Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ota Benga/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 Karanacs 20:35, 26 May 2009.

Ota Benga

 * Nominator(s): Hofska (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it to be an example of a high quality article that, once I tweaked it a little, is clearly one of the "cream of the crop." I am confident enough in my own familiarity with the topic to address objections users may have as well. Hofska (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you consulted with the article's primary contributors? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. A baby can be born prematurely with proper care. As one of the proverbial parents, I have no objections if that's what happens here. The article is mostly finished, and I had recently copied the contents of my personal sandbox into it and left a comment to that effect on the talk page. If anything, it's flattering to have someone say they think it should go straight to FA status - just be advised that I won't have time to work on it this week, so you're on your own as far as objections go. Recognizance (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using cite news, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
 * Move the findagrave citation to the external links, findagrave isn't a reliable source.
 * http://www.fairfield.edu/pr_memdetails1.html deadlinks
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Rettetast (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Image Comments
 * File:Ota_Benga_1904.jpg - Incorrect copyright tag. I have fixed it. The author Jessie Tarbox Beals did not die over 70 years ago but the image was published pre 1923.
 * File:Louisiana Purchase pygmies.jpg - Unclear sourcing. No info on the author, but the copyright tag claims he/she died more than 70 years ago. This has to be verified. If the image was published in the US before 1923 you can use PD-US.
 * File:Ota Benga at Bronx Zoo.jpg - Same problem here
 * The same pre-1923 status applies to them in any case. But for what it's worth, both originate from The Pygmy in the Zoo. The Louisiana Purchase image has a quote from the St. Louis Dispatch and credits The South Carolina Library, University of South Carolina, Colimbia, S.C.; the other one credits The New York Zoological Society. Neither gives information about who took it originally. I had noted on the article's talk page that a better copy image for St. Louis would be preferable, in case anyone objects based on the quality. Recognizance (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose This is still a B-class article, not even recognised as a GA yet. I suggest you take it to GA first. Clearly needs a lot of work to become feature quality. "On March 20, 1916, at the age of 32, he built a ceremonial fire, chipped off the caps on his teeth and shot himself in the heart with a stolen pistol" for instance is not even cited. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 18:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with opposes since I would have been happier not having this nomination take place yet, but at least give credit where it's due. There's a citation at the end of the following sentence, i.e. the source was used for both pieces of information. Recognizance (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. In that case end the candidacy and take it through a proper peer review and GA then. Some day I hope to see it up for FA again once you've had time to work on it. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 22:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Being listed as a Good Article is not a prerequisite for Featured Articles. Hofska (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you so intent on seeing this go straight to FA? User:Dr. Blofeld supportively stated that he'd be happy to see it nominated again but feels it's not FA-quality yet. I was trying to be gracious when I said I have no objections if the community believes it's ready right now; I wasn't saying I necessarily agreed with you. Recognizance (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * His objection is based on the current article rating and the example cited is incorrect. Unless there are addressable issues that are raised, or at least an objection from someone who has read the entire article, I see no reason to count this oppose vote. --Hofska (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: It's not relevant that the article only has a B rating, nor that it hasn't been to GA. It can come here, if the nominator is satisfied that the article meets the FA crieria. It shouldn't be here on a kite-flying mission, or in the expectation of some free article-building to bring it up to standard. And at present it's a long way from FA standard. Here are six specific points from the lead and Early life sections – I've not read further:-
 * What is the source for the birth date(s) given?
 * "...maintaining an amicable if cautious relations." Not grammatical
 * "...to exploit the natives for resources." What does that mean?
 * "Benga's people were slaughtered" - by whom?
 * What was the "fledgling discipline" referred to?
 * "Red Africans" as they were called" Called by whom?

Not major points in themselves, but all require fixing. There are no doubt many more in the rest of the article. The subject is interesting and well worth some concentrated work, but that won't happen while the article stays here. I recommend you withdraw it from here, and take it to Peer Review where it will get the attention it needs. Brianboulton (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * How do I go about closing the nomination? I'm sorry to everyone, especially Recognizance, for wasting your time. --Hofska (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I have addressed all of the concerns you listed with the exception of the birth date and the part about the Red Africans. I think that part is just what they were called at the time by westerners. Would "so-called 'Red Africans'" work here? --Hofska (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.