Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Vishniac

Roman Vishniac[edit]

Danielk212 and I have been working very hard on this article for quite some time, and we now believe it to be of featured article quality. The article was recently peer reviewed, though it recieved very few comments. Danielk212 and I have attempted to communicate with Mara Vishniac (Roman's daughter) to ask for pictures we could use and to fact-check, but she's been too busy to help; fair-use images will suffice for now. We are still trying to reach her, but can't wait any longer. Roman Vishniac was an fascinating person and certainly deserves a featured article in this encyclopedia.-- Rmrfstar 11:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Too many red links. May be some of them need fixing to redirects if exist. Brandmeister 13:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am blanket opposing all nominations that fail to use the new cite format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While technically an "actionable" objection, since something could be done to fix it, "Uses the very latest in mediawiki formatting" isn't actually anything remotely close to an FA criteria. It has references, these references are linked inline, are in their own section... that's about what was required. Fieari 16:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Withdrawing my oppose, consider it a strongly worded suggestion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too many red links. --Neigel von Teighen 14:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Possessing red links does not preclude an article from being featured, according to an earlier discussion. However, the sheer percentage of red links in this particular article is staggering... do none of those names have articles? Surely some of those links just need redirects... not redirecting links is an actionable concern, just as linking to too many disambig links would be. And the earlier discussion was about one or two red links... not an article full of them. It doesn't look kosher this way. I'd say, make some stubs at the very least... Fieari 16:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Object~~ - the ref ordering is unusual; most FAs follow numerical order in the text. It doesn't look good to start at 8, jump around to 22 and then finally back to one. In addition, the note at the bottom of the "biograph" section doesn't really fit, and there are some external links in the tables that could be changed to refs. There's also some formatting issue, especially near the bottom. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how to fix the non-sequentially numbered references, see below for my comments on the other system.

Are you talking about the "timeline" note? I just felt that a reader who wants to see a timeline should know that there is one in existence.

I purposefully reduced the number of references and used URLs for simple publication data: those sources are not true "references" and readers should not refer to them unless specifically looking up that publication.

