Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive: Difference between revisions

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 removed by Dana boomer 01:32, 12 July 2012 [1].

Notified: Rlevse, Ctatkinson, WikiProjects listed on talk

I am nominating this featured article for review mostly because of sourcing problems noticed while on the main page. Despite efforts to fix it, the article still contains very close paraphrasing of this source (PD, but not cited for the problematic section). An entire section on this individual's influence on the Indiana Jones franchise needed to be removed because of copyright issues; however, for comprehensiveness it is likely necessary to include a rewritten section on that topic. Many of the book sources are missing page numbers, which are required for both verifiability and paraphrasing checks. Some of the sources do not support the information they are citing (for example, few of the given details about Mlimo's assassination can be found in FN 17 - I've been unable to locate the more detailed source). There are also some MOS (repeated wikilinks, missing hyphens, etc) and tone issues (ex. "Burnham decided it was time to leave Africa and move on to other adventures"), but the sourcing issues are the most concerning. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. I re-wrote and referenced a significant paragraph that was generically removed. The "Indiana Jones franchise" (aka, Allan Quatermain series) section was not critical to the article, but it was interesting and I agree that an edited version should be re-incorporated. So that WP editors may address any other concerns, note any other sections that you still see as problematic. In the meantime, I have added the following that statement to the references that will address your major concern: This article incorporates public domain material from a biography of Major Burnham: Davis, Richard Harding (1906). Real Soldiers of Fortune . New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. ISBN 0-87364-239-2. Ctatkinson (talk)

Reliability of sources and 1c high quality sources need to be checked (samples for review and opinion):

• 38 ^ Forster, Reverend Dr. Michael. "The Origins of the Scouting Movement" (DOC). Netpages. Retrieved October 2, 2007.
• 42 ^ "Fact Sheet: The Silver Buffalo Award". Fact sheet. Boy Scouts of America Troop 14. 1936. Archived from the original on April 29, 2006. Retrieved November 28, 2006.
• 49 ^ "Frederick Russell Burnham". White Eagle District. Retrieved August 19, 2007. (Dead link, can't review for reliability)

I base my concerns on the issues I saw at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Hillcourt, which was before the change to 1c requiring higher quality sources was enacted. At that time, Rlevse was citing an individual scouting pack's website; I've seen other individual troop websites used as sources, put up by individual scoutmasters, in some of Rlevse's articles (does not the Boy Scout Association have more authoritative information?). All need to be checked for reliability. Paraphrasing should not be the only concern in reviewing Rlevse's FAs; sourcing should also be reviewed for current standards re high quality sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few books written by National Council or historians and each edition of the Boy Scout Handbook has a chapter on the history of the Scouting Movement.--Guerillero | My Talk 15:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've substituted the former 49 ^ White Eagle District dead link cite with an active link cite from the U.S. Army official homepage: Best Warrior Competitor Continues Family Tradition of Military Excellence, now 50 ^. Ctatkinson (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Ideally, File:Fred and rod burnham ca1930.jpg should have permissions logged via OTRS if the release into the public domain isn't published anywhere.
• Several of these photos come from the Burnham Family Collection, but they are missing author information, It would be preferable to find authors if possible.
• I would also note that photos have to be published before January 1, 1923, for the age of the photo to guarantee public domain status. I have uploaded a couple of photos from 1917 that weren't published until 1976 and 1978, and they're only public domain because the first books with them are were a work of the US federal government and a work of the State of Michigan without a copyright notice and no subsequent registration.
• File:Scouting on two contintents cover 1934.jpg fails the WP:NFCC. The cover of the book should still be under copyright protections, and the illustration is not necessary to the understanding of the article, nor is it a subject of critical commentary. It should be removed unless someone can prove that the copyright on it has lapsed.

In addition, the citations need to be checked for consistent formatting. I'm seeing books with and without publication locations, with and without ISBNs or OCLCs, newspapers with and without ISSNs, citations with and without page numbers or access dates as appropriate, etc. (I prefer to list a OCLC if the book is too old to have an ISBN; the citations have one, both or none of these.) I've even found a few where the authors weren't listed in "Last, First" order. Nothing insurmountable, but work is needed. Imzadi 1979 → 23:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. I need clarification on your OTRS comment. I have the only copy of the photo and my intent was to release it into the public domain. Ctatkinson (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Publication of the photos within a book, journal, or any other source may be helpful for registration and to help establish age, but it has never been a U.S. copyright requirement. The act of creating an original work is enough to establish U.S. copyright and the people captured in the photos can be used to establish the age of the photograph. Ctatkinson (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. I've substituted the Scouting on Two Continents dust cover with the 1896 sketch of Burnham done by Baden-Powell that was later published on the dust cover. Ctatkinson (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. If the photo has been published some place, and in that publication it lists that the photo is in the public domain, we can verify the copyright status. If not, the usual procedure is to use WP:OTRS to file a ticket that verifies the status of a photo. As a side note, only f you own the rights to the photo, can you release it into the public domain. Given that there's no apparent linkage between the user name "Ctatkinson" on Wikipedia/Commons and Martha Burnham Burleigh, we have to be careful.
2. Sorry, but that's not quite correct. US copyright law deals primarily with the date of publication, not creation. If a work has never been published, there's a secondary set of rules. See commons:Commons:Hirtle chart if you have questions. If the author of an unpublished work is not known, or the death date of the author of an unpublished work is not known, a work is not public domain for 120 years after creation. That's why it's actually important to know who created a work.
3. When was that sketch first published? If it wasn't published for the first time before January 1, 1923, it's not in the public domain. Publication dates trump creation dates in US copyright law. Imzadi 1979 → 09:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issues brought up in the review section focused mainly on sourcing and copyright compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments please - anyone have any thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - with a concerted effort this article's FA status might be salvageable, but at this point it just isn't there. Remaining concerns include non-neutral and unencyclopedic tone (ex. "Sensing the Old West was getting too tame"), incorrect use of PD material, and citation problems (particularly missing page numbers). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per above. Also, the bibliography has way too many books that aren't cited in the article itself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:33, 10 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.