Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Betelgeuse incident/archive1

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 not promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

Betelgeuse incident[edit]

This is an article on a little known but significant incident in Irish maritime history. It offers a full and authoritative account of the event. Bob BScar23625 19:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Multiply problems from first view. Years alone shouldn't be linked per WP:DATE. References are incorrectly formatted, please use the {{cite web}} format. A trivia section isn't expected in a featured article. There are also plenty of unreferenced numbers and facts, while I'd personally prefer at least one reference in each paragraph. The company logos don't seem to serve an important purpose and should been removed. Refer to peer review. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael. Thankyou for your comment. If you work your way through the References I think you will find that all significant facts and figures are referenced from credible sources. I guess that "Trivia" could be re-titled as "Other facts", but does that really matter?. The use of company logos has been debated (see the discussion page for the Gulf Oil logo) - and the consensus is that they provide clarity. For example, the logo provides assurance that "Gulf" refers to Gulf Oil and not Gulf Air. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 23:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article needs a lot more referencing; there are paragraphs at a time without a single cite. Those references that there are need formatting with the appropriate template from Template:Cite. The trivia section should be integrated into the rest of the article (or removed if the information remains unsourced) per WP:TRIV. I can't find a consensus the logos provide clarity, just a long dispute over whether they even qualify under fair use. Personally, I can't see what they add to the article; it says in the article that it's Gulf Oil, so why would anyone think otherwise? Needs more work, then I'd suggest a peer review. Trebor 12:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor. Thankyou for your comment. Why cannot two or three paragraphs be served by a single reference?. Also, be aware that the Betelgeuse incident was an event that took place over a 30 minute period. We are not considering a social process that took place over 50 years. Is there scope for expansive referencing in this case?. If you plough through the debate on the use of logos in the article, I think you will see that three contributors supported their use and one objected. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 14:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the debate, and I don't see those numbers. I see 6 opposing its use [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] and 3 supporting [7] [8] and yourself. Could you explain how your got your numbers? Trebor 15:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor. Note my use of the word "contributors". By which I mean editors who have made some contribution to the article. Three contributors favoured use of the logos and one opposed. The one who opposed it invited a number of his pals to come to the discussion - a practice which is frowned on by the Wikipedia community and for which the individual concerned was rebuked by an Administrator. regards. Bob BScar23625 15:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if you are assuming good faith with them, their views are still valid (and I agree with them). Even if the copyright issue wasn't there, I don't see how logos of the companies add anything to the page. Trebor 16:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor. As regards the use of the logos, all I can say is that the people who created the article feel that the logos do add something. The practice of inviting sympathisers to join a discussion is frowned on by the Wikipedia community - it has been a blockable offence. There was nothing to stop me inviting 10 of my pals to join in the discussion on my side. This sort of behaviour is disruptive and its prohibition is entirely right. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 16:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're still making ad hominen arguments, based on these users' motives. From a brief scan, they all appear to be valued contributors to Wikipedia, with some knowledge in the area of fair use. They weren't asked to support or oppose, they were just asked for their opinions. So I can't see why you're immediately dismissing them. And at any rate, the opinion of Michaelas10 and me (who weren't canvassed) brings the debate to 3-3 (if we want to count votes). How about arguing why they should be included? I don't see how anyone could confuse Gulf Air and Gulf Oil, because it's said four times in the article that it is Gulf Oil. And that doesn't explain why the Total logo should be used either. Trebor 16:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor. Individuals who come to a discussion through being selectively invited can offer a view. But such views are devalued or tainted. The terms on which the individuals were invited to the discussion in this case were little short of an invitation to object. If you feel strongly about the matter then you are welcome to go the the Gulf logo discussion page and re-open the debate. But be prepared to invoke an arbitration on it. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 17:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't near an invitation to object; essentially it said "here is the issue, this is my opinion, could you share yours". Also, arbitration should be a final resort after all other attempts to reach consensus have been exhausted (and anyway, they don't deal with content disputes ). I think this is unnecessary inclusion of fair use images, that don't improve the article, and will continue to oppose this FAC for this and the other reasons I mentioned. Trebor 17:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor. The problem here arose because (1) the group invited to join the discussion were not chosen at random, they all appeared to be individuals who (I pick my words with care) had a track record in objecting to Fair Use images, and (2) the invitation stated the inviter's views - it wasn't just a plain invitation to join a discussion. Thankyou for an interesting exchange. Bob BScar23625 17:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.