Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Colley Cibber/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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:04, 9 March 2010 [1].

Colley Cibber[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Toolbox
Notified: Geogre, Bishonen WikiProject Biography, Wikiproject Theatre

I am nominating this featured article for review because of its lack of in-line citations: Life has only one reference (about his father), Autobiography has only one (for a quote), Cibber as actor has no references, etc. There are many more books in References than are cited in-line. Additionally, weasels are used quite prominently: "colourful", "distinctive British tradition of chatty, meandering, anecdotal memoirs". Most images need sources (I think) and ALT text. Mm40 (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - there are many citations but they do not use the "ref" system - example: (Parnell, 294). These could easily be converted over. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with nomination. I think all the adjectives should be removed, they are all sort of descriptive. Adjectives are unecessary and just make the page too long and hard to read. I would like to see more big pictures and less text, then I could just sort of look at them and guess what it's all about, like I do when I read my comics. Any facts that are worth keeping could be summarised in a neat info-box for anyone, like a teacher or somebody, interested because there won't be many people interested in a dead guy. Who was this guy anyway, he's been dead for so long, it's gruesome so there won't be references to find becuase his kids will all be dead too. - it's not like he's cool or his stuffs on TV, DVD or made into a computer game. Giano  08:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll see if I can fix the referencing at least over the next few days - I've formatted the ref lists and started converting to Harvnb, although annoyingly this is the first time I've found out that Harvnb has been deliberately broken. Oh well. - Bilby (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with maximum prejudice - no disinfobox at all, unlike many far more important articles (such as A. E. J. Collins‎). And imagine, someone refusing to force their article on to the Procrustean bed of footnotes (which remain optional), but using instead elegant Harvard citations. And using adjectives like "colourful"? O tempora o mores! More seriously, either we have Cibber's dates of birth and death wrong (11 June 1671 - 12 November 1757) or the ODNB does (6 November 1671 - 12 December 1757) or we both do (11 December, perhaps?). And is Virtue Rewarded the subtitle of his play Love's Last Shift, or is it The Fool in Fashion?[2] But anyway, per my prediction, who will be the first to launch a torpedo towards Ormulum or Jonathan Wild? Don't be shy. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You want to delete a Featured article? Cirt (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm sure there is a word for it. Delete - remove, expunge, erase, efface, cancel, wipe out, excise, eradicate, obliterate. Surely we can't keep featured articles by a notoriously "abusive sockpuppet", can we? Particularly if they don't have the requisite density of footnotes, or have too many adjectives. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem isn't so much the use of Harvard in-line cites rather than footnotes, although the footnotes tend to be preferred, but that the citations are incorrect, often with full author name, no year and no page. - Bilby (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "footnotes [are] preferred"? Who, one might ask, is passively expressing this preference? Notwithstanding, I have added some footnotes to the ODNB.
  • I would note that significant portions of this article are cited inline: there is a covering footnote ("Except where otherwise indicated, all details of Cibber's private life, as well as all role information, performance dates, and quotations from contemporary reviews come from "Cibber, Colley" in the authoritative Highfill et al., Biographical Dictionary of Actors, and have where relevant been double-checked against the calendar The London Stage.") and many quotes, etc, state the source specifically inline (e.g. in the lead, 'frequent criticism for his "miserable mutilation" (Robert Lowe) of "hapless Shakespeare, and crucify'd Molière" (Alexander Pope).'; or in the section on The Careless Husband, "As late as 1929, the well-known critic F. W. Bateson described the play's psychology as "mature", "plausible", "subtle", "natural", and "affecting".") No doubt these can be converted to footnotes, if desired, but the current formulation is more elegant.
  • Anyway, enough from this "sarcastic joke account". (Ad hominem for free these days. Better a sarcastic joke than [ ... ] ) -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just commenting on what I've seen before, and I would love to be wrong as I prefer - and originally wanted to do - inline refs in articles. But I've seen a number of editors get upset over inline refs, as they argued heatedly that they were distracting to the reader. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that (some) people like me are willing to accept footnotes, even if we don't like them as much as inline, and others hate inline, so the result has been to use footnotes. But if I'm wrong on this, or if we're simply happy to use inline anyway, then I will joyfully help use them. Other comments re citations are below. - Bilby (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interminable response. Hi, people. I'm the main author of the article. I'm sorry people are aggravated by the referencing system I used. It's not wrong, though, and does not require being "converted over" to the "ref" system or to any kind of templates.The reason I kept it simple and non-technical is that it's a lot easier for users to add stuff if they don't have to f around with citation templates (I find them pretty unmanagable myself, and they must be a lot worse for newish users). It's not the case that footnotes "tend to be preferred"; please see SandyGeorgia's recent explanation at WT:FAC of the referencing required of a Featured article:

Recently, specific citation style requests are appearing at FAC: neither WP:WIAFA nor WP:CITE require or prescribe a specific citation style, so I hope reviewers and nominators alike will understand 2(c) of WIAFA.
It's not necessary for nominators to jump through hoops to write citations in a style preferred by an individual reviewer: it is necessary for the citation style to be consistent and for all relevant information to be provided."[3]

Read the whole, if you will. I ask the editors who are undertaking, above, with sighs, to convert the referencing in various ways, to refrain. You obviously don't want to do it, but think it's needed; I don't want you to do it, either, and will argue that it's not needed.

I'll go through those claims which I take issue with from the top and work downwards. First Mm40:

  • ""Life" has only one reference (about his father), "Autobiography" has only one (for a quote), "Cibber as actor" has no references, etc." No, you misunderstand the system, and don't seem to have read the footnotes themselves. "Life" has only one footnote; that's not the same as having only one reference. The one footnote explains: "Except where otherwise indicated, all details of Cibber's private life, as well as all role information, performance dates, and quotations from contemporary reviews come from "Cibber, Colley" in the authoritative Highfill et al., Biographical Dictionary of Actors, and have where relevant been double-checked against the calendar The London Stage. In other words, the footnote isn't merely "about his father", but is many references, as Ottava Rima points out (I think; he's not necessarily referring specifically to that one), and covers all the information in "Life" (as well as lots of information in the rest of the article). Merely counting the little superscript figures in the text won't tell you what information the footnotes cover.
  • "Autobiography" has two specific references, namely (see Barker) and footnote 2 (for a quote, as you say). The rest of the information in "Autobiography" is covered by footnote 1, the one you say is about his father.
  • "Cibber as Actor" is again mostly covered by footnote 1, but there are also quotations in it: from Cibber's Autobiography and from the Biographical Dictionary of actors. Shouldn't they have footnotes of their own, then? That's a matter of taste; I preferred to do without, since the text combined with the list of references at the bottom of the page, contains all information that a footnote would.

Etc.

  • There are many more books in References than are cited in-line.*

Do you mean that there are many more books in References than have footnotes (superscript numbers) inline? There's nothing wrong with that, you know. All the books in References are cited—as in used, mentioned, supplying information to the text—inline.

Bilby, I'm sorry my references annoyed you. I don't understand your objection that "the citations are incorrect, often with full author name, no year and no page." (Do you mean without full author name..?) I merely identify the work in the text, in parenthesis, like, say "(Barker)", and give full bibliographical information in an alphabetical list at the end, as I expect you've noticed. This is one of the standard systems in my research field; if the "Harvard system" requires years given in the "short notes" at all times, then this is not precisely the Harvard system, though very close. Anyway, it's academic and consistent. Are you discussing supposed shortcomings of the "short notes" in the text (which indeed don't have any full names or years, and aren't supposed to), or in the list of references which supplement them, which I believe have full names, years, and pages (except that web versions don't always have any pagination)? The entire list may not be perfect—I'll check later—since some books have been added later by other people—for instance, one unpublished one, which is always a bit of a nightmare to refer to. But I certainly disagree that "the citations are incorrect".

One more point before I'm out of time: alt text. Are we insisting on going through all old FACs, such as this one, and adding alt text? In that case, perhaps somebody would do it? I just don't have the time, and it would be a lot more useful, frankly, than messing with my purportedly annoying and incorrect references (which I have tried to show are all right as they are).

OMG, I hope that wasn't as boring to read as it's been to write. I'll have to come back another time and reply to some other points.

