Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Master Juba


 * 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 00:07, 17 May 2008.

Master Juba
I've been working on this article for some time now, and I think it's finally had enough spit and polish to qualify for our featured articles. The subject is a 19th-century African American dancer who made quite a stir in both the States and Britain. There was a peer review, and all comments there have been addressed. Thanks for any and all comments and criticisms. — Dulcem (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this is not ready for FA yet. Prose issues are easily spotted, as Wackymacs points out.  The narrative is confusing; I was lost from the first sentence where you write dancer (or dancers) and had to read a considerable way before I realized that you are tentatively tying several personae together.  Far too many "likely" statements cause verifiability concerns.  At the minimum, this needs thorough treatment by an experience copyeditor before closer examination is possible. -- Laser brain   (talk)  16:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: We should see what we can do about narrating in a less confusing way, but the simple fact is that the historical record is confusing. We don't know if "Master Juba" was one person or a conflation of several. William Henry Lane is certainly the most likely candidate, but it would be the dreaded original research to assert that "Master Juba" and "William Henry Lane" are simply one and the same. - Jmabel | Talk 23:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've tried to address many of Wackymacs's and Lazer brain's concerns. The ones that remain, I'll explain here:
 * Dancer or dancers: This seems to be the main issue with the article. The truth of the matter is that there is a lot of ambiguity and uncertainly in the historical record. Dancers who were called Juba or some variant are found in press releases, critical reviews, and playbills. They might have all been the same person, but then again, they might not have. There's no way to know (and I don't think that WP:V requires that we find out the unknowable, only that what is in the article be backed up by reliable sources). Since a dancer called "Boz's Juba" toured Britain with Pell's Serenaders, (biased) period sources have treated at least three of these dancers as the same person. Historians in the 20th and 21st centuries have often followed suit, but a few (including Stephen Johnson, the most recent) have cautioned about the possible conflagration of several figures into one. That means that there are two ways to approach the topic: 1) Treat all the Jubas as the same person and write the article as a standard biography article (with birth and death dates, real name, etc.) with a few caveats here and there that these facts may not all pertain to the same person, or 2) Make it clear that these are possibly several different people we're talking about. I've tried for Course 2, as I find it more honest, but many of the older sources (from the 1940s to the early 2000s) take Course 1, so it's possible that their approach has colored the current article. I'll sweep again and try to make the ambiguity more clear (there's an oxymoron!). However, this means that words like likely and possibly become inevitable and unavoidable. To not use them is dishonest. And as for Wackymacs's advice that "If you are uncertain about something, I think you should not include it", well, if we follow this, there will be no article.
 * "Juba soon went beyond the routines of the day": The point isn't that he broke the status quo, it's that he surpassed it and ran circles around it. All modern sources and the majority of period sources support the assertion that Juba was the best minstrel dancer of his day.
 * beat the best white dancers: What's wrong with beat? I checked two dictionaries, and neither calls it informal or slang. As standard English, I don't see why we should avoid the word.
 * I find it a bit too informal, too, in this context. I've changed it to "defeated" unless you have a problem with that. - Jmabel | Talk 20:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem; if two people have an issue, it's no biggie to change it. I thought "bested" would have been good until I realized it would have read "bested the best". Dang language. — Dulcem (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "including the period favorite": I'm not sure why this is POV. Until Juba, Diamond was undefeated in dance competitions. He was the most famous dancer of his day until Juba came along. Would "period champion" be better, maybe?
 * Red links: I am unaware of any FAC criterion that forbids red links in articles, whether they be in the main body or in the references. Red links are inevitable in a poorly covered subject area like 19th century American minstrelsy. I'd even argue that they are a good thing to have, as they show us where our encyclopedia needs to be expanded. That said, I do intend to try to turn them blue as the FAC progresses.
