Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mark Satin/archive3


 * 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 promoted by Ucucha 00:43, 16 February 2012.

Mark Satin

 * Nominator(s): Babel41 (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this biography (touching on Vietnam War-era draft dodging, New Age politics, and radical centrism) for featured article status because it has been carefully developed over time. This is its third FAC review. I first nominated it five months ago (August 11). In the fall I put it through productive A-class and peer reviews. In November I re-nominated it here, but withdrew it (to save Wikipedia editors time and trouble) after I realized that all the editors were saying essentially the same thing: I needed to make sure the article was written in what one called the Wikipedia "house style." I have now done that - simplified words, shortened sentences, etc.

After the two brief notes below, I reprint 31 comments (from four editors) that I received during my second FAC review. Instead of responding to them there, I wrote a brief note saying I'd review my entire article with the spirit of those comments in mind. Now that I've done that, I have inserted responses after each of the comments below, to give you a better sense of how I've changed the article. (I responded to Nikkimaria's comments during my second FAC review.)


 * Correction!: Apparently, placing my responses to the 31 comments here would violate FAC norms (see Dank's note below). So I have placed them at the beginning of my talk page, under the heading "Responses to comments on 'Mark Satin' article." - Babel41 (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Note on citation style. I have retained the style I used in a 2005 revision (my original 2004 stub contained no references). It is a composite with the following major features: (1) first name before surname, as in the Bluebook; (2) all commas until the period at the end, as in the Bluebook; (3) no parentheses around dates or publishers (except around years of journals), as in the MLA Handbook; and (4) "p." or "pp." before page numbers, as is the practice of some American publishers.

Note on links in the "References" section. I have linked authors and publishers here only if they are not linked anywhere in the text or in the "Publications" section; and I have only linked authors or publishers here on first mention.

