Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paulins Kill

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 22:34, 10 January 2007.

[edit] Paulins Kill

This article's candidacy for FA status is a self-nomination as I've done about 90% of the work on bring it from a stub to where it is now. It has been noted as a Good Article and has undergone an extensive Peer Review from which all of the issues I believe were taken care of. I think this article meets all the FA criteria, (if I may say modestly), as it is well written, comprehensive given the subject, factually accurate and supported by citations and other resources, it's neutral and stable, meets MOS issues, nice images (especially an awesome map), and it's reasonably sized at a slender 42Kb. I've run this article by User:Ruhrfisch who has two river-related FA's to his credit, Larrys Creek and White Deer Hole Creek and he has helped me improve it with his very exacting and scrutinizing eye (which I thank him for immensely). I thank you in advance for your suggestions and your support. ExplorerCDT 03:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It looks pretty good overall, but I suggest some work on the lead to provide more of a summary and a complete rewrite of "Flora and fauna" (it's far too listy and the use of binomial nomenclature is most certainly not necessary - the Latin probably just confuses the average reader.) Additionally, the sub-section "Valley and watershed" is completely unreffed. Mikker ^(...) 05:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • REPLY: Latin removed. Please suggest what else could be summarized in the introduction, and how you would propose to rewrite Flora and fauna. (the suggestion that they ought to be revised doesn't aid or send me in any direction) Will add refs shortly to the Valley and watershed section. Thanks. —ExplorerCDT 17:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • REPLY2: Valley and watershed subsection is now completely reffed. —ExplorerCDT 03:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for addressing my concerns - "Valley and watershed" is now properly reffed; and although the "Today" section (ex "Flora and fauna"?) is still a bit too listy for my taste, I think you've dealt with the substance of my concern. Mikker ^(...) 22:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- nonstandard formatting used: eg excessive bold text, ToC resized, references resized (see Indian Standard Time for the CSS class to be used for references. And flora and fauna is too listy. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • REPLY: First, I do not think the bold text is excessive. It was suggested to me that I could put the tributaries in quotations rather than emboldening their names, but I have been taught and firmly believe that quotation marks should only be for quotations. Would you suggest italicization as opposed to emboldened text? (q.v. Emphasis (typography) stating that bold text should therefore be used to highlight certain keywords that are important to the subject) Second, I have resized the references and TOC per your suggestion. Third, I am using a citation format with which I am comfortable and which I use IRL. I will not use a CSS class for references as it is not explicitly or expressly required by WP policies and guidelines. To bolster this decision, I quote WP:CITE (1) Full citations may be formatted by hand or using one of the citation templates. (2) Inline citations may use one of the following three systems. (...) Footnotes (most often using <ref> and <references/> elements) (please also see WP:Footnotes). As different disciplines utilize differing standards of citation, Wikipedia accomodates this by saying various methods "may be" or "can be" used. Lastly, please suggestion how you would rewrite the Flora and fauna section to avoid it being "too listy". Thanks. —ExplorerCDT 17:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

    The ToC text is still small. Do not wrap a div tag around it. The image sizes are also too large. The width of the text space is 600px for standard web resolution (800x600). Keeping the width of an image at 300px takes too much of the readable space. Suggest you do not add a pixel value parameter, and instead allow the width to be automatically resized according to what the user has specified in his/her preferences. As for flora and fauna, you can reduce the sectioning, the number of animals/plants mentioned and add more prose eg. among the large animals found.. / smaller mammals include etc. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

