Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jackie Robinson/archive2

Add links
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 not promoted by Karanacs 14:25, 2 June 2009 [1].

Jackie Robinson[edit]

Nominator(s): BillTunell (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because...

This article was nominated for FA status back in December 2008, unsuccessfully, but retained “Good Article” status. IMO that was itself probably a stretch at the time I noticed the article, in early April 2009. The following week I substantially reworked the article, which now has grown to a 850+ edit process. A summary:

I’ve inserted about 50 internet references, about 30 of them unique. The major sticking point at the last FA review was a lack of book reference sources, given the published information on Robinson. I’ve done a comprehensive review of all web-accessible books and added six new book sources as well as citations to the others already cited. Some non-web accessible books exist that are not cited. There were also some non-web-accessible books (particularly the Rampersad book) that were previously cited for a lot of claims. Instead of eliminating theses unverifiable citations, I’ve left them in place (except in one instance where there was a patent misquote of the Duberman book), and instead double-sourced and reworded the claims as necessary. I think there are only a couple vestigial claims in the article unverifiable on the web. Some of the web-accessibility book features scroll through pages occasionally, so it might take some time (or cache clearances) to see various pages of a book.

This article went through peer review which is now archived. I notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball and the prior FA nominator user:Peregrine Fisher and prior contributor user:RyanCross, although they are now wiki-retired and did not respond. Thanks to user:Killervogel5 and user:Timpcrk87 for substantive suggestions.

The FA nomination administrator might want to review the status of the article for WP:peacock claims, which have been hashed out by myself and user:Timpcrk87 during peer review. Also note the claim under the Pasadena Junior College sub-section about a prior run-in with police that may be overboard by user:Timpcrk87‘s standards.

A lot of content has been moved to Paul Robeson and Jackie Robinson and Racial integration in baseball, so check there if you contributed any information. As a sidelight to this article I’ve substantially reworked those sections as well as added/improved a number of other articles including Bullet Rogan, Chet Brewer, Marques Haynes, Johnny Wright, and others.

BillTunell (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger comments
OPPOSE for the unresolved issues below.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stagger images located here: Jackie_Robinson#Negro_Leagues.
    • The current stagger is incorret on two counts. First, images should not be left aligned below level three headers so the other side shoud have been lowered. Second, the stagger is not sufficient to keep the images from squeezing text at the most common screen resolution (1024).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not entirely sure I understand your statement that "images should not be left aligned below level three headers." If you can provide a WP:MOS or other citation for this proposition, that would be great. I've re-worked the staggering so there should be no more left-right overlap, although this creates a bleedover of the second picture into the next section. That itself looks fine, althoguh if the pictrue were swapped ot the other side the subsequent section header would be affected. Please see if it looks satisfactory now. BillTunell (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • See WP:MOSIMAGES.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Understand now – thanks for the citation. For visual imapct purposes, the image is still on the left (this may change again as things progress), although I've lowered it away form the heading to meet the WP:MOSIMAGES standard, and the other image we've been talking about is now eliminated.BillTunell (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe most of my issues from the prior FAC have been addressed. I will begin reading the new version.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is confusion created by naming siblings including Mack and then subsequently referring to Matthew. The later reference should probably by Matthew "Mack" Robinson.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement "That year the Pasadena Star-News newspaper reported on the young Robinson" leaves the reader wondering what they said. Did they report on his athletic prowess, a record, his race, or something else.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the football team comma.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You must reorganize to avoid the one line paragraph at the end of the UCLA and afterward section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • References must follow punctuation so instances like "neither drank nor smoked[56])" must be fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've made all these changes with the exception of the "Pasadena Star-News" reference. I agree that this is a teaser comment, but it was written by another contributer, and cited by reference to the Rampersad book, to which I do not have access. As such, it is one of the "vestigial claims in the article unverifiable on the web" to which I refer above. I have not deleted this because, although unverified, it is potentially useful information that hopefully some other contributor can flesh out during the review process. If it ultimately becomes a barrier to FA status I will remove it. BillTunell (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • convert $400 in 1945 dollars to present day dollars (see conversion at Fountain of Time).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a WP:MOS provision for this? I don't mind inserting this addition if there's a policy on it, but the inserted claim, in my view, would be stylistically distracting, need constant update, and (absent some agreed formula) would likely be controversial. BillTunell (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The template I was referring you to updates itself.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The way it is written it confuses the reader with monthly and yearly comparisons. It is especially confusing because baseball contracts are often for six months or less. It is difficult to conceptualize the comparison. Compare monthly numbers to monthly numbers.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've changed my mind on this issue since there's a template. In fact, I've added another parenthetical to one of Robinson's later (annual) salaries; this is why I've worded it this way, to give the reader a reference point for Robinson's career earning trajectory. Since there's a flipside either way, I'm ambivalent about changing it.BillTunell (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are ambivalent and I am not. You don't convert meters to inches or kilos to ounces and you don't convert 1945 monthly salary to current day yearly salary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I still don't see a policy on wikipedia about this kind of thing, so I consider the matter a stylistic choice. If that ends up being the basis for your oppositon, then no hard feelings, but I think it's a miniscule issue. BillTunell (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • reorganize to avoid all one line paragraphs such as "That winter, on February 10, 1946, Robinson and Isum were married by their old friend, Rev. Karl Downs." and "The next year, six days before the start of the 1947 season, the Dodgers called Robinson up to the major leagues."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Done.[reply]
    • One more: "Robinson's eldest son, Jackie Robinson, Jr., served in Vietnam, later struggling with drug problems. While working as a Daytop Village counselor in 1971, Robinson, Jr. died in an automobile accident.[143] He died one year before his father."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This has been changed and expanded per the anti-plagiarism changes outlined below.BillTunell (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't double play, run, home run, a triple, a double, and a single all have links?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Initial instances are all linked, but I've avoided multiple redundnat links per WP:Linking.[reply]
  • Link 1948 World Series and each year like 1952 World Series, The New York Times, New York Post, Baseball Commissioner, Puerto Rican Winter Leauges, diabetes, second baseman, shortstop, and other positions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Done.[reply]
  • Further information: Paul Robeson and Jackie Robinson seems out of place in the middle of a paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC) I've repositioned the futher information tags to be immediately below the section header per WP:Layout, although I have to admit I don't like this policy, because it forces tags in places where the topic has not yet been discussed. The Paul Roberson/Jackie Robinson issue used to have its own subheader in this article, but I've removed it because it was cluttering up the Table of Contents and is, IMO, a pretty tangential subject for its own section header. The whole subject must have been created by someone with more of an interest in Robseson than Robinson. BillTunell (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1951 comma, During the final game of the regular season against Philadelphia comma, In 1953 comma, That year comma.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Done.[reply]
  • "defend the Johnson Administration's policy there" has a superfluous there at the end, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Done.[reply]
  • Further information: Racial integration in baseball belongs at the top of the section, I beleive.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Done. See above comment under the Robeson issue.[reply]
  • link Yale School of Nursing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Done.[reply]
  • Check that all refs follow punctuation. I found another "[165])." as well as Chicago, Illinois[171]--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Done. As before, though, I'd like to see the WP:MOS mandate for this if you know it.[reply]
  • In December 1956 comma--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Done.[reply]
  • One more thing. I did a lot of editing at Walter O'Malley and there is a lot of text referencing Robinson in that article. See if you fieel any of those subjects belong in this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you make any editorial changes in this regard?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No changes made -- The unique claims in that article deal with personal friction between Robinson and O'Malley, and all seem to be attributed to a non-web accessible book by Golenbock. Since I don't have access to the book, I don't feel comfortable citing it for anything. But if you, or anyone with paper access to the book, can verify the claims, I think any additions would go best in the paragraph on Robinson's retirement.BillTunell (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DocKino comments
  • Comment This is a very good article. It requires some copyediting, which I'm happy to pitch in with when I can over the next week, and I'm sure we can get it to FA standard. One issue that leaps out at me at first glance is that the two photos in the "Negro Leagues" subsection severely crowd the text in virtually any screen size and configuration. I'm afraid one of them has to go. As the KC Royals picture already has a prominent home in the baseball Featured Article, I suggest dropping that and retaining the image of Robinson with Paige.DocKino (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the above discussion and let me know if the most recent work-around looks acceptable. I'll delete one of the photos if necessary, but between re-sizing and further staggering, I think there is no more left-right overlap. Not sure about all screen sizes, though. BillTunell (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing, and this is important. In editing the "John Muir High School" subsection, I came across an instance of inadvertent plagiarism. Here is how the passage in question read before my edit:

