Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sydney Riot of 1879/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Sydney Riot of 1879

Self-nom, though others have helped. An interesting side-story. There was some discussion around whether the quotations should stay - but given their historical significance in the tale, and that any précis wouldn't be much shorter, they've been kept in (and there are other FAs I've seen that take a similar approach too), jguk 18:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. This is really interesting from start to finish,very well written and informed. Giano | talk 07:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article. It would be nice if there could be photos from somewhere, but perhaps from 1879 there wouldn't be... Perhaps contacting MCC or the New South Wales cricket board might be of use? Otherwise, fantastic. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 11:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I've never seen a photo or artist's impression of the SCG from this era. The later ones all show a stand that wasn't there in 1879, jguk 12:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I was just suggesting that these two bodies may have something that they could share. I do see that it is unlikely, however. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 12:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Dealt with, jguk 07:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A wonderfully original topic for FA. My only suggestion would be to extend the lead somwehat, perhaps by mentioning what the "controversial decision" was and a brief summary of the reaction. Harro5 06:58, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
I've added a comment on what caused the riot and when the overriding dispute was resolved, jguk 07:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Object for now - Prose does seem to be brilliant (although Webster tells me whilst is archaic) but Wikipedia is not a place to have full letters (that is what Wikisource is for so saying that the he 'full text of the letter is on Wikisource' is a bit misleading since the full text is in this article as well). Both of the letters in this article need to be cut down to size by using ... as appropriate (one quarter to one third of their current length should do it). Also, the external link cites really do need to become part of the ref/note setup already in the article due to the fact that the two systems work differently and thus mixing and matching them is confusing to readers (one system brings the reader to another part of the article while the other lands them in another website). the lead could also be expanded a bit. --mav
I agree about the letters, a summary, or abridged version and a link to the full text in wikisource would be better, Minor object for now--nixie 03:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree with this. At least, the letters should be indented (was the original not indented?) for readability. Conditional support. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 07:24, May 31, 2005 (UTC) Looks better now, but I still would prefer shortening. -- Sundar 08:43, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
I too agree with mav, and will object until the letters are abridged significantly (especially the first) or summarized. --Spangineer (háblame) 13:53, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
I've ummed and ahed over the letters for a while. Overall the bias appears to be in favour of keeping them. Since they tell much of the story, any useful précis of them is likely to be fairly long anyway. Also, they are of particular historic importance in the dispute - so much so that Wisden Cricketers Almanack (despite the space they took up) saw fit to print them in full. In an article that is 30kb, they look ok - if the article was much longer, I'd probably agree with you though, jguk 07:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry - Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is a policy page, and all FAs need to follow policy. In the realm of having full letters, this article does not follow that policy. So if the whole letters are not abridged or summarized, then this article can not be featured (irrespective of the number of supports this FAC gets). --mav 04:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What part of WP:WIN does this article contravene? I can't work it out. The article is certainly more than a mere collection of public domain or other source material. smoddy 11:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
'Complete copies of primary sources should go into Wikisource.' The two letters are complete copies and Wikipedia is not a place to host those. --mav 12:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That to me is intended at excluding these article from existing on Wikipedia as articles in themselves, not as stopping the whole of a source being shown. smoddy 13:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And yet 'Complete copies of primary sources should go into Wikisource.' See also the associated guideline, which explains this in more detail. --mav 16:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I understand from your comments on other pages that your opposition to including sources in articles has always been that the source remains editable. I would have no objection if the source was placed into a template that was protected and transcluded into the article, jguk 08:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No offense to Mav, but does this mean that if I fire off a two line email that causes WWIII then we would not be able to include it in a Wikipedia article? I think this sounds a little off-putting. If the entire letter is significant to the article, then we should keep it. If the letter should clearly only be quoted in part, then we should only quote that part. I have no real opinion as yet on the letters, btw, as I haven't read the article (in as great a depth as I should have - clarification). - Ta bu shi da yu 03:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, they were not indented - however, I've added some paragraph gaps to improve readability, jguk, jguk 07:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a good candidate for the main page. Very well written, interesting, should be chosen. --Igor 04:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I know nothing