I would appreciate your reactions to the article, and I will respond to them here. - Babel41 (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 00:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, Babel. I see you've made a lot of new responses to questions from previous FACs ... we generally like to start out with a blank page at FAC, so I've moved those to this FAC's talk page, if that's all right. - Dank (push to talk) 00:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Dank. The last thing I want to do is violate FAC norms, so whatever you say, goes.  Noleander, Brian, and Jim put a tremendous amount of thought into their questions, though; and I spent much time crafting appropriate answers (and changing my article accordingly); so I did think it would be useful for that material to be here.  When you move it, could you create a conspicuous link to it, so FAC editors can readily find it?  Thanks! - Babel41 (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've put it in bold above, I don't think they'll miss it :) - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your efforts, but I don't see it on the article's talk page. So I've entered it myself, on my own talk page, where I could post it at the very top, and eliminated your bold message above.  I hope that works for you and everyone. - Babel41 (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They're on this FAC's talk page; you'll see them if you click on the "Discussion" tab above. I left messages on the 3 users' talk pages pointing them to your comments. - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, foolish me. I'd like to keep them in both places for now, so any Web neophyte can find them.  And thanks for writing N., B., and J., that was on my agenda for tomorrow. - Babel41 (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Foolish software for naming the talk page the "discussion" page ... the community has asked for the change, we're waiting on the developers. - Dank (push to talk) 12:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments from Noleander
 * The article is looking very good.
 * Thanks ... didn't happen overnight. - Babel41 (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wording confusion: "Other observers see Satin as a wounded figure. ...  Annie Gottlieb, who attributes Satin's wounds to his struggle against the Vietnam War, .." - Not clear if these are emotional wounds, or physical.   Did he pull a hamstring?
 * Done: He should have been so lucky.  I've changed wounded to "emotionally wounded."  That's not too strong a phrase, I think, given Berton's and Gottlieb's remarks.  (And both of them like Satin's work!) - Babel41 (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * His original Ten Key Values - I would love to see his original Ten Key Values for the Green Party. I see the link in the Ext links section ("Green Party of California. Green politics with the original Spretnak-Satin "Ten Key Values" statement largely intact..") but that looks like it has been modified somewhat.  Can the original be linked to from Ext Links?
 * Done: I do reference two complete original Ten Key Values (TKV) statements, after listing the values themselves (in the sentence you describe in your last comment below).  Both are in books, though, one by Gaard, the other by Spretnak-Capra.  Unfortunately, the only 100% unadulterated original TKV statement I can find on an Internet site is the one on Satin's own site.  And I am hesitant to link to Satin's TKV page in the "External links" section because Wikipedia warns (correctly, I think) against giving even the appearance of puffing one's biographical subjects.  The TKV statement was not created by Satin alone (not that Satin states or implies that on his site - quite the contrary).  If the TKV statement is linked to in the "External links" section, though,  I think it should properly be on a Green site.
 * Given these considerations, I have done two things:
 * (1) I have retained your link to the California Greens' TKV page. You are right, their TKV statement is not greatly modified, and it retains the all-important open-ended questions.  But I extended your link to encompass the two words "largely intact."  That will clarify to viewers that the CA Greens' statement has been slightly modified.
 * (2) I had linked to Satin's online TKV page elsewhere in the article; and now I link to it a third time, alongside the Gaard and Spretnak-Capra books, following the listing of the TKVs that you discuss in your last suggestion below. (I realize that that violates Ealdgyth's advice to avoid citing three or more references in a row.  But I hope I can be excused here, since all I'm doing is offering viewers an opportunity to look up the same material in different sources.) - Babel41 (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Peculiar wording: "The radical middle idea does go back in time with him."  - I think I know what the sentence is trying to say, but it is hard to parse, so maybe you should simplify the wording so readers can grasp it more readily.
 * Done: I replaced it with a more conventional construction: "Some observers had always seen him as a radical centrist." (Then I follow with the same two examples. They still work, I think.) - Babel41 (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The following sentence has a lot of quotation marks. Although perhaps they are grammatically correct, good usage suggests that there are exceptions to every rule (the capitalization should suffice to indicate that they are verbatim section titles):  The values in the original [Ten Key Values] statement are: "Ecological Wisdom", "Grassroots Democracy", "Personal and Social Responsibility", "Nonviolence", "Decentralization", "Community-based Economics", "Postpatriarchal Values", "Respect for Diversity", "Global Responsibility", and "Future Focus".
 * Done: I can be too careful sometimes, and I definitely was here. All the quotes are gone now, and the titles do still read as if they are being directly quoted, as you anticipated. - Babel41 (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Change to Support. --Noleander (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose, provided Noleander's points are addressed, per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I've checked the changes since the last FAC, and read over the reviewer comments and answers on this FAC's talk page, and I'm satisfied with the changes. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your subtle edits from January 7; both passages read more smoothly now. - Babel41 (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Support and a couple of minor comments This is so much better, good use of notes to help your readers without losing direction in the text
