Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert Sterling Yard


 * 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 User:SandyGeorgia 08:03, 9 August 2008.

Robert Sterling Yard

 * Nominator(s): María ( habla con migo ) 

This is a small article dedicated to a largely forgotten figure in the modern wilderness movement. Yard is second in a series I hope to complete on the eight founding members of The Wilderness Society; unlike the Bob and others, however, there are no mountains or parks named after him, nor are there any biographies dedicated to his life. What you see as far as research is (sadly) what you get. :) I created the article back in March and it was promoted to GA on July 14.  It then went through a week long PR during which I received very helpful comments from Sillyfolkboy, Ealdgyth and Ruhrfisch.  I believe the article is as comprehensive as it can be and fulfills the FAC criteria.  All comments/suggestions will be addressed as quickly as possible.  Thanks for your time! María ( habla  con migo ) 13:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Images check out fine. Verified in the public domain. -- Laser brain   (talk)  18:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment (not oppose, but not a support) - The lead is a little short, but seems comprehensive. Not many pictures, but the topic is small, so it could get away with that. Perhaps make the second picture 200px, moved down a paragraph, and placed on the left. His body is facing right (at least it appears to me), which would conform to MoS. Put all of the biographical information as subheadings under "biography" so it groups these areas together for convenience. Turn references into Harvb style. Is the selected bibliography his works or works on him? If they are works on him, turn them into references and expand accordingly. If they are works by him, you will need some background on what they say. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll reply to your points as you have stated them: 1) The lead is comprehensive in regards to the article itself, which as you can see is not very long. If there's anything I've left out or not explained properly, please do give examples.  2) Images are not a requirement for FA, as you may be aware.  3) I prefer the one image I could find of Yard to be in the lead section, despite which way his body is facing. :)  He is looking straight ahead, which does not interfere with image MOS, I believe. 4) With a biographical article this short, I think that a main header called "Biography" is somewhat redundant.  It's obvious that this is a biography, is it not?  Again, I don't think this is a problem.  5) I hate, loathe and despise Harvard referencing.  It is also in no way mandatory.  6) The selected works are indeed his own, but I don't think they require explanation as they're somewhat diverse in nature.  Several of them are mentioned in the body of the article, I believe.  Perhaps I should just delete the section?  María ( habla  con migo ) 17:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a note - your points are exactly why I commented and didn't oppose. :) Also, on five, agreed. Now, on 6, this was for my benefit (I was interested). I couldn't find the first one mentioned, which is why I commented. Perhaps these books should be given their own page, or at least, a "list" page with short summaries (if you feel they aren't notable enough on their own). I would appreciate that based on my own budding interest in the topic. Now, you should keep that section, but perhaps rename it? "Major works" or some similar title would be appropriate. However, I think someone already changed this. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Awadewit saved the day. :) Unfortunately, I don't believe the books are important enough to warrant individual articles or even a summary article; The Publisher (Yard's take on the publishing world) is an interesting read, but it isn't notable.  The other works are basically descriptions of various parks, and although quoted here and there by other conservationists, I couldn't write anything about them more than is already stated in this article.  Alas, poor RSY.  María ( habla  con migo ) 18:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can find one outside source on each of them and put them in a List of Works, then that is enough to prove them notable, especially with a notable author (their combination would make them worth having a page). That is not to say that they could exist on their own, but combined, they should have enough for form a short list, which would supplement the page nicely. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is that there's nothing else of note to be said about these works. A detailed publication history/description would serve no interest for the casual reader.  Plus, I'm not terribly interested in writing a list article. :)  Any other concerns?  María ( habla  con migo ) 19:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You say that now, but once this pretty article gets posted on the main page, there will be an increase in demand. :) Perhaps someone can do this in the future. By the way, here is an online link for the current edition of Glimpses of our national parks. I think some of the others are online also. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments: Nice work as always, Maria. (As a "treader of dusty city streets" who does not enjoy camping, I particularly liked finding that quote.) Although some of the info feels thin (esp. early life), I'll assume this is because the info is simply not available. A few odds 'n' ends before I can support (I've made some copyedits on my own, but I wanted to run these by you for approval or discussion):
 * These high standards, based upon an aesthetic ideal, led him to become involved in the protection of wilderness areas in later life. Not sure I see the cause/effect elements at work. Clarify?
 * The cause and effect is difficult to explain... mainly, his ideas about conservation turned to militant preservation once he developed his high standards. Because that takes too much explaining, however, I've changed it to "He opposed commercialism and industrialization of what he called "America's masterpieces", and his high standards (based upon aesthetic ideals) for proposed national parks caused discord with his peers.  Yard later became involved in the protection of wilderness areas."
 * I'd favor de-linking Switzerland in the quote. Looks like a random blue blotch. =)
 * Heh, removed.