His older brother, Matthew "Mack" Robinson, inspired Jackie to pursue his talent and love for athletics.

And here's the pertinent passage in the cited source:

Robinson's older brother, Matthew Robinson, inspired Jackie to pursue his talent and love for athletics.

Even with the citation, this is impermissible. Please see this wonderful essay on the practice of proper paraphrasing and how to avoid inadvertent plagiarism: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches (see "Adapting sources: paraphrasing and summarizing" subsection). Then please go through the entire article and see if there are other places where you've followed source text too closely. I'll hold off on further copyediting till you've done that.DocKino (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Understood. I've re-phrased tons of stuff in the article, but apparently missed a couple expamples. I've taken another comprehensive look, and made one additional paraphrase – at the end of the "Minor Legaues" subsection, to avoid plagiarizing note 10 (SportMag.com). Let me know if you see anything else. BillTunell (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found another case in the first note I happened to look at (I was interested in a factual detail): note 73.DocKino (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see the KC Royals image has moved down to the "Minor leagues" subsection. That takes care of the crowding problem, but now it's totally out of place (the Royals were not a minor league team) and out of time (the picture is from late '45; the text of the subsection begins in spring '46). It really is OK to lose the picture: (1) It depicts a very brief part of his career; (2) it appears prominently elsewhere on Wikipedia; and (3) there's clear pictures of his face in the article already from 1944 (Army photo), 1945 (Dodgers signing photo), and 1951 (comic book cover). See below for why I struck this a few minutes after writing it.DocKino (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Doc? Regarding one of your comments, I requested a photo of the City Hall sculpture years ago. It's of monumental proportions and situated in a location of particular honor. For a city that has had many famous residents--not just Hollywood celebrities but also five Nobel Prize winners including Albert Einstein--it's noteworthy that they express this much civic pride in Robinson. DurovaCharge! 18:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, Durova. If there were no available free images to illustrate the section in question, I'd have no issue with the image's inclusion. But there are free images available. This image is undoubtedly superior in informative value to those free images, so if we could find a reliable source that says something along the lines of what you just said, that would resolve the issue. I imagine there are newspaper reports from when the sculpture was unveiled that could serve this purpose. DocKino (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've linked the Los Angeles Times article from the sculpture's unveiling. Let me know if that resolves your concerns.BillTunell (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Robinson's family's house no longer stands, although a (copyrighted) plaque exists at that location. So in terms of commemoration within the city where he grew up we're left with fair use images. DurovaCharge! 05:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May 21