What are these formatting issues near the bottom? And thank you! -- Rmrfstar 02:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! The refs look better, but still a few issues: the two tables near the bottom still have some external links instead of refs, which should be fixed. In addition, one of them still has the "citation needed" flag, indicating that a source is needed for that part of the table. Also, there are still some external links in the prose, such as in the "impact" section. Finally, I still don't agree with the note For a convenient timeline of Roman Vishniac's life, see page 95 of Roman Vishniac published by ICP at the bottom of the section. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of your objections have been addressed. -- Rmrfstar 00:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Support. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditional~~ Support- if the ref issue is cleaned up. I don't believe the red links are a problem, though it would definetly be better to get rid of at least some of them. AndyZ 23:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Concerning the redlinks, I don't believe that many of them could be redirected or deleted; there are just many obscure topics referenced in Roman Vishniac, such as cinemicroscopy, which does deserve its own article. On the subject of the reference style, I should say that I worked for about an hour trying to convert the article using Wikipedia:Footnotes/Temp and could not do it to my satisfaction. There are simply too many references to the same sources, references which are necessary. Even a partial conversion increases the size of the article by kilobytes and it's already 38K. See User:Rmrfstar/Workspace and User:Rmrfstar/Workspace2 for two (incomplete) versions that I drafted. Neither of them are any better than the current system, in my opinion. But I'm not very familiar with the new system. Perhaps some more knowledgable person should give it a try. -- Rmrfstar 02:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not try using {{note}} and {{ref}} and the corresponding templates? I'm pretty sure that some of those can address this issue. Alternatively, you could also try the new m:Cite/Cite.php format, which is more efficient than the use of templates. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two m:Cite/Cite.php implementations are exampled on my two Workspaces (linked above):Wikipedia:Footnotes/Temp is the same as m:Cite/Cite.php). Neither this, nor ref/note style, has any advantages over the current system, old as it is, besides the numerical numbering. Newer is not always better. One of the problems with such new systems is that they either have an entire "note" for each inline link, or they have tons of obnoxious letters next to each reference (see Workspace2). So I appose the conversion of this article to a newer citation style. If, however, after hearing my arguments, the consensus is against me, I shall convert it to the style decided upon.-- Rmrfstar 17:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have repaired the footnotes such that there is a baseline version that is in line with footnoting style. Perhaps citing the roman work less often would make the footnotes less ugly? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you did, you only put the entire reference in the inline citation once, so you didn't increase the size much.. smart. I glad that problem's been solved. Thanks! -- Rmrfstar 22:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I did trim down the references to that often used source; it's now not usually cited at the end of a paragraph, outside the last period. -- Rmrfstar 23:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Reads well, good references, seems comprehensive. More pictures would be nice (a separate gallery page, even) but this is just a comment and the authors seem to be working to fix it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Minor oppose~~, a gallery of fair use images would be very problematic in terms of Wikipedias fair use policy, there are too many fair use images in the article as is, the book covers for example are pushing WP:FUC as they are there as decorations rather than images to represent commentary on the books etc. --nixie 05:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is exactly the reason that a gallery has not been created. As is explained in detail on each image's page, the images used are all important in illustrating the subject. I've held off on adding more because more may be viewed easily in the External links section. If there're one or two particular images you feel may be removed without negative consequence, name them. To keep everyone up to date, I've just mailed Mara Vishniac a letter (with article enclosed) asking for freely licensed images. DanielK212 and I are also attempting to reach JDC and YIVO, looking for images not owned by the Vishniac estate.
  - Also, the book covers in the References section are not just eye candy, but are very recognizable images relating to Roman Vishniac (A Vanished World largly increased his renown and Children is currently in print and relates closely to all current appreciation of Vishniac's work). There is little commentary on the books, but they are used in an educational fashion (also next to the place where they are actually referenced) and they don't violate any WP:FUC, I think. -- Rmrfstar 17:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - While it is patently obvious that his images appear on the covers of his books, I still see no fair use rationale which describes why these covers are fair in this article.--nixie 03:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have added such a fair use rationale for both cover images. -- Rmrfstar 10:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. The images Image:VishniacChagall.jpg, Image:VishniacWisdom.jpg, Image:VishniacMara.jpg, Image:VanishedWorldCover.jpg, Image:ChildrenVanishedCover.gif are tagged as "fair use", however, none of them are discussed within the article. The presence of critical commentary is an essential part of Wikipedia's fair use policy. --Carnildo 23:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is "critical commentary" on WP:FUC? All that Wikipedia's fair use policy says is that "There are a few blanket categories of copyrighted images whose use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith. These include: [critical commentary]", but this list is by no means exclusive. I argue that all of these images "contribute significantly" (WP:FUC) to the article either by identifying the subject named in ==In Eastern Europe== or by showing the reader very well known book covers to associate with the subject. -Rmrfstar 12:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have put a little commentary on the Mara picture in ==Religion==. I know not what commentary could be included for the other images. The article is not on them, but on the photographer of them; yet they are still necessary to illustrate the subject. -- Rmrfstar 00:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - If there is no commentary, then the images are being used to decorate the article, not illustrate it. --Carnildo 02:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see your reasoning, and the two are not mutually exclusive. In any case, there is absolutely no violation of Wikipedia policy on this subject. Your cited "critical commentary" is not necessary and the images are all of "acceptable copyright status". -- Rmrfstar 10:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC) I have changed my mind; there is no longer any issue; the second cover image has been removed and the first one is now accompanied by critical commentary in the intro. -- Rmrfstar 03:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        And the other two images I objected to are still there. The "critical commentary" on the book is also pretty sketchy -- I'd expect at least a paragraph, maybe a whole section, if the image is used. Half a sentence just doesn't cut it. --Carnildo 07:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Update -- I have just removed Image:VishniacWisdom.jpg, because I think it is not absolutely necessary to illustrate the subject. The ones left are Image:VishniacChagall.jpg and Image:VanishedWorldCover.jpg, both of which are crucial. Please detail what policy is being violated by their inclusion in this article (in their current form). As I said before, "critical commentary" is not a fair use criterium (see WP:FUC); no Featured article criteria are not being met. -- Rmrfstar 16:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        If they're really that crucial, then why doesn't the article text give more than a brief mention of either? --Carnildo 01:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Nothing more need be said. The brief mention and the detailed fair use rationalse explain their importance. What more could possibly be said that would enhance their educational value? Let's not be superficial and write for the sake of writing. Are the purposes, meanings or significance of the images not clear? And please answer the question: what Featured Article Criterium is not being met? -- Rmrfstar 02:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        No, the "purposes, meanings and significance" are not clear. I'd think that was obvious from the fact that I'm objecting. And as for which criteria are not being met, try #4, "It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status", emphasis on the "acceptable copyright status" part, and #2, "It is well written": leaving the reader to guess as to why certain images are included does not constitute "well written". --Carnildo 03:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        If their meaning/significance is not clear, that is one thing, but they are of acceptable copyright status; they meet all of the fair use criteria. Anyway, I have tried to explain more clearly the significance of the two images by including detailed captions for these two images. Are they sufficient? -- Rmrfstar 03:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Much better, though if you could replace Image:VishniacChagall.jpg with the Einstein photo that is discussed in the article, that would be even better. --Carnildo 04:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I was thinking about doing that. I have a copy of the Einstein photo, though it not with me right now. Next weekend I'll get the picture, scan and upload it. I didn't do it initially because I didn't want to put pictures on the Internet that weren't already there, and I couldn't find the portrait on the Internet. -- Rmrfstar 11:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Mission accomplished. -- Rmrfstar 13:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additional comments three indents down. The lead could be tightened up. Particularly the second paragraph; I'm not sure why the brief family history is included here. And in the third paragraph, the list of awards is perhaps unnecessary as well. As a style of self-contained lead—a mini-article—I suppose it does work, but I found it takes the focus off the rest of the article. Consistency across WP biographical articles is probably not a consideration here, but I looked at a few FAs and the leads do tend to concentrate on the "highlights". --Tsavage 02:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you; I agree and shall work on this tonight. -- Rmrfstar 10:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is the new lead? It's not much shorter, but it's neater and more relevant. See diff here. -- Rmrfstar 03:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, it's a little better. I still find the second paragraph distracting, and probably not necessary at all in the lead (kids, cancer are important to him but secondary to the photography and science he's known for). Also, there's a lot of "well-known" and "famous" for one short third paragraph. I don't have time right now to fully commment, otherwise I would "object" if I did. The article is interesting and seems complete, but the prose needs a fair amount of tightening up, for style and consistency. For example, in the lead, A Vanished World is published in 1940, but the table says 1947 (a typo?), and "shtetlach" is unexplained. Early life says, "Dr. Vishniac was not able to publish a paper detailing his findings due to the political atmosphere"—but the atmosphere is not explained. Sentences like, "Even when he grew older, Roman Vishniac lead a very full life", "The items that were in his possession include..." (collection?), "in the dim indoor home of a poor Jew" are kind of awkward and/or bland. "Famous" is used noticeably often, in at times unspecified ways. The subsectioning in "Photography" is somewhat confusing, mixing places and periods (Eastern Europe, Zbaszyn), with "Impact" and "Photomicroscopy" (a Legacy section might be good at the end, it could include impact, info about his death instead of in the lead, etc). I'm certainly not tearing into the article for the sake of it: I really enjoyed reading it and am happy to know about Vishniac (I started looking through the Web for more on him), it's just that a good copyedit is needed to make this really polished. I'd help if I knew more about him... --Tsavage 04:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've tried to address all of your specific concerns. I'll do at least one more good read through and copyedit to-day. -- Rmrfstar 13:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        It's better. I'll try to help out with a bit of copyediting if I see anything. --Tsavage 03:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Review update 18-Mar The specific concerns I had have been addressed (struck above). The lead I find much improved and rough spots in the main text largely smoothed out. I still find the writing a bit awkward in parts (for example, the first para of the "New York" subsection, or sentences like Vishniac, being a Jew, had to struggle immensely to take the 16,000 photos he did.), but since I was only commenting, I'll leave it at that for this review: outstanding problems fixed, writing still needs tightening up. (It never ends, huh?!) Thanks. --Tsavage 01:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I shall continue to copyedit and improve the writing. -- Rmrfstar 12:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, after a closer reading there are several more things:
The see also list seems excessive, those things that are or could be linked in text should be removed from the list
- I have cleaned up ==See also== and the section now conforms to Manual of Style: all of the topics linked relate to the entire article and should be useful for the reader as a "navigational aid".

