Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walter Whitehead/archive1

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2016 [1].

---

Walter Whitehead

Nominator(s): Sitush (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a surgeon and President of the British Medical Association who invented a new surgical procedure when he turned up for work with a hangover. I've done extensive research of both secondary and primary sources and feel confident that there isn't anything of significance omitted that would be acceptable under our various policies and guidelines. The prose might need some tightening up but my regular GA/FA copyeditor is no longer with us, sorry. I've not bothered with the GA stepping-stone: excuse my arrogance but I feel this article is at worst very close to FA standard. I'm hoping that others feel the same. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Walter_Whitehead.png needs a US PD tag

Also, a general comment on references: rather than repeating the publication title in place of the author for unattributed news articles, I suggest omitting it and sorting by article title. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• I will sort out the US PD tag. While I think aesthetics are inherently subjective, I'm not actually aware of how to usefully implement {{sfnp}} using article titles, especially given the length of some of those titles. I think somewhere - William Beach Thomas, perhaps - I used "Anon" for the author name but when there are so many newspaper articles listed that is just going to make things even more difficult for the reader. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Here's a sample of how this can be done without changing the inline citations at all - just add the harvid you're already using to the references. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ah, thank you. I've often wondered about the harvid thing. I'll have a think. - Sitush (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• Sorry, I'm not at all well and have not got round to this yet. I will do. - Sitush (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• @Nikkimaria: I have just converted the "B"s per your suggestion. I'm going to think about this: while the things would appear to work ok in a linked environment, it seems very clumsy should someone print the thing - they would be struggling to find the correct citation, especially if the list is re-jigged to restore the alphabetised order. - Sitush (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• You could also use a shortened form of the title for the inline citation - that would just take a bit more immediate work in coding and organizing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, with a fair amount of fudging, but it still seems somehow "unnatural" to me. I expect citations to begin with the name of the author and, yes, it is probably pretty rare to have so many anonymous citations in a WP article. Is it a situation that is more common than I realise? Is there anything inherently wrong with repeating the publication title, rather than merely some aesthetic issue? Does anyone else have thoughts regarding this? - Sitush (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Commenting per request on my talk page. In my FAs on films, I have often had to cite anonymous works. The Harv set-up works best if you use it from the beginning. Personally, I agree that repeating the publication title is not particularly attractive, but it has been done. Usually, however, I see it as "X staff writer" or the like. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• It was me who asked, and I did ping Nikkimaria at the time because I'm wary of canvassing but aware that Crisco, like NM, has considerable experience of FAC. Thanks for the response, Crisco 1492. Could you perhaps link me to a couple of examples of relevant film FAs? I'm not averse to changing the cites, just cautious that this is primarily an aesthetic issue and that it might impact in non-hypertext situations. Maybe I need to get with the modern world, where everything is hypertext! - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• FAs not using writer fields where no writer is indicated include Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI and Sorga Ka Toedjoe. I can't think of any FAs using X staff writer off the top of my head. I think I usually saw that in User:Tim riley or User:SchroCat's FACs, but I may be mistaken. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• (To be clear, I have no objection to you seeking a second opinion). There's also Oliver Bosbyshell using the publication-title method, and Lawrence Wetherby using (unlinked) article-title. I don't immediately have a linked article-title example to hand, though I can keep looking. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hitler Diaries, Great Stink etc are mine with no writer—they start with the article title; I don't see it as a problem, and the aesthetic isn't one that's struck me before. I know Tim Riley adds the words "staff writer", but that's in hidden text inside the article (certainly on the articles we've worked together on). Hope this helps! – SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

My thanks to all of you. I'm going to take a look at those examples now and then I'm going to change the format here per your suggestions. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Done Citations are now in the style used at, for example, Hitler Diaries. - Sitush (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, this has sat here a fair while. Here's a review

• Lead strikes me as overly verbose. The article is relatively short; I don't see why the lead should take up nearly 15% of its length.
• Third paragraph of the lead: too many sentences starting with the pronoun "he" or a variant
• Both agree that he met with medical students in Manchester while attending chemistry lectures intended to give him more knowledge of the workings of the family business; later, he also met with them while attending the market in Manchester on behalf of the business. - Also looks like it could bear some massaging. A bit verbose.
• Drs. Harris and Bennett - first names?
• , when his address was given as 16 Union Square, Bury = is this necessary?
• LM and LFPS - Care to gloss these?
• Having all of his titles in caps strikes me as odd. "Honorary Assistant Surgeon", for instance, is used here as a general noun; we would say "a president" but "the President of the United States", not "a President". "an Honorary Consulting Surgeon" is particularly problematic for me.
• new Skin Hospital - Same issue: is this the proper name of the institution, or the general type of institution? The capitalization suggests the former.
• Whitehead's Varnish - What's with the italics?
• I don't see how the famous patients fits with the rest of that section.
• for the endowment - Repeated twice in close succession.
• Overall, the prose strikes me as being very "list-y", especially when you discuss his numerous appointments. I'm not sure this meets the prose criterion. Also, the thematic organization doesn't strike me as having been pulled off well; the article feels disjointed in places. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Closing comment -- I'm afraid that despite the duration of the review this hasn't garnered enough commentary to determine consensus to promote, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.