Oppose – Criterion 3. Normally I'm not an image reviewer, but I can't stay silent when I see five fair-use images in an article, and at least four have wholly inadequate rationales. What's puzzling is that we have free images of Robinson in the article, so why are these fair-use images even necessary? Giants2008 (17-14) 02:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably these images were submitted by me -- let me know the ones to which you refer, and why you think the rationales are bad. BillTunell (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image review I've looked them over. Here's my appraisal:
      • The images of Robinson at UCLA and in the army are both of significant historical value and fully pertinent to the article's text, but need full rationales.
      • The photo with Satchel Paige should probably be cut. The rationale is inadequate, and there is another image in the article that is also representative of Robinson's days in the Negro Leagues that is both free and provides a much clearer view of his face.
      • The photo with Branch Rickey is a historic image, and fully justified per policy. But the current rationale is, indeed, wholly inadequate.
      • The image of the Pasadena sculpture fails our NFCC policy in the absence of discussion of that sculpture. In addition, the "Awards and recognition" section already includes two free images relating to posthumous recognition. The image should probably be cut.DocKino (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks to Doc for the more detailed review. For more on writing acceptable fair-use rationales, please read Wikipedia:FCDW/September 22, 2008. While I'm here, there are still issues with referencing. The "staked a claim" bit sourced to reference 122 is a very close paraphrase (I happen to have the book), and some sources are shaky. Reference 29 is to Hoopedia (a wiki, which is unacceptable as a source), and I see other facts cited to the Baseball-Reference Bullpen (another wiki), his official website and Brittanica. No distinction is made in the citations between the Jackie and Sharon Robinson books (adding years to the citations would do it), and some references, such as numbers 43 and 45, need further formatting. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • In response to both you and Doc, I'v done the following: (i) cut the Kansas City Royals photo (since does not illustrate the Negro Leagues), (ii) updated the fair use rationales/summaries on all the non-free picture pages, (iii) mentioned the pasadena sculpture in the Awards and recognition section, (iv) re-worded the claim behind (prior) reference 122, (v) elimianted the Hoopedia reference (which had also been a sticking point in peer review), (vi) double-sourced the baseball-reference.com wiki citation, (vii) added Jackie's first name in the autobiography template citation. I think I've also addressed your concerns about additional citation information, but let me know. I'm not sure why there is an objection to citing the official website or Brittanica, but let me know if I'm missing some policy or another. BillTunell (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Bill, I'm sorry but this response on the images falls short. As I'm sure many habitués of this page will confirm, I'm a strong defender of the proper and judicious inclusion of fair use images, but your explanations for the retention of the Satchel Paige image and the sculpture image are insufficient. What in the world, by the way, do you mean when you write that you "cut the Kansas City Royals photo (since it is the only one that illustrates the Negro Leagues)"?
            • Look, we have two images that represent Robinson's days in the Negro Leagues: one is free, one is not free. In addition, the free one offers a much clearer image of his face. While his time with the Monarchs is more significant than his brief tenure with the Royals, there is little question that per our policy the free image takes precedence--that's the image of Robinson alone, as a Royal, not the image of him and Paige as Monarchs.
            • As for the image of the Pasadena sculpture, how does this significantly help us understand who Robinson was and the depth of his significance? As I noted, the relevant section already contains two free images that, in different ways, depict the extent of his posthumous recognition (one shows the president of the United States!). On the basis of image glut alone, there's no need for a third image in this section, let alone one that is not free. Furthermore, that non-free image is of a public sculpture--it unquestionably falls into the category of "readily replaceable" by a free equivalent.
            • There is no way I can support the article while the sculpture image is included; unless you have a much better defense up your sleeve for the Monarchs image, I can't consider supporting while that's included either. The proper and judicious use of non-free images brings great value to our encyclopedia and its mission of excellence—this kind of injudicious, weakly defended use does that cause a disservice.DocKino (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think I misspoke before. The Kansas City Royals photo does not portray the Negro Leagues. I can't find a free Negro League image despite multiple efforts at finding one. as such, I care about the inclusion of the Monarchs image. By contrast, the Pasadena sculpture image is not one I care much about. But it's been there for going on three years, and was not a bone of contention in any other peer review or nomination in the past. I can't see any policy that prohibits its inclusion. If there is, please direct me to it -- I could easily be missing something. IMO your suggestion of an alternative "free" image isn't really possible in this case since, by nature, any such image would be a derivative work. BillTunell (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • The photo of the sculpture is a simpler matter, so I'll start there. First off, it's obviously irrelevant to our policy whether or not it's ever been "a bone of contention." Next, you are correct--under U.S. copyright law, any photo of the sculpture would be a derivative work and non-free. However, in the context of an article on Jackie Robinson, the photo pretty clearly fails criterion 8 of our policy on non-free-content: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." The overall topic Is Jackie Robinson--I can't see a reasonable argument that an image of a posthumously created sculpture significantly increases our understanding of him. The specific topic is the recognition his life and career have received--the article already includes two free images that illustrate the topic; a third, non-free image can hardly be claimed to significantly add to our understanding of the recognition he's received. The photo would be acceptable in an article on the sculpture itself, and probably in an article on the artist who made it or on Public sculpture in Pasadena, but it is not acceptable here.