 * Citations: I can find nothing in WP:CITE that forbids footnotes after words or commas. In fact, it includes this note:"Material may be referenced mid-sentence, but footnotes are often placed at the end of a sentence or paragraph. Frequently, a reference tag will coincide with punctuation and some editors put the reference tags after punctuation (except for dashes), as is recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style and others. Some editors prefer the style of journals such as Nature, which place references before punctuation. If an article has evolved using predominantly one style of ref tag placement, the whole article should conform to that style unless there is a consensus to change it."
 * So, I guess I'm not trying to be obstinate or obtuse. I just wanted to explain why some of the concerns above aren't really problems in my opinion. Thanks to both of you for your critiques so far. — Dulcem (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The statement about citations was incorrect. WP:CITE says: "Material may be referenced mid-sentence, but footnotes are often placed at the end of a sentence or paragraph. Frequently, a reference tag will coincide with punctuation and some editors put the reference tags after punctuation (except for dashes), as is recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style and others."  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Still needs a complete copy-edit from someone not already involved in the article. Some issues still remain. — Wackymacs (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Jmabel is taking a crack at it. Let's see what he is able to achieve regarding the copy-editing concerns. Regarding the redlinks, I have to side with Sandy here. A "perfect" Wikipedia article should link to those things that are notable and relevant to the subject at hand regardless of whether they exist yet on Wikipedia or not. You specifically questioned linking to Pete Williams dance house for example, but a Google Books search here shows 70 sources that could be mined to write such an article. Believe me that I will continue to bluelink these as time goes on. — Dulcem (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Sources look good. As I'm still on the road, I didn't check external links. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Supprt: I've made various tweaks and changes, and rewritten the first paragraph substantially. I think it's an excellent article, well-sourced, and that it meets all the criteria. Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, I appear to have broken one of the citations in merging our edit conflicts, but I can't figure out where the problem is. Sorry... Tuf-Kat (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think I was the one who broke the citation; it's fixed now. Thanks for your copy edit and support! — Dulcem (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Comments, leaning toward support. Much improved.  Some misc fixes needed:


 * Support - Much improved. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 07:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, most of your concerns have been tended to, and I'll take a closer look at the rest soon. For the record, this is what I have not yet addressed. Some of it I disagree with, while the rest I intend to look at more closely.
 * Allegations of POV in "period favorite" and "remarkable". At the moment, I think these terms are perfectly supportable, but I will think about this.
 * The bit about irony and Lott is not a quote, so I've clarified to make this more evident.
 * There was also a Frank Diamond at the time, so I was being cautious. Nevertheless, I think the John Diamond/Diamond balance is now fine.
 * The advertisement from the New York Herald is still in existence, so we use is here.
 * Some short paragraphs: I'll look at this.
 * "The identity of Boz's Juba is open to doubt." I don't see a problem with this sentence. Can you elaborate on why you think it should be changed? Your proposed alternative is more ambiguous and wordier.
 * "Playbills tell us . . . " The magazine Playbill is not intended here; rather, playbill is used in the sense of "a poster announcing a theatrical performance" or "a theatrical program". I think Wikipedia is currently in error by making the wikilinked term playbill go to the magazine; there should at the very least be a disambiguating hatnote to event programme. At any rate, the sources I used unanimously call these publications playbills, so we should probably follow suit.
 * I simply assumed it meant the magazine, after looking it up on Wikipedia. I think the usage of theatrical jargon in this article could be cut down. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 08:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a theatrical article, so theatrical terms will have to be used, plain and simple. I've added disambiguating language to both playbill and event programme to clarify this. But the term is not marked as "jargon" in any dictionary I've consulted, so the word is fine. — Dulcem (talk) 00:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've clarified that Manchester is Manchester, England, but I disagree about linking it, per WP:CONTEXT.
 * I'll take a look at the "wrote:" vs. "wrote," thing.
 * The citations to Winter and Knowles apply to all of the preceding material in that paragraph, so the stuff about juba dancing and juba dancer entering dancer jargon are sourced already.
