Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Matthew Brettingham

Matthew Brettingham

 * Article is still a featured article.

Previous FARC Nominate for removal for all of these reasons. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The article could use more inline cites as several statements need them. For example, "is referred to as a surveyor" and "was paid £112", as well as other statements, need inline cites.
 * The article leaves some questions about this person unanswered: Date of birth, date of death, how many children (one child seems low for that time), was he an architect for life or did he "retire"? and so on.
 * Also, the writing style does not conform to the manual of style: why is there a conclusion" section and a self-reference to the talk page? If there is enough disinformation about this guy bumping its way around to require a reference to the talk page, surely this would deserve a section in the article?


 * Keep. Again.  Taking your points in reverse order: (iii) Perhaps "Conclusion" means "of his life" (it is the last section in a biographical article, after all).  And the talk page self-reference could be handled more elegantly (would you prefer an inline citation?  I'm not sure how you could add all of that information succinctly).  Apart from those wrinkles, how does the "writing style does not conform to the manual of style"?  The language and style are excellent.  (ii) Dates of birth and death - (1699–1769).  It may surprise you, but it can be difficult to find out the exact day when people were born or died - either the date is not recorded, or different date are recorded.  See, for example, Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington.  Ditto children, if they are not themselves notable, and/or died young (which is not unusual for that time).  You will need to be a bit more spceific than "and so on". (i) Inline citations?  For an obscure and uncontroversial architect who has been dead for over 230 years? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep It's the only in depth biography of him anywhere. All available information is present. Covers all the important points, and all facts in the article are contained in the references listed. If no more detailed information is available the so-be-it Giano | talk 22:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Although I agree the referencing could be improved somewhat, this is exactly the sort of article on a somewhat obscure subject that makes Wikipedia great. These articles ought to be encouraged. –Joke 00:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: Picking at whether the footnotes are this way or that is not valid.  The same is true of headings.  Could it be smoothed and improved?  Yes.  Could it get a revision?  Sure.  Is it no longer an FA because of formatting issues?  No.  Geogre 03:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove if a serious attempt isn't made soon to satisfy Criterion 2a and to provide more references. Tony 08:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ouch - what do you mean by "a serious attempt isn't made soon to satisfy Criterion 2a"? What changes would you suggest?  And which "more references" for this relatively obscure 18th century architect would you suggest? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Criterion 2a, Tony? Qué? "'Well written' means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant"? It is, you know. It's not the case that the way of writing that you like trumps all others. Are you planning to keep on sniping at everything Giano's written from the sidelines like this, merely because you haven't in the past gotten your own way about re-writing his prose to your specifications? Do you think this is a good thing for Wikipedia that you're doing? Bishonen | ノート 10:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC).
 * I don't look at who contributes, and yes, it was a bit lazy of me to make a generalisation above. If I'd realised that Giano et al had been major contributors, I'd have taken a closer look at the text; we've had something of a reconciliation, and I'm keen to assist rather than critique his work. So hold your horses, Bishonen, I'm not trying to snipe at everything Giano writes, and I'd be pleased if you didn't presume malice on my part. Tony 14:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Good heavens, you seem to be saying that you'll post wounding pronouncements like "Remove if a serious attempt isn't made soon to satisfy Criterion 2a" without first taking a closer look at the text. Wow. "A bit lazy" sounds like a really charitable way of describing that. Only users that you're for personal reasons "keen to assist" get the special favor of a close look? You know what, here's an idea: if you haven't looked closely, don't comment. Bishonen | ノート 15:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC).