                  • I think I understand what you're saying now. I thought your objection was that the image itself was not free and you wanted soemone else to submit a non-free version. user:Amble had created the image and submitted it under the GNU license, so that didn't make sense to me. Assuming it still requires a fair use rationale because of the derivative work issue (which might be debatable, but user:Raul654 has expressed his opinion at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_FAQ/Archive_1), I don't really have a problem with removing the image. But I'll let user:Amble know in advance, as a courtesy. BillTunell (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Whoa. There's no debate. Under U.S. copyright law, that image is unquestionably under copyright. It is not free. Our policy requires that it have a fair use rationale. Period. DocKino (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Your patronizing tone is not helpful. Oppose if you wish, but I'm not interested in turning this into a personal confrontation. BillTunell (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Thanks for the notice. Yes, the sculpture itself is copyrighted, and only my part as photographer is freely licensed. I tagged it with the "Non-free 3D art" template to make this clear. User:Durova, who is an admin on Commons and very knowledgeable about image copyright issues, had requested the image here, so I trusted that it was probably valid fair use. You might ask Durova if she now believes it's justifiable. --Amble (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • As for the Monarchs photo, I appreciate that you care about it. But you need to make a stronger case for it. From my reading of the literature, it strikes me that barnstorming squads such as the Kansas City Royals were considered part of the "Negro Leagues"; they were unquestionably part of the black side of the ledger of segregated baseball, which is what's most significant here, I believe. Why exactly is it so much more important to show Robinson in the uniform of the Monarchs--for whom he played only 47 games--than that of the Royals? Why is it so very much more important that its importance outweighs the fact that it is non-free, while the Royals image is free? If those questions can not be clearly and convincingly answered--not just in this venue, but also in a way that would work in the rationale on the image page--then the image fails criterion 1 of our policy: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available...that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose"--or, more precisely, it fails the combination of criteria 1 and 8.
                  • BillTunell (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)I respectfully disagree. The California Winter League is just not the same as the Negro Leagues. If it were, the whole integration issue would be moot, because white players participated in it. I think illustrating the Negro League era in the article is more than a mere nicety. That being said, I understand your point, and if the FAC administrator says otherwise, we'll lose the image. I will supplement the image page to more clearly state the no-free-image-alternative issue. BillTunell (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Okay. I certainly don't feel as if the inclusion of the image warrants an oppose on its own. I did a little research to see if the ways in which respected institutions in the field define "Negro Leagues" would include the Royals or not. The Negro Leagues Baseball Players Association? Pretty clearly not. The Negro Leagues Baseball Museum? Probably yes. So, your position has an edge there. But, if you care about presenting your strongest case here, see my last observation below.
                      • I don't see anything in either of those links that supports the Royals as a Negro League team, so I consider your characterization argumentative.BillTunell (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Well, I'm glad I could help you out on this. DocKino (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Finally, you should be aware of how the process usually works here. It is very unlikely that the FA director is going to jump in with a thumbs up or down on this specific image. But silence, in this case, does not equal consent. Sandy and Karanacs will analyze the reviewer critiques you've received and your responses to them, and make a judgment based on that. While possible, it's still unlikely that either of them will engage in specific image review. In other words, as you craft that rationale (and I've already seen that it has a glaring error--"No other known free image is available which portrays Jackie Robinson in the Negro Leagues"), I wouldn't sit around waiting to see if an administrator bothers to object. It's wise to keep your focus on bringing the issues raised in the review to a resolution--in the review. DocKino (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Please refrain from the argumentative claim that I've committed a "glaring error." If you want to submit a free Negro League image, please do so.BillTunell (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Watch it, Bill. I have made no argumentative claim. You have made a glaring error. Period. In describing a non-free image, you have written, ""No other known free image is available which portrays Jackie Robinson in the Negro Leagues." Do you see that "other" that you wrote, Bill? That "other erroneously indicates that the image under discussion is free. It is not. In the context of a rationale for an image that you profess to care deeply about, a rationale whose quality is crucial to the image's retention, that's not just an error, that's a glaring error. I gather that this is all too much trouble for you, so I'll simply register my opposition now and withdraw from further input until and unless I see all the problems with the article's images resolved. DocKino (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • For your edification, here's a pretty hardcore (so to speak) fair use rationale I did: File:RotJonesMatCook.jpg. For yours, I would seriously consider citing the Negro Leagues Baseball Players Association link I provided above to support the position that the Kansas City Monarchs were the one and only Negro Leagues team Robinson played for. Also, here's a widely published and, I believe, superior fair use image of Robinson with the Monarchs: [2] (and contextualized with info: [3]). DocKino (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The reason I've submitted the combined image of Robinson and Paige is to be able to use the same image in both articles and therefore limit the extent of non-free use. Your proposed image is not a free image.BillTunell (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Yes, that's why I referred to it as a "fair use image," Bill. DocKino (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • A reminder: the inadvertent plagiarism associated with note 73 has still not been addressed. DocKino (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I thought I had addressed that before, although the numbers may have changed. I've paraphrased what is now under note 73. In the future, please quote any offending language so there's no misunderstanding. BillTunell (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It's interesting to note how your paraphrase reads: "In late September, he signed with Chet Brewer's Kansas City Royals, a post-season barnstorming team of the California Winter League, which competed against other Negro League teams..." You do realize that phrasing suggests that the Kansas City Royals were a Negro Leagues team, don't you? DocKino (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Changed. At this point, however, I don't see that you are proceeding with the conversation civilly, so this will be my last commentary in the string.BillTunell (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I fail to see what's uncivil about making sure you see how you're undercutting your own argument on a matter that you consider crucial, but so be it. I'll find it painless to devote my time elsewhere. DocKino (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning toward support

