Wikipedia:Featured article review/Joshua A. Norton

Joshua A. Norton

Article is no longer a featured article

Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political figures, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Sandy 00:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across this page by chance and couldn't quite believe it's an FA. Of course, it's one of our older ones.

Although interesting, I'm not sure the prose is brilliant. It degenerates into a list and trivia by the end of the article, including a ridiculous section on the dead Norton posting to Usenet via a spiritual medium! The article is referenced but such a chatty piece really needs inline citations.

A decent enough article, perhaps a GA, but up to modern FA standards? My feeling is no. --kingboyk 15:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with kingboyk's comments (though the 'perhaps a GA' comment I feel is being generous given the current expected standards for GA's and FA's). The "In popular culture" section is almost a trivia section in disguise, creating disjointed prose which needs to be addressed (1. a.) by tying the paragraphs together so the whole section is properly co-ordinated. This is an example which needs inline citations (1. c.), or otherwise can be considered original research;

"During the latter years of Norton's reign, he was the subject of considerable rumor and speculation."

In brief, criteria 1. a. and 1. c. need to be addressed in this article. LuciferMorgan 01:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per nominator. Inline citations desperately needed. Section "In popular culture" looks like a loooooong trivia section.--Yannismarou 18:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The [April, 2004 version of the article] that appeared on the front page was not bad. There has been a lot of change since then, and not all of it positive. Simply editing out the trivia and accumulated cruft would go a long ways towards restoring this article.--Paul 23:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've started restoring this article. Trivia has been moved to a daughter article, I'm changing to in-line cites & I've stared editing out some accumulated cruft.--Paul 14:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very good ongoing effort, with good progress being made by Paul, but it still needs more citations: shall we move it to FARC now that two weeks have elapsed, or will work be completed soon? FARC would allow at least two more weeks to complete work. Sandy 21:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without some help, completion isn't going to be soon. I have addressed the "triva" concerns of earlier commentators; existing references were converted to in-line, and a few new references have been added, though more are required. I am planning a trip to the SF Library where (after looking in the catalog) I know I will have access to most of the listed secondary sources. I like the irreverent and informal tone of this article, and will do some prose polishing to return it to its former glory. I hope it can be rescued as a FA. Trips to the library are weekend projects.--Paul 22:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are structure (trivia and lists) (2), and insufficient citations (1c). Marskell 09:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably look at the article before you summarize the FA concerns. It no longer contains trivia or lists.--Paul 11:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A late reply: Paul, I never deduce when moving down what has been taken care of, because that would game the system in favour of my evaluation. I just relist in summary what the nominator said, and the reviewers can then judge for themselves. Marskell 10:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - still lacks inline citations -there's even quotes with no cites --plange 22:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Per Plange. And in section "Imperial career" there are too many quotes interrupting the prose. It needs rewriting.--Yannismarou 14:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per plange and Yannismarou. Sandy 16:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note on closure: Paul did some good work on this, but by his own admission requires more than the available time to get it to standard. A fair bit of work remains. Marskell 10:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]