Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Portuguese Communist Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Portuguese Communist Party

This is the third time the article is being submited. This is the most complete article on wikipedia about a Communist Party, a subject that lacks a FA. The article contains info on the Party's structure, its 84 year history, its electoral results, media, youth wing, supporters and other info. The last nominations were refused due to a lack of references and a weak grammar, I think that's improved now. I also think this can be a useful way to improve the article.Afonso Silva 23:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object - The article is 60 kb long. While length is not a grounds for rejection on it's own, I sincerely believe that this article could be split apart into sub articles, and then rewritten in summary style. The electoral results, in particular, don't seem like they particularly need to be in this article, and would do well to be split off. Fieari 23:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Fieari; length actually is a valid objection because of criteria (5) for becoming a FA. Could the external link references be cited correctly, according to WP:CITE? AndyZ 23:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • <tangent> Hrm. I thought length wasn't a criteria... is that a recent addition to the FAC? Fieari 23:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Length is not a criteria. We have passed longer articles than this and continue to do so. Andrew Levine 00:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I realize that longer articles have been passed, but that doesn't mean that this article can pass critera (5). Certain articles cover such a broad and large topic that after more-minor details have been removed the article is still huge. It should be of appropriate length. However, as information is being shifted into sub-pages, I think this is becoming less of a problem. Still, other objections need to be cleaned up. AndyZ 23:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object:
  • I still keep finding grammatical mistakes in the article. I've fixed a few, but some I'm not sure I understand how to resolve them without knowing the facts.
  • Some of the pictures have dubious source quality, including untagged images (presumably fair use, but with neither tag nor source information nor fair-use rationale) and at least one (Image:Bento_gonçalves_pt.gif) which is claimed as Public Domain but with no reason why this is so.
  • There seems to be a great deal of point-of-view pushing. For example, there are unsourced statements like "While many historians consider that Salazar's dictatorship shared many aspects with Mussolini's Fascism, others find it more accurate to describe his dictatorship as conservative and authoritarian." Which historians? Also there is occasional use of loaded terms like "achieved thanks to the Socialist Bloc" and "political prisoner" (possibly a neutral term, but the term is loaded with meaning in English that could cause people to think of it as POV; perhaps "imprisoned Communists" or "imprisoned Party members" instead). But most of all, there isn't a section dedicated to legitimate criticism of the Party. What have notable present-day political opponents (on the right, on the center-left, etc.) had to say about Communists? Have they advanced any programs that turned out to be massively unpopular? Andrew Levine 00:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The length was reduced by 3KB, and there are Featured Articles bigger than this one. I've tried to find an native speaker that could make a good copy edit, but no one could do that, Iit would be great if someone could fix the grammar instead of criticize. I also removed the reference to the fascist origins of the regime and also that claim. The one related to the Socialist Bloc was also changed. The one related to the political prisoner status, I cannot change. I apologize for thinking that if someone is arrested for being communist, that someone is a political prisoner. About the criticisms I can't do much. Afonso Silva 13:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not about the length alone-- it's about summary style. I didn't want you to simply prune down length, but rather split the article into smaller peices (each peice containing all the details removed from the central article, and preferably even more) and then have the main article be a summary of the sub-articles, with relevant links. The size is just an indicator that this article could use some splitting. The longer FAs we have cannot reasonably be split further, and in fact, already are split quite a bit. Fieari 16:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, while the overall length of the article is not a huge problem in terms of it qualifying for featured article status, it is a lot of text to copyedit (I have made several passes through it). Why not split out the history into a separate article, leaving a summary in the main article. Then nominate History of the Portuguese Communist Party as a featured article candidate itself. This is the most interesting bit of the article to me. I agree several other sections such as the electoral results could also be split out. When the main article is significantly shorter, you may find more people willing to come in and copyedit it.-gadfium 21:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice suggestion, I'll make something like that, the history part can have much more info, I'll start working on it, but I will still be needing the help of a native speaker. Thanks anyway. Afonso Silva 21:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object I am blanket objecting all nominations that fail to use the new cite format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • • Withdrawing my oppose, consider it a strongly worded suggestion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object - there's some minor formatting issues; also, the entire "principles and internal organization" section is just copied text and not prose. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you really read the section? Afonso Silva 18:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes; I hate to be blunt, but I really don't appreciate you implying that I haven't read the entire article - if you think I've misinterpreted or misread something, please feel free to say so. Thanks! Regarding my opinion of this section - the "fundamental principles" sections a just a list of principles and goals; it very much appears to be paraphrased from somewhere else. The italics, the wording ("The PCP...") all give me this impression. In addition, the "internal organization" part of this section also gives me that impression; it's pretty much written in "The CC..." format. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for misinterpreting your comment. Just to clarify, my main objection is the fact that the section is a bulleted list that appears copied or paraphrased, instead of being prose. I'll take a closer look at it again and provide more feedback, and I'll also do some copyediting, if any is needed. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object. This article just never seems to get any better. I've copyedited it several times, have gone through and erased POV parts at least twice, and yet when I return to look at the article 3 or 6 months later it's still no good. It's ungrammatical, often incomprehensible, incompetently written and often biased. I'm sorry to be harsh, but my patience has been very badly strained. I would suggest that, with all due respect, Afonso Silva take a break from editing this article. Again, I'm sorry if this sounds disrespectful, butthe article is nowhere near featured article status. Hydriotaphia 23:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This comment was unnecessarily undiplomatic. I regret it. Hydriotaphia 02:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that you've had your disrespectful comment, could you start being objective, for example, pointing the NPOV sections? I never reverted an edit by you and I never changed your wording after a copyedit, so, if the article has a bad grammar you are guilty too. I just think you are biased against the article and that's the reason you are unable to have a coherent objection to made, I just hear you saying something about grammar and bias and bla bla bla. About the incomprehensible parts, I really understand that having a legal communist Party in a country is an incomprehensible concept to the common McCarthyist american guy, but I can make an effort explaining you that. By the way, your patiente is easily strained, as the article was a FA candidate for only 3 times in 8 months, I can only suggest medical treatment. Kind regards. Afonso Silva 23:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sincerely sorry that you're offended. I want to point out, however, that I never attacked you personally. I do think that you may want to take a break from editing the article; I think I'm being reasonable when I say that you seem a bit touchy about it. I continue to believe that it shouldn't be featured, due to the deficiencies I outlined above. Hydriotaphia 02:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for offending you on the FAC nomination page. You were right: I am impatient. My comments were too harsh. I've started to make edits to the PCP page again. I have nothing against Communists nor against the PCP; I just want to make the article fair and comprehensible. Best wishes, and again, my sincere apologies. Hydriotaphia 02:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about that, I was a bit harsh too, discussions are just like that. Thanks for your work on the article, I've clarified the sections where hidden comments were present, if that wasn't enough, just put the comments there again. Sometimes it is a bit difficult to spot non NPOV sentences and sometimes the contributions of another editor are the only way to eliminate biased content. The word "structure" means a group of members that work together because they live in the same town or work in the same factory. I've changed it to "organization", I don't know if that's correct, but that's what we call it here "estrutura" or "organização". I've also clarified that MUD was made illegal, I thought that was obvious as the PCP was already illegal since the late 1920s, but it is fixed. If you think another section is still biased just edit it, I agree with the changes you've made. If another section is still bad written and you can fix, that would be great. Thanks again! Afonso Silva 13:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing my oppose vote. Hydriotaphia 23:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. The referencing mechanism seems broken: the numbering in the article does not match the numbering in the Notes section. - Jmabel | Talk 04:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)