Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/James Joyce/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article review | James Joyce
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) 5:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC) [1].

James Joyce

edit
Notified: WikiProject Switzerland, WikiProject Ireland, WikiProject France, WikiProject Poetry, WikiProject Anarchism, WikiProject Socialism, 11 June 2021
See this discussion; SandyGeorgia, Ceoil, Victoriaearle and Kablammo have now all been notified.

Review section

edit

OK, I'm back. I am nominating this featured article for review because there are issues with sourcing especially (considerable unsourced content) and as HAL333 noted "The article doesn't rely on any recent academic work on Joyce." That was nearly 3 months ago and there has not been significant improvement since then, so here we are. Original FA nominator has retired. (t · c) buidhe 21:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extension Requested

I'd like to adopt this article, so could you extend the FARC process? I had more extensive concerns about what would be expected of me on the FAR talk page. If the FARC team is good with that and the extension, I'll get started with it. Wtfiv (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinators will keep reviews open as long as improvements are being made. In fact I suggest putting the FARC on hold to give more space for editing. Thanks for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia. (t · c) buidhe 05:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, buidhe It may take a few days before much action happens. I want to put some proposals out to the talk page and give a couple of days for response. After that, I'll be unable to edit until next week. Also, there seems to be one editor who feels strongly about adding infoboxes. I'm good with it either way, but I want to make sure that the editor open to working on the article to keep its Featured Article status. It should start looking busy after that, unless I get positive responses sooner.Wtfiv (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update to note that editing is ongoing on this article. (t · c) buidhe 23:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Wtfiv great work on the article so far but some of the sections are getting quite long, especially "1906–1915: Rome, Trieste, and sojourns to Dublin", "1915-1920: Zürich and Trieste", and "1920–1941: Paris and Zürich". I don't really know how Joyce's life is periodized, but I think it would improve readability if these sections could be broken up somehow by making the time intervals shorter. (t · c) buidhe 22:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe Breaking up the sections shouldn't be too hard. I didn't break them out before as I tried to keep the general gestalt of the original, renaming the section on life after Dublin was "Career", I renamed it "Exile". But, the section did expand! Each location can easily be turned into its own section, and each section will have an additional subsection. I'll be on it! Wtfiv (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Text after initial notification failure related to process moved to talk (all agree amazing progress has been made, and that the lead expansion can be left until work is finished). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of my MOS trivialities have been addressed on talk; fine work so far, and I agree with Victoriaearle that the lead can wait until Wtfiv is satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Process discussion moved to talk, but noting that:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved trivialities moved to talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a request, Wtfiv its very hard to keep track of issues raised, what's actionable, what's o/s etc as you are inclined towards walls of text and sidetracking in response, so I'm getting a bit peeved. Please restrict and stay on point. That way we can get on with here and now and work at hand, and not get bogged down in broader meta discussions. Ceoil (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delighted with first expansion of the lead [2]. Ceoil (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil The lead: I'm glad it looks good at first glance. As to my working/thinking style. I the worst should be over. Thanks for keeping on top of all of this anyway! (And for your patience!) Wtfiv (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've scanned it and it looks fine, actually am very impressed! Re working style, I think we should now get into utilitarian bullet points and done/not done responses. This will help us all judge the level of work left, and aid the FAR co-ords when they finally decide to keep or delist, though I remain optimistic. Ceoil (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are 42 instances of the word also, and also is almost always redundant; many of them are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wtfiv:, other editors will re-review once you say you are ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Thanks for the ping. I believe I'm done with my major edits. Please have the FARC team take a look to see it can be delisted from removal. I think all of HAL333 original concerns and the added concern about the abstract. I'll probably muck with it for weeks to come, but it should be minor. I'm sure there are infelicities- typos, grammos, repetitions, citation errors- as well as downright mistakes. If anybody sees any of these during the review, please fix as one evaluates. And of course, address anything you'd like to add (treating it as our normal editing process?) If there is indeed a genuine major issue, of course, let me know. Please ping me once the vote has been made. I'd love to know the outcome. Wtfiv (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Status update: ready for re-review, Wtfiv has completed major re-write. @Ceoil and Victoriaearle: (involved in rewrite) and those who opined earlier @Z1720, Buidhe, and Hog Farm:. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images? Buidhe, this FA was so old that it is unlikely it has ever had an image review; might you take that on? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe has a good eye. I tried to ensure they're all good, and excluded a couple of nice ones on commons as they seemed questionable. but this is an aspect of Wikipedia that may more complex. Wtfiv (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul August, per your earlier involvement with this article, you may be pleased to know that a complete rewrite and update has been undertaken by Wtfiv. Would you be interested in having a look at what appears to be heading for a FAR saved star? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

As requested I've done a copyright review. Images removed were not evaluated for copyright.

