Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mário de Andrade/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 16:43, 8 November 2010 [1].

Mário de Andrade[edit]

Mário de Andrade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: Chick Bowen, WikiProject Brazil, WikiProject Biography, Arts and Entertainment Work Group, WikiProject LGBT studies

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is no longer up to FA standards. For example, the article has falling into section 1c and 3, including unsourced statements and paragraphs. This article was promoted to FA status in 2005 and it hasn't been review since. JJ98 (Talk) 07:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Citations that need improving (they lack where to find the work, or lack a proper citation of the work cited in (ie Foo, Bar "Introduction" to /Work/)
  • Biography from www.releituras.com (see External links).
  • Hallucinated City (see English translations) xv.
  • www.releituras.com.
  • See Popson.
  • See Gabara for an extensive treatment of these photographs and their artistic, political, and anthropological context.
  • See Green.
  • www.prodam.sp.gov.br (see External links).
Additionally a number of works need to be added explicitly to the list of references. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not quite sure what you're objecting to. You need to be more specific. You object to footnote 12, for example--why? The entire article is about the photographs, so it would not make sense to cite a specific page number. The same thing is true of Green--the whole article is about the complexity of Andrade's sexuality, and I do not want to pin down his complex thesis to a single, possibly simplistic statement. In general I cited a page number if there was something specific, and the whole work if my comment applied to the whole work. If you would rather the list of references were incorporated into the footnotes I can do that, but otherwise this article seems to me to be pretty well-cited. Chick Bowen 15:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the whole work applies, then the introduction will contain a succinct thesis statement. Your citations do not allow for verification of the claims made as they do not indicate the place supporting the claim within the work cited. If you are making interpretations on the basis of a sequence of photographs this is OR. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have summed up her argument in a lengthy footnote. Is that better? I don't mind, but the other seemed more succinct to me. Chick Bowen 15:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is clearly one of the old featured articles when the standard wasn't that high. It has a lot of paragraphs without source. --Lecen (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having been invited to review my comments, let me say that the standard of citation presentation, and the quality of citations, meet my expectations for a current FAC. Well done to the editor who put that work in! I SOFIXITed stuff I might have complained about (a missing trailing period, n-dashes, a missing comma) because there was so little to fix and they were obvious typographic issues. 2c now looks great and in my humble opinion from merely glancing over the citations, 1c is looking pretty good. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and request. I have looked over this article carefully. As you can see, it has had virtually no significant edits since its FAC in the Fall of 2005. Other than minor edits and vandalism, about 90% of the edits in its entire history, maybe more, are by me. Here's my thought: first of all, it's better cited than it looks--many individual points are ascribed within the prose rather than in footnotes, which is fine. However, it would be better if the biographical material were ascribed to English-language sources rather than the Portuguese site from which I originally drew most of it. Here is what I propose to do: I will rewrite the biographical material to cite English-language sources. I will clarify some of the footnotes for the interpretive material. However, I would like to keep the material cited to primary sources; though he never wrote a formal autobiography, Andrade is his own best biographer in his prefaces and even in his poems themselves--also (and I think this is important), these works are available in translation, whereas full-length biographies of him are only in Portuguese. If those changes will be satisfactory, I'd ask you to reserve judgment until I complete them, which I won't have time to do at least for a week or so. If you have more things you'd like me to address at that time, please be as specific as possible. Comments about how "the standards weren't high" in 2005 are not as helpful as those about what you'd like to article to look like now. Thank you. Chick Bowen 00:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be far better for all of us if you could avoid ironic remarks. I wrote: "It has a lot of paragraphs without source". Can't be more clear than that. --Lecen (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done a lot of work on this article, including introducing seven new sources and clarifying references to the existing sources (and shifting references from two online sources to scholarly ones--except for a few minor points, the entire article is now sourced to peer-reviewed scholarly publications). I've also worked on the image captions, and clarified the status of the bill with MdA's picture on it (though more clarification is still needed, as noted on the image description page). I don't think anything has been discussed except those two issues. I'd like to know if there's anything else people would like to see done. I will be away from Friday to Monday but can address other issues next week. Chick Bowen 17:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments regarding criterion three:
    • File:Cândido Portinari, Antônio Bento, Mário de Andrade e Rodrigo Melo Franco 1936.jpg - Source is a deadlink and appears to have been directy to the image itself. Where can we verify the date? Needs a license indicating US copyright status.
    • File:Lake Ararí, Marajó.jpg - PD-Brazil-media addresses only Brazil status. What is US status?
    • File:Andrade self-portrait.jpg - Same as above.
    • File:500000cruzeiros.jpg - Purely decorative. (NFCC#8) That Andrade was important enough to appear on a banknote is clearly communicated with prose (NFCC#1). Seeing the banknote does nothing to further our understanding of that concept.
    • See MOS:CAPTION regarding period usage. Эlcobbola talk 15:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • All of these images have been replaced by Lecen since you wrote this. For right now I will leave them as they are. But various items:
        • The images taken by Andrade himself fall into the category described at Commons:Commons:Licensing#Uruguay Round Agreements Act, a contentious issue at Commons. They are in the public domain in Brazil, and their copyright is effectively unenforceable in the US since there is no designated copyright holder. Their copyright was not registered in the US, which means only the URAA makes them not public domain there. This leaves a very thin thread on which to make a copyright claim. They will undisputedly enter the public domain worldwide in 2015, but in the meantime many Commons users would probably make the argument that they do not belong there. I find that argument unconvincing. In any case, I do think a photograph by Andrade belongs in the article, given that he was an influential photographer whose work is much discussed in the text. I would upload one here and make a fair use claim, but that would mean conceding that they are under copyright, which I'm reluctant to do. So I'm in a bind.
        • The currency is not a big deal. I have inquired about the copyright status at Commons but I suspect it will be difficult to sort out, and unlikely to be definitive. Thus, a fair use claim has to be made. To me, the image packs considerable punch as a visual representation of the state's embrace of Andrade, not that long after it regarded him with extreme suspicion, so I'm not sure it's fair to call it "decorative." But as I say, it's not a big deal.
        • Other than the 1922 images which are clearly public domain, the only images the article truly needs are a recognizable picture of the man and an example of his work as a photographer. Chick Bowen 04:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • What is the status on this? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The status is that all complaints have been addressed, and those making them haven't commented on the changes. I have significantly revised the citations, as detailed above, and Lecen has replaced the photographs. I am willing to live with the current photographs for the time being; I am waiting for Commons to make a decision about the URAA images, but that could be quite a long time. So it's stable, and if there are no further comments, than I don't think there's anything pending. Chick Bowen 14:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) If you believe the issues to be resolved, please ping the editors who have commented, asking them to return and check to make sure their concerns have been resolved. If enough editors agree that the article has been brought back to FA status, we don't need to go to FARC. I know that User:Elcobbola is travelling at the moment, so User:Jappalang would probably be a good one to re-check images. Dana boomer (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so. Chick Bowen 00:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agreed as an nominator, the article is really good actually. No comments needed. All concerns have been addressed so far. Good improvements. It doesn't need go to FARC. JJ98 (Talk) 00:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second image review:
I note that the images mentioned by Elcobbola above are no longer in the article. However,
Please refer to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pedro II of Brazil/archive1 and read about the discussion on Brazillian photographs, the need for US and country of origin copyright status, and the terms "creation", "disclosure", "publication". {{PD-old}} are wrong for these photographs as there are no information about the lifespan of the photographer(s) (the copyright owners unless a contract was signed to transfer the rights) who might have lived into the 1970s or later. No information about first "disclosure" are given; the family photographs might have remained in their collection until 1960s, which mean Brazilian copyright is till the 2030s (the source Grandes Personagens da Nossa História might be the earliest disclosure, which means copyrighted in Brazil until 2040; and if the copyright owner of the photographs consented to their printing in the book, that means first publishing is in 1969). In any event, unless these photographs are proven to be published (several copies sold or given to the public, or printed in a newspaper or book) before 1923; published during 1923–78 and the author died earlier than 1926; or are unpublished before 1978 and the author died more than 70 years ago, they are not public domain in the US. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think this is basically correct, and I can only point out that I didn't put them there. This is why my preference would be for the photographs taken by Andrade, which were published in the 30s and are definitely PD-Brazil. But that gets into the URAA issue. For now I've simply removed them all. Chick Bowen 02:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No image issues remain with the removal of the photographs mentioned above. Jappalang (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a bit better. Thanks. JJ98 (Talk) 04:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you all. Please note also Fifelfoo's update above (and thanks too for your edits, Fifelfoo). Chick Bowen 14:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I've got no issues to report. Thanks. JJ98 (Talk) 14:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any possibility of this being resolved? It has been open for 7 weeks, and those who have expressed concerns have since stated that their concerns are satisfied. Chick Bowen 02:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I was about to close this, but then saw several things on a quick run-through. The above general reviewers (i.e., not those just looking at sourcing or images) should really have caught this...

