Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Wilkes Booth/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 not promoted by Raul654 04:12, 19 February 2009 [1].

John Wilkes Booth edit

Nominator(s):  JGHowes  talk

Nomination restarted. (Old nom). Raul654 (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Why did you restart it Raul? I think the article could be considerably more comprehensive than this. There are 1880 google book hits on him, not to mention the large number of newspaper extracts that are undoubtedly avilabale on the subject in the library archives. I don't think you have maximised the detail on his biography that an encyclopedia on him should. For instance in the theatrical career section when you take away the fluff on his appearance or manners there is actually little comprehensive factual information about his actual performances. The information about the escape is probably the most informative of the article as is not bad at all. Where you might improve it then, expand on his theatrical career and try to avoid too much fluff and peacock words like "greatest" etc, perhaps a little more about his earlier life, and in particular I think you need to include information about the aftermath of his death, Booth's political consequences, how did the AMerican government respond after he was killed, what measures did they implement in its place to protect future presidents, as well as more on newspaper coverage of Booth as a disgrace to his nation etc.

Aside from this to me the article looks in places like it still needs a copyedit as some of the sentences don't flow or are not of a polished level you'd expect from an FA. I think there is room for considerable improvement. The article looks like a good example of a GA but in my view don't think it is quite ready for FA yet. I'm virtually certain it could be improved further. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I have added a Business ventures section discussing his oil enterprise as suggested by User:Editorofthewiki and will expand the areas you have noted, especially his theatrical career, etc. 01:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, look forward to seeing the expansion. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more content on Booth's theatrical career and appearances, and relied only on quotations from critical reviews, "letting the facts speak for themselves" in all instances to avoid peacockery. Due to the increased length, it seemed like a good idea to divide it into two subsections for his early career in the the 1850s and the final years of the 1860s. Also did some copyediting and changing of text order for better flow.  JGHowes  talk 23:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per earlier comments.--Patrick «» 01:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reassess your support given the nature of the sources used in this article. Awadewit (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per earlier comments. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reassess your support given the nature of the sources used in this article. Awadewit (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose The sourcing in this article falls far short of what we expect at FAC. For example, this book is an illustrated children's book. Of all of the sources listed, not one is a modern scholarly biography of John Wilkes Booth. This History.com website, which has no discernable scholarly apparatus is being used as a source, when there are plenty of scholarly references available. This is dismal research indeed and absolutely cannot be used as the foundation on which to build a solid article. In my opinion, research flaws like this cannot be fixed at FAC. Awadewit (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: There are 40+ sources cited, every one of which meets WP:RS, including Giblin, a 244-page book with 11 pages of source notes. Merely because it is deemed suitable for young people does not vitiate its use as a reliable source, published by the very reputable Houghton Mifflin. I got it from the adult section of the public library, incidentally. JGHowes  talk 18:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The number of sources is irrelevant. The fact is that the best sources have not been used in this article and that no Booth biography has been used means that it does not "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge" on Booth. For an article to represent our very best work, it must be based on solid research. That does not mean basing it on white-washed history for children. It is well-known that children's books are not held to scholarly standards. Awadewit (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a stretch to claim that the article is "based" on this one book which you deprecate. It was just added as a source only within the last two days, merely to provide basic facts such as specific dates and locations of his theatrical appearances, and quotations from critical reviews about Booth's performances as cited in that book from long out-of-print newspapers, not a scholarly analysis for a doctoral dissertation. Moreover, Giblin is so used for less than 5% of the article's overall content. What specific Booth biography do you feel needs to be consulted to make this more comprehensive for an encyclopedia article?  