I can't see the logic in putting the small section on Zbaszyn on its own, it makes the TOC longer and does not really stand alone from the material that preceeeds it, merge it into the trips section (the trips section could use a better name).
- I have merged in Zbaszyn and renamed the section.

It is not really clear why the "Biology and his philosophy" isn't included with the "photomicrography" section. The material on his religion could easily be worked in to biography
- Biology talks about Roman's unique philosophies concerning biology, what he did in the field of biology and how all of that relates to his religion, (and it does). The topics are too closely related to be separated. I changed my mind and moved stuff around in accordance with you suggestion, how does it work? -- Rmrfstar 17:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no discussion of his work in the context of the work of his contemporaries, who else worked on similar subjects etc. I suppose it is alluded to in the see alsos, but it's be more interesting in text.
- From all I've read, I can find no definitive statements that his '30s work was especially important to more contemporary photographers; it was not so groundbreaking. The Steichen quote is the best that I've found. Related photograhpers are in the ==See also==, yes; there is no direct link between any of them and him: none of whom I know mimicked him etc. Anything that could be written would be speculation and not enough to warrant a paragraph of text.

I'm still not convinced both the book covers are necessary, I'd include A Vanished World where it is first discussed in the article and remove the other.
- ~~I believe the fair use rationales justify both covers' inclusion and position.~~ I changed my mind again and took your advice. -- Rmrfstar 17:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no legacy section, which could be useful and interessting- and I it would give you the scope to talk about exhibitions and books realesed after his death as well as his influence on contemporary photography.
- I don't think such a section would be helpful. The exhibitions and books released postmortem were not so special, and his influence on contemporary photography was not great.-- Rmrfstar 13:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--nixie 02:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC) There has been no response from this user on this page or his talk page concerning this nom since March 9. -- Rmrfstar 12:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support. A lot of improvement has been made and I think this is ready. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support-While I feel this article is somewhat short, it meets requirements. --Kahlfin 19:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Roman Vishniac is, if anything, too long, at 38Kb. But, it is completly comprehensive and nothing much can be removed; I think it's a good length. -- Rmrfstar 13:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support-I can hardly see how this article could be viewed as somewhat short. Roman Vishniac is longer than the Tooth Enamel article, and that got on the main page. Cryptic C62 21:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - In all fairness, they're different subjects and Kahlfin has a right to complain about the size of the article even though others may be smaller; however, as I argued above, I don't think Roman Vishniac is too short. -- Rmrfstar 03:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]