I remind everybody that, as Sandy also points out, CITE is a guideline that states that established citation style should not be changed without consensus. If somebody nevertheless insists on changing my references to, for example, footnote templates, go ahead, but I hope you'll be watching the article and fixing any mistakes which arise when new users try to adapt to that rebarbative system. Bishonen | talk 19:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Personally, I prefer traditional Harvard inline to footnotes, if only on the grounds that I could never publish with citations in footnotes in my field and inline cites work well in print, so I have a lot of experience using the style. Thus generally I like the (Smith 2009, p12) approach. (I also don't mind MLA, but I have less experience with it). If it is ok for Harvard or MLA to be used on a FAC then I'm happy. The main limitations with Harvard inline (only useful for an educated audience, gets long with multiple cites, and doesn't work well where the author is unknown) are not really applicable for academic audiences, but may come into play with Wikipedia generally.
At the moment, though, the article uses a mixture - footnotes with Harvard inline, footnotes with full citations (only one left, though), inline in Harvard (occasionally), and inline that isn't Harvard or MLA in two styles (full author name or author's family name). I presume this is the effect of multiple authors. The last - inline that isn't Harvard or MLA - is what you refer to with (Alexander Pope) and (Barker). While I can understand a desire to leave out the year, (which happens using the MLA author-title-page format, or the occasional MLA author-page) we end up without page numbers, and generally this isn't a typical academic style. (As an aside, the year becomes valuable if the one author is cited for multiple works, but that hasn't happened here yet). At this stage my focus is to see it get a consistent referencing system, but I'm happy with anything that's acceptable here.
On an unrelated note, this is one of the few featured articles on Wikipedia that I genuinely enjoyed reading because of the writing style. I generally enjoy the content of featured articles, but this time I liked both. :) - Bilby (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot to mention: my concern about incorrect citations was the lack of page numbers. I'm not aware of an academic format that leaves them out, although I guess technically they're just present to make verification easier - having the author is sufficient to avoid other problems. I prefer years to be included, simply because I prefer Harvard, but year isn't essential. Normally as part of making the citations consistent (to whatever format we want) I'd dig up the sources and add the page numbers where required. - Bilby (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image check OK. Perhaps they could be arranged prettier so that text isn't sandwiched between Foppington and Garrick? DrKiernan (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of ALT text too. Perhaps someone can review it before I do some more. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found it both amusing and accurate, which is an ideal combination. DrKiernan (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. I have done the other ones, but was lacking inspiration. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the account Disinfoboxman (talk · contribs) still on this page, when it said above its intention is that it wants to delete this article? Cirt (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know Cirt, you are the one who has just had it checkusered, why don't you tell us  Giano  10:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were typos in the formatting. Corrected now. DrKiernan (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the alt text looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, NPOV (weasel words). Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 00:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So... has this article been moved to the FARC section, and is about to be defeatured, because of Disinfoboxman's and Giano's joke votes...? It looked to me like people were fixing the citations (insofar as there was ever anything wrong with them). Oh well. Bishonen | talk 00:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • WP:WIAFA: Criterion 1c requires "high-quality reliable sources in a references section": Yes? What? Those are high-quality reliable sources in a references section. What's supposed to be wrong with them? Bishonen | talk 11:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
This is an excellent article, and it would be a great pity to see it defeatured. Can we have a clear list, from the nominator of this FAR, of the things that need to be done? I glazed over when I read the technical stuff above about the citations, but I'm sure they can be fixed. Tony (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, the article is better now. My biggest issue at this point is possible original research. Reference two says "all details of Cibber's private life, as well as all role information, performance dates, and quotations from contemporary reviews", but there is information with no inline cite that isn't his private life, role info, etc. The second sentence of Autobiography is an example. The rest, I believe, is fine-tuning. For example, here's some issues in As an actor:
  • Which two theatre companies merged into a monopoly? They're not named
  • "He had still after five years" sounds a bit awkward; I suggest "After five years he had still"
  • "The Relapse" should be italicized at the end of the fourth paragraph.
  • "Papal Tyranny in the Reign of King John" has a stray apostrophe, I believe.
  • The three right-aligned images cause a large whitespace at the end of the section.
