Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Robert Baker

James Robert Baker
This is a self-nomination. It currently has "Good Article" status, has been peer reviewed by the WikiBiography Project, and all suggestions have been implemented. It is thoroughly referenced, and (I believe) it complies fully with Wiki style. Thank you for your considerationJeffpw 10:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I do like it, but I'm withholding support for one quick moment because I'm not sure that the book covers are appropriate given WP's rules on fair use. A quick look hasn't uncovered anything, and I'm not sure if someone has already taken a look at them and said "Yeah, they're fine."  Once that's resolved one way or another, you'll have my support. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, BDJ. No, nobody has said anything except that I should add book covers and find a fair use rationale. I thought since there is a book cover option in Fair Use Rationale to tick, that it was automatically Fair use. If you click on the pics, it shows the licensing with Wiki's Fair Use rationale. Please let me know if you find anything that says otherwise. . While I think they add nice visuals, and the titles are discussed in the article, I am not opposed to deleting them if they do not comply with Fair Use. Jeffpw 14:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Forgot to add: Thank you for your support:)Jeffpw 14:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My understanding of Wikipedia fair use is that if the image is not being used to describe something in the article (and the article only somewhat discusses the books), it's not a good rationale. I'm confident that someone with a better knowledge will come along and correct me if I'm wrong, but I know that I had an issue with an article because of placement of FU images, and a quick shift to where they were relevant to the text fixed the issue.  With band articles, I know photos of album covers to go along with the discography is a no-no, but this is more than that, but less of a discussion.  So I'm a little confused, but you certainly have my eventual support on it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct. The use of book covers requires discussion of the book, not the mere mention. The book cover seem to violate FUC#8 in this instance by only contributing to the appearance of the page, rather than contributing to the understanding of the content. I'll see if I can get some one else to take a look though. Jay32183 21:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. With a discussion of the book, it may be appropriate to include the book cover attached to that specific paragraph.  Note that it may be difficult to find a replacement image to depict the person as, I understand, the person is dead.  This means that WP:FUC is relaxed a bit, but we still may not use a book cover except to illustrate the book.  Overall, though, this is reason to remove the image (or move it, at least), not necessarily to fail it for featured-article candidate, at least as far as I understand.  --Yamla 21:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As I see it (and please correct me if I am wrong), the only book cover image that might need deleting is the one for "Adrenaline". The image for "Tim And Pete" is in the "controversy" section, which is 4 paragraphs, all of which are about that book. So it seems logical to show an image of it. The image of "Boy Wonder" is in the legacy section, and there is a paragraph solely about that book, listing it as his most popular and his Magnum opus. That to me seems like enough of discussion to keep the image. If necessary, I can add to that paragraph, and also add analysis of the book "Adrenaline". The image of Baker himself I can actually get permission for, from his estate, if it comes to that. I should mention I only put the images in because more than one person assessing the article said it needed visual content. So as far as I'm concerned, if the consensus is to delete them all, I am OK with itJeffpw 21:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is now a long, sourced paragraph about Adrenaline and its themes, showing how Baker built on what he began with this book in all his subsequent novels. I now think that every image qualifies under Wiki Fair use, though I am the first to say I am not objective. Jeffpw 10:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

First image still does not qualify as it is part of the infobox and so is being used solely to depict the person. It may be free use if it truly is the front cover of the book and if the image is moved down to the section that talks about that book. The rest of them look good to me. --Yamla 16:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Yamla, that is the back cover of the book, not the front. It has been published in newspapers, though. Does that make it Fair Use? I honestly didn't think that photo would be a problem. FWIW, the literary executor of Baker has seen this page, and didn't have an objection to that photo being used. Can I simply ask him for permission? Really, where am I going to get a picture of a dead person, otherwise? And thanks for checking and endorsing the other book cover images Jeffpw 16:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it cannot be used under the book license. Ideally, if you could get permission under a free license, that would be perfect.  But if that does not work and given that it is not really reasonable to find a free image, I think it would be reasonable to use this under the promotional license if the literary executor has no problem.  --Yamla 16:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The back cover should be usable under, no? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I will email the literary executor. If this particular photo cannot be used (I don't know if he took the pic or not) I am almost certain he will grant permission to use a personal photo that is on his own official website. I probably should have done that in the first place, but had no idea using pics was so complicated. Sorry for the inconvenience. Jeffpw 16:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's kind of a pain in the behind. But using a freely licensed image on that page would be a very good thing.  Thanks for working so hard to understand the requirements here.  --Yamla 17:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ron Robertson has given me permission to use that image, so I am changing the licensing to add "Used with permission" and his (redacted) email. Now it seems all the image issues are sorted out. Jeffpw 08:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. The article seems comprehensive.--Yannismarou 10:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support to make things clear. The photo thing is cleared up, and the article is well-written and comprehensive, and a proper size.  Thumbs up! --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Well-written, well-sourced, and very interesting. I'm no image expert, but I think objections to the book covers are going too far. He was a novelist and these are covers of his novels, which are discussed in the article directly adjacent to where the covers are shown, and they were a major part of his life. It would be good to get a free-license image of the person, if possible, especially given the literary executor seems to like the article, which suggests he'd make one available. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. This article has improved in leaps and bounds recently. It is well-written and comprehensive, with a particularly impressive treatment of the literary criticism and legacy of Baker's works. MLilburne 11:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Good work Jeff. I have placed a fact request beside could be considered "transgressional fiction", as it is the sort of claim that requires a source. A small thing: when inserting words that you feel have been elided in quotes, do it [like this] and not (like this). Marskell 13:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The reference at the end of the paragraph covers all statements in the paragraph after reference [5]. For the sake of clarity, I added that reference after "transgressional fiction", as well. Also, thanks for the change in the brackets. Is that just Wiki style? I ask because I just cut and pasted the quotes.Jeffpw 16:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm, well it's prose style in general. If it's bracketed (like so) the words should actually have been spoken/written. Where the words were not actually spoken/written, but have been added to make the sentence grammatical, do it [like so]. Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seemed to be the latter case in the instances I changed; if the context of the sources suggest otherwise, you can change it back.
 * Anyhow, Support. An interesting read, well-paced and balanced, covers its topic. Marskell 17:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Three examples:
 * "was just a sweet old woman putting up with a lot of (stuff) that I couldn't even imagine." Why is stuff in brackets here? Did he perhaps say "a lot of shit" and the word was altered at publication? It should probably be [stuff].
 * "...is there a point at which such invective (and such suggestions) become simply counterproductive?" This is a quote from a critic and we can assume he is deliberately using a paranthesis, so (leave as is).
 * "I felt like a door-to-door salesman going to all these [story] pitch meetings." This I changed, because I can only imagine [story] was added after the fact to unpack pitch.
 * So there's some (picky) examples for you ;). Marskell 17:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * :-) Thank you for the picky [helpful] suggestions. In that first example, I thought as well that the LA Times had substituted a word. With example 3, too, I thought the writer had added "story" for clarity. As I said, the were from the Times, not me; but your suggestion was helpful, since I wasn't aware of that rule. And thanks for the support on the article. Baker is a very underappreciated writer who deserves a wider audience. Jeffpw 19:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Good work and well referenced. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)