Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/El Greco 1 (withdrawn)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] El Greco

Meets the criteria for nomination. Technically this is a self-nominatinon but I've only done a couple of edits for typos. Someone has done a LOT of work on this taking into account peer review recommendations Tom 18:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC).

Oppose Why is it categorized under, "Articles with unsourced statements", even though it has gobs of footnotes and even lists the numerous references separately?--Rmky87 18:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know what is gong to happen with this nomination (see my reservations below), but, in any case, I referenced everything in the article.--Yannismarou 13:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yannismarou is working on this at the moment to get it up to FA standard, so unless he wants this to be nominated now I'd suggest you withdraw it (otherwise there will be a lot of objects for things he is already fixing - such as missing citations). Yomanganitalk 18:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It's categorised under unsourced statements because there are 3 citations marked as needed; that's not bad for a 6000 word article! It looks from the peer review page that Yannismarou has dealt with all the objections apart from just 3 citations, surely that's not enough to hold such an article from getting FAC status? Tom 18:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There are other issues he is working on, and seeing as he hasn't put it up for FA yet I guess he thought it wasn't ready yet either. Yomanganitalk 18:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You don't need to wait until its perfect! I can assure you this article is a lot better than several articles I've seen that have featured status. Even if that were not the case, it would deserve featured status against the criteria. Tom 19:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Right, but it would be good etiquette to let Yannismarou nominate it when he feels it's ready. Gzkn 01:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Yomangani and Gzkn. That was the first thing I thought when I saw this nomination. We know Yannismarou has been working on it. Nat91 06:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
"Nominators are expected to make an effort to address objections." per Wikipedia:Featured article candidates introduction. If Yannismarou going to do all the work on fixing the article to FA, he might as well nominate it. - Tutmosis 23:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment-reservations. I'm sorry to have reservations for this nomination! It really hurts! I thank Tom for his intiative and his contributions in the article (and I thank him even more for his very nice words for the article), but he should have advised me first, and he should have noticed that the article is still reviewed. I've asked Yomangani to offer me a peer-review. He did it and I'm grateful to him. Until I address all his concerns and until I go once again through the article and correct the currest minor deficiencies (tags of [citation needed], red links, one-two sub-article I've in mind to create etc.), I cannot support this nomination. My effort is still incomplete. I thank once again Tom, but I repeat that some kind of discussion should have taken place before the article is submitted here. And I also think that the principle is to give the chance to a person who works on an article and improves it to (have the "honor" to) nominate an article. Really sorry!--Yannismarou 13:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm concerned by some of the comments above; as I stated in the nomination, someone has done a lot of work on the article. I was flabbergasted when I read it and noticed it was assessed as 'start' quality rather than FA. As can be seen above, I made it clear the article has been peer-reviewed and editor Yannismarou agrees with this. Yannismarou has made substantial edits but it is any user's right to nominate an article and to suggest otherwise is significant and worrying. No matter how much someone works on an article, it in no way belongs to any of the editors and it is simply wrong to suggest that we cannot nominate it until one editor feels it's ready or until they've deemed their effort to be complete. It's often easier to get FA if it's not a self-nomination and surely we should be more concerned about getting the article to a wider audience than getting precious about the process of who nominates it. The article is easily, already at featured quality, if you someone does not think the article is FA say so, opposing the nomination with reason(s) like Rmky87! An article can never be 'finished' no matter how much we may want to make it perfect - I and others will nominate articles if they are clearly at the right standard. I would be grateful if people could find time to go and look at the article to see for themselves and stop the delay in bringing it to a wider audience, there is no honour in that. Tom 18:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Response to Tom's comments. Tom, I've explained how I feel about your initiative. I tried to be honest and straightforward. You ask me to say if the article is FA or not?! I'll be again sincere: I'm too involved in this article to be objective. And I honestly tell you: I do not know! I'm too subjective to know! I've dedicated hours and hours of work in this article, and I cannot jugde my own "child". I know that articles do not belong to their editors and I respect this rule, but I still regard the articles I've rewritten as my "children"; I can't do otherwise! But this does not mean that I claim their ownership! No! The articles I write or rewrite belong to anybody; I know that, I respect that. My bind with these articles is sentimental, and has nothing to do with "ownership claims". Who doesn't feel connected with the products of his own hard work?
If you, the reviewers, maybe Raul and everybody here want to know whether I demand the withdrawal of the nomination or not, I'll be again sincere and straightforward: This is something I cannot do. I cannot bury my own efforts. When I wrote my first comments about this nomination, I put a title which demanded the withdrawal of the nomination (check the history of the page). But a few minutes laer, I realised I couldn't do that! But, at the same time, I cannot support this nomination, until I'm sure that this article is as perfect as I want it. Tom, I'm a perfectionist! I don't know if this is a virtue or a vice, but I am, and I've shown that as a reviewer as well. And I'm even more perfectionist with my own works! I respect your opinion about "perfection". But this is what you believe. As far as I am concerned, I do not nominate an article, when I feel that it fulfils FA criteria, but only if I'm sure that it is "there". And "there" for me is somewhere near perfection. These are two different perspectives. I respect yours; please, respect mine as well. For you minor deficiencies do not matter; for me they do matter, because I want everything I do to be flawless.
And of course it is your right to nominate any article you want. What I told you can be summarised with a simple question: why didn't you discuss your intentions with me? Didn't you see in the talk page that an independent review initiated by me and executed by Yongamani was in its way? Didn't you see in the talk page again that I am one of the main editors (honestly? the only main editor!) of this article? Don't I have the right to be informed about your initiatives before they take place and not afterwards? Didn't you think to ask me whether I had the intention or not to nominate myself this article? Don't you recognize that the main editor of an article should have the right to nominate himself an article he is working on (self-nomination)? If the main editor does not have such an intention, then OK; do as you wish. But did you ask me if and when I had the intention to nominate the article? If you had asked me, you would have learned that, indeed, I had the intention to nominate this article for FAC, but in about a month from now; not today.
What is done is done! I cannot fight this nomination. But I don't feel bound by its timelines. I'll keep working on this article, until it gets "there". I took a decision not to fight this nomination, but do not ask me for a plain support. If I get the article "there" before the nomination is closed, I'll give my support. Until then, I'll let it go its own way. I keep my pace, and the nomination keeps hers. Let's see if we'll meet each other in our courses!--Yannismarou 19:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'll respond to a lot of the questions on Yannismarou's talkpage as many aren't related to whether the article should be featured or not. Yannismarou has resolved the one 'oppose' statement so far concerning unsourced statements, all the statements are now sourced. Tom 20:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel for Yannis: he has been working on the article for a long time, and if he feels it's not ready, I hope the nominator will withdraw the FAC so that Yannis can present it when it is ready. It's a shame for an article he's worked on not to have a clean and helpful FAC, when Yannis knows what it takes, and I feel badly that he should be on someone else's timeline, when that person isn't a main contributor to the article. When someone else is the main editor, the courteous thing to do is to ask on the talk page if it's ready before nomming. I won't Support, because if Yannis says it's not ready, I know it's not ready, and he should have the pleasure of submitting it when it is ready. (By my count, that is about six of us now who asked Tom to withdraw the nom.) Sandy (Talk) 14:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Withdraw nomination. I did not intend to do that, but some edits Tom did in the template of El Greco without knowing my plans and my intentions about the sub-articles I intend to create within the next few days, made me feel really bad. Again no consultation. I'm sorry, but please withdraw the nomination.--Yannismarou 15:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I haven't been previously involved with the article, but I, too, really feel that the nomination should be withdrawn. MLilburne 15:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article is featured quality. I read the criteria for FA status and diligently followed the rules on nomination. It has been claimed there are unwritten codes of etiquette where the main editors of articles should be allowed to 'have the pleasure of submitting it when it is ready', I have personally been told by several people that I should withdraw my nomination on this basis and stand accused of being discourteous in not getting permission from other editors before nominating. A culture of insider, unwritten rules is completely against the Wikipedian ethos of openess and transparency and discourages outsiders participating in the community. Wikipedia should and will not become like this. I will only withdraw the nomination if editors can be Wikipedian enough to give specific rationales, that can be addressed, on why the article is not FA quality rather than resorting to making-up non-transparent rules that attempt to exclude people from participating in projects. Yannis, after correcting a lot of your typos, I'm a bit disappointed you stated in the edit summary that I 'edit without knowing what you're [Tom] editing, I'm aftraid [sic]!' after I made a typo myself, you're a bigger editor than that. In regard of the timeline I corrected typos on that and just find it completely bizarre that some don't think I should edit the typos or that I should consult with certain people first. Again, unwritten rules and insinuations of ownership; people are welcome to go and see the edits on the article, template and timeline for themselves. Yannis if you want to revert the template edits please do so, but I wouldn't recommend you revert the timeline edits as several spellings were incorrect. Tom 16:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Object I won't bother with the stuff above (except to say that self-nominating an article for FA is always a bit presumptuous)and instead comment on the article at hand. My problems are various.
  1. Length - too long and prolix. Needs to summarise better.
  • I had to answer this! An article of 79 kbs is not long, when articles of more than 100 kbs get now FAs. And what percentage of this 79 kbs is prose? The half I think! An article of about 40-45 kbs prose is long? Of course, not!--Yannismarou 21:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. The bibliography - too long. Is this the bibliography for an art history student's MA thesis? No. It should limit bibliographical citations to the most important and seminal texts. How is someone who is unfamiliar with the subject supposed to wade through that thicket of books and know what scholars consider to the starting point for further enquiry?
  • More answers. All this bibliography is important. And it is not bibliography; it is references! There is a huge difference. These are not sources I recommend; these are sources I used - and all the respectable biographies of El Greco I read have long lists of references like these. All these scholars are prominent! Yes, Davies, Lamraki-Plaka, Foundoulaki, Hadjinikolaou, Lopera, Marias, Wethey, Tazartes; all these are the greatest researchers of El Greco's art. Do you want me to make a selection? But why not to give the chance to the reader to have access to all these sources and material, which is valuable and excellent. If this material is valuable for me, wouldn't it be valuable for someone who wants to "to wade through that thicket of books". A thorough and in-depth reserch is not a minus for an article (any article), but a huge plus. I've used such long lists of references in Pericles, Alcibiades, Aspasia, and Demosthenes, and everybody regarded as an advantages; not as a problem!--Yannismarou 21:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. Most importantly, however, the tone of this article, the way it is written, prevents it from becoming an FA. The various and disparate views of scholars and curators poke up far far too often in the text. A few judicious quotations are always a good idea. But here, they drown the text. The reader is asked to follow a bewildering array of different assessments. Byzantine affinities: We have Procopiou, Byron, Cossío, Cyril Mango and Elizabeth Jeffreys, David Davies, José Álvarez Lopera, Lambraki-Plaka cited in the space of 4 paragraphs. Ugh. In fact, one is left with a confused morass of opinion and counter-opinion that fail to provide a cogent overview of the important questions concerning byzantine influences in El Greco's oeuvre. I have this complaint about the article generally. Much greater effort needs to be made to find strong, lapidary prose to discuss the main themes. As it is, the article is encumbered with so much quotation, citation and research, the larger picture is lost. Eusebeus 19:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that some rephrasing is needed, and Yomangani pointed this out. But I disagree with your overall argument. If I donot mention these scholars, I'll have to use weasel words! But this is against FA criteria. And when some things are disputed (such as the "byzantinism" of El Greco), the mentioning of scholars is inevitable! This is the nature of the section! If we donot mention what prominent scholars believe, then how are we going to understand what is the problem here? If we do not know when El Greco exactly went to Venice, I have to say that! And I have to say what is the background of this disagreement; and why this disagreement exist. And I do have to say what different scholars believe. Sometimes, it is not the editor who makes an article obscure, but the article itself: El Greco's life was and still remains obscure; this is a fact (one of the few facts about his life!) and this obscurity becomes necessarily an inherent part of the article; but this is not a problem for me - it is just the correct reflection of an obscure life. And when almost everything concerning his art (style, catalogue of works, influences) arises disputes, shooldn't we mention that? And shouldn't we analyse the nature of these disputes? How can we do that without mentioning the scholars, namely those who initiated all these theoritical disputes?--Yannismarou 21:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually on rereading that paragraph I mention, I like it more. You can certainly cite specific scholars, although I think excessive quotation is unnecessary - paraphrasing of key arguments is not a problem. But I don't think that you would have to resort to indeterminate language in order to convey the main points of contention in the debate. Anyway, since this looks like it won't pass FA, I'll reserve further comment until it is a more viable candidate or comment on the talk page. Eusebeus 00:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment. I once again urge Tom to withdraw the nomination. The article is not yet in the way I had it in mind, when I started rewriting it. There are a few things left and, especially, the independent review of Yomangani, the sub-articles and the red links (which will soon be stubs). I'm sorry if I was unfair towrds Tom, but the main problem remains: The article is not yet as I want it, in order to defend it in this nomination and give answers to arguments like those of Eusebius (whom I thank for his feedback!). I'm willing to co-operate with Tom (and my problem, Tom, were not the typos [I honestly thank you for fixing them], but one particular deletion in the template, which I regarded as unnecessary and rushy [concerning the typo in the lead I was unfair towards you and I apologize]). I do not have "ownership demands", but let's bring the article, when it will be really ready. My problem is not the "nomination". I have no problem to "co-nominate" the article with Tom. But not right now! Please, give me some more time to work on it (and co-work with Tom, if he wants it)! Thanks!--Yannismarou 20:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose this charade and really sorry for the complete lack of wikiquette by the nominator. This page is full of unrelated comments to the scope of the article. Too hasty, too inappropriate, too pointy. NikoSilver 23:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Complete lack of wikiquette? I'd hoped I'd left behind the patronising hypocrisy, where people talk about politeness rather than actually practising it. How naive? 'This page is full of unrelated comments to the scope of the article', what, like, 'This page is full of unrelated comments to the scope of the article'? Pointy? I just saw a good article, followed the rules and nominated it. Yannis, I can see nominating the article is really important to you. Comments like those from Eusebeus are a good thing, I agree with them and it doesn't matter if you don't get everything perfect before you nominate it. After reading Yannis comments above, I decided I should withdraw the nomination, I then read his comments on my talk page - incorrectly accusing me of various things including not reading the article's talk page - and thought this is someone who can't let go of the article, thinks it's his and will always think he's a 'main' editor of it. There are no 'main' editors of articles in Wikipedia, yes I am making a point, that wasn't what I set out to do. Everyone above who had a go at me for nominating, should think if they really want to have some kind of club where some rules are stated but some imaginary ones are only known by insiders. Yannis, mate, I don't care about who nominates it, just that it gets to FA and more people read it, that was my intention when I nominated it. I'll try and do some copyediting on the later sections so it sounds less scholarly and more accessible. The simplest way I can think of withdrawing the nomination is simply to delete this whole section. Tom 02:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Tom, I'll be frank. When half a dozen esteemed editors above (Yomangani, Gzkn, Nat91, Tutmosis, SandyGeorgia, MLilburne and me), including the main contributor, all tell you from the beginning that you must withdraw nomination and Yanni should nominate it when done, then you are wrong. When you keep hanging to it until just now, it is WP:POINTy. Now I am glad that you have decided to do the right thing, even so late. NikoSilver 20:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)