of cricket and little of Australia, and I still found the article enjoyable. --Scimitar 18:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Although I have a couple of transcription queries which I have inserted into the letters as comments. --Theo (Talk) 21:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments. I have now done a thorough check back to the original source and amended as approprate. Your transcription queries turned out to be correct:) jguk 09:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Tintin 11:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. As below please eliminate the one and two sentence paragraphs. Also the lead in this case is really too short. Also I'm not sure if it is cricket terms or Brit/Aussie idioms that I am failing to parse, but the lead has a couple things that I don't get: "controversially given out" and "lead an England representative side". Is "given out" cricket terminology similar to "called out" or what would be said as "given an out" in baseball? What is involved in leading a side? As a player, captaining the team, or what? The article has another one "...refusal of an appeal for caught behind against Lord Harris...". That is also either tortured english, or cricket lingo. - Taxman Talk 21:05, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • A fine criticism. I have wiki-linked the confusing terms to afford succour to the bewildered. --Theo (Talk) 00:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok that helps, but the lead is still too short, and there are still two one sentence paragraphs that need to be merged or expanded. Also that last sentence I mentioned above still seems tortured after the link was added. Can you really say "of an appeal for caught behind"? Even if "caught behind" is a cricket phrase, doesn't that still need a verb like "being" in there? And further, I don't see anything in the article you linked that tells what caught behind is. I apologize if this is all horridly obvious to those familiar with cricket, but to those not, it's baggling. - Taxman Talk 13:06, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • I am leaving the structural stuff for JGUK to address. As to the rest: Essentially, "yes", syntactically, one does say "of an appeal for caught behind". There is an element of elision here but it is not quite where you appear to imagine. The unelided phrase would be "an appeal for [an umpire's decision that the player be given out according to the circumstances known as] caught behind". I have added an explanation of "caught behind" to Dismissal (cricket). Even if this might make sense to those of us in the know, it is good to test the piece against the intelligently unfamiliar.Theo (Talk) 07:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I've merged a few paragraphs so there are fewer short ones, although I have kept the one that says "Independent witnesses said Coulthard's decision was close but fair" as I think it's reasonable to let that one stand out, leaving a sort of irony there by its starkness. I've also changed the reference to being "caught behind" so it only refers to an appeal for a catch to dismiss Lord Harris being turned down (that the catch was taken by the wicket-keeper is a detail that's not relevant here), jguk 09:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • I've now increased the lead section a wee bit too, jguk 16:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. References are good, but including the entire reference in the article is not good style and not something an example article should have. Even on just on readability, a long passage in italics is hard to read. A more significant objection is that this is plagiarism. No Account 01:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not plagiarism: the letters are fully attributed. The letters are particularly significant in the history and aftermath of the riot, so much so that they were quoted in full in Wisden despite their length. There has been quite a bit of discussion before as to whether they should stay, and the general feeling is that they should remain - they are an integral part of the story. I did at one stage attempt to précis them, but found that in practice I would either have to omit much information, or come up with something that's not much shorter than the original - so I think it's better to give the full documents here - as you can see from the messages of support, a clear majority is happy for them to remain. I'll try moving the quotations out of italics. Let me know if they look better, jguk 08:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Bigger question is are they allowable to be used at all? Using the whole letter would fail under fair use, or citation exemptions to copyright protection. Forgive me if this has alrady been covered elsewhere, I'm in a bit of a rush. - Taxman Talk 17:16, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • They are very clearly old enough to be public domain now. smoddy 17:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • They are more readable now. Still, including the whole letter is plagiarism. Not because of lack of attribution, but because the article is not an original work. A featured article should be a great example of an original encyclopedia article, not a collection of primary sources printed in full. Still object on that basis. No Account
        • I think you misunderstand what plagiarism is. Also, this is clearly an article in its own right, it isn't just a collection of primary sources printed in full, jguk 18:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • I do know what plagiarism is, I assure you. If a student of mine submitted this as his own work, quoting two long letters in full, even if fully attributed, I would require it to be redone. As it stands, this is not an example of a great encyclopedia article. It should not be featured. No Account 02:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • We should be able to agree that it is not plagiarism - as it's not. On your other point, WP articles are not academic papers - they are articles telling a story that imparts some facts to an (at least partly) interested reader. They therefore adopt a different style - one that should interest the reader (and from the 12 support votes above, it is clear the article achieves this). Of course, in a different context, a different style would be adopted (eg when writing a paper for a client I would