Talk:Colin Campbell Mitchell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Colin Campbell Mitchell has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
March 7, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Military work group.

Contents 1 Population of Crater 2 nominate for good article 3 GA review: hold 4 Mad Mitch videos

[edit] Population of Crater

My statement that the 1967 population of the Crater district of Aden was 700,000 is clearly wrong. Witness one recent article in which it states :

• ".... Aden during its transformation from a derelict village to a city of major commercial and strategic importance, with a population, by the time of independence in 1967, of nearly a quarter of a million"

Thankyou to anonymous contributor at BL for the correction. Izzy 08:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] nominate for good article

I'd like to nominate Mad Mitch here for GA/Good article status. It's very informative, detailed, referenced and well written. In fact I think the writing quality is noticeably above average for Wiki. I'm not sure why it's rated as "Stub Class" in the biography portal and "B class" in the overall article category, but I think it's clearly a "Good Article."jackbrown 19:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review: hold

1. Prose- Article's introduction needs expansion. See Wikipedia:Lead section. Titles need to be in accordance to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles). Quotes in the text could look more fancy. Look at other articles like Bill Clinton for quote ideas. Also, there is some Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid.

2. Verifiable-All facts need to be referenced with footnotes instead of the what is currently the first few lines of the reference section.

3. Coverage- Pass 4. Neutral- Pass 5. Stable- Pass 6. Image- Pass Good luck.User:calbear22 (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Joe. Thanks for that. I will take a look another look at the article inside the next 48 hours. Izzy (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSQUOTE specifically says not to use {{cquote}} (though WP:QUOTE does mention it as a possibility), which is why I changed all the quotes to {{quote}}. David Underdown (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• David. I agree that the {{cquote}} is "fancy" in style and not in keeping with an article on such a British topic. OK for Bill Clinton but hardly for Mad Mitch. But perhaps we can leave that for now and return to the matter later? Izzy (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Joe. I have addressed the substantive issues you raised. I have addressed most of the stylistic issues, but the slight problem here is that this is a very British article. Americans are more comfortable with stylistic flourishes than are Brits. The style of quotes used for Bill Clinton looks out of place here. But, take a look at what we now have and give me your thoughts. Izzy (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the long gap in response time. I'm going to ask another editor to take a look at it. You did a good job addressing my citation concerns.User:calbear22 (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My take on this is that WP:MOSQUOTE falls outside the good article criteria, which only include lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and embedded lists. This leaves quotation style up to the discretion of the editor, which is especially true if MOSQUOTE is contradicted by WP:QUOTE.--jwanders^Talk 08:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Quotes do fall under layout which is one of the four you mentioned. Quotes is probably more discretionary. The guidelines under layout for quote aren't specific. I think some special quote marks, especially for some of the long ones, makes the article look better, but I don't think every quote needs it.User:calbear22 (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Chaps. My own view is that the present quotation style (that suggested by reviewer calbear22) is not best suited to the particular nature of the article. But I don't think this is critical and it need not get in the way of GA status. Perhaps one of the reviewers would now jump one way or the other on GA status?. Izzy (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't put the article on hold because of that. I'm just not sure. I'll modify down some of the quotes.User:calbear22 (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi folks, I saw the requst for a second opinion and took a very quick look. Looks like there's been some good review work above, and I think you're on the right track about the quotes...a good discussion to have, but not a direct impact on GA review. But I did notice a couple things about the citations that strike me as a little odd: (1) It seems to me that editors nearly universally put a pretty full citation of newspaper articles, including the headline and author's name in addition to the pub and date. I don't think WP:CITE is part of the GA criteria, but it does cover this topic: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Provide full citations. It would be good to fix this. (2) I suspect Brits are all aware what The Times refers to, but in America and maybe elsewhere it's a more ambiguous name. I'd suggest linking it, at least in the article and in the first citation, and/or calling it The Times of London. (3) This is probably just a style I'm not used to, but the citations I see have the title before the pub name, not after. But that's probably just a style I'm not familiar with, not an error. Anyway, good work, and good luck! -Pete (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. I've seen Pete's comments above, and agree with them, and I think they should be fixed. However, what with the huge GAN backlog and the fact that this article passes every other GA criterion, I'm going to pass it now. Please try and address Pete's issues above regardless, as ultimately we all want a better article! Oh, and I personally have nothing against cquote, having used it many times in my GAs/FAs. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Calbear22, Peteforsyth, H₂0. Thankyou to the three of you for your time and attention. Your constructive comments concerning presentational style and referencing are appreciated and I will adress them during the next 10 days or so. Izzy (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mad Mitch videos

User:Sfan00 IMG. Wikipedia:Copyright includes :

"Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material ..."

So far, so good.

"However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work ..."

Do we know that the Web site is carrying copyvio material?. If you insert an image then you have to establish that it is copyright compliant. But the onus of proof on links is the other way round. If you do not know the status of a link then that is good enough. Izzy (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the way the External Links policy is worded, see WP:EL#Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites we only link to videos where we are sure the copyright status is OK. As I recall the video in this article was reproduction of BBC news footage, which is certainly copyright the BBC. David Underdown (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

David.

I believe that the videos are the cut down version of a BBC documentary broadcast in 2007 to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the pull out from Aden. I don't know whether or not they amount to a breach of BBC copyright. Their YouTube form is a reduced version of the original in both size and definition. It amounts to a series of screen shots and does not impact on the marketability of the original. If the BBC doesn't like it then they will ask YouTube to pull the videos - and this has not happened.

As regards the Benoit video, you have got to admit that he can play the fiddle. This contrasts with 90% of the garbage that people put on YouTube. Witness The Barren Rocks of Aden Izzy (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Everything I have seen policy wise suggests we should err on the side of caution, unless there is a clear release of rights allowing release on to youTube don't link. It is possible for bodies to create official channels on youTube (for example the British Monarchy did so around last Christmas, the Queen's speech was put up on youTube at the same time it was broadcast, and various things relating to unbrodcast footage of the coronation and similar bits and pieces were put up at the same time). It is not good enough for us to wait for the BBC to object-they have (I hope) better things to do than to monitor youTube all day. David Underdown (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

David. I guess it is possible that Mad Mitch video 1, Mad Mitch video 2 and Mad Mitch video 3 are in breach of copyright. Izzy (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)