  • I must admit, I did enjoy reading this, and some is quite humorous. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not sacred or untouchable. If you see something like a title that needs italicising, or an apostrophe on the loose, might it perhaps be simpler to fix it than to list it? Things like whitespace are a problem, though; I think it varies according to which browser you view the page in. I can't fix the one you mention, because it looks good in my browser (SeaMonkey). Or is the {{clear}} template perhaps newly introduced, so that it now looks good for everybody? Bishonen | talk 19:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Mix of citation styles between inline Harvard and cite-ref. Choose one and make article consistent. Looks like there are still a few too many weasel words (great, best, etc) but I think this is not such a huge issue since we are sourcing from critics. Other than that, I think this article is close to being kept. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DelistHold Given the graciousness of Bish's response below I will try to find time to rethink this. DrKiernan (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC) The switch between citation styles is certainly distracting and weakens the article, but I'm afraid I just don't like the prose. The lead should state the years he was Poet Laureate. The third sentence says "plays for performance by his own company"; why not the less cumbersome "plays for his own company"? The lead is for the most important points; there shouldn't be a need for parenthetical statements. It's bad practice to use phrases in the lead which require clicking on a blue link to understand what they mean. The word "ridiculed" is repeated twice. Words like "mutating" are charged with deeper meaning, usually negative, while the alternative "changing" is not. In the first paragraph of the first section, we have "more insecure"; surely "less secure" is easier? "death in 1734, the, and..." should read "death in 1734, she...", but no-one's noticed because the sentence construction is awkward. These are just some examples from the start of the article, but the rest of it has similar problems of redundancy and awkward phrasing. The text is peppered with weasel words, which wouldn't be a problem if they were attributed, but it is a problem when their provenance is unclear. Of course, yes, I could have worked on the article, but as this is an unfamiliar subject matter for me, I'm not keen on making prose changes without first reading up on the topic, and I'm not interested in trying to work on an article when faced with obvious hostility. I also appreciate that there is plenty of material in my comments for the jokers to work with (Oooh, look, I've repeated the word "awkward", and there must be mileage in "ridiculed" and "unfamiliar subject matter for me"), but I'm just the messenger. The article doesn't meet the current FA standard. Of course, you can argue that the standard is intellectually bankrupt and treats the contributions of experts on the same level as popular culture dross, but it is the currently applied standard and, in my opinion, this article doesn't meet it. DrKiernan (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the prose is that bad, I don't think the article should be kept, so that's fine. I don't have any WP:OWN issues with this old piece, or any of my old work. However, about the two different kinds of citations, which are mentioned by several people: that's not a problem in my academic field, but since it appears to be one on Wikipedia, I've been meaning to change them. RL gets in the way, though. Confession: I always have a lot of trouble getting up any enthusiasm for working on articles I wrote long ago. I was hoping somebody would be interested enough to fix the citations the way they want them, but I certainly can't blame people for not wanting to do a job I don't much feel like doing myself.
    • If the "obvious hostility" refers to me, I'm sorry you think so, and I don't understand it. I've tried to respond to comments in a complaisant way. Bishonen | talk 09:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
      • I think I've fixed most of Dr Kiernan's issues in the lead, and have copy-edited further. I will return to the job. There are a few glitches, but only such that might be expected to accrue in a wiki over time. I find it a good read, and slightly humorous in a few places. Tony (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone through the rest. What a nasty, gossipy, two-faced, double-dealing ... The article is a really good read, and is nicely humorous in a few places. Well done. (One edit-summary query to check, please.) Tony (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hehe, you're as indignant as the Lord Chamberlain. Cibber really didn't have much in the way of redeeming qualities, did he? You mean the placement of the Lord Foppington image? Yes, perfect. Great improvement. Bishonen | talk 18:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • In the section "Other plays", there's a reference "Abel, p. 242". Do we know who Abel is? DrKiernan (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abel..? So there is. No idea. None of the American stuff was added by me. I thought I'd mostly checked it out, but this is obviously something I missed. It looks like the editor didn't altogether grasp the "short notes, full references" system. Bishonen | talk 15:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment, leaning toward keep Keep - Image copyright looks good, all images have alt text, although I'm not sure how useful it is to blind readers to name colors. Inline referencing is much improved, but some of those have jump links to the ==References== sections while most do not. Please pick a style and make it consistent. The original issue of listing many more references than are cited in-line is still a problem. I suggest creating a ==Further reading== section and move things as needed. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 14:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment has been addressed. Let's close this sucker as a save! --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with Mav (talk · contribs). Indeed, I see much improvement with the in-line referencing - editors are to be commended for that. However, Mav is right that it would be a good idea and a further improvement to have consistency in the in-line referencing. Cirt (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the Harvard templates, and removed some of the sources from the references section. DrKiernan (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it might be useful to have a few more cites in the "King of Dunces" section and to name examples of contemporaries for the sentence "Some contemporaries regarded it as moving and amusing, others as a sentimental tear-jerker..." However, at this stage, I'd be inclined to keep it as it meets all the other criteria and these sections/sentences reflect the sources I have read. I also note that the FARC has been open for three months with no delists (apart from my own, which is struck). DrKiernan (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We're all done here, no? Reads fine. Personally I'd like a little more Popeian abuse quoted. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 9 March 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/Colley_Cibber/archive1&oldid=1089082708"