Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/James Joyce/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review | James Joyce

James Joyce

edit
Messages left at Filiocht, Bio, Authors, Ireland, Books, Irish literature, and Novels. Sandy (Talk) 21:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. A very old nomination. No inline references, short lead, some short paragraphs, no fair use rationale on copyrighted images, and badly needs Wikifying (linking technical terms). Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It certainly doesn't need Wikifying (avoid linking common terms). The lead is not short. The paragraphs are not particularly problematic. As for the citations, the article is built from information gathered from the books listed at the end. Richard Ellmann is the source for almost all biographical information on Joyce that you will see by anyone, as it is widely considered the best biography of the 20th century, certainly of a literary figure. Burgess's book has information on critical themes, and particularly the language games of Finnegans Wake. Citing to this page here, that page there, the other page another place is far more than any print encyclopedia does. From Britanica to the DNB to any other source you'd consult, you will see a list of works that provided the information, but citations only if the information is controversial. There are no claims in the article that are controversial. Geogre 03:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: By Wikifying I meant it contains many nearly linkless paragraphs and technical terms are left unlinked. Yes, I do believe a two small paragraph lead is very short for a biography article. The references at the bottom might cover the article entirely but per criteria 1c it has to have inline citations. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It doesn't appear that the original author/nominator has edited in a year and a half (last version edited by Filiocht,) the talk page indicates some doubt about some of the content, and the article history shows no editor appears to be actively following the article. Inline citations are required for FAs on Wikipedia, which can't be compared to other encyclopedias, since anyone can edit: this article does not include them, and there are numerous statements that should be cited. The end of the article contains an external jump, and uses mixed reference styles (some of the references inserted towards the end may not be to reliable sources). The References section appears to contain what may be a link farm rather than actual sources for the article, and the External links section may need attention. Per WP:LEAD, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Sandy (Talk) 06:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link farm? I see the names of the major works on Joyce. Please be sure that you are reading "References" and not "External links" and that you read the lead itself. Additionally, the fact that the people on the talk page were not turned back does not make them correct in their "concerns." People will say the darnedest things. Geogre 13:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is a very well written and sourced featured article, and I can see no reason why it should not remain one. There are no false or controversial facts at all in the page. The only thing that need fixing is the bio-box which is redundant as it contains information easily assimilated from the lead. It is ugly and falls into the section below spoiling the layout. Other than that it seems a perfect page, and I can see no legitimate or worthwhile reason for it being listed here. Giano 14:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm no expert on the subject, but this appears to me to be a well-written, well-structured and comprehensive article on Joyce. I'm actually quite impressed with the way the bottom-of-the-page stuff is laid out; I think it's clear, logical and helpful. I tend to agree that the lead could perhaps be a bit longer, but it's not problematically short and all the important stuff is set out in it in a well-thought out way. And well done Giano II for deleting the ugly and useless infobox. Palmiro | Talk 02:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I would advise all editors and people who have commented here to switch from defending/praising the article to addressing the concerns of this review. Past experience assures me that the article will be demoted if in-line citations are not added. There are many reasons for the necessity of in-line citations, some of which have been mentioned above. In-line citations are an actionable objection and a fair reason for removal of FA status. Joelito (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The FA criteria, say that an FA should have in-line citations "where appropriate". The burden is on those who think this needs in-line citations, to demonstrate that. This article is one of our very best, and continues to deserves its FA status. Paul August ☎ 01:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought inline citations are basically a requirement for all FA's. If this article was to go through the FAC process in its current state, I'm pretty sure it would not pass due to the lack of inline citations. Gzkn 06:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well not according to the Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. The relevant passage is:
Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations.
Paul August ☎ 08:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Then perhaps WP:WIAFA needs some clarification, as I thought consensus had been reached numerous times in the past (see the talk page of FAR, for instance) that FAs need inline citations. And FACs that lack them are routinely rejected. I did always think that the "where appropriate" led to vastly different interpretations. Perhaps its time we cleared up the confusion and state with clarity in WIAFA whether FAs need inline citations or not. (I happen to think they do, but all the arguments in this particular FAR lead me to wonder if my view is indeed consensus.) Gzkn 12:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think (IMO) that if a fact is controversial, or newly discovered then it does need a firm clear reference preferably with a page number to a certain edition. However when the subject is a long dead much researched noncontroversial figure then the footnote is not necessary. " For instance Henry VIII had six wives" does not need citing - "Nicholas II had s secret wife" would need citing. However. listing references used is always essential. I see nothing on James Joyce that makes me want to say "hang on a moment here". Admittedly I have taken to citing almost every verb, my current work is only half finished and already has 117 - but the subject is almost unknown. Joyce is a much researched and reported figure, and that is why this page is fine as it is. It is all there in the references. Now if an anon comes along and inserts a controversial fact, then he must be asked to verify with a detailed ref, but at the moment there is nothing to warrant demoting this page. Giano 12:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this summary. Case closed. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's understandable. I'm not going to get into whether or not the lack of citations warrants demoting James Joyce, but I do think the article needs inline citations. Perhaps those who are familiar with him are comfortable with this article, but what about readers who don't know much about James Joyce? How are they able to figure out whether to trust this article or not? For example, I don't know his early life, so how do I go about verifying the stuff in Dublin, 1882-1904? Which facts belong to which sources? How do I know they are all true? Let's take a random statement: Joyce refused to pray at her bedside but this seems to have had more to do with Joyce's agnosticism than antagonism for his mother. Doesn't this call for a citation? Gzkn 13:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. You have been warned and have decided not to take my advice. Joelito (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all in favour of requiring in-line references for current featured article candidates, but in the current state of Wikipedia it seems premature to say the least to question the status of a long-standing featured article for lack of something that has only relatively lately come to be seen as a requirement. This is a featured article review, so I think people are entitled to bring up whatever issues they feel are relevant in support of that article's status; furthermore, the request for review cites several other issues which are addressed in the replies here, not just the question of references. Palmiro | Talk 23:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All FAs are held to the same standards. If by relatively lately you mean since January 2005 then you are correct. Long-standing FA status has little to do with current standards. Again, it's your choice if you wish to conform to the current FA guidelines or not. As I have said before, past experience shows that the article will get demoted if editors choose not to add the in-line citations.
Also see this thread where the majority of FAR reviewers express their thoughts on the issue. Joelito (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have any passed recently? I really wish to stop this argument. Experience in FAR says no in-line = no longer FA. Joelito (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I bet you do. You were the one who brought up the subject of the date. Giano 16:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there's really a problem with uncited information, you could also use the citation requested template (or even <gasp> the talk page) to indicate where the dubious statements are that need references. Palmiro | Talk 01:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Certainly it needs inline citations, and it could use some copyedit: last para begins with 'Not everyone is eager to expand upon academic study of Joyce' but in effect it mentions only one of his relatives, that's hardly justifies suggestion that there is some widespread movement - seems like journalism style.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can someone advocating for FAC status removal please reassure me that they have recently read a book (that's one of those rectangular things made from processed tree that taste so much like cardboard and are encountered in a library) and are converstant with the academic practice of footnoting! I just checked a couple: in all cases there is an extensive bibliography at the end, and those things that might raise eyebrows or are generally in need of explanation are annotated at the bottom of the page with a footnote. Folks, we are writing an encyclopedia, not a review article or a term paper! Dr Zak 20:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many people wrote that book? Can anyone edit it? Don't compare oranges with bottles. In-line citations are an FA criteria. If you wish to argue them go to the talk page of WP:WIAFA.
Furthermore, books have in-line citations. For example my The Tainos:Rise and Decline of the people who greeted Columbus. Yale Univeristy Press. ISBN 0300056966 uses in-line citations (parenthetical citations). Joelito (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many in-line citations does the FA criteria say an FA needs exactly? Paul August ☎ 21:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, please see the relevant policy at WP:V, Sandy (Talk) 22:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No we will not close the review. An editor has expressed the concern that the article lacks in-line citations (A criteria of What is a featured article?) and we will, therefore, review the article. Joelito (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Joelr3143, please stop whining about lack of inline citations. It would be much more helpful if you provided inline citations for the entire article instead. For my own part, I don't know any encyclopaedias with inline citations. Look at the Britannica, for instance. We cannot apply recently-adopted guidelines retroactively. This is not an improvement but a mess. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I move that we re-factor this page, to remove the discussion of FA criteria to its talk page: inline citations are a current requirement for FAs, and arguing WIAFA on the FAR isn't useful. Sandy (Talk) 22:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that we should move the discussion of FA criteria to the talk page. Joelito (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. We will not shunt the discussion off to the sidelines. You have nominated because of lack of citations, therefore well discuss lack if citations. The long and the short of it is than some editors have commented they do not agree. Those same editors who have chosen to comment feel the page should retain its FA status. Regardless of any ambiguous rules and regulations dreamt up wherever. You are quite rightly going to struggle to achieve consensus to demote here. In fact their seems to be no consensus concerning any of the reasons given in the nomination. Taking away FA status because of inline cites is not automatic otherwise we would not be having this conversation. So the subject stays here. Giano 08:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is a review (FAR) and not FARC. No one wants to see the removal of FA status for this article. However, many would like to see this article attain our current standards. In order to demonstrate that this article may need additional inline citations, I have placed a {{fact}} tag based on a comment from someone in the talk page. --RelHistBuff 10:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you had written a featured article, you should know that it's impossible to provide inline citations after the article is completed (let alone written by another editor). If you want to dispute some fact and think it needs to be sourced, you are welcome to add citations like I did with your tag, rather than litter the page with reckless tags. Such facile approach to editing is simply not acceptable. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it's impossible to provide inline citations after the article is completed (let alone written by another editor) Please don't tell this secret to Yomangani (talk · contribs) - he seems to be doing a fine job. Sandy (Talk) 17:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the cite. The tag was not meant to be reckless; I placed it as a point of demonstration. In any case, the idea was to show that there are potential areas of dispute which is why inline cites may be needed. This is the advantage of having the article under review. --RelHistBuff 12:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Where appropriate" is not in the criteria accidentally. It would be counterproductive to demand that every factual statement has a citation - do we really want every article would turn into a forest of citations? The sky is blue; Paris is in France; Queen Elizabeth II of the Queen of the UK; and gravity makes apples fall off trees. End of story.

Would the persons advocating "review" of this article please indicate which specific factual statements in this article they find sufficiently surprising, unusual, controversial or confusing to require specific inline citation. (The inline external links in the last section could quickly be turned into footnotes, for those who like to count them.) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've only read the first page or so. The writing looks pretty good to me. (The bit about dogs is a little awkward in the first para of his life, but that's a trivial matter.) All FAs must meet the current requirements for referencing. Tony 14:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've expanded the lead a bit, and tried to make it reflect a better sense of where JJ fits in to literary history. Adding inline citations would primarily be a matter of flipping through Ellman (it has an index, after all). I have no stake in the question of whether all featured articles need them, but if anyone who has Ellman at hand (Geogre, I assume you do; ALoan? Paul?) would track down a couple of the assertions in the article--I'll happily do a bunch myself, though not for a few days most likely--we'll have this thing properly referenced in no time. As for the notion that there's nothing controversial, I haven't read the article carefully enough to say, but given Stephen Joyce's recent insanity I'd say we can't be too careful. That blighter will sue anyone in a heartbeat. Chick Bowen 05:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am happy to cite appropriate pages from Ellman, if someone will say which statements they think need a citation. Paul August ☎ 17:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the offer to help, Chick Bowen. Paul, I am (in fact many of the reviewers here are) usually reluctant to pepper a well-written article with cite tags, but if folks are now offering to do the sourcing, would you like for us to add cite tags to the article (which is the easiest way of doing this), or would you prefer we put a list on the article talk page? (I'm also wondering if anyone is looking into the tags on the images?) Sandy (Talk) 19:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll bow to others' preferences about cite tags vs. talk page. I've gone through the images, though. Detailed fair use rationales would be good, and I can add those later. The only one that is of real concern is the lead image, Image:JamesJoyce1904.jpg. It includes the date it was taken, but of course we need the date it was first published to verify that it's PD. The photographer (Constantine Curran) published a book in 1968 and was evidently still alive then, so that suggests it's not PD by creator's death. It might not be PD. In the meantime I'll look around for a good portrait we can absolutely certify is PD. Chick Bowen 05:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This appears to be a well written, instructive article worthy of its status. The debate here seems to relate largely to whether or not the article should receive inline citations in order to maintain its FA. Inline citations are not an FA criteria because of the where appropriate aspect of WP:WIAFA. It seems that there are those here who seek to make in-line citations a defacto criteria for FA status, despite it not being policy. We should wait until it becomes a hard and fast consensual policy before arbitrarily demoting articles because the referencing style doesn't comform to some peoples preferences. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations list

edit
  • Comment Ok. I am sick and tired of people defending the article and stating that they do not find any places that need in-line citations. Here are a few examples:
    • "Reaction to the early sections that appeared in transition was mixed, including negative comment from early supporters of Joyce's work, such as Pound and the author's brother Stanislaus Joyce." Cite this negative reaction.
    • "This has led many readers and critics to apply Joyce's oft-quoted description in the Wake of Ulysses as his usylessly unreadable Blue Book of Eccles to the Wake itself. " Weasel words, should be cited.
    • "Indeed, Joyce said that the ideal reader of the Wake would suffer from ideal insomnia and, on completing the book, would turn to page one and start again, and so on in an endless cycle of reading." Is this a direct quote?
    • "For some years, Joyce nursed the eccentric plan of turning over the book to his friend James Stephens to complete, on the grounds that Stephens was born in the same hospital as Joyce exactly one week later, and shared the first name of both Joyce and of Joyce's fictional alter-ego (this is one example of Joyce's numerous superstitions)." This sound like it needs a citation since I cannot verify it easily.
    • "He has also been an important influence on writers and scholars as diverse as Samuel Beckett, Jorge Luis Borges, Flann O'Brien, Máirtín Ó Cadhain, Salman Rushdie, Thomas Pynchon, William Burroughs, Robert Anton Wilson, and Joseph Campbell." Citations that he is/was an influence for some of these writers is needed.
    • "Countless critics over the past century have argued that Joyce's work has had a harmful effect on modern and post-modern fiction, creating generations of writers who have eschewed storytelling, proper grammar, and coherence in favour of self-indulgent rambling." Which critics? Cite.
    • "Some scholars, most notably Vladimir Nabokov, have mixed feelings on his work, often championing some of his fiction while condemning others (in Nabokov's case, Ulysses was brilliant, Finnegans Wake horrible)." Cite this scholar.
    • "The phrase "Three Quarks for Muster Mark" in Joyce's Finnegans Wake is often called the source of the physicists' word "quark", the name of one of the main kinds of elementary particles, proposed by the physicist Murray Gell-Mann. (James Gleick's book Genius suggests that Gell-Mann found the Joycean antecedent after the fact, as physicists have pronounced quark to rhyme with cork and not with Mark.)" If this sentence is true cite the book and page number.
    • "However, Nabokov was less than thrilled with Finnegans Wake (see Strong Opinions, The Annotated Lolita or Pale Fire), an attitude Jorge Luis Borges shared." Cite since we are stating the opinion of someone.
    • The in-line external jumps at the end of Legacy should be converted to appropiate ref format.
    • I could go into more detail but I think this is enough to prove my point. The article is well written but to someone that knows very little of Joyce and his works the referencing is inadequate. Joelito (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have to agree that the lack of citiations in this article and in general should be a disqualification for featured article status. Without extensive citations, it makes it much easier for someone to coverly slip in either false or misleading information and/or assert a specific point of view which is not clearly supported by quality sources. Also, it raises the question just how accurate an article is if it cannot be verified by specificly cited sources. Without such verification being available, it really is hard to tell whether it is fair, accurate, and NPOV or not. On this basis, I have to agree with those above that this article right now needs a number of citations to keep it at featured article status. Otherwise, if the data were supported, the article itself looks good. Has anyone contacted the Unreferenced Good Articles WikiProject for help? I think they might make a priority of this one. Badbilltucker 15:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy section I began to convert the inline refs, but one of the sources for the lawsuits is a blog (reliable?), and the rest are dead links. Another knowledgeable editor might know where to source these edits, or whether they should be deleted. Sandy (Talk) 16:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sandy. I think these all have proper citations now. Paul August ☎ 18:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New look?

edit

Chick Bowen and Paul August have done a lot of work on the article (diff). Can we get a review from other editors of what, if anything, remains to be done? I'll leave a note for the original nominator. Sandy (Talk) 13:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Statements about medical conditions, diagnoses, phobias, and details of one's personal life without citations concern me, whether in BLPs or wrt the deceased. I'd like to see inline cites on the canine phobia, fear of thunderstorms - God's wrath, John's drinking and financial mismanagement, rejection of Catholicism, squandered money his family could ill afford, mother's cancer - drinking at home - conditions grew appalling, and Stanislaus and Joyce strained relations - frivolity - drinking habits. With those, I'll be satisfied that we can avoid FARC. Sandy (Talk) 16:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's easy enough to do, but it just means a dozen more citations of Ellman. Would a broader footnote with some explanation at the beginning of each sentence do? As a scholar, if I were writing something like this, once I established that all my biographical info was coming from the same source I would more or less leave it at that. Chick Bowen 16:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not fond of the idea of broad covering footnotes, because future editors might insert something that isn't covered. I just don't like opening the door to anything about diagnoses, conditions, alcoholism, cause of death - issues of that nature - not being cited, guess it's my work on medical articles. Whatever you think best: I know that would work in a hard copy or other academic environment, but we have to confront the dynamic nature of an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and any statement that isn't ref'd might be challenged by a future editor. Sandy (Talk) 21:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've done what I could. Some things just are too general to cite, I think. The drinking particularly; it's hard to find a page of any biographical text on Joyce that doesn't mention it, so we cite particularly notable incidents of it, like the Phoenix Park fight. Chick Bowen 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied with the work done - thanks to all who rolled up their sleeves and dug in, Sandy (Talk) 23:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we clean up the references and external links? Maybe add a further reading section. Joelito (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can do the work of cleaning up the Footnotes, but I don't know what to do about the listy stuff after the print references, some of which is repeated in External links, and a lot of which may not be needed. Perhaps one of the Joyce-knowledgeable editors can clean out some of that (I mentioned early on that it appeared to be a link farm, it looks like too many web sources are listed, not sure if they are really used in refs) - I'll expand the footnotes. Sandy (Talk) 16:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not properly cited-Not FA right now: The article has still serious referencing problems. But first of all let me stress something, answering to those who don't regard inline citations as a prerequisite for FA status: Wikipedia is not Britannica, where almost all important articles have the signature of a prominent scholar, who guarantees for their accuracy. Here the articles are written by anonymous editors. If we do not provide (verifiable) citations, we offer no guarantee to the reader that what we write is accurate. If we want to compete encyclopedias like Britannica or Larousse, we have to adopt higher standards because of the nature of Wikipedia. That is why I strongly believe that every assessment, quote or historical fact should be cited. Bibliography is not enough, because if you don't mention a specific page your biblography is not verifiable (see a similar discussion during the FAC of Finnish Civil War). Yes, other scientific books do not have detailed citations, but they do have an eponymous editor! Fortunately or unfortunately, Wikipedia has anonymous editors, whose signature is not enough in order to guarantee and verify what they assess.

Let's go to the article now. These are the problems I found out:

  • The biography section is under-cited. I chose not to tag it with citationneeded, because I did not want to overdo it. But for me, each paragraph should have at least one inline citation. I strongly believe that we should verify all historical facts mentioned there.
  • In the next sections I added some tags in uncited assessments and quotes. It is wrong for me to cite Joyce's own words or to use terms such as "one of tthe most influential works" etc., without verifying them. Who guarantees me that these assessments are accurate or that the quotes are true?
  • Obviously, the online references and external links need cleaning.
  • I don't like some stubby or one-sentence paragraphs within the text, but this is not a major issue.

The article is good, but, in order to become FA, it definitely needs some more work. I see many dedicated editors here, and I feel confident that everything will be fixed.--Yannismarou 07:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are forty three inline citations in the article. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to assume good faith of those who continue to clamor for the article's demotion on the basis of its lack of inline citations. This is simply not true. I also object to such phrases as "in order to become FA, this article needs..." Please remember that this is not WP:FAC. The community has already identified this article as featured. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ghirla, I'm not referring to the official status. Officially, of course, it is FA. But for me it does not fulfil the current FA criteria. So, for me it needs more work in order to attain FA status. And I must confess that I'm really sad you do not assume good faith. I did not expect such a poignant remark (a remark obviously offending for me) from such an experienced and respected editor of Wikipedia. Please, try to understand that my only interest is the quality of the article. There is no reason to take it personally. And I honestly hope that you will reconsider your opinion of my not assuming good faith.--Yannismarou 10:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yannis, I've got an impression that your nebulous requirements to FAs are not shared by our community. So far, you opinion that each FA should have at least sixty inline citations remains... your personal opinion. I respect your opinion but I don't fathom how you expect to defeature the article alone. Since the nomination has been withdrawn, I don't see any point in contributing to this page. There is nothing left to discuss. Best, Ghirla -трёп- 10:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not try to defeature the article. After all this is not FARC but FAR. Here we review; we defeature in FARC. And, as Sandy noticed, the fact that the nomination is withdrawn does not influence the course of the review. Until all the concerns are addressed the review is open. And it is not just the references as you can see. After all, it is another reviewer (Sandy) not me who spoke about the "listy stuff after the print references". Thus, as you can see, the review is still open and there is much more to discuss. If the concerns are addressed, the article keeps its stat; if not it goes to FARC. But this is something to be decided later. Not now.--Yannismarou 10:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh! And I did not say that each FA should have 60 citations. You interpreted in a different way what I say. I said that an article of such length should have 60+. These are two different things.--Yannismarou 11:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To the point, I'm happy the referencing is imroved and my tags are replaced with citations, but my belief remains that the biography section still needs more referencing. And of course references (the online sources) and external links (are they all necessary? And, if yes, shouldn't they be categorized or alphabetized?) still need cleaning.--Yannismarou 10:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<Sigh.> Thanks to Ghirla for providing additional referencing. I am happy to trim down the external links section. However, I must join with some of the grumpier people on this page and say that the statement, "The article still has serious referencing problems" is completely innaccurate. It might have been true when this review began; it is certainly not true now. I would characterize Yannismarou's objections as quite minor indeed. Chick Bowen 02:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can choose any characterization you want, but my "objections" are actionable. A question about the References: I still see a long list of external links even after Chick Bowen's cleaning. Are all of them used in footnotes? Because, if they are not, these links are not references but external links, where they should be placed. The distinction must be clear here.--Yannismarou 07:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Links fixed, thanks (all external links mentioned in footnotes are linked separately there). I never said they weren't actionable, and I never said I wasn't grateful for any advice, but you do understand after several of us have put so much work in that we'd be a bit put off by (in my mind) unduly sharp criticism. All constructive comments are very welcome of course, and we'll do the best we can to continue to improve the article. Chick Bowen 07:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK! It looks much better. I still have some (let's say "minor") reservations about the level of referencing, but the article has been indeed improved.--Yannismarou 08:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another new look

edit

Move to close FAR. Thank you, Chick Bowen - this is so much better. This addresses the concern I raised earlier, Yannis seems generally satisfied, the original nominator is satisfied, and if the final changes address Joel's concern, I move that we close this FAR. Sandy (Talk) 09:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If other reviewers do not have the same opinion with me and do not think that the Biography section should be a bit more referenced, I won't insist and I won't ask for moving it to FARC.--Yannismarou 07:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/James_Joyce/archive1&oldid=1066816762"