Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Algerian Civil War

Algerian Civil War

This is a self-nomination; however, I have researched this quite extensively for some time, to the point of having to trim the article somewhat, and have finally managed to scrape together enough pictures. The topic, despite its great importance, get little media attention, and I think this page covers it in greater depth and detail than any online English-language description I have come across. - Mustafaa 9 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. No copyright on one portrait, and an unknown copyright on the other. Fix these and I'll have a good look and vote. Thanks. Harro5 July 9, 2005 00:56 (UTC)

• Well spotted - I had missed that. Both are from the Algerian government (the presidency's official site); however, I'm not 100% certain of Algeria's position on copyright of state-produced materials. If I can't find that out, I propose to remove them from the article. - Mustafaa 9 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)

• Article 9 of Algeria's ORDONNANCE RELATIVE AUX DROITS D'AUTEUR ET AUX DROITS VOISINS states that: "Works of the State made licitly accessible to the public may be freely used for non-profit purposes, subject to respect for the integrity of the work and indication of its source. By "works of the State", in this article, are meant works produced and published by the various organs of the State, local communities, or public establishments of an administrative character." (original in French.) Ie, non-commercial-only - which apparently means we aren't supposed to use them. Darn. They have both been removed from the article. - Mustafaa 9 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Great work making such a comprehensive and NPOV article on a subject that got far too little attention in the English language press; however, the lead is too short, and one generally shouldn't have contentless sections like ==Timeline==. The maps are very good, but it also does need more pictures, preferably some of the conflict itself. I doubt we can get any PD or GFDL images, but it might be possible to add some fair use ones under the "unique historical images which we cannot reproduce by other means" criteria. - SimonP July 9, 2005 02:00 (UTC)

• OK, I think I've addressed your first two objections. The lack of pictures of the conflict itself is a perennial if not unresolvable problem here, and any help you can give would be extremely welcome. Does this fair use criterion apply to press images? - Mustafaa 9 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)
  • Support. My first two objections have been fully addressed so I am moving to support. As to images I'm far from an expert in American fair use law, but I do know that Wikipedia practice is to claim fair use for certain press images. This has been controversial in the past (see Image talk:TrangBang.jpg for a lengthy debate), but pages like History of post-Soviet Russia and Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 have become FAs and use such images. - SimonP July 9, 2005 03:55 (UTC)

• Support. The text is excellent. It would be great if you could find more pictures though (I know it's difficult); as it stands, it's not an inviting read. — mark ✎ 20:43, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

• http://www.algeria-watch.org/galerie/galerien.htm seems to have a promising set of images. I'll see if I can find out about their copyright status. - Mustafaa 20:56, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support, well written piece on an ongoing conflict. The pics that are there are sufficient. --nixie 14:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Very close to supporting. I just need to read all of it through properly and see if there's copyediting needed. Everything I've seen so far seems well written and comprehensive. I hope we'll be seeing more FACs on African history and culture after this. /Peter ^Isotalo 22:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. The warbox needs to go. It's obviously best suited for more traditional all-out nation vs nation conflicts, not complex and low-intensity civil wars. /Peter ^Isotalo 17:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The featured article criteria say that it has to adhere to the standards of the relavant wikiproject. As such, a warbox is called for. →Raul654 16:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Very sparse use of references. More research and citation seems necessary. Also, the lead is very hard to follow and basically takes a reading of the whole thing to even figure out the result. Part of the problem is the second sentence runs straight into a a narrative of the events from the start. Please restructure it in more of a news style, or at least tell me all the most important things in the first paragraph before going into details. Sorry to bring this objection so late, but I felt it needed to be said. - Taxman ^Talk 19:56, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

  Hmm, after writing that I see youve said you've researched it a lot, but I see only two references, plus some notes to what all appear to be news articles or low quality sources. I could be wrong, part of the problem is how they are formatted perhaps. But if you've researched a lot, add all those sources and cite what parts of the article are supported by what sources. - Taxman ^Talk 19:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Three rather extensive English-language books, actually (one of them was under the external links section because it happens to be available online) plus a large number of sources (mostly in French) on individual events or people with insufficient general relevance to place in the references section. As for the news articles, I'm not sure what the problem is. The government hasn't released its internal notes, nor have the guerrillas published any helpful memoirs; the primary sources for this conflict are press releases and human rights organizations' interviews, and that's what all of the books referenced do cite (indeed, most of the press cites were via the books referenced.) Why do you consider these "low-quality sources"? (Apart from two of the links, the bloody useless "War Nerd Column" and the useful but uneven timeline by an activist website.) You also suggest more citation; I'm not sure how this could be achieved. Linking each paragraph to the appropriate chapters of the relevant books seems superfluous; I've been going on the assumption that only quotes and potentially controversial claims need such low-level citation.

