Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack Coggins/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 SandyGeorgia 02:05, 25 July 2009.

Jack Coggins

 * Nominator(s): Avi (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have reviewed the constructive criticism from its first FAC and I have implemented many of the suggested changes, re-ordered some of the sections, copyedited the text, and brought more sources. At this time, I think that it is ready for another critical review as a featured article. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. I added alt text for the first image, to help get you started. Eubulides (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * done I've added the rest; thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments - Prose-wise, word choice needs work.
 * who is best known in the United States for his oil paintings of predominantly marine subjects and for his books on space travel. - remove the second for
 * Corrected. -- Avi (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Coggins wrote and illustrated many books, covering a wide range of subjects, and provided numerous illustrations for advertisements, magazine articles, and magazine covers. - did he cover them or did the books?
 * Removed the "wide range of subjects" phrase. Reads just as well. -- Avi (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * for YANK magazine in the United Kingdom and Europe - do you know which countries, you shouldn't just say a country then continent, it's illogical
 * Good point, removed countries; "war time scenes from front lines" is sufficient. -- Avi (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Coggins produced in excess of 1000 paintings during his long career, and taught master art classes for 45 years - master or Masters?
 * I think both; but removing the master is just as good IMO, so done. -- Avi (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He retired in May 2001 at nearly 90 years of age and died at his home in Pennsylvania in January 2006. - End should probably read, at the age of 94.
 * Done. -- Avi (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Coggins was born in in his father's military barracks in London, England on July 10, 1911,  - His father owned barracks?
 * No, the barracks where his father was stationed. But it is an awkward construction so I'll rewrite it -- Avi (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Coggins enjoyed "fiddling around with drawing" and his family had not discouraged him - Why would his family discourage him? I assume this is close to the source?
 * Quote from outre source, but unnecessary, so removed for smoothness of prose. -- Avi (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Coggins's interest in military subjects was due to his father's military service and his early education in a military school. - Cite?
 * Removed. -- Avi (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because of the quality of his maritime illustrations, Coggins was invited by publisher Doubleday to provide artwork for a planned children's book about the U.S. Navy. The author was to be Fletcher Pratt, a well known military historian, and the publisher sent Coggins to meet him. Their common interest in maritime history created a lasting friendship and a fruitful association between the two men. - No citations at all
 * Based on Outre and Berks. Re-written for clarity and citations brought. Three or four sentences in a row with a citation at the end means that the entire group of sentences are based on that citation, as opposed to putting the same note after every sentence. -- Avi (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Coggins produced in excess of 1000 paintings during his career. - Almost repeated from the lead, perhaps you could rewrite it?
 * section rewritten. -- Avi (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that sums up my concerns.  ceran  thor 20:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While there is opportunity for more enhancements, I have reviewed your excellent comments and used them to further enhance the article's content and prose. Thank you, and for the record, done. -- Avi (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Excellent improvement, from reading over the last FAC.  ceran  thor 15:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments on sources: The Donald H Tuck book is isolated from the other references, for some reason. If there are no citations to it, should it be listed as "Further reading"? Otherwise the sources look sound. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, done. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments -
 * What makes http://www.askart.com/askart/lists/art_definition.aspx a reliable source?
 * See http://www.askart.com/AskART/help/AskART_about_us.aspx. What makes us think that they would not be a reliable source about the artists? -- Avi (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing borderline reliable there, honestly. I'll leave this out for others to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Military Personnel Records, National Personnel Records Center, National Archives, St. Louis, Missouri are these actual published records?