include all detail in one or more appendices, and I'd adapt my choice of language too), so I am not surprised that in the context of your work. My guess is that neither of our work styles would be appropriate - but the article is not written in the context of our work, it is from the context of providing an interesting encyclopaedia article to readers. Finally, please note that here the letters are a large part of the story (as well as telling it). This is similar to what happened in our article on Samantha Smith, which was similarly promoted to FA status. I fear we are not going to agree on this, and I appreciate you are not alone in your concerns - and you will see from the talk page I have ummed and ahed on this myself, but most readers of the article are happy with the letters staying as they are both historically significant and they help impart the tale, jguk 07:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • I should have added that no WP article ever claims to have only one author - it has many. We do not claim it to be one person's work - and indeed that is untrue here as, although I have contributed greatly, so have many others: the article really is a true collaborative work, jguk 07:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Thorough treatment of the subject at hand. Don't see any problems with the letters, I think they're needed for informational purposes. Sam Vimes 21:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - a great article. The letters (in toto) should stay. For appearance I would have preferred them to be in italics also (as in Samantha Smith) contrary to what someone said above, but that's a minor issue. - Ian 03:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: the letters. Oh, no. Are you serious? The article is very nicely structured apart from the letters, why ruin its proportions with a lot of redundant Victorian prosing? Please note that the narrative part of Harris' letter is obviously the basis of the section "The riot" above, which gives the exact same details with much of the same wording. If the whole letter were to be used, the "riot" section would become redundant. But AFAIC we don't want to use the whole of these prolix, comfortable Victorian-style accounts, to kill all interest—who are we, the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica? Let's give a professional presentation here. By that, I mean: any material that has already appeared should be ruthlessly slashed, most of the rest should be concisely summarized, and quotes interspersed of those sections of the letters that are a) reasoning and argumentative, rather than merely narrative, and b) interesting. I have done a version of this for the first letter, please check it out and give me feedback. (If it's approved, I'll do the same with the second.) My version isn't necessarily the best we can do, but I do believe the principles are sensible. Bishonen | talk 16:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. This is a change of opinion because I am concerned about the reversion of Bish's proposal without discussion or acknowledgement. I do not share Bish's objection to Victorian prose (indeed, I am rather partial to it) but I thought that the changes that she made showed a way to make a good article better. To my mind, retaining substantial portions of the letters while eliminating material duplicating more appropriate sections combines the period flavour with efficient communication. --Theo (Talk) 00:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I discussed this with Bishonen on IRC at the time - as well as other amendments to the article so it's not true that there was no discussion, jguk 05:59, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      Imprecise phrasing by me: I should have said no discussion or acknowledgement here on Wikipedia. Either way, I see the redrafted form as an improvement and the subsequent reversion as a retrograde step. My objection remains. --Theo (Talk) 20:31, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • In this case the letters are key to the subject - they were printed in full in both the English and NSW press at the time and reported in full in Wisden despite its limited space. Without the letters the article would just not be comprehensive - it would be the same as one of the many ordinary accounts of the riot that abound. Here, our WP article is taking a lead - adding information from a wide variety of sources to recount the riot in a way that no one of the sources can do on its own. In short, without the letters the article quite simply would not be comprehensive - that is why they have to remain, jguk 18:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I think there's a good reason no other references include the letters—because they don't work in an encyclopedia article. Bish is right; there's too much victorian prose that is verbose and includes superfluous details. The letters in full are on wikisource; if someone wants to read them, they can. But to leave essential parts of the story in such a difficult to digest format is unnecessary and unhelpful for the average reader. Summarize them mercilessly to include the important information, quote them periodically, and link to wikisource. BTW, newspapers nowadays (I don't know about back then) often include original stuff (i.e. speeches, court decisions etc.), but we don't include those verbatim in their respective articles. Those articles can be considered comprehensive, and similarly, I think this article can be perfectly comprehensive without the letters if it summarizes the key contents of the letters and links to them on wikisource. With the letters, it is not completely "well-written" and thus cannot in my opinion be wikipedia's "best work". --Spangineer (háblame) 19:34, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
        • No source is an encyclopaedia - so they are writing with a different aim than us. Also the better ones do quote very extensively from the letters - always leaving me (as the reader) wondering why they don't go the whole hog. The sources - and I have read a fair few - they tend to be short and not comprehensive. We have a real chance to offer a full article here on an interesting side-topic to the history of cricket. We shouldn't lose it, jguk 20:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - if you don't like the letters, just skip over them... – ugen64 20:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)