Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Georg Forster

Georg Forster

Very well written, comprehensive, well-sourced article about the "inventor" of travel guides and fairly controversial historic figure (see talk:Georg Forster). That said, and although it went through peer review, it would be great for a biography specialist(s) to volunteer provide suggestions and help eliminate what short-comings there still may be. --Mmounties (Talk) 06:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - good work.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:LEAD is too short, it should summarize the entire article. There are also too few in-line citations, and having a list of sources that the dewiki authors used isn't much use here. Dewiki and enwiki have very different standards when it comes to citing sources. Angr (t • c) 07:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I will re-verify the article using the English-language sources available (mostly Sain's biography, the only English-language biography that I am aware of) over the weekend. Perhaps we can then get rid of some of the lengthy German source list, and keep only what is necessary for the article. Would a lead section approximately twice as long as now be okay? Kusma (討論) 14:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, quality is obviously more important than quantity, but I think to do the article justice the lead would have to be between twice and thrice as long as it is now. Angr (t • c) 15:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have worked a bit in this direction, but probably need to expand the lead more. Kusma (討論) 21:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Lead looks quite well now, IMHO. --Mmounties (Talk) 19:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The article is much better now. It just occurred to me right now that it still needs {{Persondata}}. Angr (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Added. Kusma (討論) 14:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object; Angr is right; this needs more inline citations and a longer lead. External links would be great too. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 12:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take another look when you get the chance. I believe all of your concerns have now been addressed. --Mmounties (Talk) 19:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Object,~~ per Angr and Spangineer. Also, I found the prose to be a bit choppy, with perhaps too many one and two sentence paragraphs. Overall though, the article is very informative and well-written. RyanGerbil10 16:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the German references and re-sourced most of the article. I'll work on the remaining {{fact}}s later today. If I find sources for these facts, will the number of inline citations be sufficient? Kusma (討論) 21:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is much better. Support. RyanG e rbil10 15:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Do the section titles have to be "Forster's heritage"; can't they be just "Heritage", etc. The reader knows this is about Forster so no need to mention his name again and again in the titles. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't; if you have a good section title for "Forster and nations", please edit the article and insert it. Kusma (討論) 21:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The section titles have been changed. Kusma (討論) 14:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (from one of the article's main authors; of course I support "featured" status for this article, but I guess my voice doesn't really count here). Since the nomination, the number of inline citations has tripled, the length of the lead section more than doubled. Most of the remaining statements that have a ^{[citation needed]} could be removed without much harm. Have I adressed the objections above and are there further suggestions how to improve this article? Kusma (討論) 00:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]