JGHowes  talk 23:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article uses a children's book as a source - it doesn't matter for what percentage. Children's books are not peer reviewed and fact checked like scholarly works are (if there is even editorial oversight at all). They are not the high quality sources we would expect in an FA. In fact, most children's books wouldn't count as a reliable source at all. Children's history books are not designed to represent the "unvarnished truth" but rather a mythologized version of history. As a reviewer, I am not obligated to go out and do research for you. I have looked at the sources here and they are obviously wanting. This article should be based first and foremost on biographies written by historians, namely those who specialize in 19th-century American Civil War history. Sometimes good independent biographies are often written by freelance biographers as well. It is your job to find these sources, not mine. Awadewit (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are in error that "no Booth bio has been used". What about Kauffman (2004) and Nottingham (1998)? What are these "best sources" that you claim have been overlooked? So far, you haven't cited even one. It is difficult to respond to generalizations, especially when you won't provide any examples to support your claim that a major scholarly bio has been overlooked, despite being asked to do so. Having said all that, however, I will remove and replace the Giblin cites with others that unquestionably are held to scholarly standards and don't bear the stigma of being advertised by Amazon.com for young persons.  JGHowes  talk 23:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kauffman is a book about the Lincoln assassination and the Nottingham is a dramatic retelling of historical events by a Booth relative. Neither of these are full-length scholarly biographies of Booth. Look, we have argued endlessly on the FAC talk page over the amount of work required by reviewers. I used to go to the library and spend hours tracking down books for people, but, frankly I don't have time for that right now and it is unnecessary. My objection stands without it - the sources in this article are not what we would expect for an article on such a major historical figure. Furthermore, I am not asking you to simply replace the Giblin cites. I am asking you to read other books that are more reliable to make sure that the article is comprehensive. Simply replacing citations is a pointless endeavor. Awadewit (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I raised a number of issues at the previous nom, all of which were resolved satisfactorily, leading to my support. This was given after a favourable sources review by Ealdgyth. I am not an expert on Booth, so I can't fully assess the reliability of the sources used, though it does seem rather harsh to condemn the sourcing of the entire article for the inclusion of the "children's book"; to my untutored eye many of the sources look solid and reliable, being the products of university presses and reputable publishers. Perhaps, in including 40+ sources, the net has been cast too wide, causing a dilution of overall quality? Anyhow, I hope this issue can be resolved, as I feel that he article itself is worthy of featured status. Brianboulton (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not condemning the entire article based on one source and you should do your own source review, frankly. I did. You don't have to be a Booth expert to see the faults here. I gave two examples of problematic sources that anyone could find: a children's book (which the editor has yet to admit is a terrible source) and an unscholarly website. The problem is not all of the great Lincoln's assassination books that this article does reference, but the damning fact that it references no modern full-length biography of Booth! That is an appalling oversight. Imagine if you had written Mozart in Italy without reading a biography of Mozart? That is the equivalent. I'll say right now that this article is a perfect way to teach poor sourcing and I am going to use it in my class when I teach how to assess the reliability of internet sources. It has the illusion of having lots of good information because it has lots of sources, but when you start to look at the list, that illusion breaks down. A children's book. Shoddy websites. Newspaper stories. No full-length biography. That's how you know that the article is not fully-researched. Awadewit (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not do a source review that determines whether the best sources have been used, I do a source review that determines if the sources meet the minimum standards for WP. (I frankly have no time to do a "full source reveiw" on every article, that'd take four or five times the time I currently spend on FAC) No one should rely on my source review to necessarily catch everything nor should it be taken as a statement that the sourcing is "good". You'll note I say that it looks "okay" when I review. As a personal opinion, I think any article on such a well known figure that doesn't use full length scholarly biographies is lacking, but I do not have the time to do a full length review of this article, so I won't support or oppose on that. I gotta admit my fellow reviewers need to recognize that my source reviews are not the end of the story. They are just a minimum standard to fit Wikipedia's policies, just because they pass that standard doesn't mean they are reflective of WP's "best work" as far as sourcing. (As a side note, if FAs had to pass my personal standards of sourcing, most articles on non-scholarly subjects would not pass.) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested sources: More reliance on the Kaufman American Brutus work, instead of Giblin. No trace of Samples Lust for Fame: The Stage Career of John Wilkes Booth, which appears to be a recent work on his stage career. Nothing on his family which American Gothic: The STory of America's Legendary Theatrical Family appears to be a recent work on that subject. I don't have reliable JSTOR access so I can't access those types of articles.Ealdgyth - Talk 04:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
