Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephen Trigg

Self-nomination of an article on a Virginia politician and pioneer. Any and all comments/criticisms welcome! --plange 00:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Support now that all the suggestions from the two military history peer reviews (here and here) have been implemented. Kirill Lokshin 01:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Support per Kirill. Rlevse 12:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment I find that the opening summary provides too much redundant information that is repeated elsewhere in the text (e.g. who his parents were), without really giving me a sense of why the reader should care about the subject - that is a sense of his importance or the source of interest. Very well written and sourced though. Eusebeus 16:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what to do here. Adding his parents in lead was something I added per last peer review. What do others think? --plange 23:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a case of colliding philosophies of Wikipedia. One school looks at leads as literary "hooks" meant to draw in the reader, and so gives them a "taste" of the information, without a lot of redundancy. The other school looks at the lead and infoboxes (if any) as the micropedia entry of the subject, while the rest of the article is the macropedia entry. Thus the entry "should" be a summary of the entire article; if someone only read the lead and the infoboxes they should still come away with a more-or-less complete picture, although not as detailed. I tend to favor the latter school, although I don't believe that either camp is without merit in its approach. I think that it comes down to the preference of the author/editor doing the work :) Structure the lead as you think it should be; given the level of support for the FAC nomination, this is unlikely to be a "deal breaker". - Vedexent (talk • contribs) - 02:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Per Vedexent. I just want to point out that, since the lead constitutes the summary of the whole article, some repetitions are inevitable.--Yannismarou 07:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Support per Kirill. Trashking 21:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Support Very good article. Nice job.UberCryxic 22:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Support: with echoed positive sentiments of all above (and probably below :> ) - Vedexent (talk • contribs) - 02:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. The suggestions from the biography peer review (Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Stephen Trigg/Archive 1) have also been implemented. I just want to laud Plange's perfectionism, who went through three detailed peer-reviews (she just forgot to mention them in her self-nomination!). Congratulations!--Yannismarou 07:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Question. Why there isn'a a picture of Trigg? CG 14:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - unfortunately, as far as I know, there isn't one :-( I suspect because he died so young. --plange 14:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The photo of Daniel Boone needs a better caption. Who is he and why is he pictured? Also, if no picture of Trigg is known to exist that ought to be mentioned in the article (if it isn't already, I haven't read it in full yet). I don't like the use of a headstone in place of a portrait but that's just my personal preference. --kingboyk 10:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

THanks! I've added a caption, let me know if that's what you were looking for. --plange 16:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

When no picture is available for a specific person, this has not to be mentioned in the article. (Why? I don't understand the reason. The issue is raised during the FAC and it is satisfactorily explained) I also do not like the headstone, but, since there is no picture of him, what is the alternative? There are two solutions: Either the editor makes the infobox with the headstone in the place of the picture either she gets rid of the infobox. Since she chose to have an infobox, there was no alternative. As I have mentioned on another occasion, perfectionism is a nobel goal, but perfect solutions are in scarcity!--Yannismarou 07:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Pardon? I was only making a few helpful personal-opinion suggestions, I thought that was clear (hence "comment" and not "object").

As for the headstone, fine, if you want me to make it official: I object, it's inappropriate. Wikipedia biography articles are not memorials, and a picture of a grave is not a satisfactory alternative to a portrait. If no portrait is available, leave the image field empty, and move the headstone portrait into the body. --kingboyk 14:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC) PS FAs are supposed to be as close to perfection as we can get. I think a line of "No portrait of Trigg is known to exist" adds to the completeness of the article and is an interesting fact.

Before User:Kevin Myers supplied me with that photo, I had the map of Kentucky with Trigg county highlighted in that box. Will that be better? --plange 16:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, in terms of objection, I only object to the gravestone being used in the infobox (but I have no objection to that photo being used elsewhere in the article). In terms of personal opinion, if there's no portrait available I'd prefer the infobox to be image-less. What's the norm in this situation? Alas, I've had a quick rummage through FAs and this is the first case I've found where a picture simply isn't available :( --kingboyk 20:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Presumably the infobox would work without an image? It's an unusual situation, granted; if people are disturbed by the gravestone, it may be easier to move it to another place in the article.
(On a side note: no, we cannot add "No portrait of Trigg is known to exist" to the article unless there's a source we can cite for that. The actual case is closer to "No portrait of Trigg is known to exist, according to research by Wikipedia editors", which isn't quite the same thing.) Kirill Lokshin 23:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, have moved pic, but this means presumably it won't make FA, since it won't have an accompanying photo, right?... --plange 23:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no actual requirement that FAs have any particular image, or that those images be in any particular position. :-) Kirill Lokshin 23:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Per Kirill! This was also the point of my comment. I understood kingboyk didn't oppose and was just suggesting. My point was just that his suggestion was difficult to be implemented in this particular case. And that the reasoning for the lack of picture is not necessary to be within the article. The lack of picture or the gravestone picture are not an obstacle for FA.--Yannismarou 10:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No, an FA doesn't need to have any image. I don't think that substituting a non-existent portrait with a gravestone is an acceptable compromise. Just be upfront and admit there's no portrait, tough luck reader! :) Starting an article with a picture of a dead man's grave is wandering dangerously near to "memorial" territory AFAIC, and WP:NOT a memorial is relevant when considering FA candidacies. --kingboyk 15:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Not if the memorial has a historical significance and importance. In any case, I don't see an important disagreement here. I just wanted to make clear that I hadn't misunderstood your vote and that I just wanted to give a different perspective respecting your arguments.--Yannismarou 18:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Support, of course, with the "I hope you lose the gravestone as the lead image" caveat :) Very nice article and seems to meet the criteria. --kingboyk 20:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)