Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/List of works by William Monahan/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 03:49, 27 December 2007.

List of works by William Monahan

 * check links

Self-nomination I passed the article on screenwriter William Monahan through FAC early this year (2007) and have since worked on producing a list of his works. The article is heavily annotated and failed recently at WP:FLC because it resembled too much an article. I didn't want to remove the chunks of prose because it really helps to explain the list so I've submitted it here (now). I really just need more opinions on what to do here (had peer review here). Thanks and I hope you enjoy the read.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Has no one heard of an annotated bibliography? That's what this is. It is most definitely a list. There is actually a genre of scholarship like this - whole books are published like this. I'm really very concerned that this was failed at FLC simply because the reviewers seem unaware that this is a legitimate way to organize and explain a bibliography. Awadewit | talk  18:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was actually told to annotate the bibliography by someone back in May at FLC which I was happy to do. The annotations are all descriptive and non-evaluative so this should be the proper form of annotated bibliography for Wikipedia. Though I don't know if I should have the reception for the journalism in 1995 at New York Press hidden behind a hide button or not.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 11:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess an annotated bibliography could be considered a hybrid of an article and a list. Until more of these show up at Wikipedia, probably here at FAC is the best place for it. Either way FLC is not having this sort of list at the moment, considering it was not promoted for the sole reason that it came off as an article to them. I'm just looking for a barnstar and the prestige that an article gains with one.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is currently a discussion on this issue at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Colin°Talk 18:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support - I can see why this would be shot-down at FLC, but the reverse of those arguments are something I can also see happening here at FAC. I'm not quite sure where this belongs, but it definitely is well-written, comprehensive, and well-cited. Accordingly, barring any comments by the FAC director or his deputy about the appropriateness of this nomination, I support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MBK004 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support This is far and away the best list of works I have seen on Wikipedia. It is carefully sourced, it is comprehensive as far as I am aware (and I know that the editor has been working diligently to compile this list), and it provides the reader with a context for the list that makes it very useful. I can see no better model for a featured list of works. Since FLC saw fit to quash it, we should definitely feature it. I have just a few minor fixes to recommend:


 * "List of works of William Monahan" needs to be in lead. Currently "William Monahan" is bolded, but of course, the article is not about him.
 * Fixed.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the "classical ink-stained wretch" quote box is ill-placed. I would just remove it - it is cluttering up the page.
 * Done. It's a great quote but I guess it doesn't really belong.


 * Are there page numbers for The New York Press? I'm assuming no.
 * There are. But I didn't think to note that at the time. Going back through photocopies it's only possible to figure out a few of the page numbers. It wouldn't be hard to find the articles within the newspaper, but it would be good information to have available in the list; it tells you whether or not the article was a cover story. I'm not going to list only some of the page numbers, so maybe I should just add a note to those articles that were cover stories (p.1) as I've done with noting certain kinds of columns?
 * It is just standard information to have in a bibliographical listing. I would include it. Awadewit | talk  11:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I will include a TODO on the LoW's talk page stating: "A second independent pass of New York Press issues from 1994 to 2001 is needed, possibly using a different collection other than the NYPL's stash of New York Press issues which are not entirely complete and improving the listings by including page numbers for all articles."-BillDeanCarter (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Monahan's first cover story of the year, titled "The Angel Factory", attacked the Catholic Church for exceeding its charter and emboldening aggressive anti-abortion activists such as John Salvi, the convicted murderer who carried out two fatal attacks on two abortion clinics in Massachusetts. - What year? Since this is a new section, best to tell the reader.
 * Done.


 * Note a - there is some sort of template that converts inches to centimeters that I think we are supposed to use in situations like this. It shows both measurements.
 * Done. I rounded 11-3/8 to 11.4 inches.


 * Notes c, e - These need a date to indicate when this information was acquired. Equivalent of "Retrieved" for a website.
 * Done.


 * Footnote 2 has the last name of the author first and other notes have the first name first (I was going to fix it, but you have used templates and I didn't want to mess things up.)
 * Fixed.


 * Not all Lexis-Nexis footnotes have "Retrieved" dates - either include such dates in all or delete from all (not strictly necessary if the original publication information is included).
 * Fixed. I just removed them.

Let me reiterate again what a stunning piece of work this is. Well done. Awadewit | talk  07:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hopefully one day someone publishes a collection of Monahan's journalism or a New Yorker-styled DVD is purchasable with all the NYPress issues available. It's too much work for someone with a passing interest in some of Monahan's articles to have to visit a city. Thanks for the copyedits and review.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The article should be retitled "Works by William Monahan" to indicate that it should not be considered a list. I base this on the difference between articles titled "List of characters in..." and "Characters of...", both of which are used in the titles of certain Featured Lists and Featured Articles. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Only at Wikipedia is this not considered a list. It's an annotated bibliography and belongs at WP:FLC although a lot of other people do believe this belongs here at FAC. Look at it this way: You can't remove the list component of this article, but you can remove the prose component. Neither of these removals should happen but that proves it's a list at its core. So I should probably go back to WP:FLC and make that process broaden its horizons to allow the list of works by William Monahan?-BillDeanCarter (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, this could be considered at either FLC or FAC. I would personally recommend taking this back to FLC; I've seen a few lists removed for having too much prose, but these situations are typically where the list is really an independent article and list on one page (e.g., if Boston Marathon and List of winners of the Boston Marathon were on the same page), whereas in this case the prose and list are inseparable. However, if it remains at FAC it should be renamed for consistency purposes. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article should be named to best reflect what is in it - a list of works. I also think this should be nominated at FLC, but they just rejected it, so it is here - we must now deal with it. It is important that good work be recognized on wikipedia - editors should not be hounded from one bureaucratic process to another, as poor BillDeanCarter has repeatedly been (and not just over this list). This must really end. This is an excellent list of works that meets the qualifications for an annotated bibliography (I explain all of this above in my vote). I see no reason why it should not be featured. Awadewit | talk  08:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: Recommended to WP:FLC per Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.