 * Oh heck, get a life. My comment was meant in good faith. Tony 16:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe you when you say your comment was made in good faith, but Bishonen does have a point. Paul August &#9742; 19:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Tony seems to be saying that he does not like the prose style of this article, but he won't complain now because he has found out that it is one of Giano's. If he doesn't like it, please would he tell how it should be improved.  It is apparent from his comments (mostly on WP:FAC) that Tony reads articles closely, and he often makes very good comments on matters of detail (I would be happier if he actually copyedited them rather than making the comments, but we all have a life to be getting on with, so we may as well have the comments so we know where we stand rather than being nicey-nicey to each other's faces and muttering under our breath...) -- ALoan (Talk) 19:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I bet ALoan when you were a child, you were one of those kids that always had to keep poking the hornet's nest with a stick. Tony has made it quite plain that he wishes he had never heard of this page, and I can't say I blame him.  You have refuted the nomination itself very eloquently, so unless something go horribly adrift we have a consensus - so let Tony off the hook. Please?  We have agreed to differ, and avoid each other and until this hiccup we have done a good job.   Now, talking of the nominator where is she, I would like to know.  I think I shall go and find out. Giano | talk 10:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I've had a close look, and on this occasion, I have to say that you are all right and I am wrong. (I may even have put my initial comment on the wrong FARC page; the article seems to be very well written.) I've gone through the first few paras and made just a few minor changes, which I hope that you won't mind; I'll return to read the rest, unless you object. Keep.Tony 23:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --Ter e nce Ong 11:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep DVD+ R/W 21:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong remove. I'm utterly confused about the above keep votes and proffered rationales. We're not voting on AfD, we're deciding whether this article is really the best we have to offer. On that score the answer is most certainly no. The article contains not a SINGLE inline citation (and hence fails WP:CITE and WP:V). The lead is far from conforming to WP:LEAD and the prose needs some serious work before it can be considered "brilliant". Mi kk er ... 02:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Footnotes are not required. Notes are not required.  References are required, and those are provided: this article passes WP:CITE, and those who say otherwise are failing to understand something.  The lead is satisfactory.  The prose could be improved or not, but once we get past good and into what each of us considers "brilliant," we're in hopeless territory.  I like periodic sentences, for example, but one person quick on "Object" and "remove" would get rid of all of those as not commensurate with corporate writing.  Some people get confused by any complex sentence.  Others get bored by simple sentences.  The writing in this article is not poor, and therefore overriding the judgments of the FAC voters is inappropriate.  (The status quo always has an inherent advantage; the burden of proof is always on the side wishing for change.)  Nominator's burden not proved, so keep.  Geogre 04:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Retain. The article is an example of Wikipedia's better work. The view that it "fails WP:CITE and WP:V" arises from a misunderstanding of those documents. WP:V is an article space policy that states the necessity of including in the encyclopedia only those "[f]acts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments... [that] have already been published by reliable and reputable sources." Matthew Brettingham references 6 works related to British architecture. Which claims made in the article are not borne out by the sources? WP:CITE is a style guideline, stating why and when to use citations, and describing some methods of laying out inline citations should these be preferred. It does not compel the use of inline citations; it compels citations. Again, the requirement is met. I wonder if the confusion partly stems from not appreciating fully the differences in the magnitude and depth of research in different fields. For example, in the last 30 odd years, some 200,000 papers have been published on matters relating to the human immunodeficiency virus. So if you write on HIV, it makes sense to use inline citations, particularly if you have access to the primary reports and can quote the precise studies which confirmed each fact of which you write. Other subjects may have very much less research devoted to them; all that is reliably known about them may have been published in a few papers or monographs. In that scenario, simply noting these sources under the references section should amply suffice. It would be ridiculous for Giano to fill the article with superscripted notes all pointing to the same one or two references. WP:LEAD provides a guideline on how to write the lead para(s). Essentially, the lead section should summarize the subject. The lead in Brettingham does. I can see that an extra sentence or two may be added without compromising it: if one feels strongly about this, the edit button is available. This article should retain its featured status, and its editors, our thanks. Regards — Encephalon  08:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm getting all the more confused. I've just re-read NPOV, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:WIAFA and the talk of WIAFA to make sure I'm making some sense. It seems to me I am. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: I'm not voting remove because the article doesn't use footnotes or Harvard or embedded html links (or whatever) I'm pro-removal because for a particular statement to be verifiable some indication needs to be provided of where the information comes from. WP:V says "facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible." Fantastic. But how do we know particular statements have in fact been published by reputable sources if we're not told where the information comes from? If, for example, I say Henry Kissinger said "Bla bla blaaaa" and put "Whitehouse Years" (one of his memoirs) in the Reference section, is "bla bla blaaa" verifiable? In principle yes, but practically? (The doubter **could** re-read all 1400 pages of "Whitehouse Years" to check but that's hardly efficient). In fact, if I make a claim, provide no inline citation and simply point the the reference section the situation is much worse than that because there are often several books listed under references. Have a look at Henry_Kissinger (scroll down to "Memoirs"). There are six books mentioned, half of them with over 1200 pages. And "Bla bla blaaa" is verifiable? Why not just have a section saying "check a library"? Looking at Matthew Brettingham I'm left wondering where in the world the biographical information comes from. Can't be "Life in the English Country House" it seems. Ditto for "The Country House in Perspective". Is it in "Historic Houses"? Or "Matthew Brettingham and the County of Norfolk"? And since "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it" (WP:V) a good deal of the info fails WP:V. Alternatively, maybe the article conforms to the letter of the requirements but it seems to me it violates the spirit. One of the biggest problems Wikipedia has is a perception that we’re not “authoratative” – a perception we can only combat by telling our readers where specifically our information comes from. Saying “oh, we’re not quite sure but we think it’s somewhere in one of these six books” simply doesn’t cut it in my opinion. Mi kk er ... 21:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with this view. Really, it's understandable and still disappointing to see a whole collection of editors so vocally lining up behind this article, while in point of plain fact, if "we" are striving towards verifiability through the method of references, with inline citations and footnotes, then plainly, we need to actually use them and this article does not. I used to think that a bibliography was enough, which was naive. And I'm not making any new argument here, just realizing more fully the nature of anonymous writing and WP:V. For WP to get further than mega-blog status (which is fine, too), statements have to be better cited than pointing to hundreds or thousands of pages of source:
 * "Burlington was more of an idealist than an architect
 * "Brettingham's self-confidence may have been restored"
 * "Brettingham's principal contribution to architecture is perhaps the design of..."
 * All of that is great summary and presumably synthesis of the source material, and it may be a chore to support that style of writing without getting mired in inlines (notes would be their own substantial project to keep things uncluttered), but so be it. That's the challenge, no? As it is now, I cannot reasonable verify any of that without reading all of the References. We may never be able to implement this quality across hundreds of thousands of articles, but FA seems to be the place right now where we should try (and that's exactly what the FA criteria as for in clear language!). It is ridiculous not to apply the basic WP principles we've accepted, here of all places. Yes, Matthew Brettingham is interesting, well-written, believable, and an amazing article to have materialized out of nowhere on WP, but recognizing just that isn't the reason or purpose for FA. Ideally, we should be looking for articles that are approaching highest standards, not sweating to maintain the status of a handful, gathering to support, it seems to me here, only because it seems to be "good". It's a "when the going gets tough" kind of thing. It's easy to object to a terrible article, it's a lot harder to refuse a good article when it's simply not to the standards established and agreed upon.


