Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fred Phelps/archive2

Fred Phelps

Ok, lets try this one again. Comprehensive, well referenced, extremely detailed account of Phelps' life and works, and as NPOV as possible given his extreme views. Covering his entire life from birth to the present day with substantial content on all periods. If you're going to object, do so objectively if you'll pardon the pun, not because of personal feelings about the guy. exolon 02:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral/Comment. I'll pass on saying yea or nay, but I will say this: the only thing I'd nominate him for is a firing squad. Blech. -- Cjmarsicano 02:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. This is well on its way to Featured Article status. I will have to read through the whole thing more carefully later, but what strikes me most is the use of inline references, which should be avoided in featured articles. I prefer a footnoted system (like that used in Hugo Chávez or Rosa Parks). Andrew Levine 03:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, detailed and surprisingly neutral account. The citations have been improved greatly. Andrew Levine 18:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Support. Inline citations (all the html links in the context) need to be converted to footnotes. See Wikipedia:Footnote. The references section is extremely disappointing with only three refs for an article that is 64.6k!, the suggested limit is 32k, see Wikipedia:Article Size, you need to copy-edit and seriously cut down on the info in the article, its just too long. — Wackymacs 07:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Those of you wanting footnotes, rather than inline citations - can you point me at the FA criteria for this? I can't see it on there. 84.68.106.31 18:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. 32k limit is decidedly NOT a feature article criteria.. We have a couple dozen very good FAs that are over that limit (some of the best are over 60k), and are much more interesting to read because of their comprehensiveness. It is much more important for a FA to provide a very detailed look at its subject than for it to be compatible with a tiny minority of legacy browsers. Andrew Levine 17:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • True, and I would object to just removing information from the article to cut it down to size. However, Wikipedia:Summary style - division of the articles into detailed sub-articles which are summarized in the main one - is a good thing, and while not a criterion, is starting to look like a good idea in this particular case.--Eloquence* 15:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object, as before: The image Image:Phelps51.JPG has no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 07:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I know he's an asshole, but do we really need such an ugly picture of him as the lead image? --Carnildo 08:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You could move the 2001 pic to the top, and put the 2004 in the health section? 84.65.180.192 13:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Reminder: There is no preference in FA's for inline vs. footnotes, and length is more impressionistic than bytes. Some really, really long articles have been FA's, because they've really, really needed to be that long (e.g. Restoration literature), and the 32 kb is a now otiose "preference" more than requirement. Geogre 19:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Footnote comment: Inline references are as Geogre points out absolutely fine, and footnotes are by no means mandated over them. Please see John Vanbrugh for the kind of inline references that are recommended. These work well for print sources, but inline links are deprecated for FAs, and should indeed be converted to footnotes. A couple of reasons: automatically-numbered links in the text cannot be mixed with automatically-numbered footnotes (which somebody might need to add at any time, to refer to a printed source), as the numbering of both kinds will get seriously screwed up; and inline links won't carry any information at all in the coming print Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 20:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • See the discussion on the talk page about reference styles. Raven4x4x 06:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Well written article with solid citations, and considering the circumstances, does an excellent job of being NPOV. Oh, and to the user above, the copyright info for that pic has been fixed, so you might want to consider changing your object status.Timmybiscool 04:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Ditto from above commentors. Plus I just finished (*PHEW*) footnoting the damn thing, so maybe some above detractors objecting on the isssue of footnoting can now go back.Mistergrind 06:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I'm impressed by this. Everyking 07:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Despicable man, but I support. Hydriotaphia 08:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It's very comprehensive and detailed and about as neutral as possible when it comes to the man. User:Medico_Dinamico
• Support, though as I nominated it not sure if that counts or is intrinsic to the nomination. Apologies for not getting to the objections before others, my online time has taken a sudden drastic cut due to personal circumstances. Appreciations to the other editors who've looked at and sorted the objections. exolon 20:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support I forsee great strife if it ever makes the Main Page. Anville 10:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Good article, but would benefit from being written in Wikipedia:summary style. Borisblue 06:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. While the article reflects a lot of hard work put into it, it's way too long for the subject matter. You could begin making the size managable by cutting some of the extraneous details about Phelps' family members. Here are some other things I noticed:

1. The introduction section does not really explain why Phelps is notable. In addition, I really dislike the phrase "an alleged cult." Alleged by whom?
2. I would eliminate the following sentence: "Ironically, his boxing ability would become the subject of one of his most infamous quotes, when he would later advocate spousal abuse as being Biblical." Foreshadowing doesn't really belong in a Wikipedia article, and it's a misuse of the word "ironically."
3. Why is there a section titled "Conversion?" The prior section says he was already a devout Baptist.
4. The phrase "citing Biblical restrictions on marrying divorcees" makes it sound as if there really is a Biblical restriction on doing so for laypeople.
5. The following segment is very confusing: "the only Phelps children to meet him were Mark and Fred Jr; Mark, Nate, and Dorothy claim they never knew their grandfather's name until the Topeka Capital-Journal ran an article in 1994." For one, the children are not mentioned before; also, Mark is listed in both sections.
6. The following sentence is confusing: "Phelps left Mississippi for Bob Jones University. While there, he was part of an unsuccessful mission to convert Mormons in the town of Vernal, Utah." That makes it sound as if BJU is in Utah.
7. There is no reference for the claims about shooting the dog and making racial slurs.
8. Was Jonathan's attacker a woman dressed as a man or vice versa? You would think the latter, but you call the attacker a "woman" and use "she." (The story doesn't really need to be in anyway.)
9. This segment is also hard to understand: "In order to become an attorney in Kansas, the applicant must have a signed affidavit from a judge attesting to the applicant's good character. Because of the reputation Phelps had garnered during his time at Washburn, not to mention his actions at Eastside and later Westboro, no judge was willing to sign the affidavit. Phelps finally managed to bypass this by submitting affidavits from his friends the Hockenbargers, and copies of letters of good conduct from his days as an Eagle Scout." Was Hockenbarger a judge? If not, how can you say that he needed an affidavit from one?

Sometimes, the most difficult part of writing can be choosing what to include. I think you have a ways to go on that part with this article. Mwalcoff 01:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)