 * That was added by Dcoggins, I believe he either has copies of the original or saw them. I can ask him again. -- Avi (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dcoggins has scanned copies of the originals. However, I did find the enlistment record in the National Archives and Records Administration database, and linked to that. The overseas and discharge dates must remain sourced to the archives as checked by the paper copies that Dcoggins has. -- Avi (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Likewise Naturalization Records, Southern District Court, New York
 * That was added by Dcoggins, I believe he either has copies of the original or saw them. I can ask him again. -- Avi (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dcoggins has scanned copies of the originals, but pointed me to a link posted by the Italian Genealogical Group. I did not place that as publisher, as the citation is to the actual records as eyeballed by Dcoggins This is just a WP:Convenience link. -- Avi (talk) 05:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Question, why did you change the publisher tag to work regarding Reading Eagle? Reading Eagle is a newspaper. If you don't mind, I'm switching those back for now. I'll update this section when I get answers from Dcoggins. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because newspaper titles in references go in italics, and if you put the title in "publisher" it won't be in italics. To get the italics properly you must use the work field. I thought I'd be nice and just do it for you, but instead I can tell you that you need to turn it back if you did so. Newspaper titles go in italics, and the publisher field in cite news is for the actual company that publishes the newspaper, such as Gannet, Knight-Rider, etc. (and it's not needed either) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not know that; I'll correct it now. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I sounded cranky. Bruised my knee this morning and the ice packs and the general "keep the leg up" thing is making me crankier than usual. On the two things you're going to email on, you need to know that if the records aren't published or easily available they may not be usable. At the least, they are a concern since they'd be primary sources, so no conclusions should be drawn from them, they should only be cited for bare facts. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem; get better soon and perhaps ingest some ibuprofen :). As for those two sources, they are only being used for bare facts (enlistment date, date sent to Britain, discharge date, and citizenship date respectively) - no conclusions are being drawn from them. -- Avi (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So that takes care of one part, but the other concern isn't addressed. Can these records really be considered "published"? (And I don't see a link to the military records..) If you can access the actual military records online, then yes, they are published. But if the only way to see them is through a records request at an actual building or through the mail/email, I'd have to be on the fence if this is considered published. It's treading awfully close to original research that historians do, although it's not all the way there. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The records, according to Dcoggins, are available to anyone who requests them, not just next-of-kin, and Dcoggins actually has them. He does not want to post them online as there may be some copyright issues. The way I see it, and I'm open to being corrected, is that the records exist, are acessible, and have been eyeballed by a wikpedia editor. The US gov't is a reliable source, and we allow sources that do not have on-line links as long as someone can verify them when asked, which was done by Dcoggins. Yes, they are primary sources for the two remaining dates (shipping overseas and discharge) - see note #18 for the enlistment date, which is why that is all they are being used ofr. There is nothing originial, no criticism, no synthesis, no commentary, that is based on this note, just the bare facts that coggins went to Britain on this date, and was discharged on that date, so according to my understandning of WP:OR and WP:PSTS, that should be acceptable. Of course, I may be wrong, or outdated, which is why discussions like these are so important. -- Avi (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This one isn't one I'll be able to solve, I'm more throwing it out for other reviewers to consider for themselves. I have it pretty easy, as the articles I write about medieval bishops, most information is already published, even the "original sources" and what little isn't published, well, it's pretty clearly OR to use it (as you're reading and interpreting medieval Latin documents). On the horse articles I write, I do indeed use some online database records, but I do not use items from archives (which indeed I do have access to), if that can help with guidance. But I recognize that that's my choice, and it may not be required. If you replace the art cite with the mystic cite, I think we're done here from me, and I can leave the rest out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I believe all issues here have been addressed, pending further discussion on AskART. Thank you very much for your comments, corrections, and suggestions! -- Avi (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding AskART. Would this citation from Mystic Seaport be more acceptable http://mobius.mysticseaport.org/detail.php?t=objects&type=all&f=&s=coggins&record=4? -- Avi (talk) 07:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be a better citation. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions, and I look forward to seeing others' comments on the Military records issue. Thanks again! -- Avi (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to make things easy for Sandy/Karan, the remaining issues on sources have been left out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note Dcoggins reviewed his copies of the documents and we removed the departure date as that was not in the records. The other two exist, but the original card was damaged in the 1973 archive fire. I believe he has both the original and a copy. See Talk:Jack Coggins for details. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment it was rather obvious to someone with some knowledge of the British Armed Forces that the authors of the sources used for Coggins' father didn't really understand the organisation of the British Army. I've tried to straighten things out to remove the more obvious gaffes, and added in a few more refs from British official sources.  David Underdown (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your corrections. I admit to little-to-no knowledge of British military structure and was relying on the sources. It's good to have an expert come in and clean things up. -- Avi (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, thank you for your input. In addition to adding to the article, those links have given me some more information for my family history. Unfortunately though, the last of the three links doesn't seem to work here, but I could access the page through another route. Dave (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.