Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tom Swift/archive1

< 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 promoted by Karanacs 15:59, 1 September 2009 [1].

Tom Swift

edit
Nominator(s): Ricardiana (talk) 06:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article status because, after very thorough and helpful reviews from Nikkimaria, Brianboulton, and Jonyungk, I believe that it meets the criteria. If not, I would still like to continue to improve the article, and receiving feedback here will help me to do that. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 06:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This article is a thorough and highly enjoyable overview of its subject, much like the articles on The Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew, and as such is thoroughly researached and well written. It deserves at least consideration, if not promotion, to featured article status. Jonyungk (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Swifties are mentioned in the "Cultural impact" section. Ricardiana (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could've sworn I didn't see them! Anyway, hands down great work. ceranthor 21:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! the article owes much to great reviewers. Ricardiana (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a few comments for improvement: first, the intro is kind of short per WP:Lead, as it is now well over 32 kb; second, I would still argue for a few more internal links. Also, I'm unsure of the alt text guidelines: is alt text recommended for these images or not? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific as to what you suggest be added to the lead, and what should be linked? I'm not sure about alt text guidelines - it's never come up for me before. I'll see what I can find out. Ricardiana (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comment about the lead was based not on what I feel to be lacking, but on general guidelines - articles of this size should have a 3-4 paragraph lead per WP:Lead. You could potentially add length by a) giving a brief overview of the different series, b) mentioning criticism of the series, or c) simply expanding slightly what's already there, but these are just suggestions. As for internal links, possibilities include: diesel electric locomotive, house trailer, any of the listed writers that have articles (I didn't check to see if they did), photo telephone (or whatever the proper term is), Jews (since African-Americans is linked), the Bible...I'm sure there are plenty of possibilities for helping to WP:Build the web. I, too, was unsure about the alt text...I just remember other FACs being criticized for the lack of appropriate alt text. Anyways, this is a great article, and I think it deserves the FA star. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikkimaria, for all your suggestions. I'll comb over the article and make some changes. Ricardiana (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton has kindly offered to help with fixing these. I will also do what I can. Ricardiana (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was tougher than I thought, with these highly ornamented book covers, but I have added alt text to each of the images. My efforts will no doubt benefit from a bit of tweaking, but there you go. Hope to comment on the nom tomorrow.Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for doing this, Brian; I think it looks great. I especially like the description of the last cover - I hadn't realized until this issue came up how hard that cover would be to describe, and "struggling" works very well, I think. Ricardiana (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was a good job. I spotted only one major problem: unnecessary duplication with caption (they are normally read together, so alt text shouldn't duplicate the caption; see WP:ALT #What not to specify). I tweaked it to fix that, and also to make it a tad briefer. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I gave a lot of attention to this article during its peer review, and my concerns were adequately answered then. It reads strongly and fluently, and is an excellent addition to Ricardiana's early work in this genre. I have just a few final quibbles/questions:-

