Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/José Sarria/archive1


 * 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 User:SandyGeorgia 04:05, 23 August 2008.

José Sarria

 * Nominator(s): Otto4711 (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe the significant expansion I've done has brought it up to FA standards. Otto4711 (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The lead section is a bit too long. DubZog (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Hi, Otto. First, give your potential reviewers a knockout reason that you've slaved over this article in your reason for nominating up there.
 * The lead is too long. It needs to be trimmed.
 * Done. I don't see how anything else can come out and still serve as an appropriate lead.


 * I did some copy editing of minor things. I saw a contraction and changed it. Go through and make sure there aren't any more.
 * I think you're going to run into prose problems. The writing is not compelling. It gives the reader an idea about Sarria's life, and somewhat of his importance in the gay community in Northern California, but it doesn't reach out and grab the reader to want to know more about him. Sarria was no doubt a colorful character, and that should come through in the article. I think the organization of the article can be changed around to draw the reader in more. Toward the end it's rather confusing about time, importance, and it gets quite dry.
 * Specific examples would be very helpful. Otto4711 (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a matter of overall cohesiveness. An extraordinary article is unified by a theme, something about the person is remarkable. You have good information about Sarria's career in the Black Cat, then he ran for office (only because he was gay? Did he believe in something more? What were the results?) And his partner died and he cooked... If the San Fransisco Supervisors thought this guy was extraordinary, what's the unifying theme of his life? Restructure the death of his partner and the cooking thing, because that thumps hollow. It just seems that everything about him after 1964 is anticlimactic. --Moni3 (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think with some tweaking of organization and attention to prose it will be an interesting FA. --Moni3 (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Otto. I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I read Mayor of Castro Street in the interim, as well as another book with a chapter on Sarria. I'm glad I did because I'm going to Support on the condition that the last section is restructured to include a topic sentence for the section, and the sentence about Sarria's involvement in To Wong Foo is incorporated into the paragraph below it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The sentence doesn't really fit with the paragraph below it so instead I added a sentence explaining his role in the picture. Otto4711 (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The use of the word "aristrocratic" in the lead, particularly in relation to the description of his parents in the text, needs a citation and attribution (aristocratic according to whom?). Also ... The couple "were" not married ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Both addressed. Otto4711 (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is a slight lack of references. I'm not going to point them out because I'm unable to commit such time right now, but Im sure you know where they are. Some statements do not completely have backup from sources, please ensure you have references a tiny bit more consistently. And the lead is WAY TOO LONG! Added with the prose which, as already mentioned, is not in a 'brilliant' condition which entices the reader. Domiy (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The references appear to me to be consistent; please advise as to which you believe are not. Also what do you believe is not fully backed by sourcing and enlighten me as to what sources are lacking because it looks well-sourced to me. Otto4711 (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Although the lead is acceptable per style guidelines, I believe it should trimmed a bit. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Can an WP:OTRS receipt be obtained for the image Image:JOSE1.jpg? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * General responses - I feel like reviewers are focusing somewhat mechanically on the length of the lead rather than how effectively it serves as a summary of the article. Yes, it is substantial, but it must serve as a summary of the article as a whole. If you believe it is too long, what specific material do you believe needs to be removed to shorten it while still allowing it to serve as an appropriate summary?
 * "The prose isn't brilliant enough" does not offer any guidance as to what about the prose needs to be fixed. Since I wrote it, obviously I think it's good work, so simply saying it isn't doesn't help me improve it. Otto4711 (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Otto, I think the issue with the lead is not so much it's length (although it is long) but the level of detail.  I think the structure is fine, but each paragraph could be trimmed.   For example is it essential to follow step by step that the fact he was multilingual led him to tutoring which led him to a love affair which ended in the death of the other man.  It seems like a lot of excess detail.  Is it essential to know that the family he lived with was named "Millen" or even the names of his parents?  If the lead is a kind of snapshot, couldn't these people be left out?   Is it necessary to mention Jimmy Moore, when the point of this section seems to be that the morals charge ended his teaching ambitions and led him to drag.  Perhaps, take another look at Judy Garland where the essentials of her incredibly complicated life are condensed into a solid 4 paragraph lead.  This is what's needed here also - focus on the essentials, so that the same key point is made, but omit any extra details that don't focus strictly on the key point.  Rossrs (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments: I reviewed this article for GA, but it certainly has grown since then! Although the lead's length is not an issue per WP:LEAD, I do think that it's far too detailed and tends toward the superfluous.  Some suggestions to make it more succinct: —This is part of a comment by  Yllosubmarine   which was interrupted by the following:
 * "...from San Francisco..." and "Sarria was born in San Francisco..." is repetitive.
 * Removed the second instance.
 * It's not necessary to spend so much attention on his early life, including his parents' background; I found myself thinking "skip to José, already!"
 * Is "Sarria showed an affinity for languages, becoming fluent in four" necessary to understanding the topic? I understand that it serves as a link to his first relationship, but that can be summarized greatly, as well.
 * Reduced.
 * Following his discharge, he began studying to become a teacher and frequenting the Black Cat. -> "Following his discharge, he studied to become a teacher and began frequenting the Black Cat"?
 * There he met waiter Jimmy Moore and they became lovers. He covered Moore's shifts when Moore was unable to work and was hired as a cocktail waiter. Cut to the chase: he began working as a cocktail waiter.
 * Reduced.
 * He sang while delivering drinks and was soon performing three to four shows per night and a special Sunday afternoon show. TMI.
 * Since his initial claim to fame was perfoming at the Black Cat, I would think it has to be in the lead.
 * It can be in the lead, just in a truncated form; "he performed frequently at the Black Cat". María ( habla con migo ) 16:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It was while working at the 1964 New York World's Fair that Sarria learned that Jimmy Moore had committed suicide. Minor.
 * Sarria describes Moore as the love of his life. I can't see how his death can be left out of the lead.
 * If you want to keep it in the lead, then Moore's importance needs to be made clear. Otherwise it seems, like I said, minor.

Suggestions for other areas of the article:
 * Maria sought out the protection of her mother's friend
 * It was on the ship to America that she met Julio Sarria.
 * Fixed.
 * Julio was from a large and well-to-do family in Nicaragua... "well-to-do" seems unprofessional to me; aristocratic?
 * See Sandy's comment re "aristocratic" above.
 * Sandy was referring to the word being used in the lead; any synonym will do, however. María ( habla con migo ) 16:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Julio courted her for some time, until Maria realized she was pregnant. José was born on December 12. To make this more explicit, how about: "Their son José was born..."?
 * Fixed.
 * Sarria's mother continued to work for the Jost family but it became increasingly difficult: "until it became..."?
 * No, she continued to work for the Josts for several years, until she caught Jost embezzling from her and had him deported. Otto4711 (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

...and that's as far as I got for now. I understand where the above reviewers are coming from in regards to the lack of "elegant" prose in the article, but it's difficult to explain. The article itself is good work, I agree, but sentence structure is sloppy in places and some word choices seem elementary when stronger, more professional words can be used instead. Some sentences can also be combined, condensed, reworked, etc.: "In his youth he studied ballet and tap dancing. He also studied singing", for example, can easily become "In his youth he studied ballet, tap dancing and singing". Perhaps a thorough copy-editor can help in this regard? María ( habla con migo ) 14:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Response - I have tightened the lead in response to comments here and I truly believe that it is solid. I have tweaked the prose as well and I think it's improved. I hope everyone who's looked at the article thus far will revisit it and leave further feedback. Otto4711 (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments


 * Support. An enjoyable article. It meets all the FA requirements. --maclean 06:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.