Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010 Nobel Peace Prize/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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Nikkimaria (03:33, July 4, 2011) [1].

2010 Nobel Peace Prize[edit]

Nominator(s): Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this is a historic record of an important event that I believe has been treated in a respectful and objective manner and to the highest standards of this encyclopaedia. I hope to have this ready for TFA on either the first anniversary of the award in October, or the second anniversary of the recipient's incarceration in December. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - There are no dab links but there is a dead link in the article. GamerPro64 19:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: There are numerous referencing issues to be tackled; the following points are examples. I have not gone through the full list of references, so there are likely to be other problems. Please check each entry carefully.

Inconsistent use of retrieval dates for print sources. See, for example, refs 3 and 8 compared with 5 and 100. There are many other cases where retrieval dates are missing.
Inconsistent use of commas and/or full stops after links in references. For example: ref 1, comma; ref 3, full stop; ref 4, neither. And so on.
Inconsistent italicisation of print sources - see refs 29, 37, check for others
There is italicisation of non-print sources, e.g. ref 83.
Non-standard formatting, refs 40, 41, perhaps others. These two lack publishers and retrieval dates
Inaccuracies in ref details. For example the publisher for ref 1 is "Journalism and Media Studies Centre, University of Hong Kong". Also ref 34, maybe others
Publisher missing ref 4.
Consistency required in notifying foreign sources (sometimes "in Chinese", sometimes "Chinese", some bolded, others not, etc
Can you explain why Phayul.com is a reliable source?
Ref 88: link is dead

Brianboulton (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed all the issues (and some other similar ones) that you mentioned, except the last two, which I'll leave to Ohconfucius to explain/fix. Jenks24 (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Jenks for dealing with the above. I have further done work on the refs. #88 wasn't dead last night when I checked; I have now replaced it. Didn't realise what allegiance Phayul was until it was queried above and after I saw the Dalai Lama's image at the top banner. That ref has been replaced. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images appear unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ref 77 is dead. TGilmour (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been fixed. TGilmour (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article says "Liu is the third person to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while in prison or detention, after Germany's Carl von Ossietzky (1935) and Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi (1991)." However, the article Liu Xiaobo says: "He is the fourth person to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while in prison or detention, after Germany's Carl von Ossietzky (1935), the Soviet Union's Andrei Sakharov (1975), and Myanmar's Aung San Suu Kyi (1991)." Which is correct? Iusethis (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is the third, and it's confirmed by this source. It seems that the reconciling laureate is Andrei Sakharov. Whilst it's true Sakharov didn't collect his prize, he was merely prevented from leaving Russia; he was not imprisoned or detained at the time of his award. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Maybe you or someone else can update the other article? There may be more people who, like me, want to read both articles and then becomes quite confused. Iusethis (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Just read through the entire article, making some tweaks as I went and I think the article is FA quality. Only two quibbles that I couldn't fix myself: in the Human rights groups and academics section, I'm unsure what's intended by "They also stated that human rights and the economy of China has improved 10 years"; the other issue is that in the Award ceremony section, the two images and two quotations squash the actual text (at least on my monitor). I made an attempt to 'un-squish' it, but perhaps something more could be done. In all though, very comprehensive article and I found it an interesting read. Jenks24 (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A standard riposte to criticism of China's human rights record is that "human rights and the economy of China has improved 10 years", i.e. don't look at where we are today in absolute terms, but judge us by the progress we've been making (cup half-full argument). The Nobel Committee's statement to the effect is a rejoinder which acknowledges the progress but also the work to be done (cup half-empty argument). I don't know quite how to bring that out in the article, though. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I understand what is intended by that sentence now. I'm more concerned with the grammar, though. Shouldn't it be something like "They also stated that human rights and the economy of China has improved in the last 10 years", perhaps even "They also stated that human rights and the economy of China have improved in the past decade". The current wording sounds ungrammatical to my ears, but perhaps there's something I'm missing. Jenks24 (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for spotting that mistake. Now corrected. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Support with regard to Criterion 1a. I am impressed by the general quality of the prose – it even shines in places. This is a professionally written contribution that deserves a slot on the Main Page. Graham Colm (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn my support because of problems with close paraphrasing. Graham Colm (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks - issues found. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"had abandoned the Falun Gong spiritual movement and was "soft" on China's leaders" vs "abandoning persecuted members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement and going soft on China’s leaders"
What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
"the Nobel Committee secretary stated the award would not be influenced by Beijing's opposition" vs "a secretary of the Nobel Committee, who stated the award would not be influenced by Beijing’s opposition"
"negative reactions" - can't find this quote in the cited source
Print sources without web links need page numbers for verifiability purposes - for example, ref 22
"had instructed media not to re-run even the government's own condemnatory official news release" vs "has ordered media not to re-run even the government’s official news release"

I only checked a few sources, and to find this many issues on a minimal check is quite frankly rather concerning. This needs to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there are other examples: Graham Colm (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The BBC cited the UN as saying it had information that China had detained at least 20 activists ahead of the ceremony, and reported sources saying there were a further 120 cases of house arrest, travel restriction, forced relocation, and other acts of intimidation of dissident.." vs. " The UN says it had information that China detained at least 20 activists ahead of the ceremony. A further 120 cases of house arrest, travel restriction, forced relocation and other acts of intimidation have been reported." [2]
"in which 58.6 percent of respondents said the Committee should take back the prize and apologise to the Chinese people, and more than half said Liu should be detained until his parole date." vs. "In all, 58.6 percent of the interviewees said the committee should take back the prize and apologize to the Chinese people. More than half of them said China should keep Liu detained until his parole date."[3] Graham Colm (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawn I would like to withdraw this FAC nomination pending reworking. As it is unlikely to be the same article after that work is done, it will need assessment again from the ground up. I apologise for wasting everybody's time, and will resubmit once the rewrite is complete. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.