• Ok, with another book in the references I'm a bit more comfortable. Just try to make them all consistent with the formatting in Wikipedia:Cite sources. I believe if it is available online, only the title should be linked, not the rest of the citation information. Also the other notes do not contain the full citation information such as date, author, publisher, and they are not all in consistent order, so I can't tell which is which. If those are the best sources available, then I'm ok with it, just fix the formatting. As to citation, the more the better always. How do we know any of the material is accurate, except that you tell us? Wikipedia:Verifiability is important to help in that. I'm not saying every word needs to be cited, but the top 15-20 or so most central and or most controversial facts in the article should ideally be cited directly to the source they came from. - Taxman ^Talk 16:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I cannot entirely agree on the citing issue. To cite a claim to a particular source gives the impression that it is an individual author's conclusions, which is appropriate for original or controversial claims but misleading for matters of common knowledge; also, I don't currently have access to many of the materials I used in writing this, so getting individual page numbers (or chapter references) would be rather difficult for the time being. - Mustafaa 20:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• If the cited point is a fact, citing it to one source the fact was found in, is not misleading, it's standard practice. If it is opinion, citing the source it came from is even more critical of course. If it is a generally accepted fact, then it shouldn't be hard to find a source that refers to it as a generally accepted fact. Remember, what is common knowledge to you may be entirely novel and perhaps not believable to me. So picking out the most important facts/points in the article and citing those is important, to be able to verify the material. You've got a few cited points, so I won't scream too loud about this one, though I believe only several citations in an article is barely passing the minimum for what we should allow as a FA. As to not having your sources handy, that is a pain, but no one said good research was convenient, only important. That said, the more prominent problem is the lack of conistent formatting of the sources with all the citation information available and in the same order. - Taxman ^Talk 14:28, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Good point about the citation style - now fixed, apart from a couple of meta-citations which I'll need to confirm later. Otherwise, though, I note that WP:CITE makes much the same point I had in mind more concisely: "it is often preferable to have a few general references to authoritative overviews of a subject, such as textbooks and review articles, rather than a large number of specific citations for individual facts." - Mustafaa 22:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• That statement has been added in the last week in the middle of essentially a revert war, with no consensus for it on the talk page. Hardly a sound position, and it is at odds with the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Besides, even if I agreed with that quoted statement, I would not consider 20 citations in a long article a large number. - Taxman ^Talk 15:26, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

As for the opening 4 paragraphs, what do you recommend? - Mustafaa 22:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Well ideally it should summarize the most important aspects of the article. I think it mostly does that, but it is far too chronologically organized. I suggest the whole first paragraph be devoted to telling the reader why it is important, what happened, what the results were (Govt still in power after or were the rebels successful?), and what impact the event had, on Algeria and or the area and the rest of the world if any. I think that can be done in a paragraph or two. Then if you want a chronological summary, cover that next, though probably in more of a summarized form as it is currently hard to follow. The lead section should cover the major players as it does, but since they are currently weaved into the whole three paragraphs, they aren't easy to follow either. Come to think of it there is no section in the rest of the article that summarizes the effect of the war, which I think is also necessary. - Taxman ^Talk 16:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• OK, I think I've done the initial pre-summary summary now. - Mustafaa 20:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's much better. - Taxman ^Talk 14:28, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Minor object on technical grounds, No warbox. Sparse ilinks: from lead, not linked: democracy, armed conflict, election (should link specifically to mentioned 1991 election, army (to Algerian army), police (to Algerian police), massacres and quite a few others. No second level sectioning = TOC not very readable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that warbox is pretty inappropriate for an ongoing contemporary conflict.--nixie 15:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Linking fixed, and warbox put in (though some sections don't necessarily fit the specifics of the conflict well, in particular having only two combatant boxes.) I don't see how to implement second-level sectioning without ruining continuity, or how it would help readability, but maybe I'm missing something. - Mustafaa 23:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but the warbox looks astoundingly bad. Especially now that it's overshadowing the far more relevant History of Algeria-template. My support is on the condition that the warbox goes or at least gets remodeled. It's quite superfluous and leaves the introduction layout in shambles. /Peter ^Isotalo 17:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
        • I kind of agree. Maybe put it at the bottom of the page, if others feel it's needed. Opinions? - Mustafaa 22:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support 172 | Talk 21:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)