 * Do we need the attribution after the quote, since it's explained before the quote?
 * Also removed.
 * Yard's most successful publicity initiative during this time... This is a really long sentence. I think adding some em dashes (after "which" and before "connected") would make it easier to read.
 * I agree, added.
 * Internal conflicts within the NPS led to Yard being passed up for interim director... Two problems here: "internal conflicts" sounds a little vague, and it sounds like Yard was a shoo-in for the position (which, if true, should be made explicit).
 * He was, really, but much like John Adams in 1776, Yard was obnoxious and disliked but he got the job done. Sutter wrote that Albright's wife insisted that Mather had said the position should fall to her husband which, since Mather was less than capable at the time, couldn't be refuted.  TMI?  "Internal conflicts" has been changed to "disagreements" for now, but I'm not sure if that's an improvement.  In short, Yard was very, very opinionated and ticked everyone off.
 * Sure, makes sense – but how about a bit of reworking to make it clearer? I propose indicating earlier in the ¶ that Mather took the position at first (this isn't made clear until the sentence in question). Then proceed with: "When Mather suffered a breakdown and had to take an extended leave, Yard believed himself next in line for interim director at the NPS. Disagreements within the organization, however, kept him from the position." Fair? – Scartol  •  Tok  21:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely, and I think it works much better now. María ( habla  con migo ) 12:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As a rift between the NPS and Yard began to grow ... Consisting only of himself and a secretary... Again, this feels like a slight POV through implication – as if his appointment to this tiny office was a result of the rift. If true, let's explicitize. (I know, that's not a word.) If not, let's reword.
 * Decided to reword, how about: "A rift between the NPS and Yard began to grow, and in June 1918 he was put in charge of the National Parks Educational Committee."
 * Mmm, I still feel like there's a cause/effect thing going on here which should be either made explicit or removed. It would help if we mentioned who put him in charge of the NPEC (to get rid of the passive voice). – Scartol  •  Tok  21:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I did some more careful reading of my sources and as a result decided to do some major rewriting and rearranging of the two last paragraphs in the section. The troublesome "rift" sentence is now gone, but something more concrete has taken its place.  Better? María ( habla  con migo ) 12:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks great. All systems are go. – Scartol  •  Tok  12:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only was Robert Sterling Yard instrumental in the creation and maintenance of national parks, but he was an important figure in the modern wilderness movement. This feels unnecessary, as it is covered in more depth earlier in the article. A remnant from earlier drafts perhaps?
 * Actually, that's a newer addition! I wanted to have something about his legacy in regards to the NPS/NPCA in the last section, so as not to imply that he's only important as far as the Wilderness Society goes.  Should I lose it?
 * No, it's a worthy transition, but I'd prefer wording along the lines of: "His work to preserve wilderness in the United States has also endured." – Scartol  •  Tok  21:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed. María ( habla con migo ) 12:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I look forward to supporting this soon! – Scartol  •  Tok  19:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your help, Scartol, especially in fixing my sloppy prose. :) María ( habla con migo ) 19:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that all of my concerns have been addressed, I'm pleased to Support. – Scartol  •  Tok  12:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images
 * Image:RobertSterlingYard.jpg - The description for this image says "Portrait of American writer and wilderness conservationist Robert Sterling Yard in Yosemite National Park, 1920" but the date says "unknown" - might we resolve this contradiction?
 * Whoops, just an oversight. Added the year at Commons. María ( habla  con migo ) 13:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Bear dinner 1922.jpg .jpg - This image could be moved to the commons, as it is in the public domain. That would be a nice thing to do. :) (By the way, did you call and get the story behind the bear dinner? I'm dying to know.) Awadewit (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hee, I love this picture, but I didn't upload it. Bear dinners (dumping food on the ground and letting the bear's chow down for the public's entertainment) and other similar shows were a big concern for Yard and other similarly minded conservationists.  There's quite a good article about the early years of the NPS and its effect on bears in Yellowstone here (it uses the Albright w/ bears pic, in fact).  Oh, and I requested that the image be moved to the Commons. :) Thanks! María ( habla  con migo ) 13:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Stephen Tyng Mather.jpg - Since this is a cropped image, it would be a good idea to upload the uncropped image as well and link it to the cropped image - that way we have both and the user can see the changes made to the image. This is done when images are restored, for example, so that the differences are always visible and a history of the image is retained. It is so easy to do and so helpful to future users! Awadewit (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I had to do some searching (I didn't upload the cropped image), but the original image is now available here. María ( habla con migo ) 15:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are very cool. Awadewit (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Too bad more information is not available on this person, eh? He seems like an interesting guy. Perhaps there should be a way to flag articles for academics - OR can be done here in a major way! Please help us! :) Anyway, from the nomination statement, I take it that this article is as comprehensive as it can be, and I find it to be well-written and well-researched. It is too bad that the images aren't of a higher quality, but again, I'm guessing next to nothing is available on that front. Here are my nitpicks:


 * Their numerous articles and publications became part of a movement that resulted in legislative support for a National Park Service (NPS) in 1916. - This is a bit awkward - "articles and publications"? "became part of a movement that resulted in"?
 * Changed to: "Their numerous publications were part of a movement that resulted in legislative support for a National Park Service (NPS) in 1916."


 * Yard, who believed that the primary purposes of national parks were spiritual and cultural rather than recreational, worked to promote the national parks and educate Americans about their use. - I find this a bit vague. What is the difference between spiritual, cultural, and recreational? These words are so amorphmous that I don't think anyone knows what they mean!


 * He opposed commercialism and industrialization of what he called "America's masterpieces", and his high standards (based upon aesthetic ideals) for proposed national parks caused discord with his peers - This is not very clear - what did he want? Perhaps a longer quote?
 * I reworked the first part of the paragraph, improving the flow (I hope): "Yard worked to promote the national parks as well as educate Americans about their use. Creating high standards based on aesthetic ideals for park selection, he also opposed commercialism and industrialization of what he called "America's masterpieces". These standards caused discord with his peers.  After helping to establish a relationship between the NPA and the United States Forest Service, Yard later became involved in the protection of wilderness areas."


 * The United States had authorized three dozen parks and monuments over the past forty years, but there was no single agency to provide unified management. - Perhaps give the timespan - would this have been from 1870 to 1910ish?
 * Done.


 * The unprecedented press coverage persuaded influential Americans about the national parks - Persuaded them about what exactly? Something is missing here.
 * Added "about the importance of national parks".


 * We no longer have to link dates, so you might think about unlinking all of the dates. They are so unsightly.
 * I kind of like them... Done.
 * No need to speak softly. :) Awadewit (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to do a featured topic on The Wilderness Society? That would be awesome. :) Awadewit (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the plan! It should take, oh, about four years or so. :)  Thanks for your help! María ( habla  con migo ) 15:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment There are more sources available, including his diary: over 80 items on Worldcat. --Una Smith (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of these "sources" are works written by Yard himself. Some are also archival materials, which means they are typically not available via interlibary loan.  The diary in particular is in the archives of the New York Public Library.  I can't say I plan on visiting NY anytime soon, so there's nothing I can do, I'm afraid. :) María ( habla  con migo ) 14:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Many of those sources are not written by the subject of this article; they are about the subject. Re his diary, you might contact NYPL to request a photocopy.  In my experience, libraries often do grant such requests. --Una Smith (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is worth writing to the library. Wikipedia articles are supposed to quote sparingly from primary sources, anyway (see WP:PRIMARY). This seems like a lot of extra work for very slim rewards. Awadewit (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 39 of your 80 results are by Yard. 14 of the 80 are archival materials.  An advanced search shows that there are 46 books that contain the exact phrase "Robert Sterling Yard".  Of those, half of them were written by him and although the rest may mention him or even include a quote of his, they are not biographical in nature and therefore would be little help.  Paul Sutter's book is one that I have used extensively for this article and it's very, very good.  However, "Robert Sterling Yard: a living influence" by Benton MacKaye may be the only useful work listed, but it's available only from Harvard and no information other than the title and author are seemingly accessible from WorldCat.  So trust me, all available sources have been tapped in order to write this article.  María ( habla  con migo ) 22:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support As noted, I peer reviewed this and feel it now meets all FA criteria. Very nicely done, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:29, 9 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.