Wikipedia:Featured article review/Halkett boat/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 Dana boomer 11:20, 10 June 2010.

Halkett boat

 * Notified: Sadads, Nev1, Malleus Fatuorum, Ranger Steve, Iridescent, Hamiltonstone, Parrot of Doom, Johnbod, WikiProject Rowing, WikiProject Sailing, WikiProject Arctic

I am nominating this featured article for review because it strays far off the topic of the boat itself, and of any demonstrated special effect the boat had, but becomes a general history of the inventor and expeditions that (by chance) used the boat.

It has loose, informal, unattested language such as, "long been interested in the difficulties", "widely praised", "would serve any useful purpose" that amounts to essay original research.

The article caught my eye yesterday because it starts with a misconception that led me to suspect that the editors did not have experience with the subject, but were simply involved in synthesis. (Halkett's claims about the use of his boat as a cloak and an umbrella would not seem unusual to someone who has traveled in the wilderness in a small boat.)

The article was nominated by the editor who started it. Within five days editors who had had major involvement writing the article submitted it for Featured Article status, and then voted that they themselves had done an excellent job. This is inappropriate.

To fix the article, the off-topic content should be deleted, and the personal original speculation removed.

Truly, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Reading the instructions above, I find these words: "Nominators ... should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days)... . Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content." Is there any reason why neither of these instructions should apply to this nomination?  BencherliteTalk 09:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The FA nomination process happened in five days, and was voted into FA status by the editors who wrote it. This seems improper. Giving the article a grace period of months seems inappropriate. The problem is current. (The article was not called to my attention on account of its FA status, but because it displayed in MWT anti-vandalism. I did the same evaluation on it that I would do on any article.) Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I supported the article, and the extent to which I "wrote it" is limited to this single edit. I first saw the article from FAC and have not changed my mind in the last two weeks or so. Johnbod (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c) OK, let's look at that allegation more closely, shall we? The main author and nominator was Iridescent. Parrot of Doom made four very minor changes and supported; PoD did not edit the article sufficiently to be disqualified from supporting it. Malleus made a number of minor copy-editing changes, as he often does on request before or during an FAC. I would not have thought that would have disqualified him from supporting.  Hamiltonstone added one sentence based on the discussion at FAC; again, not disqualifying. Jappalang supported, and has never edited the article; the same goes for AnOddName.  Johnbod supported, and added a category - are you seriously saying that this disqualifies him from supporting?  To me, it looks as though the only major contributor of content was Iridescent, with polishing from Malleus.  By far the majority of the supporters were editors with no disqualifying interest in the article's creation or promotion, some of whom I know without having to look it up are experienced FA writers themselves.  So would you care to rephrase your allegation?  BencherliteTalk 10:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Dismiss. Absurd accusations. FAC was not rigged and article would seem to be of FA quality, and have yet to see any detailed and nopn-vague accusations against the article. Skinny87 (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I stand by my partial support, and reiterate [ my FAC comments], less the bulleted ones (they were either dealt with by other editors or answered to my satisfaction by Iridescent, and were minor anyway). I'm not convinced the parts about the boats' creator and their real-world use are "off the topic of the boat itself".  On the contrary, an article on, say, a film or anime series would probably need info about its development (inspirations, technical info, people involved, ...), sales, and critical reception to even be on WP, let alone featured. Because the article touches on (analogues of) all of those aspects—as I think it should—I feel wiser about what inspired the boats and their maker, as well as whether people actually gave a shit about the boats back then (and they clearly did).  --an odd name 11:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I’m afraid I don’t understand this FAR nom. The article is well written, well sourced and well illustrated.  I don’t see where “it strays far off the topic of the boat itself, and of any demonstrated special effect the boat had, but becomes a general history of the inventor and expeditions that (by chance) used the boat”.  The article combines as much supporting information about the use of the boat as I would expect in any article.  How is including details and opinions of the explorers who used it “straying”?  How are they not detailing the boat itself?


 * The “loose, informal, unattested language” is all sourced and makes perfect sense to me. “Long been interested in the difficulties…” is a referenced statement and doesn’t seem unusual for someone who used to live in Canada. “Widely praised” seems to be supported by the opinions and comments of 4 explorers notable enough to have their own articles.  “Would serve any useful purpose” is again supported by a reference.  Sorry Piano, but can you clarify exactly what your problem with this language actually is?  Nor do I understand what you’re saying in your 3rd paragraph – can you please clarify the misconception, because I’m afraid I really don’t follow it.


 * In my personal opinion Iridescent has done a fine job of compiling probably all the information there is about an obscure, unknown subject in a good (nay, featured) article. The talk page mentions the lack of a photo of the surviving boat – the one easily accessible image is copyrighted and shows that the actual boat isn’t worth going to any trouble to get a free use one of (it looks like a raisin!). Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.