Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kurt Vonnegut/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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2015 [1].
This article is about the late author Kurt Vonnegut. Always sardonic, and always funny. Wehwalt and I have been working on it over the past few weeks, and are happy enough with the result that we want to bring it to FA. Cheers, ceradon (talk • edits) 14:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Maury Markowitz
[edit]- Support This is one of the few examples of a recent PR that seemed to work. I reviewed it there top to bottom, but was only able to find a single minor suggestion worth posting. Excellent article that I think will see a lot of general interest. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your thoughtful review at PR and for your review and support here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage (and source review)
[edit]Collapsed first round of reference issues
|
---|
I'm going to be picking on reference formatting here. I've not even started to examine the prose, although I do actually look forward to doing so, because Vonnegut. Unfortunately, there are some problems down there in Source land.
I'm neutral regarding the article at this time. There's quite a bit of cleanup needed in the references, and a couple of sources that I object to on WP:RS grounds, but this doesn't seem impossible to salvage. Again, no input on prose or images at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
...and the second.
|
---|
}
Back to do another pass, including a prose review.
|
Despite the long lists of criticisms I've produced, in general, I support promotion. Vonnegut is a complex figure with oodles of information to condense into a single article, and I think this does an admirable job at doing so. Nothing I've raised as problems should be difficult to resolve, nor fatal to promotion by the end of the FAC process. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad to have been of assistance. I look forward to seeing Vonnegut's article with a bronze star. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Squeamish Ossifrage: just to make sure, that was a full source review right. It looked pretty full to me
Just wanted to make sure so I don't go off finding another person to do a source review. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 07:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, my evaluations on this one should be considered a full source review in the FAC sense. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SNUGGUMS
[edit]Almost there. Most of my concerns were addressed in PR, but please do address Squeamish Ossifrage's comments above. Additionally, I'd use citations from the And So It Goes book itself. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review and encouragement. Citations from the book how?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- By using in-text references to it in the same way you have for the other citations to books. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As the article currently stands, I'm seeing a book review used for And So It Goes when it's better to use the book itself instead. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we're up to date with both current reviewers but they might want to double-check nothing fell between us.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support all my concerns are resolved. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you again for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SchroCat
[edit]- Support I had my say at the PR and this article has improved since. great work - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your support, SchroCat. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 18:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review from Nikkimaria
[edit]- File:Kurt_Vonnegut_1972.jpg: can you clarify the provenance of this image? Was it shown during a TV program, or put out in promotional materials, or...?
- It appears to have been aired in advance of the release of Between Time and Timbuktu in March 1972. Since the PBS/WNET episode was aired in March 1972 as part of NET Playhouse, and the image was taken in 1972, it was likely promotional material. I can't find the listing on eBay (I saw it a few weeks ago; I don't know what happened). --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As this was taken in 1972, and thus prior to 1977, the copyright would have had to have been renewed. From the Stanford Copyright Renewal Database, that is not the case, so it's more than probable that this is in the public domain. --ceradon (talk • edits) 12:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so suggest switching from no-notice to not-renewed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --ceradon (talk • edits) 15:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Kurt_Vonnegut_-_High_School_Yearbook.PNG: have you checked for renewals of copyright here? Unlikely but still good to check, particularly when the source claims it is still copyrighted
- I checked that too. No indication from the page images that it was copyrighted in the first place.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Kurt-Vonnegut-US-Army-portrait.jpg: where are you getting that attribution from? The given source only credits us
- Nikkimaria the only pictures I can find related to this are attributed back to Wikipedia, but, since it's clear that this had to be taken before 1945 when Vonnegut was young, that would have to mean that the copyright would have had to be renewed if someone, for whatever reason, wanted to hold on to it. That is ostensibly not the case, so is that permissible? --ceradon (talk • edits) 12:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Only if we can show that it was published at that time - if it was not published until after 1977 then renewal would not yet be a consideration. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nikkimaria the only pictures I can find related to this are attributed back to Wikipedia, but, since it's clear that this had to be taken before 1945 when Vonnegut was young, that would have to mean that the copyright would have had to be renewed if someone, for whatever reason, wanted to hold on to it. That is ostensibly not the case, so is that permissible? --ceradon (talk • edits) 12:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Kurt_Vonnegut_and_his_family,_1955.jpg: are we sure Edie has the right to release copyright here? She wasn't the photographer. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If it satisfied OTRS, do we have any call to go behind that? Don't we just accept that they did their work properly?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be interested to know what was said to OTRS - do either of you have access? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria: Please check your email. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, that's fine, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria: Please check your email. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be interested to know what was said to OTRS - do either of you have access? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If it satisfied OTRS, do we have any call to go behind that? Don't we just accept that they did their work properly?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Editorofthewiki
[edit]- Support After a read through and small copyedit, I think this is ready for the star. It is well written and comprehensive. Good job! ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 23:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for taking the time and trouble, and for your kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Iridescent
[edit]- Support. Everything I had to raise, I raised at the PR and it was addressed then. Support with the same disclaimer as my comments at the PR, that I'm taking accuracy on faith, as this is a topic on which I know very little. ‑ iridescent 10:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review there and your ongoing support. I hope as well we do Vonnegut justice, with accuracy.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Brianboulton
[edit]- Support: I made my detailed comments at the peer review, and they were all dealt with satisfactorily. In reading the article through again just now, I saw this: ""He later stated that the loss in confidence in government..." I am sure that the first the first "in" should be an "of" – it certainly reads better that way, and I would advise this change. Otherwise, fine work. Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Made that change. Thank you for your support. --ceradon (talk • edits) 17:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. --Laser brain (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.