  • Authorship section: In this section, author information is only given for the first two series, so is "Authorship" the best name for the section? Or is it possible to mention who were the writers of the last three series?
Hmm. Well, I couldn't find reliable sources on the authorship of the last three. I'm not sure what else to call the section, though ... maybe "Creation"?
  • Series section: the intro (beginning "Five different series featuring Tom Swift...") merely repeats what we have just read, so is it necessary?
No. I just thought there had to be some text between a level two header and a level three one, but I've taken this out. Ricardiana (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third series (1981-1984): It would be interesting to know if the racial stereotyping evident in the earlier series is present in this and later series.
I agree. Unfortunately, reliable sources on the last three are hard to come by. I put in what I could. I haven't myself read much of the last three - I would say the problem was resolved in much the same way as in other Stratemeyer Syndicate books - by mostly eliminating non-white characters (although the third series does have a Native American character). Ricardiana (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Books: A missing word: "...a half-dozen more in the most [*] series, Tom Swift, Young Inventor,..." Is it "recent"?
Yes - added. Ricardiana (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cultural impact: Fourth paragraph begins "The series has..." I take this comment to refer to all five series, in which case "has" is wrong. "The series have..." sounds wrong, but if you were to say "The five series have been criticised for their views...", that sounds OK.
I changed this to "books" only because the critic is mostly talking about the second series, with a little of the first thrown in, and, like most writers on TS, doesn't mention the latter three series. Ricardiana (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worthy of promotion on all counts, I think. Brianboulton (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brian, for your support and all of your comments. Ricardiana (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As stated at the Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys FAQs, James Keeline has written a number of essays of Stratemeyer Syndicate series which rely on archival research and which have been published in journals that are indexed in the MLA. Ricardiana (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a good idea to remind me of this when you bring the next one of these sorts of FACs... I'm getting old, I can only remember so much (and it's not a broad enough subject to put him on my cheatsheet). I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will keep that in mind. However, I mentioned that this issue has come up twice before, not as some sort of rebuke or slur on your memory, but in order to establish that consensus has in fact been reached before, and, by naming the specific articles on which it was reached, to enable anyone looking at this FAC to look up the previous discussions and see what was said. Ricardiana (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • What's the point of the piped link pen name in the Authorship seciont? Nothing wrong with this, but it struck me as odd.
I was asked to link this by a previous reviewer. Ricardiana (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Simon and Schuster produced two other Tom Swift series: one, published from 1991 to 1993, and the Tom Swift, Young Inventor series, begun in 2006." Shouldn't the comma between Swift and Young be changed to an endash? I'm not a grammar expert, but something about that sentence doesn't sound right. Just throwing that out as a possible reason. Regardless, you should be consistent, in the Fifth Series section, the series is titled with colon, not a comma.
The fifth series is spelt this way on the cover of the books. The colon was inserted by some other editor; I've fixed it. Ricardiana (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlink, As racist redirects to racism, this term is linked twice in the Original series section. I'd remove the 1st link, as it is inside a direct quote.
Good catch; thank you. Ricardiana (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stratemeyer Syndicate employee Andrew Svenson described the new series as based "on scientific fact and probability, whereas the old Toms were in the main adventure stories mixed with pseudo-science",[26] and three Ph.D.s in science were hired as consultants to the series to ensure scientific accuracy.[12]" should be split into two sentences.
"Should" is wording it strongly. I agree, however, that two sentences is better here. Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fifth series section is very short. Suggest either expanding this section (preferred) or merging with another section.
There are no further reliable sources with which to expand the section; keeping the section separate is in keeping with the structure of the rest of the article. Ricardiana (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Books, television, and other media" is an awkward title. Here's my suggested fix: Re-title "Other media", make the sub-section "Books" the introductory paragraph of the "Series" section above.
I like that suggestion - thank you. Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it reads better this way. The only further suggestion I could make, is I think with the new order, the level 3 heading under "Other media" is now un-necessary.
  • "; no film, however, was made -> IMO "; however, no film was made" sounds better.
I appreciate your opinion; however, in my opinion, the way it is is fine. Ricardiana (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • , but, for unknown reasons, the series was never produced.
That is how the sentence was written originally; I was asked to insert the phrase you've struck out during previous reviews. Ricardiana (talk) 05:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it reads better without, but It's not a big deal.
  • First sentence of Cultural impact, shouldn't the parenthesis be changed to en-dashes? (might want to double check with someone more knowledgeable about grammar).
No. A parenthetical clause may be set off by parentheses as well as by dashes. What I have is perfectly correct. Ricardiana (talk) 05:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1910: by 1914" That's not the proper use of a colon. I would break this up into two sentences.
What is "improper" here? Please cite a rule. Ricardiana (talk) 05:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I retract this. WP:MOS#Colons does show an example of colon usage similar to this statement. It's just not a usage I'm familiar with.
  • In explaining the change from TSER to taser the "'A'" is upper case but taser is lower case. IMO the cases should match.
Taser is routinely spelt this way, in this article and in other reliable sources; the original acronym of TSER is spelt in all caps in the cited article. Ricardiana (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, my question is should the "'A'" be downcased to match the casing of taser? I don't know the answer, just asking.
  • The stray sentence at the end of the article should probably be moved up to the proceeding paragraph.
Agreed. Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised there isn't a rebuttal to the criticisms of the series pointing out that these ideas were acceptable and even popular in their time. Do your sources support such a statement?
I cite only statements made in reliable sources. My sources, of course, say what I say they say. There are no other sources. Ricardiana (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not doubting your sourcing. Should future research turn up a source with rebuttals to these criticisms, I think that should be included.
  • I'm concerned about this source [2] The publisher appears to be a personal website, and the posting of an entire page of Time magazine may be a copyright violation. Have you asked our non-free content experts if this is ok?
Awadewit, who is an expert on this kind of thing, reviewed this article and found no problem with the scan. In any case, the Times' content is available through databases; I've cited to this website rather than a database b/c it is accessible to anyone, not just university students/faculty. Ricardiana (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking, just wanted to be sure.
  • Keeline.com is a personal website. Does Mr. Keeline have sufficient credentials to comply with those guidelines? (I'm sure Ealdgyth either has or will bring this up)
This has already been brought up, by Ealdgyth, above, and I have given my answer, also above. Ricardiana (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, if Ealdgyth is happy, I'm happy.

That's about it. Interesting read, these issues are mostly minor prose issues that can be easily fixed. Thanks for putting effort into this article.Dave (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - and thank you for the time and effort you put into reviewing it. Ricardiana (talk) 05:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Responded in-line. My concerns are resolved.Dave (talk) 17:12, 28 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/Tom_Swift/archive1&oldid=1091467195"