Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Vanbrugh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] John Vanbrugh

This was nominated recently and withdrawn at the request of the authors so they could finish polishing it. I think they are done, and the result is an absolute tour de force. I have done some minor copyediting, but calling it a self-nomination would be to take credit that I do not deserve. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:21, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I concur. I'm in a similar boat. I urge voters to try http://www.google.com to see if anything on the Web compares to this! --Wetman 17:34, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: Sets the bar higher than print. It's not just good; it's the best concise account of the man I've ever seen. (I did do some copy editing on the article when it was younger.) Geogre 18:06, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, well researched and excellent writing. Zerbey 23:55, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object At 45kb it's way, way too long. Wikipedia articles should aim to be under 32kb. Perhaps move some detail to subsidiary articles (see cricket for an example of a featured article where this is done). jguk 14:06, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Please see the talk page for whether the "32k limit" is mandatory or indicative. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The aim of this article has been to provide a full and comprehensive account of John Vanbrugh, to separate architecture and literature would be akin to writing an account of Dr. Jekyll without mentioning Mr. Hyde. Vanbrugh's architectural works have been confined to just 3 buildings, all three have to be summarised in order to explain clearly how Vanbrugh developed baroque; the drama section is hardly verbose, one can't just miss out a play because Wikipedia likes short pages. It would also be impossible to summarise his life without setting it against the historical and cultural background of his era. John Vanbrugh led a full life, hence he requires a full article. Wikipedia is an educational encyclopedia, not a book of potted biographies.Giano 14:58, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That doesn't mean it can't be organised like, say, Isaac Newton (in depth). jguk 07:18, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The content and layout and style of Isaac Newton is hotly discussed on its talk page. It is much longer than John Vanbrugh; and much of it not original but from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, which was exactly what John Vanbrugh was, before Bishonen and I re-wrote it. That text dump type of thing is exactly what Wikipedia should be getting away from Giano 07:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I spent yesterday doing up a summarized section on the plays, and sub-articles to go with it, on the pattern of Cricket, but I haven't posted it at John Vanbrugh yet, because it seemed to destroy the integrity of the piece, no matter how much I tinkered with it. I decided in the end that a hierarchic or spider structure like that suits some subjects (Cricket) and not others (Vanbrugh), and we'd better just remove the article from FAC consideration, rather than put it on such a procrustean (?) bed (if I'm thinking of the right story there? Guy lops off hands and feet of guests, or stretches them, to make them fit the bed?). The Isaac Newton example is quite different, in fact I wish I'd hearad of it before. It sounds like a simple way of having the article remain linear (very much our preferred structure for it), and if I've understood it right, you merely have to "turn the page" (=click on "continue") halfway through it. Constructing the handmade TOC needed on the first page looks a bit of a nightmare, but heck, we can learn, or get help. We'll definitely look into this as soon as possible. Unfortunately both Giano and I are very busy today, but we'll be back. Thank you, jguk! Incidentally, the article clocks in at 40 or 41 right now, I saved a few kb by "transcluding" the timeline.--Bishonen 08:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For completeness, I should note that the other way of breaking down an article is as demonstrated in September 11, 2001 attacks or History of the English penny. A stand alone article with a box on the right hand side that links into subsidiary articles.jguk 12:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Are you really saying that this article is too comprehensive? What would you like to see separated out and why? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry to but in above Josiah, and GWO, with whom I agree completely, and thanks Aloan for your help, butI am becoming really confused here, why has a complete and comprehensive page got to be broken up, is Wikipedia running out of space, if so how will having two or three separate pages solve the problem. Or are we writing here for children with a low attention span. Incidentally this is not Wikepedia's longest page, even before surgery. Either this project exists to provide as much free information as possible, in the easiest and most convenient way possible, or it does not - Which? Giano 18:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support--Josiah 06:09, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I've been watching this article develop since its last listing and I think it is everything a good article should be. Filiocht 08:29, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- "this article is too long" is so dumb an objection as to be beneath comment. Your dog wants his MTV. -- GWO 15:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- This article is exemplary. I don't see how splitting it up would be useful to a reader. PRIIS 01:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- I don't buy the "too long" argument here. I'm having a rendering problem on Mozilla, but I intend to fix it, so won't object on that basis... Mpolo 20:47, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Nowhere near "too long", that some of our number suffer from an inability to concentrate should not shoe-horn the rest of us into badly-split articles. James F. (talk) 10:52, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly support, on the condition that the images in the Blenheim Palace section be arranged in a more orderly fashion. -- Emsworth 20:06, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I have changed the position - is this better? Or would you like to tell me where they should be? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:57, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • This is fine, but is the third image in the section (of the south portico of Blenheim) really necessary? -- Emsworth 21:22, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is very necessary as it is the only pediment of its type and era in the world, and demonstrates the changes to conventions that Vanbrugh was inaugurating, may not seem much now, but at the time it was a very new architectural feature. Have made small changes to text and caption to justify the reason for inclusuion of the South Portico. Giano 08:34, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • support a few kb doesn't matter. Dunc|☺ 17:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - remarkable article. JoJan 19:25, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, the article is not too long. — David Remahl 13:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)