  • I'm very glad the quality of sourcing in this article is improved from its previous FAC. I believe the meat of the article is ready to support.
  • There are some MOS issues all through the article. The images are overlarge, and at least on my 1200 px wide browser, the article, aesthetically, is not pleasing. Try using the upright tag on the portrait-shaped images. I suggest merging the Post-military and Death sections into ones above or below them. Watch for overlinking: terms should ideally be linked at their first occurrence and not again. There are several ambiguous links and a dead ref link at UCLA today. She's not going to like it, but I'm going to suggest you ask User:Maralia for assistance in cleaning up some of the MOS issues. She's a stickler and much more accurate than I am. You know what works well with her? Whining. A lot. If there's one good I can do today on my time on Wikipedia, it's point users to her talk page to whine. Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've taken out all the size-specfic tags on pics to reset them to default size, and put in |upright directors in the appropriate picture tags. Let me know how it looks. I've also invited user:Maralia What are the "ambiguous links" to which you refer? I'll consider merging the shorter subsections, althgouh I'm not sure how to deal wtith the "Post-military" section because it doesn't fit neatly anywhere else. Thanks BillTunell (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Fails criterion 3. Rationales for each of the five fair-use images remain wholly inadequate, with little or no attempt made to explain how they meet the NFCC #8 test. Rationales aside, the use of one image clearly fails policy, as described above. Another has a serious NFCC #1 challenge to handle--again, no serious attempt has been made in the rationale. DocKino (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Plagiarism Changes

