Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chartwell/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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC).

Chartwell

 * Notified:KJP1, Tim riley, NicholasNotabene

I am nominating this featured article for review because I do not believe it meets the following criteria:
 * well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard.
 * Compared to the requirements of [[WP:TONE}, it lacks "businesslike" use of language, and uses excessive contestable adjectives and a rather romanticised prose, going beyond the strictly factual.


 * neutral: it presents views fairly aand without bias
 * It has a tone that is unduly favourable towards Winston Churchill and reflects an editorial bias of his actions as being important by virtue of being his actions.

The main editor has been very dismissive of these concerns, although he has addressed some areas of unreferenced claims on the lead, and items in the lead that were totally absent from the body of the article. The fact that these were there suggests a less than thorough process of inspection before it was raised to FA status. Kevin McE (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Tim riley
I think the nomination is ridiculous and the allegations absurd. This review is wholly without merit in my opinion and should be closed as soon as possible. The FAC was conducted by experienced editors, familiar with WP's standards, including, ,. , and. I don't know what 's agenda is, but I regard this review as frivolous, unjustifiable and contemptible.  Tim riley  talk   19:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Laser brain
This nomination should be closed as out-of-process. Conversation on the article Talk page is ongoing and has been going only for a short time. This strikes me as a tantrum because the nominator isn't getting their way. FAR isn't a dispute resolution avenue. -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Brianboulton
I agree with Tim and Andy. WP processes such as FAR should not be weaponised as a means of driving home a point. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * SC
 * Echoing the three comments above. Although no article on WP can ever claim to be 'perfect', to somehow consider this article does not mean the FA criteria is just wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild
Edit conflict.

If this is a joke, it is in poor taste. If it is not a joke, it is in worse. I am not sure what to add to Tim and Lb's comments. The use of language is indeed not "businesslike", and the article is the better for it: it is certainly engaging and in my opinion and that of the five editors who supported it at FAC only two years ago is of a professional standard. (Regular followers of recent FACs will know how picky I can be regarding use of language.) I can see a few things, both in the prose and more generally, which I wouldn't mind changing, but to suggest that it isn't of FA standard is (I paused here for some time trying to think of a more neutral word, but this one seems most appropriate) ridiculous. The nomination seems to cover several of the scenarios in WP:ATA. Suggest summary dismissal with prejudice. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Response by KJP1
I am very appreciative of the supportive comments above. As briefly as I can, my own thoughts are as follows:
 * well-written, Tone/Style - there are some 5,937,027 articles on the English Wikipedia, with 5,633 rated FA. Given those numbers, it seems clear to me that a variety of writing styles will be employed. I completely accept that my own style will not find favour with everyone. But I try to write, and to collaborate on, articles that are accurate, that are well-referenced and that inform and engage the reader. That is what I have sought to do here.
 * Neutral, Hagiography of Churchill - The article describes Churchill's activities at Chartwell as these are the only reasons for the house's Grade I listing (see the HE listing). It records the exceptional nature of Churchill's accomplishment because that that is what all the accepted sources of which I'm aware do. To suggest that Churchill's actions at Chartwell in the 1930s equate to "what anyone does in his home/office" or, more oddly still, stand comparison with the actions of Chris Grayling, seems perverse.

The nominating editor has chosen to personalise this discussion by describing my responses as "very dismissive". Others can judge the fairness of that characterisation. On Chartwell, I have tried to do what I always try to do: to write accurate and interesting articles on significant subjects, and to engage with other editors interested in those subjects in a courteous and productive way. KJP1 (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I applaud such a measured and gentle response. If I had been responding to such petulant squalling I should have been a great deal less forbearing. Thank you, KJP1: you are an example to us all.  Tim riley  talk   21:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm impressed too, particularly given the utter intransigence of the OP. "It is evident that there is little interest here in creating anything properly encyclopaedic" was his latest edit summary. I have asked them to stop casting aspersions on other editors with such nonsense. - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I fear your advice will go unheeded. It lasted just six minutes on the user's talk page before he deleted it.  Tim riley  talk   09:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As an acquaintance of mine is wont to say, "Consider it character forming". Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator comment - This nomination seems premature given that concerns were raised on the talk page only a few days ago, so I'm going to close this at this time. It can be renominated in future if concerns remain; however, all are advised to bear in mind that FAR is not a dispute resolution venue. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.