 * On a more practical angle, I looked up "Matthew Brettingham" on Google. This article is the number one listing, same in Yahoo. That, I think, handles any notion that "demoting" this (or any) FA is somehow depriving anyone (except those who want the star) of anything. A good article is out there, the FIRST thing that the majority of online readers will find when searching. FA is, or should be, about something else, about being the best as defined by WP:NPOV-WP:V-WP:NOR. Else, the FA definition should change. We could have stars and featured categories for all kinds of things. --Tsavage 01:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. Staxringold 13:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment One of the reasons I said that this article needed inline cites was the fact that it was an obscure person hardly anyone has heard of. The fact that Matthew Brettingham is obscure means that the information is harder to verify. If someone were to get the article on, (just an example,) Michaëlle Jean featured, it be would easier to verify information about her because she is well known and the same information could well be at multiple sources. Matthew Brettingham is an obscure person and certainly not as well known as Michaëlle Jean. His article certainly requires inline cites to indicate where the information is from because the one source that a fact is taken from may be the only place to get that information. If it is a fat book, it does not become much easier to verify because the source may be buried deep within that source and be nowhere else, which makes it hard to verify. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The criticism made in the preceding is not of adequate verification and sourcing, but of citation style. Mikkerpikker asks:


 * Verifiability demands that what we write in Wikipedia only those "[f]acts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments... [that] have already been published by reliable and reputable sources." So if the claim "Blah blah blah", to use Mikker's charming example, is indeed to be found in White House years, then yes, "Blah blah blah" may certainly be said to be perfectly verifiable. The complaint is that it would be difficult, given White House years' ponderous length (1521pp), to identify the appropriate passages with speed. However, this is not an argument that speaks to verifiability, but to convenience. That doesn't mean it's unimportant, but it is critical for the purposes of this WP:FARC to be very clear that what is being criticized here is not the adequacy of verification.
 * It should also be noted that the supposed problem is little addressed by the use of an inline cite. Suppose the editor who wrote "Blah blah blah" used an inline citation for that claim. Using the Harvard reference style [ ], the book will be noted in the References section as follows:
 * Using the Vancouver style [ ],
 * How would the relevant passage in the book be located any faster? You'll still have to "read the whole book"! The standard academic/scholarly citation conventions do not compel us to write the precise section/chapter/page/line number. Therefore most of the criticism laid out above rather miss the mark—the use of inline citations would not relieve the reader from doing what is expected of him in the first place: if more information is required, if he would like to engage the subject at a deeper level, if he is a scholar—he reads the book. (He could also use the index, of course ;-))
 * One fair point is that inline citations at least tell the reader which book to look in. However, as mentioned earlier, the utility of this is related to the number of references and the weight and nature of scholarly research girding the subject. If there are only a handful of sources (eg. <6-8), many authors, by long tradition, simply note the references at the bottom. If one is so inclined, one can be critical of this practice on WP—I daresay it would come as a surprise to scholars the world over to find that their conventional practice in academia does not quite cut the mustard on WP.
 * If it is held that this style of citation should spell the difference between a FA and a non-FA, then I fear Giano was not at all being unreasonable in making his 8 FARC nominations recently. Take a stroll through WP:FA. Raul will be faced with a lot more than 9 FARC noms. Augustan literature will have to go, I'm afraid—no inline cites. Colley Cibber—inadequately 'verified'. Orronoko. Peterborough Chronicle. Even The Cantos—bereft of superscripted numbers, it must be relieved of FA status. If this is what is to happen, I would suggest FA simply loses its meaning—perhaps one third of some of the finest articles ever written on WP will be "demoted". All for not having the right citation style. Do we want to do this, friends? — Encephalon 01:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd like to point out the fact that the lack of inline cites was not the only reason I nominated this article for removal. I also brought up the writing style (such as the self reference and conclusion section) as well as missing informati9on (who gave Brettingham the £112? That was a lot of money back then. Did Brettingham "retire" or not?) These three reasons all together (but not individually) mean that this article is not a featured article. Or is someone going to say that we should accept self-references since people here seem to be perfectly willing to accept it here. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If it is held that this style of citation should spell the difference between a FA and a non-FA, then I fear Giano was not at all being unreasonable in making his 8 FARC nominations recently. Take a stroll through WP:FA. Raul will be faced with a lot more than 9 FARC noms. Augustan literature will have to go, I'm afraid—no inline cites. Colley Cibber—inadequately 'verified'. Orronoko. Peterborough Chronicle. Even The Cantos—bereft of superscripted numbers, it must be relieved of FA status. If this is what is to happen, I would suggest FA simply loses its meaning—perhaps one third of some of the finest articles ever written on WP will be "demoted". All for not having the right citation style. Do we want to do this, friends? — Encephalon 01:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd like to point out the fact that the lack of inline cites was not the only reason I nominated this article for removal. I also brought up the writing style (such as the self reference and conclusion section) as well as missing informati9on (who gave Brettingham the £112? That was a lot of money back then. Did Brettingham "retire" or not?) These three reasons all together (but not individually) mean that this article is not a featured article. Or is someone going to say that we should accept self-references since people here seem to be perfectly willing to accept it here. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * regarding Encephalon's comment: I don't follow the reasoning behind "[convenience] is not an argument that speaks to verifiability". It would seem to me that verifiability is the policy and principle, citation is the general implementation, and convenience is a function of the actual citation method. You could say, "This is verifiable, check this section in this library," or "Check this book," or "check this chapter or page". Convenience is a matter of the chosen citation approach, not something entirely apart? Also, isn't there a practical measure to verifiability, if references are not reasonably easy to check, what real verifiability is there? Might as well point to the library.


 * "I daresay it would come as a surprise to scholars the world over to find that their conventional practice in academia does not quite cut the mustard on WP" is also unclear to me. The needs of WP seem to be obviously quite different from those of "academia". References in WP aren't only there to prove the work to a colleague or a professor, or to continue research, they are critically needed by all future WP editors, not only to verify the version at the time of insertion, but also to check future versions and to improve content, all by a wide range of people, with differing academic backgrounds and information skills. And, as articles continue to be edited, a set of general references will rapidly become meaningless. Quite a degree of convenience, to serve both of these purposes, would seem to be of paramount importance. This seems to be the way to ensure that "many eyeballs" can move forward. Else, perhaps shut the gates, allow lettered experts access only in their areas, and start locking down stable versions. A new WP.


