Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pied-noir/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Pied-noir

[edit] Pied-noir

I'm nominating this article for featured article because...I've done a lot of work on it, and I think it is ready for FA. As always, bring on the constructive criticism....Thanks for looking at the article! Lazulilasher (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, this is a self-nom, forgot to put that earlier....Lazulilasher (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn per nominator Lazulilasher (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

* ~~Can we get consistent formatting on the references? Some are formatted using cite templates, but others aren't. Consistency is a good thing.~~

- - You are correct...consistency IS a good thing. I *Think* that I've got them all (I am notoriously poor at this....). Lazulilasher (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    - Got most of them. You need to format this one The Life of Abdel Kader like any other book. So it needs publisher, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
      - Ok, it's gone. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
~~If you use a source as a footnote, it shouldn't be in the Further reading section.~~
- - You're correct. Done....Lazulilasher (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
~~Who is Chisholm that is referred to in current ref 15?~~
- - Removed....it was the 1911 britannica.Lazulilasher (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
What makes http://www.mongabay.com/about.html a reliable site for "On the Algerian side, the relationship between those of European descent and Muslim Algerians was marked by Pied-Noir hegemony." The site bills itself as an enviromental science site.
- - I removed this source AND that specific line. Really, as you pointed out, the source is 1.) not realiable. Secondly, I find it sort of POV--I mean, if that sentence is true, then the facts of the article should demonstrate this without a need for blatantly saying it. So good point there....Lazulilasher (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    - ~~It's still lurking around as the source for ref 20. "Algeria Country Study".~~
      - ~~Ok, it's been replaced with a better source and some new info from that source Lazulilasher (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)~~
~~http://www.populstat.info/Africa/algeriac.htm is lacking publisher and last access date information. The site is also four and a half years out of date and what makes it a reliable source?~~
- - Gone--I actually find this entire section to be rather superfluous. Population percentage, etc is mentioned numerous times in the article and I think the point is made clear. Actually, this was one of the first articles which I edited on Wikipedia and I think that I mainly wanted to see if I could create a table....it's gone now. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
~~http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/northafrica/tlalgiers.html is a secondary school web page. It's probably marginal as a reliable source. IT is alos lacking publisher and last access date information~~
- As above, it was redundant anyway. Removed. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
~~http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/deptlang/fulgor/volume2i2/papers/fulgor_v2i2_bouvet.htm was this published in a journal?~~
- Yes, it was and I've now used the correct cite journal template and removed the quote from the footnotes....Lazulilasher (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Current ref 41 has some issues with the author listed. Currently it says the Country studies program, but that doesn't match with the information on the page, which looks like cliff notes, basically. What makes this reliable?
- Gone. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Generally, we try to not use things like encyclopedias as sources. We're writing one, so it makes it sort of odd to use a general purpose encyclopedia like Britannica Online. Specialist encyclopedias are a special case, but Britannica isn't a specialist encyclopedia.

- I'm not sure about this. The article does cite Britannica as a source but many other sources are used....I definitely do see your point, though. However, Britannica is not close to being the sole source of information for the article--it is merely one of many pieces of reference material pieced together in order to present a coherent article. Let me know what you think. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  - Actually, now that I think about it, your point is really good. I'm going to try and find alternate sources for the Britannica cites. I doubt I'll be able to remove all of the Brit. references, but I'll do my best. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    - Ok, I was able to find alternate sources for MOST of the Britannica cites. Now, that encyclopedia is only referenced 3 times....let me know how it looks to you. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
      - I'd rather see them all gone, (It's odd to see an encyclopedia cite another general purpose encyclopedia) but it'll work for now. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
(UNDENT) Ok, all Britannica references are removed. I also added some new sources to the article to firm up the areas that Britannica had filled. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Links checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Okee dokee, thanks for comments....am working on your suggestions now....Lazulilasher (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

All looks good. I'm leaving the Britannica comments out for other reviewers to evaluate for themselves, but I think things look good from my end. Thanks for being a pleasure to work with! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the kind words! I'm working on the Britannica cites now--I'm confident that eventually I'll be able to eradicate them all (after all, Britannica must have cited them from someplace....), so hopefully we'll be able to have them removed. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments ~~Oppose~~ It's a pity really because this article is clearly a labour of love. However, for FA, it needs to be thoroughly overhauled. Here are some initial thoughts:

Copy. The prose needs attention. First, it needs pruning, then it needs honing.

Wordy: Literary and cinematic references to the Pieds-Noirs and especially the pain following the exodus are many.
Even wordier: The origin of the term Pied-Noir is difficult to determine. There are two proposed explanations for the expression's development: first, it has been suggested that colons (French: colonists) could be distinguished from the indigenous population by their black boots (as the French soldiers in Africa wore black boots);[9] second, it was asserted in the magazine Pieds Noirs d'Hier et d'Aujourd'hui that the phrase derived from pieds-noirs sailors assigned to the coal rooms because of their experience with a warm climate. Supposedly, this caused their feet to become black.[9]
Inconsistency: Title is Pied-noir but Pied-Noir is used throughout the text.
Engvar: uses both British English and American English spellings. Decide on one and stick to it.

Length/structure. This article is currently about 3,700 words long. It could be cut to half to about 1500–2000 words to produce a crisp, pertinant piece.
- True, I'm going to make an effort to do this-it was "in my mind" but I wasn't conscious of the need for more concision until you mentioned it. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The word count is inflated by long recountings of stuff that have their own articles; these should be boiled right down to the essentials. Most of the colonial history could be vigorously cut to create a background section.

- Ya....I can get wordy...I'll cut it down this weekend. 04:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)~

The Origin of the term section is particularly long on words and short on content. It needs a better source than an online encyclopedia. What's wrong with Le Robert historique? That's definitive.
The key thought with pieds-noirs is alienation in two cultures (ie foreigners in Algeria, and foreigners in France). (cf. Camus L'étranger)
I personally hate "References in popular culture" sections. Perhaps two sections: one dealing with literature; the second with film. Les Roseaux sauvages has a strong pied-noir sub-text, by the way.

Miscellany

POV. "the deleterious effects of colonialism"? Smacks of recentism, no?

- Yes, true as well...NPOV has been a concern of mine as well (see the peer-review). It's nice to have another editor review the work because it's difficult to notice these things by oneself (I tried, but as you show, it's not always easy!)Lazulilasher (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I read somewhere (Nouvel Obs?) that Pieds-noirs (and Algerian immigrants for that matter) where drawn to "PACA" by the Casbah-like huddled alleys and overhanging buildings of the old quarters of places like Grasse and Marseille. (Not surprisingly, the Foreign Legion decamped from Sidi bel Abbès to Aubagne in Provence.)

I haven't read Nouvel Obs, but I should. I imagine your point to be true, ca va sans dire, I guess...but it should be noted in an encyclopedic article, as you say. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The term is also applied to other French colonials and I've seen it applied pejoratively to Dumas fils.

Funny thing...I had dinner tonight with a close Frenchmen friend and we talked about this article--after reading the article here, he actually told me that his father, a Frenchmen in Morocco, considered himself a pied-noir...so it's quite a coincidence that you raise this point!Lazulilasher (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes....you are correct....thanks for the advice. Will put more work into it! Lazulilasher (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pied-noir/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Pied-noir

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search