Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Huey Long/archive1

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 7 January 2021 [1].

Huey Long[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 21:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Huey Long, the governor of Louisiana and a US Senator. A proponent of radical solutions to end the Great Depression, he was assassinated in 1935. ~ HAL333 21:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Ealdgyth[edit]

~~What makes the following high quality reliable sources?~~
- ~~https://web.archive.org/web/20200609201116/https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/10/1910701/-After-a-century-in-politics-the-last-member-of-Louisiana-s-Long-family-leaves-office-Monday~~
Ealdgyth (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They have been removed. ~ HAL333 01:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Were they replaced or just removed? If removed, was there another source that supported that information or did you also remove the information it was sourcing? If replaced, what were they replaced with? Ealdgyth (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced as many as I could with Brinkley's Voices of Protest. If the remaining sources didn't support it or I couldn't find a replacement, I just removed the material. ~ HAL333 18:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment[edit]

Too long. Possibly even far too long. Over 11,000 words on a state governor who died at 42! I am minded to oppose on criterion 4 as it could, and IMO certainly should, be written in a more summary style. The prose style is not very crisp, and is discursive to the point that I am unconvinced that criterion 1 is met. The more I dip into this, the more I feel that the nominator would do best to withdraw it and ask GoCER to give it a thorough overhaul. Apologies if I am being over blunt here, but I suspect that this is a nomination which could use a lot of time and effort without progressing very fafarmr at this venue. Of course, other opinions may well be available. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I appreciate people who get to the point. Although I disagree with the complaint of length - other FAs on politicians whose highest office was senator are just as long, if not longer - I can understand your objections about the prose and will withdraw this FAC. Is it okay if I leave this open for a bit more? I want to see what other issues I need to address so that I don't have go withdraw this nomination a second time. ~ HAL333 13:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can leave it open for as long as you wish. I have recused from coordinator duties to comment on this. Even if I hadn't I wouldn't be archiving it until and unless it collected some formal opposes. (Or was promoted or timed out of course.) One reason I was blunt was to "break the ice" for others who may have a similar opinion but be hesitant to be ill-mannered enough to pass it on. Or to inspire others to skim the article, think "What on Earth is Gog talking about?" and contradict me. By all means let's see what happens. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I too disagree with the length complaint, and would (either way) urge Gog to point out specific sections that could do with trimming. I also see no relevance in the "died at 42" – Alexander the Great died at 32 for instance; likewise, there are politicians who lived to 80 and could probably do with an article a quarter of this size. Age is by no means a determining factor in how long an article should be, the content/relevance/importance of their life far outweighs this. Aza24 (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's too long, but not terribly so. Why not reduce the 5-paragraph "Share Our Wealth" to one and transfer the material to the main article? I think the same could be done elsewhere as well (perhaps the "1928 Louisiana gubernatorial election" section?) Anyways, it looks like an interesting read; I'll consider reviewing later. Esculenta (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Esculenta that more aggressive summary style would be beneficial. Ideally an article like this would be somewhere in the 45-55 kb range, imo, for the right balance between comprehensiveness and readability. (According to an online calculator, reading this article would take over an hour). Summary style is a good way to ensure that the information does not disappear from the encyclopedia, while enhancing readability and conciseness. (t · c) buidhe 23:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cut down on The Share Our Wealth section, as Esculenta helpfully recommended. If I do that to the entire article, I think that I can lose a quarter to a third of the article's length. But 50 kb would be extremely small - around half of Wendell Willkie's FA (a contemporary political figure who never even held office). I am really confused by the complaints about the size. Why is it okay for other FA's like Hillary Clinton's 321 kb article to take over an hour to read at 250 wpm or for the 269 kb John McCain to take almost an hour? (At 250 wpm it would take 45 minutes to read Huey Long.) ~ HAL333 19:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably best to focus on the merits of this article, rather than ones promoted when standards were different and which were shorter at that point. WP:TOOBIG suggests "> 60 kB Probably should be divided ... > 50 kB May need to be divided". The article is currently 61 kB plus quotes and notes. There are exceptions, but IMO, on a sampling rather than a detailed read, there is a fair bit of scope for a more summary style and places where it does not "stay[] focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". Gog the Mild (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - that makes sense. I've started working on a few subarticles: Huey Long in culture and United States Senate career of Huey Long. Just so I know what I should work towards, would you say that the assassination section is decent summary style and acceptable for a FA? ~ HAL333 04:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a full FAC review, but yes, the assassination section looks fine. Good prose, reasonable summarising. I could quibble over minor aspects, but I have certainly seen worse in FAC nominations which have subsequently been promoted. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have probably written worse in articles which have subsequently been promoted. :-( Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After more edits, I was able to remove 14 kb and 1000 words. ~ HAL333 20:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Putting this in to GoCE Requests was, IMO, a good move. Consider overtly bringing the attention of whoever picks up the request to my comments. (I used to do a lot of copy editing at GoCE.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please look at the alt text picture captions for readers with disabilities. Several pictures do not have any alt text or just say see caption. Games of the world (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed. ~ HAL333 19:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request to withdraw I really appreciate all of the comments and advice. I hope to nominate this again in a few months when I have been able to fully address the issues. Thanks! ~ HAL333 23:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.