Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gilbert Thomas Carter/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 GrahamColm 16:28, 21 July 2012 [1].

Gilbert Thomas Carter[edit]

Gilbert Thomas Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the criteria. Although the amount of material available on Carter is limited, I think that I have created an article that covers his life in an interesting way. This is an article which I heavily researched (when I came across it, it was a 1-sentence stub which was incorrect!) and found sources for. I am proud that it was judged good enough to be a "good article", and feel that it is also good enough to be a featured article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • The lead is extremely short at only two sentences, which isn't long enough for an FA. Try incorporating some of the more important points from the body of the article and make at least one long paragraph, or preferably two moderate-size paragraphs. That would be more in keeping with FA expectations.
  • Leads are my weak point - however, I have expanded it - hopefully this will make it more suitable. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life and Naval career: "until on 1 December 1869, when he was promoted to Assistant Paymaster." Don't think the "on" serves any purpose here.
  • Leeward Islands, the Gold Coast and the Gambia: Is it "the Gambia" or "The Gambia"? The lead and this section vary in that regard. This should be made consistent throughout the article.
  • As a general comment, there's a lot of "On xxxx", "In xxxx", and "From xxxx to xxxx"-types of sentences, which make up most sentences in this section and a good part of what follows. This isn't the most compelling prose possible, and leads me to think that criterion 1a may not be met yet. Please consider rephrasing some of these sentences for more variety.
  • Another general comment: try to avoid one-sentence paragraphs if possible. I realize there may not be many details available, but it does leave a stubby appearance. Maybe some of the shorter paragraphs can be combined? Giants2008 (Talk) 15:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • There is nothing wrong in resurrecting and expanding an article on a fairly obscure old buffer, and you are to be commended for your efforts in this regard. However, I have to say that between GA and FA is a rather large gulf. As far as I can see there have been no alterations to the text since it was promoted to GA more than two years ago; can you amplify as to why you think the article meets the featured article criteria?
  • No specific reason - I just feel that all articles could potentially be FA - if the end result is that this is not one of those, then at the least, the article would have been improved. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox probably creates some sort of record in extending all the way down the article to Further reading. But a lot of the content looks like infoboxing for infoboxing's sake. Why is it relevant to know who preceded or succeeded Carter in a string of pretty obscure and long-vanished colonial appointments? I would strongly advocate shortening the infobox by restricting it to information of genuine significance (e.g. it may be significant that he held these posts, but it's completely irrelevant who held them before or after him).
  • Removed the appointments from the infobox (it's all in the main text anyway). If I have the chance, I'll do stub articles for the previous/consequent appointees if they do not have them - I just need to look up some sourcing! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree with the comments provided by Giants, above, that the lead needs extending and the general prose could do with some attention. At present the article does not look like a potential FA. Brianboulton (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To both Giants and Brian, thanks for you comments - I will work on the remaining comments hopefully tonight, or tomorrow, and respond on this page. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made all the improvements suggested above (plus added a couple of minor facts to the article) - any further comments would be most welcome! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ranges should use endashes per WP:DASH
  • FN5: what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • Most of the sources are eminently high-quality and reliable; I'm guessing you are referring to the egbayewa.org one - which I will try to find an alternative, more suitable source for! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for doubled periods caused by template glitches
  • Be consistent in when you provide publisher locations
  • All citations have a location with the exception of the London Times and the London Gazette - the templates do not include a location, and the implication is London, England because of their titles! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you ordering Further reading, and why did you decide not to cite these sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are now in alphabetical order by author surname; I have not cited them as I have not yet been able to obtain a copy to find usable citations. I came across them while I was doing my research, but only as a snippet for each, so I can't really use them! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - File:Sir_Gilbert_Thomas_Gilbert-Carter_by_Alexander_Bassano_1893_NPG_x6206_detail.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is this something which I need to deal with? The image issue is outside of the article's issues. Any suggestions? PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it does need to be fixed, as image licensing falls under the image use policy referenced in FA criterion 3. In this case, I would suggest either {{PD-US}} or {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, whichever you feel is more appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, copyright/PD law is not my area of expertise, and I'd be loath to go for either of those. What I have done is to revert the image to the previous one which, though not as good an image, does not appear to have the legal/copyright/PD problems! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Gilbert_Thomas_Carter/archive2&oldid=1136097699"