Not a copyright issue, but I bet there is a better quality photo of Joyce to use as the lead image. File:Revolutionary Joyce Better Contrast.jpg is pretty low res. (t · c) buidhe 19:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Buidhe. So, Wtfiv, now that Buidhe has done the image thing, I cannot help you on the next steps, because of my aforementioned ignorance of All Things Images. We have things that need to be corrected, but I don’t know if Ceoil, Victoria or someone else will know how to do that. Buidhe, here I am going to go backwards on my typical “move to talk” stance. I would like to move your post to the main FAR page, so others might jump in to help Wtfiv on these, OK? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! Wtfiv (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC) Also, any and all the images that didn't pass can go, but I don't have the heart to do it myself. But will work with whatever is left Wtfiv (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the images flagged above. (t · c) buidhe 00:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe Thanks! It doesn't look too bad. Maybe another early Joyce image would look good. I'll scour around maybe others will find something. Wtfiv (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, Wtfiv was working and I've been busy. Will try to revisit if I can; a bit tied up myself. Buidhe I'm not clear why File:Jacques-Émile Blanche - James Joyce.jpg can't be used. Looks to me that it needs a US tag but should otherwise be good. It's a painting, not a photograph. Wtfiv take a look at Cornell's digital Joyce exhibition, there may be documents, etc. or even photographs there that are free. The media is well documented. Will try to return. Victoria (tk) 20:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not public domain in US as it was still copyright in France on the URAA date unless I'm missing something. (t · c) buidhe 21:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can't parse that sentence. Tried parsing it via various tags on Commons and still not clear about it. Do we need the painting's date to determine the licensing? Victoria (tk) 21:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases it's the date of publication, not creation that determines copyright. I use the Hirtle chart to determine copyright status. (t · c) buidhe 22:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Hirtle chart doesn't apply to paintings per the sentence, "This table is for image and text works". But anyway we found the other. Victoria (tk) 22:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the main rules apply to any copyrightable work except architecture and sound recordings, for which there are special rules. For some reason the wording on Commons is confusing on that point. See the original source: https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain (t · c) buidhe 23:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, can we use File:Portrait of James Joyce P529.jpg? It has a different license. Victoria (tk) 22:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That one seems fine, since it has been released under a free license. I'm assuming that the gallery also bought the copyright to the painting. (t · c) buidhe 22:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Wtfiv you can use File:Portrait of James Joyce P529.jpg. I leave it you for placement. In the meantime I'm looking for other images that can be used and will post a gallery on the article talk page. It'll take me some time. Victoria (tk) 22:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much Victoria! I've been scouring and feeling stalemated due to the orphaned work laws, but the beauty of working together is we can find things through triangulation that any individual may miss. If you find something, please toss it in. We have a good team checking to make sure it works. And if it doesn't, to quote Joyce's Paris days: "C'est la vie"! Wtfiv (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely have to log out now, but if you want to peek at User:Victoriaearle/sandbox I have a list of images that can be used. Will format into a gallery on the article talk page when I get back here. Victoria (tk) 00:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria I used one of the images of Shakespeare & Co. you gave to replace the subscription advertisement. I want to see what other think. Keep, leave or delete? The image issue is definitely the challenge here. Copyright, royalties, and control of image. What an issue: The artist's image and royalty value as Struldbrugg! Please put others in, where you think they may work. Please delete what doesn't. Wtfiv (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you find anything better File:Rue_Edmond_Valentin,_Paris.jpg isn’t doing a lot to expand my limited knowledge of Joyce :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what's cool, Sandy, that's the Eiffel tower in the upper left corner! Sociologically, that contrasts on the ongoing poverty, free-spender point that seems part of the Joyce Mythose. For readers who know, that's a silent critique of the early "poor Joyce" narrative. Google map the location: its prime real estate. Joyce was in one of the classy districts. Should we expand, leave as is, delete? Do what you see fit, and I'll support. Wtfiv (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t pay attention to me; I know nothing about Joyce :) But … as someone who knows nothing about Joyce, that contrast was also lost on me. You could expand the caption if you have a source explaining this “poor Joyce” narrative ? But what do I know … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SandyThe narrative that emerges in the sources, is he was constantly short of money and broke. I tried to reflect that in the article, as it has been played since Ellmann. But here he is living for five years in one of the priciest parts of Paris. It doesn't dismiss the narrative as he obviously like to spend money (according to his niece Bozena, who is sourced in the article, he bought her a string of real pearls in Trieste for eating her meat.) He's living high. Let's do it this way. If something better comes along, let's bump this one out. If you want me to mention the Eiffel tower, I will. If you can do a good caption, please do. (Actually, I know you can...so why not...or delete...I'll live...) Wtfiv (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, don’t worry about me. It would require quite a caption to get from what the neighborhoods were then to what they are now (the image is not from his time period, right?) and it seems we’d get into original research to do that … just leave it as is, and those smarter than I am will get it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! I think it was pricey then too, from what I could gather when researching the article. The frontage is the same today as back then. If someone catches it being wrong, they can fix. But do keep in mind, I trust you to make changes if you decide otherwise, as you have been the Wikipedia "Joyce tender" long before I came on the scene, and I do want to make sure that those elements of the article that reflect your vision are respected. Wtfiv (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy RE: A better Paris photo. Do you know- or do you know another administrator- who could help us put out a help request for a Parisian Wikipedian at the appropriate location to take a better photo for us? Something like this would look perfect Joyce's Apt. 7 on edmond valentin It catches some of the frontage, the Eiffel tower, and Joyce's actual address. I've not seen anything like this in Wikipedia, but one never knows...Wtfiv (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t want you to keep worrying about an off-hand comment I made, but Colin may know a Paris photographer? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy Not worried, you just raised a good point that we could get a better picture. Thanks for pinging Colin! Wtfiv (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do know a Parisien photographer but wonder if the Commons Category already has what you need? For example File:Rue Edmond-Valentin (Paris).jpg, which is like the original here but more conventionally including the ground level. -- Colin°Talk 09:58, 14 November 2021 (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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/James_Joyce/archive2&oldid=1059309639"