 * Thank you! - Babel41 (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In "Later life", I'd be tempted to say stopped producing Radical... but no big deal.
 * Done: I like that, makes it more precise. - Babel41 (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not keen on left-aligned images immediately under a subheading, personally I'd either right align or put them lower in the section. Just my foible, doubt if it's a breach of MoS, happy to support  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:Manual of Style/Images agrees with you, Jim. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done: Have moved all my left-aligned images so each begins one paragraph under the subheads, for consistency's sake. - Babel41 (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Leaning to support : I was impressed by this article at its previous FAC, though I thought it needed more work. My comments at that process have been addressed, and the article is now a truly impressive and informative account.
 * It is now a truly collective work as well, owing much to you, Jim, Nikkimaria, Dank, Noleander, Ed, Ealdgyth, others. And thanks for your excellent stealth edit to my "Carl Rogers" caption. - Babel41 (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a few issues arising from my latest reading, mainly minor nitpicks:-
 * In the lead, you refer to "a period of political disillusion, spent mainly in law school and practicing business law". I see almost no reference to this period in the article, beyond a vague statement of disillusionment. As this period evidently lasted for seven years, a significant chunk of his life, I would have expected a little more detail in the body of the article, especially as the episode is highlighted in the lead. Like, when did he finish law school, when was he called to the bar, where did he practise, etc?
 * Done: Satin's law career always struck me as peripheral to his achievements as a political theorist and activist (i.e., the reason his biography belongs on Wikipedia), and there is little in print about it. But in response to your comment, I managed to find enough relevant material to add a brief paragraph about it; see paragraph #2 under the "Radical Middle Newsletter" sub-section. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Just before leaving for Canada, Satin's father told him he was trying to destroy himself." This wording reads as though Satin's father, rather than Satin, went to Canada. ("Just before Satin left for Canada, his father told him..." etc)
 * Done: Right you are; I simply borrowed your wording. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "When Mark Satin was hired as director of the Programme in April 1967, he attempted to change the Programme's culture". The second "Programme" should be a pronoun.
 * Done: Changed it to "its." - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Soon after the appearance of the second edition of the Manual, which had a print run of 20,000,[45] Satin was fired..." This reads as though it was a second firing. I would re organise: "Satin was fired from the Programme soon after the appearance of the second edition of the Manual, which had a print run of 20,000,[45] and..."
 * Done: Again, simply used your good wording. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You should not use "arguably" as a loose adverb. Who has suggested that the Manual stands as an icon of its era?
 * Done: Have given Joseph Jones his due. Went on to eliminate another "arguably" from the last para. of the "Radical Middle, the book" sub-section. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "[Satin's memoir encountered] a more fundamental obstacle than unenthusiastic reviews" carries the whiff of editorial opinion
 * Done: You're good! It now reads, "In addition, Satin's publisher began having reservations about him.  Many years later, ..." - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "And philosopher Douglas Groothuis says..." In a few circumstances, beginning a statement with "And..." is acceptable, but is rarely encyclopedic and in this case is, I think, unjustified. (There are other instances, too)
 * Done: This is a tic left over from my long-lost youth. Overall, I found nine sentences beginning with "And" (NAP last para. (two instances), NWA paras. #3 and 4, NOPT last para., TKV para. #3, RMN para. #4 (two instances), and RMB para. #6).  And I found one sentence beginning with - ugh - "So" (NAP para. 1).  So I changed the beginnings of each of them. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You say Satin quit the Greens in 1990, but unless I missed something, you don't say when he joined.
 * Done: I thought it would be understood from his taking on a defining assignment at the founding meeting. I have now added a clarifying phrase. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Similarly, it would be useful to have a year for the foundation of Radical Middle, rather than a vague "Seven years later".
 * Done: I have put that in as well ("Radical Middle Newsletter" sub-section, end of para. #2). - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "To some extent, these objections were inevitable". Editorial observation, I fear.
 * Done: I felt it was just this side of objective, but I appreciate your sterner standard. I simply eliminated that transitional sentence and slightly re-worded the rest of that paragraph. It still works,  I think. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Radical Middle provoked, and continues to provoke, essentially three kinds of responses". I found it hard to identify three separate responses from the following text. Could these be indicated a little for clarly?
 * Done: I gave neutral labels to each of the responses ("skeptical," "pragmatic," and "visuionary") and gave each a separate paragraph. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Legacy" is what you leave when you're dead or completely retired. Maybe "Appraisal" or "Assessment" would be a more appropriate section title?
 * Done: "Assessment" does feel sunnier, I've taken it. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to changing to full support, when these points, and sourcing and image issues, have been cleared. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All my significant points answered; images & sources seem OK so I have switched to full support, registered above. Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

