Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peter Jennings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

[edit] Peter Jennings

Self nomination Figured it was about time I submitted one of these myself. :) I've been working on this article for about three months now, and I believe it meets all FA criteria. I daresay that it's the most comprehensive biography on Mr. Jennings out there. The peer review is here. I look forward to your comments. Gzkn 08:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support Well written and referenced. Well done!--Skully Collins Edits 08:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While it is very well referenced, they need some work. The ones retrieved with LexisNexis are linked to a page subscription form. The reader cannot verify the information, failing FAC 1c. You can't expect the reader to subscribe to a paid search function just to verify your research. I know from using Lexis myself that the details of the article are provided (author, date, page number, etc). Please insert those into the reference. Several of the ref are from major papers, such as the Washington Post and New York Times, which maintain online archives, so it should be possible to link directly to many of the articles. I don't mean to come across picky, but this is not a case of one or two refs. I counted approximately 40 with this problem. Jeffpw 13:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Well, the reason I linked to LexisNexis is because that's where I got the information...LexisNexis articles may be different from the paid subscription archive articles of the Washington Post/New York Times (which I don't have access to)...i.e. the LexisNexis ones may contain typos or might vary in some other way from the online archives of the paper itself. If you like, I can take out the links to LexisNexis, and link to the ones in the online archives, but that would be misleading to readers, as those versions are not the ones I used to write Peter Jennings. I'm also unclear how this fails 1c...even if no online link exists, the fact that the articles were published passes WP:V...links are merely courtesies to the reader (think about if an editor used the print editions of newspaper/magazine stories to write an article...would that fail WP:V?). In this case, a direct link does not exist for many of those LexisNexis articles, as many of the publications do not allow online access to those old articles. So, I guess my questions are:
  • What should I do about the many articles I used that don't have online archives? Should I just get rid of the link all together? You seem to say if a direct link doesn't exist, it's not verifiable. "You can't expect the reader to subscribe to a paid search function just to verify your research." Unfortunately, no matter what, they'll have to pay to view the older articles online, whether it's through LexisNexis or the online archives of the publication itself.
  • Should I link to stuff like this instead of LexisNexis for the others that are paid archive versions? I'm perfectly willing to do this for the articles that have them...it's just that I feel that it's misleading not to link to LexisNexis. :-/ And even then, we're still expecting readers to pay for the article, which does not seem to resolve your concern.
  • "I know from using Lexis myself that the details of the article are provided (author, date, page number, etc). Please insert those into the reference." If you look closely, I provided author, date of publication, publication name, and "retrieved on" date in all of my references...I don't recall page numbers being a requirement, but if you like, I can go back and include those. On further reflection, I'll add page numbers. Gzkn 05:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • After some further thought, should I link the "LexisNexis® Academic" phrase in my refs to the LexisNexis site, and just leave the headline in these articles unlinked? See for example, reference 3 at User:Gzkn/Sandbox/Peter_Jennings. I'm still disappointed that people seem to think my research is not verifiable. What about articles that rely solely on books and other sources not available online? Would those fail WP:V too? Gzkn 07:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
First, I am not saying I don't believe your research. I do. But if an online document exists, it is better to link to that. In the example you showed above, the reader sees at least the article details, and not merely a registration page (and the NYTimes archives are free for the last 25 years). For articles that don't have an online archive at all, adding the page number is an additional piece of info about your source. Books, obviously, cannot be linked in most cases, but then you'd provide the author, title, publisher, ISBN and page number--more info than you currently have in your refs. Additionally, for those that have no online link to the article in any form, I would lose the LexisNexis link entirely, and just name the reference itself. Perhaps others have a different opinion than mine, but I see no point in linking to a registration form. It's frustrating, and could also be seen to imply a link between our site and LexisNexis. And to be very, very clear, the reference issue is my sole objection to your otherwise excellent article. When that's resolved, I will certainly strike my oppose and make it a vote of support. Jeffpw 09:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll try to find online versions for the LexisNexis articles. I'll also go back and add page numbers for all the refs. This will probably take a while, so I'll drop a note on your talk page when I'm done. Thanks! Gzkn 09:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Oppose Comment I have a question about the phrasing of this sentence: "In January 1994, he locked horns with another woman in his life, his executive producer on World News Tonight, Emily Rooney." Does it mean to imply that Jennings also had a relationship with Rooney, or is it merely stating the obvious, that she is also a woman? Either way I think it needs rephrasing. MLilburne 14:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Just the obvious...I'll rephrase it. Gzkn 05:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC) I decided to delete the "another woman in his life" bit...thanks for the comment! Gzkn 05:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • And having tried to look up the reference, I hit the same LexisNexis registration screen, despite the fact that my university subscribes to LexisNexis. On these grounds I'm changing my comment to opposition. MLilburne 14:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Five fair use images, none of which have a fair use rationale. And while a fair use rationale could be provided for most, Image:1978 wnt mpf.jpg just shows Jennings at a similar age to Image:1965JenningsPromo.jpg, but in black and white and less detail. Mark83 17:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Ah, whoops. I'll provide fair use rationale for all of them. I believe the 1978 has a good fair use rationale, but if it's a problem I can remove the image from the article. Gzkn 05:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC) I've added fair use rationales for those five images. Gzkn 05:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jeffpw's concerns. LuciferMorgan 02:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • A head's up I'll be addressing Jeffpw's concerns in the coming days, so the refs may look inconsistent at times. Gzkn 13:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
As you're actively working on this issue, and I have every confidence you'll have the refs worked out in short order, I am withdrawing my objection for now. Jeffpw 13:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I will do so too. MLilburne 14:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I haven't had time to review this article or read it yet (been traveling), but I did see this controversy on my watchlist, and glanced at the references. I don't consider this a valid Objection. The article definitely meets WP:V - the newspapers articles have full biblio info such that they can be located, either online or in hard print, exactly as a reader would locate a book with a page number given. I object when full biblio info isn't given, so the reader has to guess (for example, the publication date or article title is missing). The courtesy links are that - a courtesy. Yes, it may be easier on our readers to provide working URLs, and the Nexis stuff could be a distraction - perhaps I, too, would argue, those should be fixed where possible as a courtesy. But, I don't consider it valid to object on the grounds of 1c - the article meets WP:V exactly as it would if the sources were a book with page numbers - being able to locate something that exists in hardprint online isn't part of verifiability. (Gzkn - I'm more concerned that Lexis-Nexis versions wouldn't be the same as hard print versions - that doesn't feel right.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Sandy regarding the status of these objections. However, I don't know why Lexis-Nexis(R)(C)(TM) need be mentioned at all. Can't
Johnson, Peter (March 12, 1996). Jennings speaks his piece on TV news and his role. USA Today through LexisNexis® Academic. Retrieved on January 4, 2007.
simply be
Johnson, Peter (March 12, 1996). "Jennings speaks his piece on TV news and his role." USA Today. Retrieved on January 4, 2007.
with an optional link directly to the publication? –Outriggr § 19:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
That's typically what I do - add a link at the end, saying available at ... The link is entirely optional here, but I do like to see the links to common online news archives provided. I'm concerned this red herring seems to have stalled the FAC on a well-referenced article; I won't have time to read the article until I catch up from travel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe I've worked up a compromise that takes care of everyone's concerns. For those LexisNexis articles that contain equivalent online archive versions:
  • Carmody, John (August 10, 1983). "Jennings to Solo for ABC News" (fee required). The Washington Post through LexisNexis® Academic, p. B1. Retrieved on January 23, 2006.
    • This takes care of Jeff's concern about not linking to equivalent online archive versions. It also takes care of my concern that by not mentioning that I accessed the article through LexisNexis, I'm misleading readers, especially w.r.t. the "Retrieved on" date (and my concern that LexisNexis articles may contain typos/differ in some way from the online archive versions). If this doesn't satisfy WP:V...well, I don't see what else I can do. This is somewhat based off of LexisNexis' APA recommendations.
