Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive4

Terri Schiavo[edit]

With great trepidation I renominate this article for FAC. I know it has a horrible history, which can be found here here and here. But in the midst of it all, it IS a good article, well-referenced and very comprehensive. While length is a problem, other articles of similar length have passed FAC which IMHO have similar or less quality. All the issues are resolved and edit warring has stopped, in fact, no one has edited this article for even a copyedit in a week. The Schiavo episode has passed on long enough that no new information is relevant to the case, which I think makes it meet the stability criteria. I think this article is a great example of the Wikipedia process. We've had several editors from differing viewpoints contribute, and they have came up with an examplary piece of work- WP-style cosensus building in action. I really hope when you vote consider the article on its merits, and not on its history here on FAC. Borisblue 05:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are some floating sentences that need to find homes in paragraphs. I did a little of that, and changed one usage of "Terri" to "Schiavo". Jkelly 05:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support as long as the article remains stable. It's the best guide to the whole ~~debacle~~ ~~fiasco~~ ~~shebang~~ event available on the internet. It's also perhaps too long (would upgrade to a full support if the article was trimmed). Proto t c 11:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am also tending to support now, but I need time to read thoroughly. My main comment at the moment is (as expected) also length. The article has been pared down considerably, but, with 20 sections and three levels of headings, I wonder if some more could be floated out to separate articles. It does seem quite stable now - diff for the last 500 edits (back to 21:38, 17 October 2005) but query whether we should wait another few weeks to make sure. In any event, I would like to see advocates on both sides of the debate supporting this version. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think the length is OK as is. Much better article now. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read through the whole thing, so I can't support yet. The length seems ok to me, but the referencing is a little hectic. Instead of inline comments every 4th word, could page numbers be incorporated into the actual references? That way they're useful to a reader, and since the note is there anyway, it makes sense to put all the information there. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[the following comment added after the article failed FAC -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)][reply]

It doeth appear that two Anon IP's have just fixed all the referencing problems; Do tell to not mess up what they have wrought.--64.12.116.14 05:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There also appear to be some pretty serious numbering problems within the notes (note 9 links to ref 40, for example, and note 8 links to a pdf, not the citation in the article). Those should be fixed before being featured. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment! Please be patient as I try to call in some of the article's main contributors- they might know best where each of the references go. Strange that they haven't discovered this page yet.... --Borisblue 01:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[the following comment added after the article failed FAC -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)][reply]

Some Anons apparently discovered the reference problems and appeared to have corrected them all; I would not mess with the references section unless I knew how to do it; It can get hairy.--64.12.116.14 05:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak object -- There are no references in the Initial Medical Crisis section. This section includes a lot of specific factual information regarding Schiavo's medical condition, and each such statement should be footnoted. Other than that, the article looks good. -- Creidieki 02:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object -- The page needs to be trimmed according to summary style =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Large parts are written in summary style, and in fact it has already been pared down from the previous rfas. The huge problem is the 25kb long references section. I know this may be unprecedented, but would it be OK to move them to another page, eg References for Terri Schiavo? Otherwise, I can't see how I cut through the size significantly. Borisblue 05:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Its not written in summary style. I ignore the references/see alsos/ext links/infoboxes while calculating the article size. The article can still be heavily summarised. It contains a high level of detail which need not be present on this page. Specific instances, people (unless they are key people) should be moved to detailed articles. References should never be put in a new page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Minus the stuff at the end that makes slightly more than 50kb. Not really that excessive compared to other stuff that gets passed here imho. However, I do grant that there is quite a bit of trivia here- let me consult with the article's regular contributors to see what can be moved/removed. Borisblue 08:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object, the page is at this time too long. It is otherwise a fine candidate for featuring. Stifle 09:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object - Better than before, but still too long-winded even without the references and external links. Oh, and don't ever remove those from the article just to pass some lower KB threshold; Summary style clearly says to ignore that type of thing and to concentrate on the amount of readable prose: anything above 30KB of readable prose has an increasing burden of proof that the extra text is necessary and it is rare for subjects above 50KB of readable prose to efficiently cover its topic in an encyclopedic manor. --mav 19:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak object; I will support as soon as there are citations given to support the facts in the "Initial Medical Crisis" section. Otherwise, I support the nomination. This is as short as it can get, I think. Hydriotaphia 22:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with Mav it still has too much superfluous detail. It needs to meet summary style, and still does not. Beyond that it's not terribly well written either. There are tons of orphan paragraphs and poorly flowing, choppy prose. I reallize the article has been worked on very hard by a lot of people, but that doesn't mean it meets the criteria. The article is so contentious that I'm not sure it would be possible to fix the prose and summarize it properly anytime soon. - Taxman ^Talk 22:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose far to long (please use summary style!) and the numbering of the footnotes does not seem to match by the end of the article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can we leave this? For like, six f***ing months, can this article be nominated for nothing and referred to nowhere? Just let it sit and have the information settle and become fresh again. This is an oppose I suppose...but really, it's a matter of not being able to judge disinterestedly because so much has happened to this article with so much gnashing of teeth that I don't think an FAC is right thing to do with it at the moment. Marskell 22:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support it is a good article and 50 kb is a little much but with article's quality I believe it edeserves a support. I'm not sure how much more summary can really be done other than combining sections. See if all of the references are necessary because not every little fact has to be referenced. Falphin 03:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I too find the article far too long and detailed. It is important to put things in perspective and summarize accordingly, and while this level of detail might be interesting at present, it would be far less so in ten years time. Sortan 03:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify further, whats the relevance of the "Early Life" section? I feel that that section could be condensed to perhaps two sentences. Is it really necessary to know that she met "Michael Schiavo in 1982 in a sociology class at Bucks County Community College in Newtown, Bucks County, Pennsylvania", and that he was her first boyfriend? Why do we care that "they were married on November 10, 1984, at Our Lady of Good Counsel Church in Southampton, Pennsylvania"? I feel that most of the other sections should likewise be trimmed. Sortan 03:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[the following comments added after the article failed FAC -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)][reply]

Oppose. I tried to edit down just that - details about how she met Michael Schiavo, the church they were married at, her siblings' names - and was promptly slapped down by Patsw. (An unsigned comment by Anonamous IP address: 22:06, 12 December 2005 71.57.95.94)
Support. If one anon can oppose, then another can support: Perhaps these details belong, and perhaps Pat Sweeney was right in "slapping down" your edit (he did not mean to slap you down). Of course, our anon votes don't count, but vote count doesn't matter in FAC nominations anyhow: It is up to FAC Editor Raul654, no matter the vote count.--71.101.34.26 03:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Despite the length this is a very good article and better than most for readability. Wjbean 18:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]