    • REPLY: TOC div tag removed. I"m surprised people still use 800x600. Is there an option to make it 25% in terms of width? Some of the photos are just to large to leave it up to preferences (even defaults), so some limiting parameter is necessary. As for Flora and Fauna, please take a look at User:Ruhrfisch's proposal and contribute your commentary on that. Whatever the consensus is on how to best tackle it, I'll take the time to work on. —ExplorerCDT 20:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
      • 300px is the largest size in user preferences. I believe the default will make them 180px. Jay32183 20:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Two of the citations are just external jumps, they need access dates like the rest of them. Even if you don't use the {{cite web}} template, I recommend looking it over so importnat information is not left out. Jay32183 17:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • REPLY: Corrected, checked them today, can't remember when I first accessed them, ergo, put access dates for today. Thanks. —ExplorerCDT 17:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Today's date is fine. For your above question about bolding you may wish to read this and this. Jay32183 18:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you for directing me to those two MOS issues. I was just looking for guidance from the MOS on how to proceed with that issue and all I found was the above article I stated above. Will now remedy that. Thanks again. —ExplorerCDT 18:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Enough issues have been addressed that I believe the other changes will be made well. Ruhrfisch 14:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Comment: I think the overall article is well done. While it needs some fine tuning as pointed out above, I plan to support it once the issues raised have been fully addressed. In the interest of full disclosure (and as ExplorerCDT mentioned graciously above), I was quite involved with the Peer Review process and have made many suggestions about the article, although I have so far made only nine or so actual edits to it. After I finish this comment, I plan to add {{geolinks-US-river}} (which I was unaware of in the peer review process) and make a few minor copyedits.

