Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mirth & Girth/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 15:26, 26 May 2008 [1].

[edit] Mirth & Girth

Self-nominator. The subject is pretty controversial, even after 20 years. GA process was unusually long and contentious. Thanks in advance! :-) —Rob (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 31 "Lehmann, Daniel J. and Golb, Art "City settles suit over Washington painting" is lacking a publisher.

Otherwise sources look okay. Still on the road, so didn't check links. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm. Thought I nailed all of 'em. Fixed. —Rob (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments by Moni3

I like this article, and I did when I read it at GA. Just a few of points to address before I can support it:

• Give it a thorough copy edit (if you can't because you've been working on it too long, I will go through it, though I am not as thorough as some). I noticed small things, like Weekly World News and New Art Examiner weren't italicized, and insinuated that Washington was himself gay, quotation punctuation. Stuff like that.
  • I'll need help with this. I can write prose fairly well, sometimes I just take the long way around. —Rob (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Please break Background (Harold Washington's death / School of the Art Institute of Chicago, for ex.) and Responses into subsections.
  • Took a first shot at this, sectioning together paragraphs by group. —Rob (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• I think the lead needs to be expanded to reflect all the material in the article.
  • I added a paragraph from the various sides of the conflict. I get the feeling that any more will result in a can of worms about what to include and what not to include. —Rob (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Try some quote boxes since it's not easy to find images for this article.
  • I put in some quote boxes. A few of them seem to be particularly over-the-top, but I do feel there is some weight necessary on the the raw nerve this touched in the black community. —Rob (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Join some of the short 2-sentence paragraphs, otherwise it reads like a timeline.
  • I think a recent reordering helped solved this issue. —Rob (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• The phrase better part of four years to wind through the legal system is a little POV.
  • I actually removed this phrase, because it was unclear and the dates are given later on anyways.
• Is there no critique on the artwork beside the political controversy? (Because it kinda sucks.)
  • Sadly, I don't think so. The piece didn't get to be judged by the judges at the exhibition, because it was taken down first. Anything and everything thereafter was mostly about the controversy. I did add the students' characteriziations of the painting; that's sort of a critique! —Rob (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if you need assistance. --Moni3 (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment As a law- rather than art-minded reader, I find it strange that an entire appellate case is nested within this article. Posner and Easterbrook are probably among the most important American jurists, and one would think that this case should have an article of its own, discussing the issues raised in the case in a legal context that expands beyond this painting. I would recommend that this be turned into a WP:SS section so that the legal case can be expanded further, and from a perspective that is not specific to this painting. Mangostar (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not a bad idea, and I think I'll take up making that subsection more summary style. The only argument against creating a Nelson v. Streeter article is that Posner described the case as straightforward, and that he mentioned that he was troubled that it took so long to rule on the case. If, however, you're making the argument that any of Posner's opinions are notable, then the point is moot. —Rob (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I have tried to distill the basic arguments of the opinion into two paragraphs, not quoting Posner at all. This should satisfy WP:SS. —Rob (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion Is divinization an applicable synonym for deification here? I had to look up deification. indopug (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a derivative of a Nelson quote, but he also referred to Washington being made an icon. So how about "iconization"? I'd use "idolization" if I didn't think it was too strong. I'll take any other suggestions as to the appropriate opposite of "iconoclasm". —Rob (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with this suggestion. "Deification" is a fine word, it has 319k hits with google. Divinization is one I hadn't heard of, and it has 99k hits. I don't see any reason to change it. "Iconization" maybe, but it seems pretty obscure. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 01:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I started reading for prose issues but quickly ran into several troubling issues regarding sourcing, POV, and wording. I found these within two minutes of reviewing the article, so there may be more. They need to be resolved before I can continue reviewing.
  • I was intrigued by the statement in the lead that "angry African-American aldermen" confiscated the painting so I skipped down to the Confiscation heading to find out if your source covered all the involved aldermen being African-American. The first source I ran into was to the Becker essay. The second is the text of the court opinion. I don't know which one is supposed to be the source for the "angry African-American aldermen" statement but I don't see where either source states even that Henry and Jones are African-American. Also, I'd hardly call the "National Coalition Against Censorship" a neutral organization, so you need to source this court opinion to a different, preferably official site. Since they didn't post a scanned document, we can't count on its authenticity.