For those without:
I'm going back through the LexisNexis archives to add page numbers for all those that have them. I'm finding that a lot of them don't contain page numbers for some reason. Gzkn 03:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not following the argument about LexisNexis versions differing from the actual newspaper's archives - why not just provide a link, for example, to Washington Post and NY Times archives, as they do have these articles? I find it hard to understand why the articles would differ. If a free link is available, why not provide it to readers? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, if a free link is available, I used that in my research instead of LexisNexis, obviously (for example, with the NYTimes obit). I don't believe any of the LexisNexis articles exist free on the publications' websites; you'd have to link to the paid archive version. The reason I'm giving information that I accessed an article through LexisNexis is because I didn't access it through the publication's paid archives. Thus, the "retrieved on" date would be misleading if I didn't disclose the LexisNexis info...I didn't retrieve anything from the paid archives. My reading of WP:V is to basically say where you got your source. In my case, I obtained many of my sources through LexisNexis...not through the paid archives. LexisNexis articles also sometimes differ from the print edition or the online archives (typos, misquotes that may be corrected later in the archives but not in LexisNexis, etc.) That's why I'm including the LexisNexis info. I want to make it clear that I'm basing my info off of the LexisNexis version. To be honest, not including any links such as:
  • Carmody, John (August 10, 1983). "Jennings to Solo for ABC News". The Washington Post through LexisNexis® Academic, p. B1. Retrieved on January 23, 2006.
would be perfectly OK in my view. ::shrug:: Gzkn 04:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Update I just spent probably far too many hours updating the refs. Where online archive versions exist, I have now linked to them as well. I have added page numbers for those that I could find through LexisNexis. Many articles didn't list page numbers at all. I really still don't understand how one can object to refs linking to LexisNexis as somehow "not verifiable", but hey, substitute with ProQuest abstracts, and magically they satisfy WP:V! Or how stating how I obtained my sources (through LexisNexis) is a fault instead of helpful to readers wanting to verify the article. Gzkn 07:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Due to circumstances in my personal life, I will be on a wikibreak and probably unavailable to respond to further comments/do further work on the article. Withdrawing the nom... Gzkn 06:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Does this have to be withdrawn? I see nothing preventing FA status. Gzkn added a {facfailed} template to the talk page. –Outriggr § 03:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-written and well-referenced, excellent work. --Mus Musculus 03:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose on images:
Image:1978 wnt mpf.jpg, no information on source or who owns the copyright of this image
Image:0 21 jennings peter obit cropped.jpg, no information on source or who owns the copyright of this image
Image:93PeterJenningsClinton.jpg, is just used for decoration, it does not add significantly to the article (WP:FUC 8)
Image:Abc wnt jennings2 050405 t.jpg, we know what he looks like from the infobox, doesn't meet FUC 8
--Peta 06:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Very well-written, comprehensive article. Seems as if the image issues presented above have been fixed as well. -Bluedog423Talk 03:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Well written, thorough, etc., I'd love to support, strongly, but there are more issues than just images and refs. The article covers the career well, but it's a biography, it can't drop the ball on his personal life this badly, when it covers the career in such great detail.
    • "a half-hour, Saturday morning CBC Radio show" - needs either more, or fewer, commas.
    • "That summer, Jennings married for the second time to Annoushka Malouf" needs a comma after "time", otherwise it's implying they had been married to each other before.
    • "His first wife had been childhood sweetheart Valerie Godsoe." Surely a marriage deserves more than an off-the-cuff mention. Dates, did she die, did they divorce, why, what was her profession...?
    • "Jennings also found renewed success in his personal life. In 1979, he married for the third time to fellow ABC correspondent Kati Marton. That same year, he became a father after Marton gave birth to their daughter, Elizabeth." - Aiee! So much to write here about three sentences. Multiple marriages are considered success? Especially considering how the marriage to Marton went? If that is success, I'd hate to hear what you consider failure! How and when did the second marriage end? He became a father "after" Marton gave birth - in other words, he wasn't the father of Marton's child, but of some other child, later? Maybe "when"?
    • "As part of ABC's troika," surely you don't mean he was part of a three horse drawn sled.
    • "his former girlfriend, Hanan Ashrawi" - whoah! His girlfriend was a prominent and controversial Palestinian politician? You need to describe that more, when, in what context, etc.
    • Walt Disney Company - specify its relationship to Jennings/ABC
    • "Growing Up in the Age of AIDS, a frank, 90-minute-long discussion on AIDS in February 1992[33] and Prejudice: Answering Children's Questions" - needs a comma after 1992 for sentence legibility, whatever you think of the serial comma otherwise --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.