Since we've had a number of complaints of inadvertent plagiarism in the article, I did a comprehensive review over the long weekend, and changed the following (in the order they appear in the article) as a result:

  • Note 52 (Tygiel article): “black officer’s wife” and “believing that his companion was white”; in addition to being extended quotes, these statements contain subjective assessments, the racial identity of the woman is not verified by the source material, and the whole thing has little relevance.
  • Note 52: ‘including insubordination, disturbing the peace, drunkenness (despite the fact that Robinson neither drank nor smoked), conduct unbecoming an officer, insulting a civilian woman, and refusing to obey the lawful orders of a superior officer” the list is probably too long to be quoted in full.
  • Note 52: “the actual incident on the bus that had precipitated his prosecution was mentioned in neither the charges nor at trial” This is kind of redundant anyway.
  • Note 68: “Rickey wanted a man who could restrain himself from responding to the ugliness of the racial hatred that was certain to come” This direct quote is now re-written.
  • Note 4: “The nation was initially divided on whether Robinson should be allowed to play. Virtually all blacks and many whites applauded the decision as long overdue, but a large number of whites also objected, as did many major league players. Most newspapers supported the move. Robinson's integration and subsequent high level of play was a major blow to segregation and caused racial barriers to fall in other areas. Robinson criticized hotels that did not allow him to stay with his teammates, and a number of hotels and restaurants that the Dodgers frequented integrated as a result.” Part of this was an (unattributed) quote from the sportmag.com article, so I reworded and resourced the first phrase, and relocated the second phrase below to a more topic-appropriate location.
  • Note 88 (History Channel) “During his first season with the Dodgers, Robinson encountered racism from fans and players, including his own teammates” Reworded and moved to an adjoining paragraph for topical consistency.
  • Note 4: “He anticipated that some pitchers would aim pitches at his head and that other players would try to hit, tackle, and even try to push him off the basepaths” Reworded and placed in a different paragraph setting.
  • Note 98: “Asked by sportswriters what Greenberg had told him, Robinson said:’He gave me a few words of encouragement.’” Reworded.
  • Note 111: “although two studios turned the project down when the film's promoters refused to include a white man teaching Robinson how to be a great player” Reworded and clarified.
  • Note 114: “Robinson stood with hands on hips and watched Thomson's feet in case he failed to touch all of the bases” Close paraphrase of the source cited for the next sentence. Reworded.
  • Note 117: “That year, Robinson accused the Yankees of prejudice and challenged general manager George Weiss to prove him wrong” Close paraphrase; reworded and consolidated with later sentence.
  • Note 73: “but, according to the New York Post, Commissioner Happy Chandler withheld his approval, forcing Robinson to cancel his plans.” This one is my fault. Re-worded.
  • Note 120: “That year, he served as editor for ‘’Our Sports’‘ magazine, a short-lived periodical focusing on coverage of "famous Negro athletes in every field of endeavor" and "Negro athletes in your town among your own neighbors". Topics included "What White Big Leaguers Really Think of Negroes" and "My Toughest Fight", an article by boxer Joe Louis about golf course segregation.” Close paraphrase. Edited down.
  • Note 121: “He also succeeded in getting the five-star Chase Park Hotel in St. Louis integrated. He and Don Newcombe approached the hotel's manager and asked why blacks were not allowed. The manager said, "It's the swimming pool ... a place where everybody socializes." Newcombe explained that they were ballplayers, not swimmers, and the manager relented. That season black players had their meals delivered to their rooms and were not allowed to use the Chase's dining room, but the next season the dining room was fully integrated” A lot of issues here; the extended treatment of the Chase Hotel issue is kind of ancillary, anyway, so I’ve removed the extended discussion in favor of a brief mention of Chase Park Hotel and and secondary link in the prior section's treatment of the hotel issue.
  • Note 174: “Mets owner Fred Wilpon said that the club and Citigroup would work with the Jackie Robinson Foundation to create a Jackie Robinson Museum and Learning Center in lower Manhattan and would fund scholarships for ‘young people who live by and embody Jackie's ideals’.” The non-quoted part passage has been reworked.