[Hopefully helpful note on layout of this page: Brianboulton's Sources review (d. 10 January) and my respones (d. 12-13 January) follow this bracketed note and continue through the indented "Endnote" many paragraphs below. Brianboulton's Support (d. 17 January) is given just above this note. Nikkimaria's Spotcheck of sources, my responses, and her response (d. 10 February) all appear toward the end of this page. - Babel41 (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)]

Sources review: In general the sources look very solid. A few format isues:
 * Please allow me to explain and defend my choices here. Before turning this article into a fully-developed one, I put some time into thinking about format issues, and I think you might like what I've done when I explain it to you.  I'll be as brief as I can ... really. - Babel41 (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It is standard practice in reference listing to place authors' surnames first, i.e. "Slaton, Christa Daryl" not "Christa Daryl Slaton"
 * Addressed: When I started revising and expanding this biography one year ago, I read in Citing sources that we could devise whatever reference listings we preferred, so long as they were (a) internaly consistent and (b) contained all necessary information.  As you will see from the third paragraph in my inroduction to this FAC nomination, I chose to continue the hybrid style I devised as the first major contributor to this article in 2005.  It is partially based on the Bluebook, which does place first names first.
 * After reading your comment, I looked at the current version of "Wikipedia:Citing sources" to see if that rule has changed. So far as I can tell, it has not.  Section 7, "Variation in citation methods," states that different Wikipedia articles can and do use different citation "systems, styles and methods."  Similarly, Citing sources/Example style reports that there is "no consensus on a preferred citation style or system."  The example it uses is itself a hybrid style.  Finally, I looked at some recently chosen Featured Article bios to see if Wikipedia's policy had changed in practice.  I saw that the Brad Pitt bio, Wikipedia's FA for January 10 of this year, employs its own hybrid reference style that puts first names first.
 * I prefer putting authors' first names first. I think that makes it easier for readers to absorb the names and quickly move on.  I hope you will let me keep them that way. - Babel41 (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A number of the book/article sources have several citations to them, including Satin: Confessions, Sale: SDS, Schreiber: "Canada's Haven" and several others. These should be listed in a "Bibliography" subsection; otherwise a reader, for example, who wanted to follow up on ref 106, wouldn't know where to look to get details of this book.
 * Addressed: My understanding of Citing sources was, and is, that authors of fully developed articles are free to choose between two basic citation reference formats.  The first consists of a list of '"full citations" (often listed under the label '"References").  The second consists of a list of "short citations" (often designated as "Citations") followed by a separate list of "general references" (often designated as "Bibliography").  In the current version of the "Wikipedia:Citing sources" page, section 1, "Types of citation," appears to express no preference between these two basic types, and section 6, "Citation style,"  explicitly leaves the "ordering of the information" up to the individual author.
 * I consciously chose the first reference format (which, btw, is a lot harder to type in). The second format makes sense to me when you're dealing with many more internal citations than texts cited to - for example, the Samual Adams FA-rated bio has almost 10 times as many internal cites as it does texts in its bibliograpphy.  Even the recently FA-awarded Elvis Presley biography, with 372 internal cites to about 145 texts, works tolerably well under the second format.  But my Satin biography has 216 internal cites to 154 texts.  And 20 of those 216 cites are second and third references to Satin's own books, which are already separately listed in the "Publications" section. [These numbers are different now.  See the "Update" section three paragraphs down.]
 * It makes no sense to me to have 216 (effectively, 196) short citations in one section linking to 154 general references in a second section. Consider what that might do to a reader who wanted to read my entire text along with all the references.  Under the first forrmt (which I use), the reader is able to read 154 full references on first click, and has to scroll up the reference list to find the remaining 42 full references.  True, it is not a perfect format.  But under the second format, which you want me to use, the reader would not be able to read any references on first click.  They would have to click twice to get at each full reference.  And then, in order to get back to their place in my 7,500-word text, they would have to scroll up the screen, manually, 196 times, and try to remember where they were.  I suspect  readers would quickly forego looking at my full references.
 * That is why I prefer the first format to the second one with regard to my Satin bio (though not the Samuel Adams bio). I hope you and the other Wikipedia editors will let me retain my reference section as it stands.  Perhaps one compromise could be for me to bundle some of my second and third references to certain texts in with my first references to them.  For example, there is no altogether necessary reason for me to retain more than one reference listing for Schreiber's brief article, or to retain five (!) references listings for four pages in Churchill's article.  I suspect I can, without significantly complicating life for researchers, reduce my 42 second and third references to non-Satin texts by nearly half.  - Babel41 (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Update on merging of citations: Brianboulton gave his support to this article on 17 January, four days after I suggested the "compromise" in the paragraph above. So I assume he was leaving it up to me whether or not to carry it out.  I have now done so.  There are now 204 references in all.  160 (nearly 80%) are full-citation references.  An additional 20 (10%) are short-citation references to Satin's own books, which are already listed separately in the "Publications" section.  Only 24 are short cites whose full cites need to be found by scrolling up the References section.  And of those 24, nine are within six spots of a cite to the same source.   Thus, the References section is now even more user-friendly than before, and far more user-friendly than a dual listing of Citations and Bibliography would be.
 * (I tried to carry out the consolidation of citas in a principled way. Among the newly conolidated cites, (a) none are over six pages in length, and (b) each covers a single topic - e.g., the references to McLaughlin p. 109 and p. 111 were not consolidated because the pages discuss different topics.) - Babel41 (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Why do refs 26 and 27 [now 24 and 26] have no page numbers? (See also 65 [now 59]. I notice other cases of chapter numbers rather than page ranges)
 * Addressed: Those refs are to chapter numbers rather than page numbers.  I hate to keep throwing Citing sources back at you, but section 5 there, "What information to include," sub-section 5.1, "Books," states that Wikipedia authors can give page numbers, page ranges, or chapter numbers "if appropriate."  Whenever I cite chapter numbers it is because an entire chapter or series of chapters is relevant to the issue being discussed in my text.  Thus, for example, in ref [#26] I cite to a chapter that speaks directly and specifically to the issue being discussed (Satin's rebelliousness after leaving for university). - Babel41 (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Endnote: Please don't take my comments about format issues above as any sort of resistance to your counsel. In the end, I am willing to do whatever I am expected to do to bring my article up to FA status.  I do want you to see that I strongly believe I am abiding by the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's current format rules, including those that allow for thoughtful choice on the part of its authors. - Babel41 (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look OK. No spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Image review? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Images seem to be in order, with the caveat that I don't have OTRS access (many of the files claim OTRS permission). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Spotcheck on sources for accurate representation and close paraphrasing? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Spotchecks haven't been done in the previous two FACs or in the A-class review. - Dank (push to talk) 00:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully helpful note on images (from nominator of article): Again, sorry I'm so slow. Here's something I wrote on images earlier today that might help:

