Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daniel Boone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Daniel Boone

Self-nomination. Listed as a "good article", assessed as "A-class" by WP:MILHIST, has gone through a couple of peer reviews. The article is based on the major 20th century biographies, with points of disagreement between historians noted in the text or footnotes, especially regarding the issue of history versus folklore, a central concern in Boone historiography. All comments are welcome; hope you enjoy reading it. —Kevin 16:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The dates in the headings might be neater placed inside parentheses, I think. Kirill Lokshin 16:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    Done. Still perhaps a little busy for headings. The dates were a late addition, and maybe an unnecessary one. Should they go away entirely? —Kevin 17:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    I actually like them, as they make it easier to determine what section would contain information about some given period (the section titles not always being obvious about the exact division); but it's a minor point either way. In any case, support from me, as this is an excellent article regardless. Kirill Lokshin 17:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --plange 18:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great article! Kyriakos 20:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, a nice article. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 01:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support.--Yannismarou 15:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow. Sandy 16:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Mild Object Object Support now. See below. Not that I'm specifically objecting to the following comments, but I do think they need to be cited to something:
Boone remains an iconic, if imperfectly remembered, figure in American history. He was a legend in his own lifetime, especially after an account of his adventures was published in 1784, making him famous in America and Europe. After his death, he was frequently the subject of tall tales and works of fiction. His adventures—real and legendary—were influential in creating the archetypal Western hero of American folklore. In popular culture, he is remembered as one of the foremost early American frontiersmen, even though the mythology often overshadows the historical details of his life.
Otherwise it just sounds like POV. Again, I agree with the above description of Boone, but the article is supposed to be written from a global perspective, and I'm sure a lot of people around the world have no clue who Daniel Boone is. Take care of that and I'll glady support.UberCryxic 18:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Those statements are expanded in detail (with citations) in the article itself--the paragraph is just an overview of the "cultural legacy" section. However, if I understand your point correctly, the "in popular culture" phrase seems too broad, and should instead say "in American popular culture", since that's where Boone is primarily remembered. Will that do the trick? —Kevin 18:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I understand that you may cite specific information like that later, but you still need to cite it here. I don't want you to rephrase it because, again, the information is correct and verifiable. I just want you to cite it to something. I'm sure this won't be difficult.UberCryxic 00:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry let me clarify my point. A person who has never heard of Daniel Boone needs credible evidence to believe that he actually is an important figure in American culture.UberCryxic 00:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I've added a footnote to address this concern. —Kevin 18:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Rama's arrow 00:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This article literally uses only one source. Is there no modern authority other than Faragher? While this appears to be an excellent article, I just worry that being limited to one source effectively means the article just represents the viewpoint of one academic. If this really is the widely-accepted, definitive biography... and no one seriously disputes Faragher's interpretation, I guess that's okay. But still, it would be nice if it at least used multiple sources. Hopefully this doesn't sound too spurious... if FAs represent our best work, certainly using multiple sources is usually going to be a part of that. I'm not even saying "cite a second source or I'll oppose!" - I'm just curious as to why only one source is used right now. --W.marsh 01:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a very good point. In that same line of argument, the References section has several books listed, but only Farragher's work is cited. If you put books there, they should probably have citations under the Notes section. But generally your point is valid marsh; there should probably be more than just one work cited. I'm objecting until this is rectified.UberCryxic 03:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Read the notes again. Michael Lofaro's 2003 book is cited in the notes 6 or 7 times; John Bakeless's book about 7 times, a couple other books are cited once or twice. Bakeless and Lofaro are even mentioned in the text of the article. Every book listed under references is cited at least once in the notes. The claim that "This article literally uses only one source" is literally incorrect. —Kevin 07:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected. --W.marsh 15:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Would be full support, but I think the External links should be cleaned up. Do we really need four biographical sketches? The wilderness trail named after him? And were any of those primary sources used to source this article? Likewise, I dislike "Further reading" sections in articles; if the book wasn't used as a source, remove it from the list. But, again, not enough for me to oppose. — BrianSmithson 08:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for reminding me. I meant to clean up the "External links" section, which was mostly stuff added before I rewrote the article, but never did. I've cleaned it up now. I disagree with you about "Further reading" sections, however. Listing additional reading material is standard in scholarly publications like the Dictionary of American Biography or American National Biography. The purpose, of course, is to point interested readers to closely related material which goes beyond the scope of the article. The trick is that the section must not be simply a list of books, but instead a judicious selection of works respected by scholars. The books I've listed are frequently cited by scholars; any aspiring Boone scholar will want to consult them. —Kevin 14:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly why we should either consult them or ditch them. — BrianSmithson 15:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support after clearing up (admittedly, my own) confusion about the sourcing... this seems to be a model FA. --W.marsh 22:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, I have filled in a redlink from this article by creating Squire Boone, who was of moderate regional interest to me anyway. Of course... it's light years away from the quality of this article on his brother. --W.marsh 22:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Good work! Squire would be more famous if not for standing in the shadow of his brother. —Kevin 23:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very extensive and will do Wikipedia proud. I think the images should be larger sized, but that's a quibble. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)