Wikipedia:Featured article review/A. E. J. Collins/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Raul654 21:33, 13 August 2009.

Review commentary

 * Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket, User talk:Brookie.

FA from 2005, some minor referencing/1c issues - however this one is actually not that bad, and the issues could be remedied relatively easily. Some issues however with images, which also should not be too hard to fix: Cirt (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) commons:File:AEJ Collins.jpg - would be helpful to know the actual source for this image, instead of just "a picture in the public domain on the internet".
 * File:Aejcollins rpkeigwin lr.jpg - could use standardization with the template Information.
 * File:Collinsplaque.jpg - Also could use standardization with the template Information. This one claims to be "issued as fairuse", but is concurrently licensed with free use licenses?
 * File:Aejcollins.jpg - For this one, a fair use rationale is given, but the image may actually be free use.

Putting aside the statements that need citations and image concerns, this strikes me as being in decent shape for an article that was promoted over four years ago. One thing that confused me was the brackets around most reference access dates. Were these common back then?  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 03:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') paid editing=POV 01:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist, unaddressed issues. Cirt (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove – Due to the referencing and image comments that haven't been responded to, I'm forced to move to the delist camp. Truly a shame, as the problems are relatively mild by FAR standards.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 23:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – I'm happy to see that YM made the necessary fixes. Since I don't know anything about Collins other than what I've read in the article, I can't speak to whether or not it is comprehensive. In the absence of evidence that it isn't, I'm willing to say that it should remian featured.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 16:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done the "alt" text (honestly, how difficult was that, hmm?) and found some sources for the three citation needed queries (but it would be nice if someone with a hard copy of Christie's History of Clifton College could confirm the bits I can see at Google). Someone more knowledgeable than me will have to opine on image issues. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the alt text. I'm afraid it still needs some work, though, as alt text is not supposed to duplicate the caption: it is supposed to describe only visual appearance that is obvious to a non-expert reader who sees only the image. The current alt text in this articles contains many phrases that should be reworded or moved to the caption. These phrases are "A. E. J. Collins", "R. P. Keigwin", "Clifton College", "1902", "1962", "(circa 1900)", and (now I'm getting picky, but might as well get them all) the possessives "their" and "his". Could you please reword these? For more on this, please see WP:ALT  and WP:ALT , example #3. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Two other minor cleanup issues: the toolbox I just inserted at the top of this subpage reports that there's a link to a disambig page, and that there are five 301s in the citations. Eubulides (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What a lot of rules!
 * Let me get this clear: the alt text for a photograph of AEJ Collins at Clifton College in c.1900 must not  state that it is a photograph of him at the school in c.1900, but something like "photograph of schoolboy at a school" instead?
 * OK, having started, I have done my best to address these exceptionally serious faults (although I suspect it took you longer to write that out than it would to have done it yourself).
 * Would anyone like to request any additional shrubberies? -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You've got it right about the alt text, except the "photograph of" is unnecessary. Describe what you see (from looking at the image), not what you know. Eubulides is an expert on alt text. Yes, he could have easily inserted it himself, but the point is that now you also know how to write alt text (many times the best way to learn how to do something is to do it). Dabomb87 (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing that alt text. I tweaked it slightly by removing an unnecessary "photograph of a". Eubulides (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Aw, now I feel ashamed for snapping. Sorry.  Thank you both for your assistance.  As you say, Dabomb87, I am now fully equipped to add "alt text" as and when required in the future.


 * I wonder - have any visually impaired readers been asked whether this "alt text" (for example, "Schoolboy with short hair in a white shirt") enhances their experience of the encyclopedia to any significant extent? Wouldn't they expect an image captioned "A. E. J. Collins, aged approximately 15 (c.1900)" to show him as a schoolboy?  On the other hand, transcribing the text on the plaque strikes me as a good idea, although I suppose that apporoach could eventually cause copyright concerns. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Visually impaired readers read both the alt text and the caption. Incidentally, you might ask ; he uses a screen reader. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a sentence that vanishes into midair: "All hits to the long boundary, down the slope, had to be all-run, but the three short boundaries only counted for two runs.[7] stumps were [unfinished sentence?] The match commenced on Thursday, 22 June, " Dabomb87 (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That was my fault. Sorry.  I added the detail about the stumps earlier and somehow left that fragment. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Can we have an update here? There's one citation needed tag, but otherwise this article is in good shape. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition to the cite tag, the infobox photo has a deletion tag on the description page and the last photo is questionable fair use (though the summary claims it may in fact be PD). If these can be fixed, I would be inclined to change my 'vote'.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 00:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed these. Don't know anything about this fellow, no further comment. Standradised the refs etc  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 04:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Templates aren't needed on the image page  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 05:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Nice save, meets criteria again. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, Nice work on the improvements. Cirt (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs a quick MoS run-through, but other than that, I think it's FA quality. Great work. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.