To (possibly) save Wikipedia editors time and duplication of effort, I thought it might be useful to point out that image issues for this article (a topic raised by Brianboulton, above) have been taken up by two Wikipedians over the last few months.

(1) Nikkimaria asked the following question during my first FAC review, and I provided her with this answer at her talk page on 17 November 2011:
 * Phillips contributed the photo [of the Anti-Draft Programme door] to the public domain, but who holds copyright on the image on the door? Is the artist known, is the image PD...?
 * Done: Your question eventually caused me to familiarize myself with Wikimedia and its requirements.  All five of the pictures in the article that come from Satin's collection (the first, [second, third, fourth, and sixth]) now have their yellow OTRS permission slips from Wikimedia.  In other words, I had the photographers send documents to  Wikimedia verifying that they were turning their photos over to the public domain.  In the case of the "door" photo, I also had the artist - Satin - submit a letter to Wikimedia verifying that he is the artist and that the image belongs to the PD. - Babel41 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(2) On 5 December 2011, according to the "Revision history of Mark Satin" page, a Wikipedian named Kitfoxxe apparently looked over my images and removed two that I had simply found on Wikimedia (i.e., not any of those dealt with in the prior paragraph). I have not attempted to restore either of them.

In the "Early years" section, Kitfoxxe removed an image of the SNCC pin on the grounds that it is "only related to a small time in the subject's life." That is true. In the "Assessment" section, Kitfoxxe removed the image of a pre-Reagan era Greyhound bus-and-terminal on the grounds that it has only an "indirect connection to subject." That may be a closer call. Satin does not appear in the picture. But as the "New World Alliance" sub-section (first para.) and Note #11 [now #13] make clear, Satin was a "networker" for two years in the 1970s, and the Greyhound bus system was his medium.

After writing the defense of my reference format choices above, the last thing I want or intend to do is question another Wikipedia editor's work on something he or she knows far more about than I. But if any of you would care to look at the Greyhound image (with caption) and re-assess, you can find it atop this article's FAC talk page. - Babel41 (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks of 7 sources found the following issues:
 * Thanks for your work here. - Babel41 (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * FN [15] covers pages 74–76, but the second occurrence of that footnote cites material that appears on pages 77–78
 * Done: I remembered citing those pages precisely, and when I went back to my edit page I discovered, to much dismay, that my cite to pp. 77–78 was preceded by a < ref name=Hagan tag, which may be what brought pp. 74–76 up instead – after I removed that tag, the correct page numbers reappeared. How embarrassing!  I spent part of this afternoon trying to find similar glitches among the cites on my edit page, but could not. - Babel41 (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC) [Update: I have now simply merged the cites as pp. 74-78, as part of the "compromise" referred to at the end of the second "Addressed" section in Brianboulton's Source Review comments above. - Babel41 (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)]


 * Compare "Satin says they are just updates of the values that animated the American Revolution: liberty (maximize choices), equality (a fair start), pursuit-of-happiness (human potential), and fraternity (help the developing world)." in the article to "Satin sees these key goals as updated aspects of the eighteenth-century values that animated the American Revolution: liberty (maximize choices), equality (a fair   start), happiness (human potential) and fraternity (help the developing world)." in this source. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done: This paraphrase is too close. The new values (the phrases in parentheses) had been cited in the previous sentence in my article, so I substituted for the sentence you quote from a new one, as follows: "Instead of finding those values in the writings of contemporary theorists, Satin says they are just new versions of the values that inspired 18th century American revolutionaries - liberty, equality, pursuit-of-happiness, and fraternity, respectively." - Babel41 (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Source checks by nominator of article: After responding to Nikkimaria's spotchecks above, I took responsibility for reviewing all the references where I felt I might have possibly misrepresented or inadequately paraphrased material. I developed a list of 70 references to check out. I have now checked each of them, and msde the following changes:

A. Incomplete citations

1.) "Early years" section, para. 2 -  the source describing Satin's expulsion from Midwestern State University (the Radical Middle book) refers only to "a small Texas state university."  So I did some digging and came up with a new Note, as follows (now entered as Note #2): "Satin mentions this incident in his Radical Middle book, but omits the name of the university.[FN.] An article from September 1967 also mentions the incident without naming the university, but adds that Satin's father taught there at the time.[FN.] An article from May 1967 tells where the father taught.[FN.]"

2.) "Radical Middle, the book" sub-section, last para., fn. 201 [now 190] - although pp. 80-81 is not incorrect, a better sense of the emerging "ideology about ideologies" can be gleaned from pp. 77-81, so I changed it to that B. Faux paraphrasing corrected by quoting or rewording the material

3.) "Toronto Anti-Draft Programme" sub-section, end of para. 3 - Pierre Berton's remark about Satin's stature has been reworded

4.) "Manual fo Draft-Age Immigrants to Canada" sub-section, end of para. 1 - journalist's phrase about the Manual-as-bestseller is now quoted (too precise to mess with)

C. Paraphrasing made looser by changing a key word or phrase (I was bending over backward to be correct here)

5.) "Toronto Anti-Draft Programme" sub-section, para. 3 - "cash grants" is now "cash"

6.) "Manual fo Draft-Age Immigrants to Canada" sub-section, para. 4 - "federal audit" is now "government audit"

7.) Same sub-section, last para. - "era" is now "age"

8.) "New World Alliance" sub-section, para. 2 - "held" is now "convened"

9.) "New Options Newsletter" sub-section, para. 2 - "thinking" is now "views"

10.) "Ten Key Values" sub-section, last para. - "acknowledged" is now "recognized"

11.) "Radical Middle Newsletter" sub-section, para, 2 - "specializing in" is now "focusing on"

D. Useful additions (as distinct from corrections}

- "New Options Newsletter" sub-section, para. 3 - added a world-class futurist (Robert Theobald) to the list of representative figures on Satin's New Options Newsletter advisory board

- "Radical Middle Newsletter" sub-section, para. 3 - added an important person in the socially responsible investment community (Shelley Alpern) to the list of representative figures on Satin's Radical Middle Newsletter advisory board

- Same para., fn. 176 [now 166] - I mentioned and linked to the online masthead after citing the hard-copy masthead

I think you can now be confident that the article's sources are being used accurately and without too-close paraphrasing. - Babel41 (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * [Response by Nikkimaria] Yes, definitely. I'm now satisfied with the results of spotchecks. Nice work! Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You did careful work (and effective prodding!) at all three of my FAC reviews, and your praise here means a lot to me. - Babel41 (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Great news - Wikipedia Featured Picture award: I thought everyone who's been helping me with the Mark Satin article over the last six months would like to know that one of the pictures used there - the one of Satin counseling draft dodgers in Toronto in 1967 - has just been voted a Featured Picture by the Wikipedia community! (It is now on exhibit at Featured pictures and will apparently remain permanently at Featured pictures/History/War.)  I asked the photographer - now in her 60s - to turn the photo over to the PD last year, principally so I could use it in the Satin article. Six "support" voters mentioned or referred to other voters' mention of the photo's strong EV (encyclopedic value). - Babel41 (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.