 * No worries about harshness; this is FAC after all. :) I'll see about your remaining concerns soon. Thanks, — Dulcem (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Bit more:
 * The "short paragraphs" are not actually paragraphs at all. Notice that these bits always proceed or follow a block quote. If the quoted text were shorter, it would be included in "quotes like this", but because it is several lines long, block quotes are needed. Nevertheless, the block quotes are part of the same paragraph as the material that proceeds them and often that follows them.
 * Quotes should be cleaned up now ("wrote:" vs. "wrote,"). Quotes that are introduced by colons are those that have no tag such as "said" or "wrote" before them; others are introduced by a tag word and a comma.
 * "period favorite": Favorite means "A contestant or competitor regarded as most likely to win" according to this dictionary. How is it POV to say that Diamond was the reigning champion and was thought to be the most likely to win in his matchups with Juba?
 * "While he clearly was a remarkable dancer": How is this POV? Remarkable means "Attracting notice as being unusual or extraordinary" in the same dictionary. He was the most written about performer in 1848 London, which was crowded with entertainers at the time. Certainly this qualifies as "attracting notice" and "unusual".
 * Your remaining concerns are listed above. — Dulcem (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me make myself clearer. Remarkable: "worthy of attention, striking". Who says he was either of those? Who says it is so "clear" that he was a remarkable dancer? You are assuming the reader will agree. Not 100% of the existing world agreed with this statement, surely? Same goes with the period favorite comment about John Diamond. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 08:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is an unfair complaint. Adding a specific citation for those two claims seems overkill to me. He is clearly remarkable -- that's primarily what he's famous for: being remarked upon for his dancing by various observers. The statement doesn't say that everybody in the world saw his act and thought it was remarkable, it says that it "clearly was remarkable", and it clearly was -- no other performer from that period is remarked upon like Master Juba, and that's well-supported by the references that already exist. We know that he is "worthy of attention" because people paid attention to him like they didn't to the numerous other dancers of the era, and we know that he is "striking" because people wrote down how they were struck by his act, both points are well-illustrated by the quotes used throughout the article. Adding a citation seems silly - but per WP:CITE, you're allowed to demand one - probably just about every source in the article says something roughly equivalent to "clearly remarkable". The "period favorite" claim is in the lead, and  statements in the lead are not generally required to be cited, unless they're particularly controversial, so long as they're supported elsewhere in the article (which this particular claim appears to be, in the "Early life and career" section, and it is elaborated upon in the well-sourced John Diamond (dancer) to boot). Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tuf-kat here. The language is not POV, it is a summary of what sources say. -- Laser brain   (talk)  22:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support given edits in the last week or so (many of them mine). - Jmabel | Talk 06:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As for Wackymacs' current objections:
 * (I don't care between the two quotation styles, if MoS is clear then follow it.)
 * The statement about John Diamond is an appropriate summary of something that should not be controversial.
 * "challenge dance" is reasonably well explained in the article, including how one was judged in that time and place. If anything, there is too much there, but it's not quite enough to make a good article on "challenge dance" (an article we should certainly have at some time).
 * "The identity of Boz's Juba is open to doubt." I prefer the current wording to Wackymacs' choice, but wouldn't fight over his one.
 * "Documents next show Juba back in the United States" Seems fine to me, but I wouldn't argue over a reword. In any case, this seems extremely petty: are we really going to prevent something from becoming a featured article because one or two wordings are not entirely to one particular Wikipedian's taste? I would never oppose an FA over believing that a wording or two was not completely to my taste. This is a collaborative work. Not everything is going to be worded exactly the way I would word it.
 * "Playbills...": clearly here as a common noun, not a proper noun.
 * "While he was clearly a remarkable dancer..." - Above and beyond Tuf-kat's and Laser_brain's remarks: as with Diamond being the "favorite", this is an absolutely uncontroversial statement. Could anyone read the many cited statement in this article, and the many comments of different authors about Juba, and doubt that he is remarkable? It is simply a matter of stating the obvious as the setup for the following clause. To do so is simply good prose. - Jmabel | Talk 06:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.