 * Effective, reasonable day-to-day use of, particularly, inline citations is a big problem to work out, but I can't see how, without convenient and quite pinpoint sources, applied where logically needed, WP can progress past a simple collection of what everyone wants to write. We could wipe out any mandatory referencing, and WP would probably be just as valuable for a long time. But while the WP:V is policy through WP:CITE, how can the "best" articles, the Featured Articles (1 in 1,000) not adhere to it, and that means, sufficiently precise inline citations where reasonably requested to support specific assertions, regardless of topic.


 * It would seem to me that, if Matthew Brettingham isn't accessibly referenced to a reasonable level (not just to an undifferentiated list of books), then it simply doesn't fully meet current FA standards. What is the argument otherwise? --Tsavage 02:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The real question is what is a "reasonable level"? It seems to me that what you are really arguing for is a change in the FA criteria, or at least a change in how those criteria are to be interpreted. My experience has been that this article well satisfies the minimum requirements described at What is a featured article, as currently interpreted. Although I am personally a strong supporter of verifiability, and favor highly specific and granular citation, applying these standards would currently leave us with very few FAs. And if we want to move toward such standards they should first be applied at FAC not FARC. &mdash; Paul August &#9742; 06:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If I'm arguing for a change, then it's to remove the references requirements if this is a "keep", especially when additional citation has been requested (as this FARC nom does). Right now, and for the last couple of months at least, for better or for worse, inline citations are treated as a requirement in FA for all articles, so that would be how WP:V in FA is currently being interpreted.


 * FA says: "complemented where appropriate by inline citations" (see WP:CITE), which in turn says: "Sometimes — for example, when the article treats an uncontroversial or simple topic, and draws on a few, widely accepted general sources — it is sufficient to provide a 'References' section at the end of the article" — does that refer to, say, ice cream, also tadpole, also Matthew Brettingham? And, emphasis not added: "the most important thing is to enter comprehensive reference information — that is, enough information so that a reader can find the original source with relative ease." These are all quite broad and open to interpretation, but certainly support lack of inline citation as an actionable objection, if and when it's brought up. --Tsavage 06:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * On Encephalon's comment:
 * We need to make a distinction between the metaphysical fact of verifiability (if "Bla bla blaaa" is in White House Years it's verifiable, if it isn't, it's not) and the epistemological issue of knowing whether or not something is verifiable. On your view, an addition is fine by WP:V if it could in principle be verified. But this seems strange to me: if I own the sole copy of a reputable source that says Kissinger once said Bla bla, and I let no one check it, is my claim that Kissinger said bla bla verifiable? Well, yes in principle (it is metaphysically true that...) but, no in practise (since it is epistemologically impossible for other editors to know whether it is verifiable or not). Obviously I chose an extreme example, but my point is that there is a connection between WP:V and WP:CITE - CITE helps us determine (epistemologically) whether the metaphysical condition of verifiability holds. It seems to me the burden of proof should lie with someone wanting to add text, not with those who oppose it. Direct inline citations are therefore necessary. Additionally, you'd have to cite page numbers in my opinion. Just having (Kissinger, 1979) is not adequate - it needs to be (Kissinger, 1979: 234) or whatever.
 * Encephalon says "The standard academic/scholarly citation conventions do not compel us to write the precise section/chapter/page/line number" and "I daresay it would come as a surprise to scholars the world over to find that their conventional practice in academia does not quite cut the mustard on WP." Firstly, I'm not so sure academic citation conventions do not require page numbers. I've penalised many an undergrad essay for not having page citations. Also, numerous journals at least in the social sciences (the only area I've had significant contact with the formal literature) require direct citations. (there are exceptions) That said, of course the "conventional practice in academia does not quite cut the mustard on WP" simply because we don't have the same layers of scrutiny as the academic world does. Scholarly articles are written by experts in the field (usually with the informal help of other experts) and then peer reviewed in detail by yet a third group of experts. As a result, I'm fairly willing to trust, say, Foreign Affairs without the use of specific inline citations. But WP, obviously, has none of these mechanisms - all we have is a bunch of keen volunteers who often are not experts. The only way we can judge the content of an article, then, is by looking at the sources. And to do that adequately - and therefore to write an adequate encyclopaedia - we need specific inline citations. Mi kk er ... 17:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Paul August &#9742; 06:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC).