Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bob Marshall (wilderness activist)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 20:49, 22 April 2008.
Bob Marshall (wilderness activist)[edit]
Self-nomination. This is a quirky little article about a highly important figure in the history of American wilderness activism. I randomly began editing it a year ago when it was only a couple months old and barely more than a stub. It is now a Good Article and has received an extensive copy-edit from User:Scartol as well as Peer Review help from User:The Rambling Man and User:Ruhrfisch. I believe that the article is comprehensive, well written and verifiable. All of the links and the images seem to check out. (On a side note, although I have attempted to obtain a better image of Marshall, so far all of my requests have been snubbed.) Although my school semester is hectically drawing to an end, I will endeavor to respond to questions and concerns as quickly as possible. Thank you! María (habla conmigo) 16:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per only concern promptly being addressed. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question could you provide an example for use of the disambiguation ("wilderness activist") as being acceptable, or a discussion to suggest that it is normal? I ask because I have never seen it used before. Besides that, I haven't seen any real issues. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Although Marshall had many titles during his life (forester, writer, explorer, etc.), he is best known and remembered for his wilderness activism work, which is why the disambiguation uses "wilderness activist". From what I understand, what is "normal" is subjective; there's also Bernard Frank (wilderness activist), but most other articles dealing with wilderness activists do not require disambiguation, which is probably why you have not seen it before. María (habla conmigo) 18:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By providing one other use of it, you have established that it is acceptable, or at least, stylistically normal. I would hate for there to be different phrases for the same thing out there. I like uniformity. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I copyedited this article some time ago, and it appears to have made steady progress from that already-polished state since. Kudos to Yllosubmarine for her fine work. Because there are several other Bob Marshalls, I'd prefer to see a general disambig link ("...for other uses, see...") at the top of the page, rather than mentioning two others specifically. Otherwise, nice job. – Scartol • Tok 17:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose needs an infobox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does that fit in to the criteria? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandy is right; infoboxes are optional, not mandatory, so this isn't an actionable oppose. Numerous articles have been recently promoted to FA status without infoboxes -- Emily Dickinson, for example. Personally, I believe that with an article as comprehensive as this, an infobox is unnecessary. María (habla conmigo) 22:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually find infoboxes distracting, and they usually repeat info found in the lead. – Scartol • Tok 14:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no requirement for an infobox, so it really isn't a suitable criterion to oppose the promotion of an article. Is there anything else objectionable? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually find infoboxes distracting, and they usually repeat info found in the lead. – Scartol • Tok 14:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm what makes this a reliable source?
- From here: "Wilderness.net is a website formed in 1996 through a collaborative partnership between the College of Forestry and Conservation's Wilderness Institute at The University of Montana, the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center and the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute... Wilderness.net houses the only officially-recognized, national, comprehensive, inter-agency database of information about all Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service and National Park Service wilderness areas. Not only does it serve as the definitive Internet source for wilderness acreages and area descriptory information, Wilderness.net works directly with agency wilderness management staff to provide other important information, such as regulations and contact information."
- shouldn't http://www.wilderness.org/OurIssues/Wilderness/act.cfm (current ref 67 Wilderness act) the publisher for this site is elsewhere given as The wilderness society, be consistent
- Yup; fixed.
Support an excellent article and very interesting read. Dincher (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I was one of the peer reviewers and found the changes then and since have only improved an excellent article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no issues for me since the peer review. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I recommend moving all public domain images to the Wikimedia Commons. Gary King (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a nice little article (and just about the only current nomination that tells us anything about the subject. When did the noms get so boring?). I've left some inline queries for a couple of bits I found unclear. The only bit that really sticks is this:
- Marshall's last years were productive ones. By October 1937, he had taken 200 hikes that were 33 miles (53 km) long, 51 walks that were 40 miles (64 km) and a number of longer hikes, including at least one of 70 miles (113 km) Aside from the fact we don't know when this starts and it implies that he took 200 hikes of exactly 33 miles, he has been reduced from a wilderness activist to a hobby hiker.
- Good work on the whole though, well done. Yomanganitalk 00:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Yomangan, for the kind words and detailed read; your copy-editing helped greatly and I believe I've addressed your remaining hidden notes (another user helped before I was on the scene). I agree completely with the random hiking enthusiast stats and have removed it. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but seems a little too random now. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- PhD, pullease, not Ph.D.—I fixed one, but there's at least one other.
- Tony1, I de-abbgreviated your de-periodizing of "Ph.D." to make it consistent with the format of the two other degrees mentioned in the article. I put more weight on consistency than actual format.
Jim Dunning | talk 15:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony1, I de-abbgreviated your de-periodizing of "Ph.D." to make it consistent with the format of the two other degrees mentioned in the article. I put more weight on consistency than actual format.
- Agree with Gary King's suggestion concerning the Commons. Tony (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This was an easy one to pass on to GA, and some excellent improvements have been made since PR. Nice work, Maria, and all other contributors. Very informative and enjoyable read. I wish more FAs were of this quality and easy to support.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions on sources I will be happy to support this well-written, well-organized, well-illustrated, and interesting article after my little questions on sources are answered. Aside from these sources, the rest of the research looks good.
This source has an author - Sarah Knobel. Investigation into this author makes me doubt the reliability of the article - it was written by a student at the University of Montana (enter name here). Perhaps she is reliable in this area for some reason?
- This source indicates that it is "Adapted from Terry West's Centennial Mini-Histories of the Forest Service (1992)" - wouldn't it be better to just use the West book so we know just how much it is "adapted"? If the book is not available, this information should at least be included in the footnote.
- This source says that it is "Excerpted from Wilderness America, a 1990 publication of The Wilderness Society" - I would turn to the original, if possible. If it is not possible, at least the original publication details should be included in the footnote.
Just trying to keep up my reputation for ungodly high standards. :) Awadewit (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have access to the last two original sources (and Interlibrary Loan has had it up to HERE with me), so how do you include such info in the footnote? As for the first source you noted, it says that she is a member of the University of Montana Wilderness Institute, which seems reliable enough. It also cites her sources, which helps, right? Obviously she's not a recognized authority on the subject, so if need be I can replace this source; it just puts more emphasis on Glover, the only biography on Marshall, which is something that Scartol warned me against. I'm trying to diversify! María (habla conmigo) 12:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- West's book in WorldCat. There are several publications that look like possibilities for "Wilderness America" in WorldCat - you might look through the list.
- As for Knobel, she is not a published expert yet. Just being a student at the institute doesn't make her a reliable source. I could find no information about her that would lead me to believe that this article was anything other than a student essay. I would replace this source, even if it means less diversity of sources. There is no sense in diversifying if the diversity is not reliable. Awadewit (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've replaced the Knobel refs with a new book source I just stumbled upon. For adding the original sources to the footnote, should the websites I used should be replaced entirely or supplemented with the original book source even though I don't have exact page numbers? For example, would I just add "adapted from [source]"? María (habla conmigo) 15:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you got the information from the website, the website needs to stay. Simply add the same information the website did "Excerpted from" or "Adapted from"...etc. You will probably have to dispense with the "cite web" template since it is not designed for this type of citation (as far as I know). Awadewit (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]