Wikipedia:Featured article review/Reginald Maudling/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

The article was removed 09:26, 28 March 2008.

[edit] Reginald Maudling

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Fys, User talk:Jonathan D. Parshall, British Government, England, UK notice board, Politics, Political figures. One Night In Hackney303 05:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted in December 2004, I think it currently falls a long way short of the required standard.

  • 1a - I think the prose is inadequate and uninspired in many places - eg "His early years were spent in Bexhill when the family moved to escape German air raids;" - that's left to the reader to work out based on his date of birth that it's referring to World War I.
    • We are entitled to assume our readers know something about the twentieth century. This is not the Simple English WP. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you misunderstand Simple English WP, as that's exactly the sort of sentence I'd expect to see over there - one lacking pertinent detail for the sake of brevity. It's precisely why it's not the level of prose I'd expect from a featured article. COne Night In Hackney303 17:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 1c - while it may be factually accurate it would certainly benefit from inline citations, in particular for pieces of unattributed POV such as "known for his intellectual brilliance, political pragmatism, and easygoing nature but slightly dogged by a reputation for laziness", "By 1963 Maudling was being considered as a possible future Prime Minister after Macmillan" etc etc
    • "Easygoing" is a quote from ODNB, which also mentions his "hopes for becoming leader" after Macmillan; indeed, he was "considered as a future leader" under Eden. Doubtless all of these are also supported by Baston's biography. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 2a - the lead is woefully inadequate for a featured article.
  • 2b - the sections make no sense. "Failed to win seats" is a sub-section of "Political career", yet "Member of Parliament and Cabinet" is a totally different section to "Political career", when that's the major part of his political career.
    • Done. "Member of Parliament and Cabinet" was a second-level header instead of a third-level. Doubtless a typo. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 2c - referencing isn't of a standard format, and could really do with footnotes in general really. Even includes a dreaded "geocities" source being used as an embedded link.
    • I don't understand the objection to the format. It seems perfectly standard, and is quite intelligible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's inconsistent. You've got a geocities link randomly tacked onto the end of a sentence, you've got a single, solitary footnote and you've got a list of books at the bottom. That's failing 2c. One Night In Hackney303 17:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • We should have both footnotes and references. As for the Chapman anecdote, make it into a footnote if you think the matter serious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not unfixable, but it definitely needs work. One Night In Hackney303 05:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • This is another article with a few principal sources: Maudling's autobiography, his ODNB article, and Baston's 2004 life. Of these, Baston is where I would look to verify any of these, if I were skeptical as a reader; I will add a note.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not really a case of skepticism. If I want to be able to verify something, I'd expect a featured article to give me more of a clue than listing five books. One Night In Hackney303 17:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • So I added a clue: Look in Baston, which is the biography. I would expect a competent reader to do that anyway, but your opinion of our readership is lower than mine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not so much my opinion of our readership, more the sources being used. For example if I couldn't find something in Baston or ODNB, the other sources are tricky, as they were all published 25+ years ago. Yes they can be tracked down but with difficulty, so it's reasonable enough for the person to know which book they should be tracking down. I'm less than happy about the note you've just added claiming Baston is the primary souce where no other is specified. Really, are you sure? Have you just checked, or have you made an assumption? One Night In Hackney303 17:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • They should be tracking down either Baston or ODNB, except in the case of the culminating scandal, for which either of Gillard's books would be more detailed. So much is obvious, merely from reading the article; if you want to add a footnote saying "Gillard (1974), Gillard (1980), passim" to the paragraph on Poulson, don't let me stop you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Go ahead and read Baston by all means; but, in the meantime, assume good faith on the part of the original authors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The pertinent part of my sentence was "if I couldn't find something in Baston or ODNB". Why would I be adding a footnote relating to sources I haven't read? Are you suggesting that's an acceptable way of referencing a featured article, just assume the source says it and reference it for the hell of it? Congratulations, you've just rendered your second point redundant. Firstly you tell people to assume that what an editor has added to an article is correct, then you encourage another editor to add a footnote to information, without knowing whether the information is in the source in the first place. WP:AGF does not mean we can assume everything in a featured article is correct. One Night In Hackney303 17:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Provide a list of points not in Baston or ODNB and we can source them. Otherwise, there is nothing actionable here. We cannot, and never will be able to, assume any Wikipedia article is correct; drive-by vandalism or sheer incompetence is always possible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Erm, no. Footnote the article please, or I'll be happy to tag anything that's not footnoted as requiring a source. Otherwise you're listing five sources, and nobody has a clue what's sourced by what. One Night In Hackney303 17:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • That would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.
    • You're listing five sources, and nobody has a clue what's sourced by what. Only true of the terminally clueless; see here for the operations of the clueful. You are not normally clueless; have you not had enough coffee, or is there some other reason you are harassing this article? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • You appear to be laboring under the all too prevalent notion that we can assume a statement with a footnote is correct. Watching several heavily footnoted articles cured me of this delusion long ago. Footnotes wander; the sentences to which they are attached are modified or reversed without changing the footnotes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that a list of five books is adequate referencing for a featured article. Over to you. 17:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by One Night In Hackney (talk • contribs)
    • When it offers enough information to guide the literate reader to a source, it is. That is why WP:V does not require a footnote after every semi-colon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
What's good enough for a decent article should be significantly exceeded for a featured one. I just read the recently promoted Edward VII and this one fared exceedingly poorly in comparison. I'm not knowledgeable about this kind of stuff but the recent article was compelling, well sourced and looked extremely professional and Maudling, well basically, wasn't. Spartaz Humbug! 16:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree the footnotes could be better, which is why I've added some immediately accessible online ones. Imho - when I read articles I generally want a few backup articles on the net to double check things, in most cases there is no way I would get the reference books, but will check on a few links that interest me. There should be more from the resources that were originally used if that were possible. BTW - is it notable that he requested a private viewing of A Clockwork Orange? Regards. SeanMack (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I would think so; it's certainly interesting; and if he was (as it would seem) NI Secretary at the time, positively fascinating. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), referencing (1c), and formatting (2). Marskell (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove in its current state. Needs copyediting, could do with extra references to bolster the claims made, and lead is too short. Article as a whole seems on the short side, which makes me suspicious that some details are missing. I've removed the popular culture section but if it's put back then that's also grounds for demotion. DrKiernan (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove many citation problems and geocities site is in there for good measure...Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.