This plagiarism check should be comprehensive. But if I've missed anything, let me know. BillTunell (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pasadena image resolution

Per User talk:Durova's opinion, the image of the Pasadena sculpture is defensible as fair use, provided there is a more substantial treatment of it in the "Awards and recognition" section. I've fleshed out this portion of the article, and moved it to proximity with the image. Thanks to user:Amble for contacting user:Durova. Let me know if anyone has any contrary opinions.

The source cited for the discussion of the Pasadena sculpture is We Heart Public Art. This is a personal blog and does not meet our sourcing standards. DocKino (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is double-referenced. The blog reference is there for image illustration purposes in case the image in the article gets removed. I'm still ambivalent about that issue, but since there's a difference of opinion I've left it as-is.BillTunell (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. As both of these are unique sources (i.e., only referenced once), they can be brought together into a single citation. This reduces visual clutter in the article. Placing the L.A. Times article first in such a merged citation should also help clarify that the primary source is of WP:V standard. DocKino (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consolidating multiple references in a single footnote would be stylistically inconsistent with the rest of this article. But I have re-ordered the Pasadena sculpture-related footnotes so as to place the LA Times link first.BillTunell (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedits

More than a few users have contributed copyedit help recently. Thanks to all, especially user:Maralia.BillTunell (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The two deadlinks in the references need to be replaced (they're marked as such), and urls sourced should have accessdates as well. Wizardman 20:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the Congressional Gold Medal link with one from the House of Representatives Clerk. For both the Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal, I've inserted archived webpages as sources, and tagged today's date as the access date (of the web.archive.org search result site). For all the other wesbite footnote references that didin't already list access dates, I've clicked on them this morning and added 2009-05-27 as the access date (no other web links are dead at this point). I haven't done that with any of the books – let me know if I should.BillTunell (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there's any more changes you want, let me know. To help summarize the above discussion for you, there's only four suggestions from reviewers that I haven't implemented (each of which has a rationale):
  • While I've inserted current-dollar templates in two places, I have not taken user:TonyTheTiger's suggestion of restating the resulting current-dollar amount from the first template in monthly terms (in order to facilitate comparison with the yearly salary referenced by the second current-dollar template later in the article);
  • I've not inserted any material from the Walter O'Malley article into the Jackie Robinson article – also a suggestion by user:TonyTheTiger (material would be duplicative, plus the underlying source for any of the unique clims about Robinson form the O'Malley article is a non-web-accessible book that I do not have);
  • I have not removed the image of the Robinson Pasadena Memorial statue, instead fleshing out the article's description thereof (conflicting opinion by reviewers as to whether this image qualifies for inclusion under WP:NFCC);
  • I have not removed the historical image of the Satchel Paige and Jackie Robinson with the Kansas City Monarchs (I claim it meets WP:NFCC, over the objection of user:DocKino).
Everything else I've dealt with (or meant to and simply missed something). Thanks. BillTunell (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you have missed is dealing with the primary basis for my !vote of oppose above. You have not gone into the source pages of the first four fair use images and made sure the rationales are of FA standard. (The rationale for the sculpture image is about as good as we can hope for.) I don't want to see this article promoted and then return to it in a few months to discover that it's been stripped of its fair use images for inadequate rationales. I offered you an example of a more rigorously presented rationale for a fair use image which comes from an article, like this, that also has several free images of the article's subject(s) and that, like you wish for this, is Featured. (There are other such examples out there, if you care to look for them.) This has been ignored.
Specifically, I do believe that the Paige–Robinson image can pass NFCC--like the others--if it is accompanied by a suitably strong rationale. I gave you specific advice on how to make it stronger, which has been ignored. Given the current conditions, it is easy to anticipate the following scenario: Someone comes along; finds the K.C. Royals picture somewhere; says, "Gee! Here's a free picture of Jackie in the Negro Leagues"; checks out the existing rationale for Paige–Robinson; says, "Oops! Guess they didn't know about the Royals pic"; and moves to delete your beloved image. Similarly, for the other images, none of the rationales deal with the problem that Giants 2008 originally raised--there are several fair use images in the article that show what Robinson looked like. So what's the particular value of also including these non-free images? Look: You believe they're valuable to the article. I believe they're valuable to the article. Now write rationales that will help keep them in the article. DocKino (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read your comments, re-worked each of the fair use image pages accordingly, and told you of that fact. You simply don't like the extent of my edits. While that may be the basis for a criticism, that is not the same thing as saying that I have been unresponsive, or have ignored your suggestion. FWIW, I have looked at your Sex Pistols image example, and I can see that you go into more wordy detail in the template data cells. But I am using the same fair use template as you, and filled each of them out with all the substantive information I know. All of these images (for quick reference, the four we're talking about are: UCLA Track, Army uniform, Robinson with Satchel Paige, and Robinson with Branch Rickey) have survived the deletion hurdle for over a month. If there is some specific piece of information you want me to add for a particular image, please let me know. I am willing to do the work.BillTunell (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bill, that's simply false. It's very easy to see from the record that you didn't do a single thing with the rationales in response to my previous round of advice. If you've done something now, someone else can spend their energy dealing with you about it. I'm through wasting my time on you. DocKino (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The history pages for each of the four images clearly document my revisions of May 21 and 22, 2009, in response to the suggestions on those dates by yourself and user:Giants2008. I doubt anyone else cares, but in case they do, for the record here are the history pages for the four images:
If you do not like these changes, that is fine. But denying that they were made is a false and disparaging personal claim directed against me. I can only conclude that you are not acting in good faith, and are instead deliberately attempting to subvert the FAC process for reasons ulterior to the article itself. For the life of me I can't figure out why, since I don't know you from Adam. But I think we can both agree that your further comment here is a waste of both our time.
FWIW, I updated these image pages again yesterday with supplemental information as a follow-up to your renewed suggestion. I do not want you to comment on whether these changes are satisfactory, but I remain open to discssing the issue with any other reviewer having a similar concern. BillTunell (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May 28, 2009 -- Reliable Source check

