pinging Laser brain whether this is ok or not? (Frankly I'm not sure). However, I am sure that it's not a "Themes" or a "Style" section as I'd expect to see in an article about a writer, therefore also opposing per WP:WIAFA 2.b. In my view the citation work should cease until this situation can be sorted. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 01:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I knew that the integrity between the text and the sources had been lost, and when I saw this nominated I intended to address the issue, but in a more kind and gentle manner. We have a mentoring proposal on the FAC talk page, we have Maunus's suggestions about reviewing, and I would have wanted to help, in fact offered help above. I'm familiar with Awadewit's citation style, with the material, with the article, yet comments such as these are counterproductive when help is being offered, when mentoring is being offered. This is not a situation about templates vs. no templates, it goes deeper and should have been sorted without pushback. Likewise, Lingzhi's comments were meant to be constructive and should have been taken in that spirit. Anyway at this point punting to the coords to sort out. Victoria (tk) 02:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Victoriaearle: Copying text from one article to another is allowed assuming proper attribution is given (usually via an edit summary like "copied from Reception history of Jane Austen" so readers can go see who wrote the source text). Those familiar with the subject and sources should determine whether it's advisable or appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

I would like to request that everyone keep their comments here focused on WP:WIAFA and move the extended debates about citation style elsewhere. Consistently formatted citations are a requirement, and stability is a requirement. @Fountains-of-Paris:, please remove your bolded "support" statement above, as it has the appearance of a support statement from a reviewer. --Laser brain (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article now appears to be fully converted into a consistent format following the Jonesey and @RexxS: edits of the past two days carried over from the Talk page of @Bishonen:. FA refinements and critiques are now being added by various editors to address the concerns and critiques regarding peer review standards for assessment. The bolded sentence you refer to has been removed for assessment to continue. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not nearly done with the citation conversion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jonesey95, I think you need to stop and gain consensus, mainly because of WP:CITEVAR and that literature articles normally use MLA, and because you're converting them without access to the sources, which isn't ideal. Fountain's responses to Lingzhi and Victoria have not been okay. SarahSV (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment all have been following Citevar as presenting alternative citation standards, of which @Jonesey95: has chosen the one which @RexxS: is also comfortable with, as well as @Prairieplant:. If there is something in Citevar which requires the use of only the MLA standard then this needs to be articulated. At present there are dozens and dozens of peer reviewed article which apply the same citation standard which Jonesey is using here and which the other contributing editors are in agreement with. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fountains-of-Paris and Jonesey95: WP:CITEVAR cautions against adding templates to well-formed references (and Wadewitz's version seemed fine) and against "replacing the preferred style of one academic discipline with another's." I'll elaborate on the talk page. SarahSV (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @Fountains-of-Paris: I'm of a mind to close this soon. Two things are happening that concern me in having this nomination open any longer. First, the citation style being blown up and rebuilt during an active nomination is causing stability issues. Second, I am awaiting your answer to a critical question posed by SlimVirgin above regarding your access to and understanding of the sources used to write this article. If you have not read the sources used to write the article, you should not be nominating it for Featured status because you lack the ability to respond to questions about the content. Please clarify this ASAP. --Laser brain (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, please read my detailed comments above and on the article's talk page. As I have stated, I am fully in support of CITEVAR, but WP's verifiability policy is more important, and the citations were highly inconsistent when I started work (see examples above). The short and full citations were very much not "well-formed references" when I started work on the page. They are much better now, and they will be better still when I am done. Once verifiability is established through consistent formatting and verification of citations, we can easily reformat the citations to any desired format. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much as many of us still have much respect for the late Wadewitz, she never got around to nominating the article herself when she was still here. Both @Johnbod: and @J Milburn: stated very directly that the late Wadewitz did not complete a Novels section or a Themes section for the article which would be needed by today's standards at Wikipedia for a peer review nomination. Wikipedia peer review standards have moved forward and many of the late Wadewitz edits have had to be updated in the process of time moving forwards. The old version of the article by the late Wadewitz was not a peer reviewed article since she did not get around to making all the edits which the current editors of the article for Jane Austen have sucessfully implemented to improve and substantially expand the article based on current Wikipedia standards for peer review quality (@Rothorpe: is another one of the top editors of the Jane Austen page who is familiar with this). Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I've been tagged a few times: I fully support the guideline on not changing citation formats, and I don't think that the fact that an article has been expanded can, alone, be used to justify changing the citation format. A clear consensus to change the format can, of course, justify change. While I have not looked in detail, my initial response to the above discussion is that there is not consensus for a change, which means that the article's original style should be favoured (assuming it is a recognised, consistent style which provides enough information to be meaningful/usable). Josh Milburn (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Whatever the intended original style was, CITEVAR says we should use it. When the article was nominated, the citations had many problems, including inconsistency and verifiability problems. As I have said many times, once the citations are consistent and verifiable, they can easily be formatted to consistently use the intended original style. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Substantial and legitimate concerns have been raised about the content, text/source integrity, and citation style. Issues should be worked out on the article talk page and not during the FAC process. —Laser brain (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2016 (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/Jane_Austen/archive2&oldid=1090671012"