Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adolfo Farsari/archive 1

Adolfo Farsari
Self-nom. This article brings together almost everything that is known about this photographer - one of the three most important foreign photographers in 19th century Japan. Further illuminates a lesser-known aspect of the history of photography: early photography in Asia. Pinkville 18:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral  Strong Object  - no lead, no sections, missing many commas, might I suggest Peer Review first? AndyZ 21:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your objections. The first paragraph is, indeed, a lead. I don't recall sections being obligatory, but they can easily be added if so. And "missing many commas"? The use of commas is to a large extent a question of taste and style, but I honestly can't see a need for more commas. Can you give one or two examples? Maybe you don't like the writing style? Pinkville 22:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Examples for commas: 11 February 1841 should be February 11, 1841. to the United States in 1863 and should be to the United States in 1863,. Also I'm not to sure if this article is really thorough and comprehensive by its appearance- but then again appearances can be deceiving. Also, why is the comment about Dobson in the notes behind the several other apperances of Dabson previously in the notes? AndyZ 23:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If you check out the Manual of Style you'll see that the date format that I use is accepted by Wikipedia - it is also the normal method of dating in much of the English-speaking world outside the US (in Canada, where I live, either format is accepted). This is a case of you say "tomāto", I say "tomăto". As for the second example, placing a comma after "1863" interrupts both the flow and the meaning of the sentence: he immigrated to the US and served; not: he immigrated to the US, and served. Though I disagree, I don't think it's a very big point. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I can't see how minor stylistic differences in formatting and punctuation are grounds for objection. As for your point about thoroughness and comprehensiveness, I'm not sure I know what you mean, but having read most of the key literature regarding 19th century photography in Japan I can set your mind at ease that this article represents nearly everything that is known (for certain) about Adolfo Farsari. He's an important figure in the history of photography in Japan (and Asia, generally) and ought to be better known - I'm hoping that a featured article on him might spur more research into the subject. Finally, the Dobson note (you're referring to the "quoted in Dobson" note?) is the only case where I was quoting a passage that Dobson himself quoted from another source (Farsari's letter to his sister), my other Dobson notes relate to Dobson's own writing. This is the normal method of making that distinction. Pinkville 15:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the Dobson thing- I though you were referring to Dobson as the King, since it ways "Dobson refers to King...". As for the commas, I'm used to going by what is in Comma (punctuation), but according to WP:MoS there can be either 2 or 0 commas, so it is okay. For thoroughness, if that is all that can be found by sources, then it should be good- perhaps more can be added about his early life and his death? AndyZ 23:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Object - No sections. It goes in with "Well written", in that sections make it easier to read.  The "lead" he's talking about should go above the first section, and no matter how many sections there are, there should be at least one.  The lead needs to be isolated, esspecially because in the proposed print version of wikipedia, it will consist of more or less nothing BUT leads.  Fieari 00:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the lead, added sections and made some minor corrections. I hope the changes are to your liking. Ciao. Pinkville 14:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hrm. Reading the article over, I'm not quite certain what really makes this man notable.  Could you assert his importance a little more clearly?  A discussion of his work itself could also be useful, as would a list of his notable works, just so long as the list doesn't dominate the article.  Fieari 00:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can do to make Farsari's importance more evident. And I'll try to make a list of notable works. Pinkville 15:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Object - needs to be expanded. The sections are "Early life", "Career", and "later years"; perhaps these could be broken up? Also, a section on the importance of his work would be nice. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 21:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain It looks good to me, but I know nothing about the subject. Suggest you find the ISBNs for the refernces if appropriate. Also list his books if he has wirten more than one, with ISBN. If ou cna get a PD photo of him so much the better. Rich  Farmbrough. 00:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No known photos of Farsari, unfortunately. His publications predate ISBNs... Publications about him, of course, have ISBNs. I'll see what I can do. Pinkville 00:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain The article reads well (though not as well as I'd like -- sorry, that's the English teacher in me!), but I would like to see fewer redlinks before we consider it as a feature article. Thank you for asking.  DavidA (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2006


 * Thanks for checking! Pinkville 01:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak object, again due to the number of red links; any inexperienced/occasional users reading this as a featured article would possibly be deterred from using Wikipedia regularly due to the number of red links - they might imagine that this many missing articles in links from a featured article would suggest that current coverage is less extensive than it actually is. Having said that, I previously knew nothing about the subject, and did find the article of interest. CLW 16:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain Sorry for another neutral vote on such an interesting little article, one which I'm surprised did not make it to Wiki prior to your recent addition, but I don't feel it's ready yet.  I agree with Flcelloguy that a review of some of his known works and why they're important should be included.  I noted when I did a quick Yahoo search several references to him at museums, so you're right that he has some recognition.  I'd be curious to know what art historians (perhaps?) feel of his work.  I am also concerned about the majority of the notes come from a handful of pages in Dubson's book.  I don't think there's a Wiki rule against using one or two sources, but considering some museums have information about him, there must be other works available. -- That having been said, I found the article very interesting.  I don't think it's ready for FA, but it really should eventually become one. --Ataricodfish 06:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Reluctant abstain. This is a fine and enlightening article on a little-known aspect of the history of photography, but I can't help but think that it doesn't quite reach the high standard set by Felice Beato.  Though Farsari said, "taking pictures is just a mechanical thing", surely he did have some artistic approach, which needs expanded coverage I think on a par with the comprehensive handling here of the business side of his studio.  I understand there is limited coverage of his life in the literature, but we should at least be able to say more about his art and how it has been appreciated.  Also, it should be relatively easy to fix some of those pesky red links with little stubs; I'll see if I can blue-sky a couple myself.  And I do think a couple of more sources would help.--Pharos 03:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks all, for your comments, etc. regarding this article. I'm working on fleshing it out, with a couple of notes dealing with Farsari's artistic worth, adding a few different sources (if possible, he is even more critically neglected than I knew - easy to find images, but not text), providing a list of "selected works", and "bluing" red links. Should just be a day or two. Pinkville 03:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)