Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack Coggins/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 18:43, 15 May 2007.

Jack Coggins[edit]

A well-sourced, well formatted article with appropriate prose and illustrations. -- Avi 07:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Footnotes need more info (access date, publisher's name). Also, read this, please. --Crzycheetah 07:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes have been upgraded and more information added. Is this acceptable? Not sure what is wrong with the placement of the ref tags though. Dave 01:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avi fixed the placement of the ref tags. What is "further reading" in the refs supposed to mean? I think it's unnecessary. Also, replace "Accessed 13 April 2007" with "Retrieved on 2007-04-13" or vice versa. It just needs to be consistent.--Crzycheetah 05:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you - I have done as suggested. Dave 07:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avi - thank you for sorting out the footnotes and putting the hyperlinks to external information back into the main body of the article. I originally had them there, but some time back another editor didn't like that and said to use footnotes instead. I was never happy with that because I felt that they weren't really "references" as such, just links to further reading about a subject. I will put some more of them back into the text. Dave 04:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A pleasure. It was either that, or perhaps make true references into Harvard-style versions (Coggins 1978) and leave the notes as footnotes, but that would have been a lot more work . -- Avi 06:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's been up long enough and no one has noticed any glaring problems. Neither have I. Good work.-- Zleitzen(talk) 00:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Riddled with external jumps (Wiki is not a blog) — external jumps either 1) belong in external links, or 2) should have their own Wiki entries, or 3) should be converted to references. Also, please read WP:DASH and correct throughout. Numerous WP:MSH issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with making them all references is then it is difficult to separate the true reference from the link. One option is the way we have now. The other is to let the external links be footnotes and transform the references into harvard-style (as can be seen in Actuary for example). What do you suggest? -- Avi 02:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have tried to comply with WP:DASH and WP:MSH throughout the article. I have created a new section as per WP:MSH called 'Further reading' and moved all the external links to that section. Does this satisfy all the requirements? Dave 05:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those things are fixed, but there are new problems. I'm not entirely clear why there is a collection of websources in Further reading, which is where you would put additional sources for further exploring the topic of the article. Those seem to be External links, and it's not clear why they are all needed, per WP:EL and WP:NOT. Also, I intended to quickly fix some of your footnotes myself, and found that rather than using the cite templates, you have mixed the cite templates with {{citation}}, which is intended to be used with Harvard references. Not sure why the mix, but it looks like the citations need to be switched to cite templates to match the rest. Several of the footnotes are missing publisher, and it would be helpful to add the format = PDF parameter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The use of {{citation}} is that it best fits magazine articles, for which the closest cite template is {{cite journal}} which has too many excess needed fields. Citation may be used with Harvard referencing, but it need not be. -- Avi 16:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You don't have to fill in every field. How do you add format = PDF to citation, because you need several of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, I have removed 'further reading' and the external web references completely now, which should solve that problem. I am a bit confused about the template issue though, so many to choose from, not sure what template to use where. Which references need publishers added? Magazines? Newspapers? If you could let me know I will attempt to fix. Dave 04:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I went in and fixed the citation templates for you; feel free to revert if you dislike the work. However, the problem was that you were using the citation template for journals, when you're actually citing Jack Collins website (cite web) for almost every single source. Basically, the entire article is sourced to jackcollins.info, which likely makes it less than a comprehensive or unbiased bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a misconception, I believe. The JackCollins website serves as a convenience link. The references are the papers, which can be found on microfilm in any large library or the publications' morgues. Further, most of the copy are actual scans of the pages, also bolstering reliability. Note, that the citations are just as valid without the url links, although harder to check out. -- Avi 04:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (sp) JackCoggins ALTON .ıl 05:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, well that's another story, which is why it's helpful to use the correct templates. (Our reverts crossed in edit conflict.) Have you actually verified each source independently from Coggins' own website? If so, would you like me to set up the citations correctly, to include all of the correct info and show convenience links ? Further, since these convenience links are often scans, are there copyright issues ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The main sources of information for this article were references 1 and 2 which are completely independent of jackcoggins.info. The links to jackcoggins.info are used mainly for supporting images and information - I am happy to go with whatever the decision is on the use of jackcoggins.info as convenience links. As the author of jackcoggins.info I believe that I would be responsible for any copyright issues, not Wikipedia. However, as Avi points out, the papers and magazines exist and the references are just as valid without the links if is is decided to remove them. Dave 07:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent — continued oppose) The External links, Further reading, and footnote formatting problem has been largely sorted out now (pending identification of jackcoggins.info as the publisher on several sources), although resolution of the copyright issue on convenience links remains. (If JackCoggins.info violates copyright, it shouldn't be linked to anywhere on Wiki, per WP:EL.)