  As for the list-y problem, what do you think of adding context and perhaps splitting up the Flora and fauna section and distributing some of the information elsewhere in the article? For example, what if the section header were instead Recreation and it had subsections on Bird watching (with all but the game birds), Hunting (with the game animals and birds), and Fishing (with fish and insects)? Some more information could be added on the hunting and fishing seasons and on the national rec. area, state parks, and state forests in the drainage basin (see the map) (some of this is already in the article). Hiking could be moved to a Recreation subsection with the non-game mammals and reptiles, as well as the wild plants and trees, or perhaps these could be in a subsection on the Protected areas. The non-fish aquatic animals could be moved up to the dwarf wedgemussel section, and perhaps the amphibians could be there too. The farm plants could go in the Today section where farms are discussed. I hope this idea helps at least start a useful discussion on improvement. Ruhrfisch 03:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Just to clarify, this is an idea to address the listy nature of the Flora and fauna section. Nichalp's idea is fine with me too. Ruhrfisch 14:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If the users who have so far commented (and will soon pipe in) like that approach, I'll try to find some time in the next day or two to redo the article in that regard. I'll leave it up to their consensus. —ExplorerCDT 19:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support:This is a nice article. I think that with the suggestions above, the nominator could improve it well into the realm of featured status. Right now, it is (in my opinion) just barely ready. We (not me, actually) have overloaded him w/ suggestions. But the article itself will be easy to fix up if it doesn't make it. Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 12:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So far, I think all the issues have been addressed with the sole exception of the listy Flora and fauna section. Now there are two ideas on how to tackle that, and there are possibly others. If you could weigh in on what the preferrable method to tackle this in the next day or two, I'll be able to fix it before Christmas. Also, in addition, if you could take a second look at the article and its candidacy and examine whether the edits made in response to the FAC page comments address your concerns adequeately, I'd be much obliged. —ExplorerCDT 01:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I killed the flora and fauna section. Even with the suggestions on how to repair it, it's intractable. —ExplorerCDT 15:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Feel free to revert, but I tried putting the flora and fauna into the article as per my suggestion above. If it is reverted, you can see it here too. Ruhrfisch 02:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for taking the initiative on that one. I'm so frazzled right now (FAC fatigue, methinks), that I couldn't wrap my head around it. I have no complaints. —ExplorerCDT 03:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support This is a well written, well-researched, thoroughly-documented article that covers the subject well, uses images, and ties it together with historical events and individuals. This would make an excellent feature article. The changes made since the FAC started have only further improved the article. Alansohn 04:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object In the present version, many web "Notes and citations" lack info on authors, publishers, work etc. Only the URL and retrieval date have been provided. Changed to conditional object later.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply Much to the contrary, the Notes and Citations do provide that information regarding books, as to websites cited many of them provide as much information regarding this as the website cited itself offers, the only way that Dwaipayanc's objection can be satiated, I assume (given a review of his contributions and his citation preferences) is by using the CSS tag in references, which I've stated above I am not compelled to use as WP:CITE says I am not compelled to use one particular method of citation over another. I've chosen the citation method used in the article, it's consistent, and meets the policy guidelines of WP:CITE and WP:RS and WP:V. Therefore, this objection is specious and as it is wholly without merit, I requestfully request of you to rescind your objection. —ExplorerCDT 18:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Of course one is not compelled to use one particular method over another. But what I am trying to emphasize is Full citations. It says, Full citations typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, and the date of publication. For example, this web citation that you have used [1] has got a publisher and author information. So this information should be provided. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • REPLY: A whopping FOUR out of 68 citations needed correction, not "many" as you stated. As I said before many didn't need to be changed because there was no information, thus the rest now are marked that "no further authorship information given." Now, rescind your objection. —ExplorerCDT 02:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: Dwaipayan is correct, and is merely trying to improve the article. Please try to remain civil, Explorer. Further, the references do need work, in my eyes. Books are cited with no page number, and in at least oine case, it is stated that the ISBN number cannot be found. How was this used as a reference, then? The ISBN number is in the book. If it was actually a newspaper that cited the book, then the paper should be used as a reference, and not the book itself, and should include the article date and author. References, as well as actual content, must adhere to WP:V. readers need to be able to find what you used as a reference. Jeffpw 12:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
          • ISBN numbers are only found in books published after 1964. Most local history books are published in the 19th century ro early half of the 20th, and noticeably, a lot were published in the proto-patriotic fever leading up to and after the 1876 Centennial celebration. Also, a lot of local histories before and after 1964 are privately published, circulating in numbers lower than 500, usually in the collection of local and university libraries. Thus, most local history books are often not reprinted, or commercially published with ISBN numbers, and sit in libraries collecting dust with their high-acid paper, split spines and mildewed covers, etc. If a book is before 1964, there's no way to provide an ISBN. I'll gladly remain civil, as long as people don't say "many" when they mean "four" and the like (stuff they could, with little additional effort point out or do themselves...like Dwaipayanc who did find that there was additional data for one of the four that needed changing). —ExplorerCDT 16:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I know from personal experience that if a book is old enough and has not been reprinted, it may not have an ISBN. However, as another example, I am concerned about the Kilmer letter reference (added since this FAC started). I have no idea where I would find this letter - a library, an archive? I would also remind ExplorerCDT to be civil - we are all working to make the best encyclopedia and article possible. Ruhrfisch 13:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Kilmer link, fixed.—ExplorerCDT 16:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Minor style issue. Use of dashes is not proper in the section "In art, literature and popular culture". I have not gone through the article yet, but at least two citation still lacks author information despite being available (this and this). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. Two citations and 4 or 5 ndashes fixed. —ExplorerCDT 18:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• more comment Access dates of sources should be wikilinked, per Dates containing a month and a day of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply that's a guideline, not a rule. Also, there's nothing in the guideline to say access dates have to be cited per your page, or WP:CITE. According to the MOS page you cite, "one way is often as good as another." If you want to do it, go ahead. I'm not taking on extra work based on something not mandated by an inflexible rule. The rescinding of your objection should not be hinged on something "optional." —ExplorerCDT 21:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply #2: I should clarify the reasons for my flat refusal for the above. The wikiguideline Dwaipayanc quotes pretty much says, in a gist, that things (dates, numbers, etc.) should only be linked if it is useful to one's understanding of the article, if it's relevant to the context of the article. Linking the dates I, or other users, accessed articles in each internet citation is not relevant to context and is no more useful to a user linked or unlinked. Also, applying that that WP:MOS provision to this "should be done" demand by Dwaipayanc is contrary to the spirit and letter of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Therefore, I will not do it. Sure, the 2nd FA criterion says we should follow the MOS, I think I am...but in the unlikely event that Dwaipayanc's demand is justified, the MOS contradicts itself on this regard and until the contrary guidelines are resolved, this provision should not be enforced. —ExplorerCDT 08:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply #3: For clarification on this issue from people who contribute and debate the MOS provision which Dwaipayanc seeks to demand of this article in its candidacy, I have asked the question of whether wikilinking source access dates is necessary or if it is ridiculous given the MOS provisions cited above. The discussion has been started here: [2] and [3] . —ExplorerCDT 18:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to replies Dates containing a month and a day are probably an exception to the general guideline of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Because, "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format."

