Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hal Block/archive2

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 Karanacs 14:44, 28 September 2010 [1].

Hal Block

Nominator(s): BashBrannigan (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second attempted nomination of this article after meeting the concerns expressed. I was able to find some information on Block's personal life which was absent. I've also improved the structure of the article, added a photo and generally improved the prose. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no dead external links, dab link to OSS Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not loving the use of a pencil sketch in the lead at all. If it was by a notable artist (or at least a reliable source), or if no photos existed, I wouldn't mind, but that's simply not the case. There are potential problems with original research (we shouldn't be doing some kind of "this is what person x thinks the subject looked like) and/or copyvios (if it's based on another image). J Milburn (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me what photos of Block exist, free or otherwise? I'm aware of none. You said you wouldn't mind the sketch if no photos existed and as far as I know that's the situation. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You use one further down the article? What was the sketch based on if no other images exist, or is it pure guesswork? J Milburn (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Looking at the other images, File:FollowTheGirls.jpg is a purely decorative non-free image (what does it matter what the poster for a film he wrote for looks like?) File:Hope Staff meet Patton.jpg is the same- sure, talk about that point in his career and the meeting, but we most certainly do not need a non-free image to illustrate the fact. File:Hope WWII 44.jpg lacks a real source, and File:Takeitorleaveit.jpg is the same as with the first poster- yeah, his participation in the project was important, but what the poster looked like isn't. The modern photograph is fine. J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect regarding the photo of the staff meeting with Patton that "we most certainly do not need a non-free image to illustrate the fact." The image is the only source I'm aware of indicating Block met Patton. This is explained in detail in the fair use rationale for use of the image. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use non-free images to "prove" what we're saying in the article. Reference it to a reliable source; if no reliable source exists, don't mention it. J Milburn (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would have been for a photo of Block to lead the article, but I'm aware of none. The Patton photo with Block is not appropriate for the lead as, even cropped, it's a profile. The drawing is the best that's available. I can see your point about the poster, but the Patton photo adds significantly to our knowledge of Block and I disagree with your dismissal of it. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't for the fact that this was at FAC, I would have removed all of them without a second glance. Every image in this article bar one has serious issues. The posters still have not been removed, the drawing still leads the article (again, if no photos exist, what the hell is the drawing based on?) the Hope image still has no source. You assert that "the Patton photo adds significantly to our knowledge of Block" but you still haven't explained why. Yes, he met Patton.

