Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Che Guevara/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MISTAKE on CHE GUEVARA - main WIKIPEDIA page: wrong birthdate! He was born on June 14th 1928, not May 14th 1928. Please correct!!!
[edit] Che Guevara
Third nomination. Has already been on peer review. I think it's ready now. Huge thanks to Polaris999. LordViD 19:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent references and footnotes, well written, comprehensive and (amazingly enough, for a topic like this) reasonably stable and very NPOV. This has been through a ton of reviews and it looks like the reasonable objections have been addressed. There's lots of discussion on the talk page indicating responsible editing. Good article. Kafziel 19:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Object. There are still many hyperlinks inside main body, there should be transformed into proper references. There is also at lest one {{fact}} for which citation should be provided. The 'The intellectual and artist' section is stub-lenght, and the 'Aftermath' should probably be renamed 'Legacy' (more fitting to a person). Finally I find it strange that 'support' and 'ciricism' sections are such short - I'd expect CG to have his own subarticle on that. As I am not a specialist in CG, I don't know if this is truly comprehensive or not, but by comparison to many our other FAs (and not only), this looks rather suspiciously short.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- This article is still 48KB long after getting rid of the list-like sections. That is an upper bound for almost all articles, per the Summary style FA requirement. The article seems well-balanced as is and comprehensive. Adding more detail will make this article longer than necessary to efficiently cover its topic. If anything, we need development of more daughter articles that will go into more detail on various parts of this subject. --mav 20:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Object for the moment; though this is a major improvement, more work is needed. I strongly recommend making the reference system consistent by converting embedded links to normal <ref> citations. Please provide sources for the statement, "although some sources assert that he was actually born on 14 May 1928", and add a citation to the Motorcycle Diaries book that is referred to later in that section. {{fact}} appears in the Criticism subsection; this should be addressed. Also, I'm confused by the supplementary sections—organizationally it's lacking, but I think that the websites in "Writings about Che Guevara" belong in "External links", and the printed works that aren't references should go in "Further reading". The "Guevara in fiction" should probably go above "Published works", since it's part of his influence. Use {{web reference}} for citing web pages as references, with at least date accessed included.--Spangineer (háblame) 20:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)- You're right; the book already appears in the references and probably doesn't need a cite here. All my concerns have been addressed; I now support. --Spangineer (háblame) 20:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Conditional support - The lead section needs to be longer so it can properly summarize the most important aspects of the subject and the inline hyperlinks need to be converted to a consistent referencing format. Spangineer's objection also needs to be fixed, before this vote becomes a real support. --mav 20:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Right...I've (hopefully) addressed most objections. The remaining;
#Piotrus - I can't find anything to add to "Intellectual and artist", so I'll probably merge it into another section. As for the Criticism and support; I believe they're just the right size. #Spangineer - I don't see the need to add a citation for The Motorcycle Diaries. As for the supplementary sections; I've implemented your suggestions, though I need help in organizing them. #Mav - I don't believe the lead needs expansion, as it already covers the most important stages of his life; Birth, Cuba, Congo, Bolivia, death, and legacy. LordViD 00:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
As of this point, with a fat lot of help from Polaris999 and Spangineer, I believe all objections have been addressed. LordViD 20:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Support Fantastic article - I think the bottom section consisting of Source Notes, Content Notes, Printed Matter, Websites, Documentary Sites, Forums, Photographs, Other, On-Line Sources...... isn't the way to go, but it's certainly comprehensive. Practically half the article is citation, which is ridiculously OTT - but no reason to object. Good luck. --PopUpPirate 01:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Support Well written article. The Early Life section may be a little choppy, but one the whole, a great effort and very well referenced. AreJay 20:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Object. The article is sorely lacking in cultural impact which certainly goes beyond a few movies and references in video games. Are you implying that despite all the stuff he wrote, he did not influence currents of academic thought and has not been quoted by social movements he was not directly involved with? Indeed, many people follow "Che the icon", and the article does a great job covering that aspect, but what about "Che the thinker"? If Sartre noticed him, then there must be more to Che than the ubiquitous picture in the t-shirts of all those teenagers. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 21:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- comment. I think it's a very good article, well sourced and comprehensive. I read quickly through it, and felt that this article is primarily focused on biographical information. Thus the article is complete and comprehensive, even without the cultural impact. Temporary account 07:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Strong Support I forgot to add support on the previous post. Regarding the reply to my comment: This article is already very dense and long compared to many other FACs and it is comprehensively written and well-sourced (it's got primary, secondary, content notes, endnotes... etc). When I opened the article, I learned everything I wanted to learn about Che, and if you are looking for more Cultural stuff, look at first two sections in the Legacy part of the article. Personally I don't understand about the comment about "Che the thinker." If you really read the article, you should know what was his philosophy and his influences readily, and plus, the article isn't implying that all his cultural impacts are in the movies and TVs. I guess this is too fastidious. Temporary account 23:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Support, esp. for good pics. The article is worth of it. Brandmeister 11:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Support per Kafziel. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Object - Per Rune Welsh, see my comment above. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 20:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. To Rune and Cuivienen; I have nothing more to add to Temporary account's comment. Che wasn't a philosopher, he was a fighter. Having said that however, I note that all of Che's ideas and philosophies are discussed throughout the article. LordViD 18:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Che Guevara isn't famous for his poetry or philosophy. I wouldn't expect a section about deep thoughts in this article any more than I would expect one in an article about George Bush. ;) Kafziel 19:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not expecting a change of focus in the article (that would be ludicrous). The comment above fails to acknowledge that Che was a fighter with philosophy, or therwise he'd have been just another mercenary fighting for Castro. For instance, if I remember correctly he had something to say about permanent revolution that later influenced other writers to some degree (like Tony Cliff). Now, you can spin off a whole article on that alone (e.g. Maoism or Trotskyism although these obviously had a greater impact than Che's) but a mention of facts like this deserves to be at least summarized in Che's biography. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am not aware of any comment by Che specifically addressing permanent revolution although I do not doubt that he expressed an opinion about the concept at some point in his lifetime since he was very interested in the ideas of Trotsky. As explained in the section "Congo" of the main CG article (i.e. the article being discussed on this page), during the time that Guevara spent living clandestinely in Dar-Es-Salaam and Prague (late 1965 to mid-1966), he wrote the draft of a book on philosophy. He subsequently arranged for this draft to be transferred to Cuba, at approximately the time when he returned there to participate in military training with the future members of the guerrilla troop he would lead in Bolivia. He left this draft in the care of his wife, Aleida. It happens that this manuscript is considered "hot", because certain sections of it contain what the Cuban Communist Party views as "non-orthodox" interpretations of, and contributions to, Marxist theory. For this reason, the Cuban Communist Party and Castro government have never allowed the draft to be published in its entirety. (Recently, some excerpts have been printed, but those which the Party considers controversial were specifically omitted.) Until I am able to study the complete, unexpurgated contents of this, his final work on philosophy, I will not feel competent to write an in-depth discussion of Guevara's contributions to the discipline. Polaris999 03:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not expecting a change of focus in the article (that would be ludicrous). The comment above fails to acknowledge that Che was a fighter with philosophy, or therwise he'd have been just another mercenary fighting for Castro. For instance, if I remember correctly he had something to say about permanent revolution that later influenced other writers to some degree (like Tony Cliff). Now, you can spin off a whole article on that alone (e.g. Maoism or Trotskyism although these obviously had a greater impact than Che's) but a mention of facts like this deserves to be at least summarized in Che's biography. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Che Guevara isn't famous for his poetry or philosophy. I wouldn't expect a section about deep thoughts in this article any more than I would expect one in an article about George Bush. ;) Kafziel 19:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support This article is comprehensive enough about Che and nicely referenced. Some object that the article didn't address "Che the Thinker" and therefore sould fail this FAC. I find this preposterous since Che's philosophy guided his actions. It's hard not to get his ideas by reading this comprehensive article. BlueShirts 18:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Could it be improved? Probably. But in many ways it is exemplary, thanks in no small part to Polaris999's steady work to keep the article from becoming either a hagiography or a kakography. The careful citation and the notes explaining subtleties are a model of how to handle a controversial subject. I think this is already in many respects an example of our best work, and should become an FA. - Jmabel | Talk 01:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support I've been looking at this article for several weeks now. It's got an amazing wealth of information, and it appears to be very well organized and cited, a model for all wikipedia articles. Just by the sheer popularity of the article, Che being a cultural icon, i think this deserves featured status. --Subterfugest 20:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support: The section that now is "Legacy" "Support" and "Criticism" has come a long way since "Hero Cult" and "Critique of Hero Cult". savidan(talk) (e@) 22:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support It has been a very rewarding experience to work on this project over the past several years and see how the contributions of numerous Wikipedians, representing many diverse and sometimes conflicting points of view, have finally come together to create a worthwhile article. The recent peer review was extremely helpful in bringing about this result. While I feel certain that most of us who have contributed to this article in the past will continue to work to improve it in the future, I believe that in its current state it presents a comprehensive and balanced overview of Guevara's life and, in addition, offers some important biographical details that I have not seen included in any other encyclopedia article about him. Polaris999 02:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support it seems fairly complete and well-written. -- user:zanimum
- Support -- ALoan (Talk) 12:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Some good Capitalist Support Some trimming might be warranted, however even as it, it is inconceivable that this cannont become a FA Thethinredline 11:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