Per WP:RS, I've double-sourced using third-party sources (the Eig, Falkner, and Lamb books) for any potentially controversial claim previously attributable only to a (potentially biased first-party) Robinson family source. In doing so, I've decided to revise the substance of the text/footnote dealing with the reason Jackie left UCLA. The first-party citations also now follow the corresponding third-party citations, to indicate the third-party sources as primary (with only one exception to keep footnotes in numerical order). A couple of family sources were wholly replaced with a third-party source, both dealing with statistical issues. The only things left that are atributable solely to family sources should be relatively uncontroversial events like Jackie's marriage, early life, etc.. BillTunell (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to criteria 3 as follow:

  • File:JackieRobinson UCLA1941.jpg, File:Jackierobinson army.jpg: what parts of this photo cannot be readily imagined by any reader with just text itself? Is Robinson not readily identified by his free photo above?
    • File:Jackie robinson longjump.jpg: the possible significance of this photo is better than the previous, but not much better. "To illustrate his athletic career" is not needed with this image. However, the significance of the image can be enhanced by reporting on Robinson's athleticism at UCLA. Evaluations, reports, biographies, comments (coaches, trainers, reporters) that talk about Robinson's performance should be in the article (and should be to the effect of talking about how good Robinson's physical performance was). The photo could then be used to illustrate his performance that elicited such praise (which should be related to his long jump). As of now, there is no such commentary in the article (Robinson's UCLA stint is simply reported matter-of-factly). Jappalang (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is already over 100,000 bytes long, and is stretching the summary style barrier as-is. Rationalizing a photograph isn't really the purpose of a namespace page. We've done it with respect to the Robinson Memorial statue image, because of the specific WP:Non-free content requirement under Images" No. 8. But otherwise I'm loathe to put in more distracting text. In any event, I don't think any amount of words can demonstrate to a reader how high Robinson could jump.
      • Moreover, additional text wouldn't change the more basic dispute here, namely whether the image serves to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." As I understand it, you interpret the "topic" as Robinsons's UCLA long-jump career, which leaves no room for comparative historical photographs to have any useful basis. I interpret the "topic" as Jackie Robinson, an understanding of which is benfitted by representative phtographs of historical periods in his life. Whichever of us is right, the additional text you propose isn't going to change the resolution fo the matter, as I see it. BillTunell (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Jackie robinson signature.jpg: as said earlier, a military career does not require illustration. Being in uniform serves nothing, unless it was a particarly defining issue for the subject. Creating an example, in a biography about an author who was a soldier, a sentence such as "Although non-descript in civilian attire, Ahdooday impressed many in his military uniform, projecting a steely aura and commanding presence." could warrant a photo of the man in uniform that inspire such praise (of course the smiley version would not qualify). Getting back to this photo, Robinson might be signing a piece of paper, but what does it serve to illustrate "the breaking of the baseball color barrier"? As mentioned earlier, a newspaper article that broke the news or a photo that shows a warm and hearty reception of Robinson by white fans (or the baseball club) would be better to illustrate such a moment. Jappalang (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is another point of departure for us. Nothing in any article "requires" illustration, if there is no limit to the narrative description allowed. But this is not possible in a summary style format. On the military/signature photo specifically, the fact that Robinson chose to memorialize the signature in his military uniform, which was not necessary, says a lot about the public-relations lengths he and the Dodgers had to go to to smooth over potential resistance to the signing. That goes to the heart of Robinson's historical significance. Again, this could be described narratively with a bunch of gratuitous unsourced commentary rather than an image, but which is more efficient and helpful to the reader? BillTunell (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Robinson paige monarchs.jpg: what significance (if any) of this photo cannot be rendered with words?
    • At a minimum, the relative physical stature of Robinson. But again, the heart of the issue, as i see it, is whether the image, in contexxt with all the other images showing Robinson's aging, etc. gives a better understanding of Robinson in general, whci is the subject of the aticle. BillTunell (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Robinson-contract.jpg: I fail to see how a significance of inter-racial barriers is expressed with just this photo. If this was a scan of a newspaper article with a headline that screams "Major break: first black player" or something, then there would be some context to this photo, but as it is...
  • File:Jackie robinson memorial pasadena.jpeg: it is just his head, how can that not be simply explained with words, especially since free pictures of his mug have been displayed twice. Is there something metaphysical or critical about his head that requires illustration? What is significant about this statue? For reference, please refer to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ozzie Smith for Ozzie Smith's statue.
    • That's why the article was edited (by both me and other contributors) to include commentary about the statue itself, to confrom to WP:Non-free content.BillTunell (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was called to offer advice on this subject.[4] Fair use images must comply with ten criteria. The first three images fail significance (8) and replaceability (1). Very little is gained from looking at Robinson going through wardrobe changes. If one wishes to illustrate his athleticism, surely a photo of him in action (ignoring significance for the moment) would be better than him standing around in track uniform. Does one need to see him in uniform to know that he was in the military service? Does one need to see him with Satchel Paige just to know he played with Paige? A photo of a person is signficant if it is highly publicised and has become representative of the subject, i.e. the person has become associated with that persona (portrayal) by the public (media). (Even so, a copyrighted photo might be disqualified on Wikipedia if it can be replaced by a free equivalent—debatable.) None of these photos qualifies on the signficance front: a general reader does not need those pictures to know what they show Robinson was doing. Note: for best use of the fair use rationales on the image pages, the "whys" of the image's significance and non-replaceability should be clear. Plain "identification of subject" is a straight fail unless it is the sole identification photo (Infobox/leading image) of a dead subject. Jappalang (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I can understand the concern about mere wardrobe changes. I've done two things in response to your comments:
  • Replace the UCLA track photo with an "action shot" from the Bettmann archive, whic I agree is more informative than a posed shot.
  • Delete the miliary photo and the Rickey-Robinson signature photo and replaced this with another image, which portrays the follow-up contract signature from October 23, 1945 with Robinson in military uniform. The photo therefore comnsolidates two items of historical significance (his military career and breaking the color barrier). In addition, the reolcation of the image takes away a prior criticism related to the placement of the Robsinon-Rickey image within the article.
Since there is a difference of opinion about the statue photograph, I've left his as-is for now.
I've looked at a lot of other articles' commentary about NFCC#8 by now, and the only constant theme I can glean is that there is a subjectivity about the "significance" requirement that different contributors look on very differently. The changes above are meant as a reasonable accomodation. My take on a comprehensive life biography like this is that images teken throughout an entire subject's life aid significantly in the readers' understanding of the topic for many reasons. In this case, the images left (even though I've deleted a net one picture) portray sdeveral things: how a Robinson character aged, his relative physical statutre to otehr persons, his athletic performance, etc. I'd agree that NFCC#8 requries more than images to simply "spice up" the text. But in a case like this I think at least a few images are warranted. The converse, of ocurse, is that eliminating the images doesn't make free transmission of information any ess possible; it simply puts the onus for someone who wants to transmit the non-free images, in addition to the text, to make their own fair use decision.
I'd submit that under your hard-caore interpretation of NFCC#8, no non-free images are would be permissible, because readers can always imagine the text being described. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong on this isssue, but I just have a different slant on it. As I've noted before, if an adminsitrator feels differently on the NFCC#8 issue, I understand. If the non-free image concern is the only thing holding up FA status, I'd appreciate the administrator pointing that out. If so, I don't think the article would be best served by FA status. BillTunell (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I'd submit that under your hard-caore interpretation of NFCC#8, no non-free images are would be permissible,. because readers can always imagine the text being described." Please read Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ozzie Smith, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Street newspaper, and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noël Coward (Featured Articles with fair-use images) for an inkling of my "hard-core" interpretation of NFCC#8. Jappalang (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through your previous submissions, which I actually enjoy reading. I'm learning more about these issues as we go along. Although I do not necessarily disagree with your take on NFCC#8, I do note that there has been quite a lot of give-and-take in the prior FACs you reference, and I just don't see that any one contributor's interpretation is authoritative. As a nominator, I feel the obligation to balance approaches, even if they aren't my own.
I've also noted that the Noel Coward article has a parallel to the Jackie Robinson article, in that it contains a freely-licensed but "derivative work"-image of a bust/sculpture of the subject. That should support, at least in part, the inclusion of the sculpture image in the Jackie Robinson article. That being said, I realize that FA elevation isn't necessarily a determination about any given image. BillTunell (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
June 2

Thanks to everyone for their input. This nomination is headed for archive over the issue of inclusion of non-free images. I've become convinced the article can't reach FA consensus without removing all non-free images, and that the article won't be elevated while there are any pending non-free-image-related complaints. At the end of the day I care more about an informative, well-illustrated article than I do a star at the top, so I am not going to pursue the FAC again after it dies. But if any contributor wants some low-hanging fruit for a successful FAC-elevation feather in their cap, this would be it. Thanks again for your input. BillTunell (talk) 18:09, 2 June 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_candidates/Jackie_Robinson/archive2&oldid=1088823120"