copy-edited per above.  JGHowes  talk 23:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Grammar - Many lines seem sub-FA quality (and I'll just choose from the lead) 1) "Booth was a member of the prominent 19th century Booth theatrical family from Maryland and by the 1860s was a popular actor, well known in both the Northern United States and the South" - The "by the 1860s" is a parenthetical statement (basically an apositive phrase) and must be separated by commas. 2)"Booth, and a group of co-conspirators whom he led, planned to kill Abraham Lincoln" - The conjunction "and" is used inappropriately. The "a group of co-conspirators" is either parenthetical or necessary. If parenthetical, then the conjunction needs to be removed and can be replaced with a word like "with". If it is necessary then the commas can be removed. 3) Then there are phrases like "the tottering Confederacy's cause" which are POV and inappropriate characterizations. 4) "Confederate sympathizer who was" - The use of the term "who" instead of "that". 5) "yet over since Confederate General" - "Since" is not an appropriate substitute for the word "because" and they carry different connotations. This should be corrected. 6) "was still fighting the Union Army under General William Tecumseh Sherman" Unnecessary addition of the General of the Union Army which confuses the object. Shorten it to just "the Union Army". 7) "fled on horseback to southern Maryland and eventually to a farm in rural northern Virginia" - "Eventually" is modifying nothing in the current form and should be remedied. The use of ellipsis in historically technical sentences is inappropriate and sub-FA quality. 8) "Following the shooting, Booth fled on horseback to southern Maryland and eventually to a farm in rural northern Virginia, where he was tracked down and killed by Union soldiers twelve days later." Dependent clause, independent clause, dependent clause. Split the sentence after Maryland. Begin the second sentence with "He eventually made his way to a farm in rural...". Change the comma to a semicolon and removed the "where". 9)"Eight others were tried and convicted and four were hanged shortly thereafter." Two independent phrases without a comma before the second "and". Please add in that necessary comma. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
copy edited per above.  JGHowes  talk 23:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because Wikipedia is the buffoonish Internet-culture laughingstock held up to ridicule throughout academia, and freshman-level sourcing is, like, an awesome reason why. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 00:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing issues
    • Use of Asia Booth Clarke's John Wilkes Booth: A Sister's Memoir, a primary source.
    • Use of Bishop's The Day Lincoln Was Shot for, among other claims, "As a child, he was a favorite of his mother, who called him "Pet"." The New York Times, among others, in their review of The Day... faulted Bishop for choosing to use fictional dialogue in quotation marks at the cost of historical accuracy. He also took the liberty of "describing what certain characters thought". How sure are we that the claims cited to this book are factual?
    • Use of Good Brother, Bad Brother, a children's book.
    • Why the reliance on trutv and History.com? Surely more scholarly works can be used?
    • What is this site? Who put this together? Students? Presumably, they based their information on published material; why not use them instead?
    • Use of another, very old primary source: The Life of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd.
    • Use of a very old New York Times article "John Wilkes Booth's Last Days"; why not use a contemporary historical account that is able to call upon the 100+ years of research since that article was written?
    • Another very old source: John Wilkes Booth and Jefferson Davis – a true story of their capture. I doubt that there are no contemporary, more reliable sources. BuddingJournalist 17:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as there is too much of the (otherwise good) article which is not really relevant to the subject. Some specific points.
  • Second sentence of the lead: when and how Lincoln died, and the fact he was the first U.S. President to be assassinated are irrelevant at this point in the article (the information is correctly treated later on). Sentence should be deleted and the next paragraph brought up to join the first sentence.
  • Infobox: would read clearer as "Known for: Assassination of Abraham Lincoln"; "Protestant" is redundant to "Episcopal"
Background and early life
  • Booth's parent emigrated to the United States, not "immigrated to" (unless this is a U.S. usage I'm unaware of): "came" would be a simpler verb to use.
  • There's nothing unusual that Booth's (British) mother called him "Pet", it is a very common term of affection in British English.
  • Gypsy fortune-teller, religious affiliation: why are these points important in Booth's biography?
Pursuit and death
  • The outpouring of national grief and indignation at Lincoln's assassination is not important in itself, but only insofar as it shows that Booth could not rely on any public support to make his escape.
  • 9th para: spelling "journey", "en route" fixed this myself, but the whole paragraph is probably irrelevant to a biography of Booth of this length.
Physchim62 (talk) b07:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: OK, in response to the above comments/criticisms, I've given the article a thorough going-over, adding sources and copy-editing. Additional books are now used to ensure that this article is truly comprehensive enough for a FA. Giblin's Good Brother, Bad Brother is no longer cited as a tertiary source at all, and has been demoted to a "For younger readers" sub-section of "Further reading". The other questioned sources, e.g., history.com, umkc.edu, etc., have been completely removed as inline citations, as well. Clarke's memoir is reliably published by an university press and has been used with care as a primary source to comply with WP:PSTS, interpretation relying on reliable secondary sources.
The article was expanded to include more content about the aftermath, reaction, and effects of the assassination in response to previous comments (see link, above). This gives more context, I think, to Booth's actions and their effect on history, as others have suggested. At 73kb, I think this article is about the right size now for such a major historical figure and ready for FA promotion, with these revisions.  JGHowes  talk 01:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/John_Wilkes_Booth/archive1&oldid=1088823036"