    • Yes, I remember having to do research to figure out which Aldermen Henry and Jones the federal lawsuit talked about. Might take some digging. —Rob (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Surprisingly, Hanania_19880514 also uses the phrase "angry African-American aldermen". Completely unintentional. This ref would satisfy the citation requirement for that phrase; I was afraid I'd have to cite individual aldermanic profiles from 1988. Finding free case law? That might be harder. —Rob (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Somebody likes me. Is Project Posner (from site: "The purpose of this site is to make freely and easily available to the public Richard Posner's largest and greatest body of work — his judicial opinions.") sufficiently neutral? —Rob (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Looks good to me! --Laser brain (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Now to Becker. First, it's unavailable for viewing through Google books so the link you provide doesn't work. Second, it's a collection of essays which means it is inherently POV. You can use the essay to explicitly discuss Becker's opinions, but not to source facts of the incident.
    • I tried the link again and it worked. Pointless, though, because there's a better source for the 2 times this source is used regarding damage to the painting (a newspaper) and the need for the other source is starting to look unnecessary (controversial material in the student competition). —Rob (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I removed all Becker references. Hanania_19880514 provides this info. (I'm also fading my original comments so it's easier to read. If this is a Bad Idea, feel free to undo.) —Rob (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • One other point - your narrative of the confiscation is very, very close to the text of the court opinion. While technically not plagiarism because the court opinion is not copyrighted, you need to rewrite in your own words. --Laser brain (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Agree... some things need a second go in terms of summary style. —Rob (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I took my best shot at it. Used the thesaurus, reordered some phrases. Part of the problem is the source and this article both write that section as if it was a timeline, which to me makes the most sense. If this isn't the right approach, let me know. —Rob (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this the same David K. Nelson? [2] Wnt (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. The illustrations sure seem to run in the same theme. —Rob (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Comment Well written, but needs a bit more. all objections addressed. —This is part of a comment by GRuban (of 16:19, 22 May 2008), which was interrupted by the following:
  • Describe the painting in the lead, at least one sentence, otherwise we're missing something between "it was painted in response to HWs death" and "angry aldermen arrived", we need to at least imply what made them angry.
    • This is done. —Rob (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Wnt's link needs research; if Nelson is putting other paintings on the Web, we absolutely need to link to his page. "What ever happened to Nelson?" is crying out for answer.
    • I'm 99.9% sure it's the same David K. Nelson, based on sources, website registration, and image content (nonstandard advertising drawings, to say the least!). I don't have something that says "David K. Nelson's website is X". But I think we can add that to External Links. —Rob (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Commentaries and reports of the painting identify the object Washington is holding as a pencil." - way too long; write "Washington is holding a pencil", and you don't need to cite it, it's obvious and undisputed.
    • Leftover sentence from an early dispute; rewrote (maybe not shortened, per se, but it's more direct and to the point now.) —Rob (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the "Dread Scott" connection is weak, unless you can find a source connecting the two incidents more than a single sentence at the end of an article.
    • Also thought about it. I ended up removing the "Aftermath" section and merging the paragraph regarding Nelson into the Settlement section. There are hints of a policy change in the SAIC after Dread Scott, but the connection is weak - the Dread Scott incident is perceived to have made a bigger impact on the SAIC than Mirth & Girth, from the few things I have read about Dread Scott. That's my next project, though. —Rob (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • For more details on antisemitism in the African-American community, see Antisemitism in the United States#African-american attitudes. - aiee! This is too much; it's in the position of a "for more on the subject of this section" link, and it's only tangential. Nelson isn't Jewish, and the only claim that he was is cited to an unnamed Black alderman in a single sentence of an article. Unless you can find more like that, we may as well link to Anti-Masonism in the United States and find a claim somewhere that Nelson was a Mason... :-).
    • I agree, but I was torn on this for a while. There's obviously an undercurrent of antisemitism in segments of the black community (related mostly to Farrakhan or other black nationalist movements), and I didn't know how I should deal with that in the article. In the end, I think examples of antisemitism should be an article, but not this particular article. —Rob (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Do any of the aldermen have individual articles? Do they deserve any that need stubbing out at least?
    • No. They should, but I can't so much as even find a list of former City Council aldermen online. I wouldn't mind stubbing out articles, but I only have newspaper information from 1985 at the earliest accessible to me (read: long process). —Rob (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Does Illinois Alliance of Black Student Organizations have or need an article? How about Marshall Field? John Sefick? Clearly Chicago's crippling Blizzard of 1977 must have an article somewhere...
    • Hmm. IABSO doesn't seem to exist anymore - no news articles written about them after 1988 (3 total, one refers to 1987 in 2007). Marshall Field would be redlinked; I don't know if it's MF IV or MF V (or even MF VI), and neither have an article. John Sefick isn't notable per newspaper searches - he would be known primarily for the Bilandic statue and the precedent the lawsuit established. And surprisingly, the Blizzard of 19779 does not have an existing article. :-D That needs to be stubbed out... —Rob (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I fixed some spelling errors.

--GRuban (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've addressed all your points, except the Blizzard of 1979 one... it'll be a redlink 'til tonight, at least. I was getting worried, wondering where all the FAC reviewers had gone! —Rob (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• The prose is ... OK. The first "due to" should be "from". I wish the referencing wasn't quite as skewed towards a few local newspapers. I'm not opposing. TONY (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.