However, I am not very efficient in discussing MoS policies. May be some more experienced Wikipedian can throw some light on it. What I remember is that there had been FACs in the past where wikilinking dates containing a month and a day was an issue, and such dates were wikilinked. The rationale is nicely described in the openning sentences of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers): "Manual of Style, like all style guides, attempts to encourage consistency and ease of reading. The guidelines here are just that: guidelines are not inflexible rules; one way is often as good as another, but if everyone does it the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read, write and edit.".

Let's see what comes out of the discussions started by ExplorerCDT. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Until then and that being said, will you withdraw your objection (not asking to jump over to "support"...just to withdraw the objection)...or are there other hoops I need to jump through with this article? —ExplorerCDT 18:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No. I shall wait, just in case "the unlikely event that Dwaipayanc's demand is justified" !! Regards. --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • So you should state that it is a conditional objection, and not a full objection. —ExplorerCDT 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Conditional object The reason is: Dates containing both a month and a day should be wikilinked. But the article does not. Please see the discussion above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC) This argument has been identified by one or more editors as constituting an arbitrary demand for a shrubbery. Please resolve this by clarifying the basis for the objection in canonical policy. Expanding the requirement to include chopping down the tallest tree in the forest WITH A HERRING may be met with additional mockery and scorn.

• If the discussion on those two MOS talk pages determines that your interpretation is correct, I'll comply. —ExplorerCDT 20:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Retracting, by it's nature as guideline, it's optional, and with the MoS is ambiguous and contradictory, I'll stick to my refusal rather than try to serve two masters (i.e. two seemingly contradictory provisions in MoS). —ExplorerCDT 01:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Being bold, I believe I have now wikilinked all the dates in the refs. Revert if you want, but I hope that resolves this issue for now (regardless of the outcome of the discussions above). Happy New Year! Ruhrfisch 04:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • So far, General consenus on the WikiEN-L mailing list is that this is a trivial objection without merit, and of note, one contributor has stated that "People who object to FA candidates on trivial grounds like this should be given peremptory 1 month bans from all FA discussions." I agree. —70.126.123.153 18:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to log-in ExplorerCDT 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC))
      • This probably should have been a comment rather than an objection, but it is perfectly reasonable. In fact, it is suggested in automated peer reviews. Refusing to take action on an actionable non-arbitrary suggestion is just silly. Dates containing a month and a day shold be wikilinked so that user date preferences work. Since feature articles are supposed to represent the best work on Wikipedia, formatting needs to be perfect. Jay32183 18:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        • My thought (and one reason why I wikilinked the dates) is that, although the method used to provide references is not specified, the results should be the same in all cases. Thus a casual reader should not know from reading whether an editor used {{cite web}} or just used < ref > tags. Since the cite web template does wikilink the dates, I think one can argue they should be wikilinked whatever method is used for citations (again, for the date preference function and not because the date accessed is relevant). My overall goal here is to see a deserving article reach Featured status. Ruhrfisch 18:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
          • The objection rationale was actionable and non-arbitrary, and thus, valid, though trivial. As Jay32183 has said, "Refusing to take action on an actionable non-arbitrary suggestion is just silly...Since feature articles are supposed to represent the best work on Wikipedia, formatting needs to be perfect." Yes, as Jay32183 has pointed out, it should have been a comment. In fact, it was a comment initially following my initial objection (please see the above discussion). The reasons for initial objection were addressed and so the objection was striked out. People are trying to address this date-linking problem ( see A new parallel syntax for autoformatting dates and this mailing list). Hopefully soon we'll have clear guidelines. I appreciate ExplorerCDT for taking the effort to start the mailings, despite his FAC-fatigue. It would be interesting to see this pre-emptory ban. Bye the way, this new template "shrubbery" is interesting and funny, but probably against WP:AGF. Anyway, this is not a place for discussing these things. Maybe somebody will take an effort to start another discussion elsewhere!!--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support All of the major problems seem to have been addressed, although I haven't gotten the chance for a thourough spelling and grammar check. I am also confident that any small issues found will be addressed quite quickly. Jay32183 22:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.