  • The lead needs to be expanded. Per WP:LEAD, three paragraphs would be about right for an article of 35 KB. The lead should be a summary of the information found in the body, without including new information. For example, the lead says "He has had an enormous influence on Brazilian literature in the 20th and 21st centuries," but I see little to no discussion of his influence on Brazilian literature during the 21st century in the body of the article. The 20th century, yes, but not the 21st.
  • There are several areas where references are needed. For example, in the Week of Modern Art section, the end of the first paragraph, block quote and next paragraph are all unreferenced, and contain quotes, which must be referenced. Please check to make sure that everything that is required to be referenced by the featured article criteria actually is referenced.
  • In the Late life and musical research section, "The word, and Andrade's use of it, helped define Brazilian music, which was simultaneously a scholarly and nationalist category." is unreferenced. Who says it helped definte Brazilian music?

I wish that other reviewers had picked up on these issues, so that I could have closed this review. However, the article does look fairly good, and so once these things are taken care of, the review should be able to be closed fairly quickly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified the citations of the Week section (they were there, just implied), and expanded the lead. My JStor proxy is currently not working, but I'll address the "popularesque" issue as soon as it is. Chick Bowen 21:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reworked that "popularesque" sentence a bit and added a citation. If it still seems iffy just remove it; it's not essential to the overall point, I don't think. Chick Bowen 21:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better. Thank you for your quick response. Dana boomer (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2010 (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_review/Mário_de_Andrade/archive1&oldid=1086102693"