Very strong oppose. Great, talk about it. We don't need a non-free image... What the meeting looked like is not important. Seeing as there's not actually been any effort to do anything about this, very strong oppose (with a note that I'm shocked and alarmed that people are supporting...) while the image issues remain. J Milburn (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You originally had said you wouldn't object to a drawing if no photo existed. When I said I have been unable to find a photo, your response is essentially to call me a liar. I'm perfectly willing to respond to the question "what the hell is the drawing based on", even though it is absurdly obvious, but not to you. I believe I've been attempting honestly to respond to your questions which I guess is not sufficient as you said "Seeing as there's not actually been any effort to do anything about this". It appears the effort you wanted was to jump to your command. And by the way comments like "I'm shocked and alarmed that people are supporting" which disparage others is intimidating and inappropriate.BashBrannigan (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've pointed out that photos existed- you use one in the article. You still haven't actually responded with regards to what the drawing is based on, just asserted that you could. It isn't actually "absurdly obvious"- apparently, there are no photos in existence, so, unless you knew the guy personally... Can we stop with all this sophistry and get to the point? Yes, the response I was looking for was for you to remove the images. Sorry to be so blunt, but we actually have a policy on the issue- these images don't meet the policy, and so shouldn't be there. And yes, it is alarming that people are supporting. Again, sorry, but when articles fail to adhere to our fundamental policies... If there's anything that's "inappropriate" here, it's your refusal to do anything about it. I've been polite, and given you plenty of chance to remove the images yourself, but you've thrown that back in my face. I'm gonna now treat this article like any other, and remove them myself. Do not add them back without solid reasoning... (Also, still oppose due to the lack of decent sourcing on the Bob Hope image, which, low and behold, you've done nothing about. Good show.) J Milburn (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You keep misquoting me. I've never said no photos of Block exist, only that I was unable to find any appropriate for the lead. As I said, in the Patton photo Block is in profile and it's not appropriate. The drawing was a last resort on my part. I haven't answered what the drawing is based upon because your reason for asking is to prove that a good photo exists. Essentially to prove I'm a liar. I also disagree you've been polite. BashBrannigan (talk) 00:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Could you please tell me what photos of Block exist, free or otherwise? I'm aware of none." I am not misquoting, you said you were aware of no photos of the subject. That may have not been what you meant, but it's certainly not what you said, so do not accuse me of misquoting. And if you're not going to explain what the sketch is based on, that's fine, it can just be removed as unsourced original research. You really are being awkward here. J Milburn (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're being selective here. The reason you were asking me what the drawing is based upon was not to determine whether it was "unsourced original research". That's only what you are saying NOW. Read your own words. You said "if no photos exist, what the hell is the drawing based on?" Determining the source of the drawing is reasonable, but that's not why you were asking at the time. Yes, in one place I may have not used the perfect phrasing, however I made myself very clear afterwards, more than once, that I meant no photos appropriate for the lead. BashBrannigan (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so, so far as you know, there's are no photos in existence that are suitable for the lead. So now, the obvious question (again): On what was the drawing based? J Milburn (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I ask why are you asking? I would like to understand what the issues are involved. The drawing is based upon TV video; not one single video, but a few. I was not concerned with plagiarism as it was a creative product. My concern was with possible OR issues. I tried to find something in Wikipedia policy dealing with user-generated portraits before I uploaded it, but couldn't. If someone made a clear argument for why it should not be used, I was fully prepared to accept it. I actually had less concern over the Patton photo. I still believe this an viable image. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two possible concerns are OR and copyright. Either this is based upon a decent source, (in which case the source should be used if free, or the picture is a non-free derivative work if it's non-free) or it isn't, in which case it's pretty much original research- it's what you think he looks like, rather than what he does look like. And now, the obvious question- why not use a screenshot from one of those videos? J Milburn (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons for not using a screenshot. First, I didn't think the quality of the video would be good enough. Second, concerns that a screenshot would violate copyright. On the other hand, the Dorothy Kilgallen article uses what appears to be a screenshot. Is that acceptable? BashBrannigan (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A non-free screenshot of the subject would be fine under the NFCC to lead the article, if we take it as a given that there are no free images available. J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do about providing a screenshot. Can i ask for a clarification for the Patton photo? Your argument against consisted of "sure, talk about that point in his career and the meeting, but we most certainly do not need a non-free image to illustrate the fact" and "Yes, he met Patton. Great, talk about it. We don't need a non-free image... What the meeting looked like is not important." It seems to me, this same argument could be made about almost ANY photo on Wikipedia. From the section on images [2] the only criteria is "must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic." Aren't you being too harsh? BashBrannigan (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're reading the wrong policy page. That's a non-free photo, for which we have the deliberately extremely strict non-free content criteria, the important part of our wider non-free content guidelines. Non-free images need to be a hell of a lot more than simply "relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic". Instead, they have to add significantly to reader understanding. As I have explained, this one doesn't. J Milburn (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this photo does add to our understanding. I found no other source that Block met Patton. BashBrannigan (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a request for some other opinions on this dispute at: [3] BashBrannigan (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, what? If you don't have a reliable source that contains the information, don't include it. I am not sure what is unambiguous here. We have non-free content criteria, please respect them. J Milburn (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the photo is the Library of Congress. BashBrannigan (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source what is in the article to reliable sources or do not include it. If reliable sources have not mentioned the meeting, it really can't be that important. To repeat, we cannot use a non-free image in an article purely to prove that something happened. J Milburn (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if I came across a photo on the CIA website showing Richard Nixon was actually a space-alien, I would need a newspaper to print it and write about it first, before I could use it in the article on Nixon? Even if the caption on the CIA website said "Nixon was an alien." Is this correct? BashBrannigan (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Does this have anything to do with you wanting to use a non-free image? J Milburn (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ending this now. I'm not opposing your removal of the photos. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All info regarding Block meeting Patton has been removed as per above discussion. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query: if all of this is resolved, and the parties agree, can this lengthy discussion please be removed to the talk page here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can move it if you like, but note that I still oppose due to the substandard sourcing on File:Hope WWII 44.jpg. J Milburn (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, in that case, it shouldn't be moved (I didn't note an oppose before). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Hope photo as per objections noted above. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I withdraw my opposition, but I haven't looked closely enough at the article to have any other opinion. (Also, my comments above seem to have been chopped up a bit? I'm not fussed, just thought it was odd.) J Milburn (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first footnote is Fates, linking to a book. What are the pages used?? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think have the page number in my notes. If I can't find it, I'll get the book from the library and add the pages tomorrow. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added page numbers. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - despite a few issues, this article has no dead links and it looks like it is ready for FA status if there are no further objections. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Ref 1: Pages numbers required

Added page numbers

Why are refs 11 and 52 formatted differently? (see also 73 and others related to Time))
Ref 12: the citation supporting the present-day value assertion should be properly formatted, not left as a bare link
Ref 15 has "P." rather than "p."
Ref 17: Publisher? Reliability?
Ref 61: What makes http://www.childrenparty.com/partygames/printversion/forfeits.html a reliable source?
Ref 104: A Wiktionary link might be better than a dictionary definition. Otherwise this should be properly formatted (publisher, date etc)

formatted properly