Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/George F. Kennan/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Marskell 15:49, 26 October 2009 [1].

George F. Kennan

edit

Review commentary

edit
Toolbox

No editor has made more than a dozen non-minor edits, and the nominator is long since inactive. Biography, Cold War, and International Relations WikiProjects have been notified.

Main concern is 1c. "Early life and his career" and "X" sections particularly deficient in citations, and quotes attributed to Kennan are not all cited. I think the article can be easily salvaged, since much of it seems in order to me, but I don't have the resources to do it, hence directing the issue here. Otumba (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am no longer inactive... I have restored a cleaner version of the article, which has eliminated a lot of the recent poorly written and unsourced content. The article should now be up to standard at the moment. 172 | Talk 18:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my apologies 172. The new version is an improvement, but I think the same problems I highlighted still exist (uncited quotes, lack of citations particularly in sections highlighted). The citation criteria has become much tougher since 2005, and even 2007 when I was first around. Otumba (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I have taken another look; I do notice that some uncited quotations were added that were not in my original version. From a quick glance, though, off the top of my head I beleive they are all accurate. I'm sure I'll be able to add the relevant citations.... I'll let you know when I'm done. 172 | Talk 20:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work, and your plan. Do you want me to add citation needed tags to sentences which I think need to be cited, or can you see what I meant regarding the lack of citations in particular for the sections noted? Otumba (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. Please go ahead and add citation tags. Two sets of eyes are better than one. 172 | Talk 22:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, and done. :) On another note, per WP:IBID, ibid references are no longer ok, but if it's ok with you I don't mind converting the ibid references. Otumba (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it was very interesting for me to learn more about Kennan. When I studied the onset of the Cold War, I did learn about the Long Telegram, and I gained an impression from the standard interpretation of the telegram, that Kennan was a hothead against the Soviet Union. Of course, reading the article, clearly that was not the case. Otumba (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has added a section entitled "Criticism". I raise this because when I was last around in 2007 that sort of section seemed ok, but from what little I have read on the issue since then I gather that sort of section is a no-no now, so please could I have some clarification or a direction to where I can read up on posting criticism sections? I guess the most important query is whether FAs should have criticism sections. Cheers in advance for replies. Otumba (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to panic. But I'm moving to FAR to see what the folks think YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose mostly looks OK. "expansive tendencies... Soviet pressure"—I presume it's not the end of a sentence after "tendencies". Please see Ellipses at the style guide. Please check elsewhere for other instances of this. There's "Hitler" linked within a quotation ... try to avoid (and "Nazi" is linked elsewhere). I've reduced the overlinking at the top. I see common words that English-speakers are expected to know: "autonomy", "arthritis", and more. There are lots of high-value links—people, institutions, so let's minimise their dilution? Tony (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing question Is this "Gaddis, John Lewis (1990), Russia, the Soviet Union, and the United States: An Interpretive History (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw Hill, ISBN 0075572583." a text book? Its heavily relied upon and has a title and publisher that make me suspect it is. Amazon and Google Books provide no help. Amazon's citation service reduces my confidence further. This is a question going to over reliance, source quality, and the potential of finding a "better" source. It shouldn't roll the article back. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that textbooks are of a lower caste? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It depends, entirely, on the textbook. Some "textbooks" are scholarly monographs, which happen to be eminently suitable for teaching, and are marketed as such. Some "textbooks" are scholarly monographs aimed at a universal public (Think Zinn's People's history), which happen to be eminently suitable for teaching. Some textbooks are yearly revised magisterial summaries of a field of study, and duplicate the consensus academic opinion (I'm thinking Econ, Law, Eng). These three are high grade sources. Some textbooks are course-notes writ large. Some textbooks are out of date consensus (Gaddis' was first published in the 1970s). Some textbooks at University level bend disciplines towards a... hmmm... "Uniquely American" perspective on disciplinary practice. Some textbooks omit or obscure topics, sources, debates, methodologies which are vital in the academic debate, but difficult to teach at first year, second year, or a community college. Textbooks in the Humanities and Social Sciences which were generated to support specific courses, or low level college teaching, rather than being works in their own right bent towards college teaching later or at marketing stage, can obscure major points that an Encyclopedia would want to cover. Gaddis' title pings some textbook marketing elements, but my attempts to check the book via Scholar or Books or Reviews or Amazon failed. Depending on, if it is a textbook, and, what kind of textbook it is if it is a textbook, the source reliance on it could be reconsidered and a higher quality source located. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Gaddis is the official biographer of George F. Kennan. Although some of his theories on containment have been controversial, I believe I've only used Gaddis to reference factual statements about Kennan's life, not any interpretive statements regarding his policies. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with that source. Foreign Affairs calls it "an excellent survey". [2]. Reviewing the book for The Journal of American History, Lisle Rose writes (of the first edition) that it is "carefully researched" and "judiciously written" and "a valuable summary", and the book (which is a monograph) is widely cited — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.214.112 (talk) 13:21, 13 October 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_review/George_F._Kennan/archive1&oldid=1088720460"