Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wolf: A Journey Home/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 not promoted by Karanacs 14:06, 4 May 2010 [1].

Wolf: A Journey Home

edit

Wolf: A Journey Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets all of the featured article criteria. This article is currently a good article, and it has gone through a peer review during which prose issues were addressed and copy editing performed by User:Finetooth. It is a shorter article than some FAs, however it is well-researched and comprehensive, culling all reliable online and offline sources about this novel. The article is neutrally written and very stable. It follows the established Wikipedia Manual of Style and the more specific novel manual of style and all citations are done in a consistent format with all necessary details. It has a single image, which is non-free with an appropriate FUR. (I believe its preferred that I note that I am currently in the WP:WikiCup, so while it has nothing to do with this nom per se, am noting it :-) )-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? It is a picture of the first edition cover. Standard part of any article on a book to provide a visual identifier of the work. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does this "standard" use meet FAC 3 or WP:NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Huh? Obviously it was published outside of Wikipedia as it is available on various seller and book information websites. It fully meets WP:NFCI #1 and WP:NFCC. And yes it also meets FAC 3, easily. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Inappropriate use of non-free content, fails WP:NFCC8, hence WP:WIAFA3 Fasach Nua (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does not fail NFCC8 either, however I see you have made the same basic arguments in various FACs lately, and despite having it explained to you numerous times that it is not a violation and that consensus agrees that this is a valid fair-use, you continue to make an oppose. There is no free equivalent to a book cover, and the cover is contextually significant to the book. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • Image check: the sole image of the copyrighted book cover is a valid fair use. It also has a Fair use rationale.
    • Is it to possible to add picture of the author?
    • A brief para about the author 'Asta Bowen and her other works can be added. "Bowen based the stories in Wolf: A Journey Home" does not provide much context. What is her primary profession? biologist? writer?
    • Why was the name changed? Any reasons by the author/publishers. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no free images of the author, and I cannot see justifying a non-free one when, in the end, she is a fairly unnotable person. From her website, she appears to be an English teacher at Flathead High School,[2][3] who has also written a few op-ed pieces for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer,[4] made a single sound recording of a Manx Shearwater,[5] and wrote one other work, The Huckleberry Book that "details Rocky Mountain huckleberry ecology and lore, in addition to 37 delectable recipes—from cakes to champagne" (per Amazon.com).[6] There is really nothing much to tell about her beyond that, as she doesn't include a bio in the book either, and with BLP concerns I'm not sure I'd be comfortable saying much at all if she herself doesn't say much (I think one source mentioned a husband, but that's it for personal life). Bios on the author are generally not a part of a novel/book article, though her occupation is listed in the next paragraph. And I could not find any sources discussing the name change beyond confirming it was changed. One source hinted that the book had been updated, but in comparing the two, I couldn't figure out where beyond the removal of the illustrations and the change from the original cover to one using a picture of real wolves. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reordered the development section a bit to move her history to the front. Does that help address the concerns on context? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found the answer to the rename and have added it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Afraid I don't have much to say and am not familiar enough with articles about books to support (though nor do I oppose). However, having read the article I will express that I enjoyed it. Plot summary was easy to follow. I made one incredibly minor wording change of an "as" to an "are" but I didn't spot any other little errors. As nominator acknowledges it is on the short side for a featured article, but I didn't find myself absolutely crying out to know more; ie I didn't sense any glaring omissions. Good luck with the nomination. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Charles Edward I am sorry the article has went this long without a thorough review. As you may notice there is a shortage of reviewers here lately - please considering reviewing or commenting on the of the recent other FACs. I do have some concerns about the article, and I have outlined them below.

  • General
    • In the plot section I am left with several questions. Does the article treat the wolves as sentient creatures - do they "talk" to each other? Or is it just following the life of normal animals? A single sentence at the lead of the plot section would clear this up - something like "The plot revolves around wolves who were captured and released back into the wild, and is based partially on a true story"
  • Citations needed
    • There are no citations in the entire plot summary section. The section is also not following some of the common practice for plot summaries, by using phrases like, "the book says", "the author wrote".
    • "Publishers Weekly's Sybil Steinberg called it a "powerful first novel" and a "genuinely eye-opening tale"." - uncited quote
  • Prose
    • "The wolves are kept in a human facility for a couple of months to be examined,..." perhaps it should be "humane facility"?
    • "In early winter, the wolves are sedated again and awaken to find themselves in strange high place that smells of grizzly bear with radio collars around their necks" - the place smelled like grizzley bears with radio collars? What does a radio collar smell like? lol! I hope you laugh as much as I did on that one. :) I suggest a rephrase.
    • "Chinook was later killed for continuing to hunt livestock, Timber died from a poacher" - perhaps "...killed by a poacher."
  • References
    • Ref # 2 does not seem to have any content to support its statement. It is probably also not a reliable source - its only a high school website
    • Except for reference 5, & 10-14, all the references are primary sources. This is a little worrisome. You might want to read over WP:PRIMARY and see if there is any way to replaces some of the other citations.
  • Images
    • Note: File:Hungry for Home by 'Asta Bowen.jpeg is non-free, but has an acceptable fair use rationale
    • The article is short of images. How about a picture of a gray wolf maybe? I am sure there are some good ones your could find over on the commons.

Oppose unfortunately I have to oppose for now. There are some minor prose issues, lack of images, and significant referencing issues, in my opinion. The article is pretty well wrote though, and an interesting read, good job so far and keep up the good work. The hard thing with bringing article like this through an FAC review though is the lack of good third party sources. You will have a hard time finding enough good references for a topic like this to satisfy the FA criteria, in my opinion. The good article process was developed for this very reason - accommodating articles that could probably never achieve FA quality. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that the plot summary does NOT require references, right? Per overwhelming Wikipedian consensus, the source is the novel itself and it does not require any kind of inline citation to state that. Nor is it "common practice" to say "the book says" or anything like that in a plot summary of a work. The summary makes no implication that they are sentient in terms of talking to each other, and the lead already has the summary you mentioned. I don't see how adding that sentence would "clear up" the question at all.
Your claim that the quote does not have a citation is incorrect. The citation is right there on the second sentence from the same source, however I have duplicated it for the confused. For your prose questions:
  • No, it is a HUMAN facility, as in run by humans. Whether it is "humane" or not is subjective and undetailed.
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
As for the references, yuo again seem to be very much mistaken and perhaps looking at the wrong article.
  • It supports the statement that she is a high school teacher, and it certainly is a reliable source for that.
Finally, no the article is not "short of images" nor is being overly illustrated a featured article critiera. Wikipedia articles do not need excessive decoration that have nothing to do with the topic. Randomly picturing a gray wolf does not improve the article nor would it expand the readers understanding of the topic. That is why there is an article on the gray wolf. Only references one through five are primary sources, and that is perfectly acceptable. You seem to be both unfamiliar with the general format and nature of articles on media, and some of your opposes make very basic misstatements. I find this very concerning that you would oppose with so little familiarity with the topic and while seeming to have so little understanding of even basic Wikipedia style and the FAC guidelines itself. The article is certainly able to satisfy the FA criteria and none of your opposes show any way that it does not other than the minor grammar issues noted, which were fixed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree I am not perfectly familiar with this topic, but I am very familiar with policies and guidelines. The sole MOS guideline for plot summaries is here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#Plot_summaries, aside from WP:PLOT which is part of WP:NOT. It does actually specify that plot summaries should explain the plot from the authors perceptive.
While you are correct that consensus generally allows plot summaries to be uncited, this is allowed because the prose of the plot summary makes it clear it summarizing the book with phrases like the ones I mentioned, which do not appear in this article. Likewise there is no guideline which specifically states plot summaries are exempt from WP:V, and they must not wander into WP:OR (which this article does not). That was my reasoning behind those statements
I disagree that a image of a grey wolf would add no value to the article, quite the contrary, it would let the reader see what the subject of the book looked like. The FA criteria says an article should be "well illustrated", but this article has only a single image of the cover of the book. No image of the author, its subjects, etc.
In regard to "human facility", I was only inquiring. In that case, it should be rephrased. What kind of human facility was it, that it rather non-descript, which is the reason I thought it was a typo. I see though you say it is not detailed, so I will not worry about that one. :)
In regards to the uncited quote, it is not cited in accordance with Wikipedia:Cite#When_quoting_someone, which states "you should always add a citation when quoting published material, including the page number if there is one. The citation should be placed either directly after the quotation", my emphasis.
My opposition is based on the lack of reliable third party source. The article is almost entirely sourced from primary sources. Please don't take offense, it is just my opinion that this topic will be able to produce the type of sources needed. :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Offtopic discussion moved to talk. Steve T • C 15:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Sorry, but you are incorrect on the plot summary. It is fine as is. There is also the MoS re novels (and the ones re films, television, etc which also cover plots). Again I see no value added with repeating a statement from the lead and later in the article, and as no other editor has made such a request in the PR, GA, nor this FAC, it seems to be more your personal opinion than actual consensus and practice. Plot summaries do not require any sort of "phrases" you mentioned to be considered valid. This has been discussed ad nauseum in more than enough places and it will not benefit this FAC to rehash them here. If you disagree with the practice, I'd recommend bringing it up elsewhere, but as is, it is perfectly valid now. The plot is verifiable - read the book.
An image of a random gray wolf is not necessary. "Well illustrated" does not mean just add images to make it pretty. Most novel, film, television, and other media FA articles have only one image. A random gray wolf does NOT illustrate what the subject looks like. There are no pictures of any of the wolves from the novel and one gray wolf is not the same as another. They have many variations in size, color, etc. Gray wolf is the species name and not a color. We also do not put images of authors in a novel article. What the author looks like is unimportant. What a "wolf" looks like is both unimportant and basic human knowledge (and if someone really doesn't know, they can go see the article on the gray wolf to get a general idea). For the same reason we do not throw screenshots in film and television articles just to show what a "character" looks like, we do not do it for novels.
The human facility is non-descript in the novel, so it by necessary must be non-descript in our summary. The author never clarifies what kind of place it is, or even really where it is. I don't see how it can be considered a typo. If you can show that this article is somehow not utilizing a reliable source that is available, please do so, but do not opposed based on the non-existence of a source on a topic already deemed notable by Wikipedia guidelines. The FAC does NOT require an article to have a section or coverage on topic X if there are no sources. The article has some primary sources, yes, but it also includes all appropriate third party referencing where available. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In an effort to address your concerns about too many primary sources, I have added another third-party source, from a local newspaper article that I found today about it. Buried in said article is the answer to the question on the rename, which I've also added as a useful tidbit. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:04, 29 April 2010 (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/Wolf:_A_Journey_Home/archive1&oldid=1089816703"