Having now reviewed the sources and the article, I have a larger concern about the article's 1d — neutrality.

The article mentions that Coggins' relatives are in Australia; according to article stats, Dave (Dcoggins (talk · contribs) from Australia) is by far the main editor of the article and is the author of jackcoggins.info [1], and presumably related to Jack Coggins. A large portion of the article is cited to information he uploaded to jackcoggins.info, which is labeled in the article as a "reference site and tribute - created by his family". The article contains no criticism or critical review of Coggins' work, and WP:COI may be a concern. Critical commentary and review of an artists' work is necessary for NPOV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, I am related to Jack Coggins. We have been through this issue before, and I have tried to make the article as neutral as possible, using only verifiable facts, not opinion. It is not possible to add critical review of Coggins's work, because I have not been able to locate any. It's really back to the original problem, there are just not enough sources of information to satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia. I am unable to certify that there are no copyright issues with all the works that I have scanned on jackcoggins.info to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements either. I can understand caution, but it seems to me that Wikipedia just might complicate and regulate itself out of relevance. I have now decided that I have more important things to do with my time, so I am opting out of this altogether. If the articles are deleted, so be it. Thanks to those who have assisted me up to this point, and farewell. Dave 06:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—there are several stubby paragraphs that should be integrated into larger ones. Prose doesn't look too bad as a glance, but I still recommend an audit. — Deckiller 00:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have combined some short paragraphs, any further suggestions for improvements? Dave 04:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some notes - The image could use a little more detail. Who took the picture, where, when, how? The four samples of art are missing Rationales. I think the article can be structured better, with the sections "Early Life", "Education", and "Family" made into sub-headers under a level 1 heading "History". Moreover, important biographical info should be separated from the section about his artistry, and put into the "History" section. "Awards" should be renamed to something more neutral (perhaps "recognition"), and contain possible criticism or whatnot. Giving an "Awards" section only seems biased. The "See also" should only contain a link to that one List. I realize the directory purpose of JackCoggins.org, but it does seem fishy to cite virtually only that one. Add a note below the <references /> stating the nature of the site. Shouldn't the flag of England be used instead of the UK's? I'm not sure. Is there anything in the article about the black lens in the picture? ALTON .ıl 05:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are a couple of paragraphs in the "Post World War II" section that are unreferenced. Cla68 07:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Mostly looking at the prose:
  • Jack Coggins also wrote and/or illustrated a large number of books on a wide range of subjects, as well as providing many illustrations for advertisements, magazine articles and magazine covers. - two additives ("also" and "as well") in one sentence; arguably you don't need either. Use of three vague size terms ("a large number of books", "wide range of subjects", "many illustrations") which should be improved. I'm not sure whether using "and/or" is alright - I find it jarring but you'd need to check with someone more knowledgeable.
  • captured many war time scenes from the front lines. - use of "many" is again vague (in this case it could probably be removed outright).
  • the only child of Ethel May (Dobby) - I can't follow the meaning of "Dobby".
  • Use of the phrase "Jack Coggins was born in" twice in two sentences.
  • Coggins's father - while probably implicit you're talking about the subject's father, why not just use his full name to avoid any ambiguity?
  • As a result of - slightly wordy, perhaps could be "due to" or "because of".
  • Coggins had always been interested - not strictly accurate - interests aren't something you always have, they develop over time.
  • as hostilities had already erupted in Europe - "already" is redundant.
  • the then-art director - I think it's implied that he was the art director at that time. As Paxton isn't really commented on much, you can probably remove the slightly clumsy "then-".
  • this was possibly Coggins's earliest published work - I'm left wanting to know why it might not be his earliest published work. If anymore is known, perhaps add it in brackets afterwards?
  • it set the direction of much of his work for the next five years, and showed the meticulous style of his future artistic output. - critical commentary so really needs citing.
That's just looking over the first few sections, so could probably do with a pretty thorough copyedit throughout. Trebor 09:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jack_Coggins/archive1&oldid=1141923260"