W. Mark Felt (aka Watergate's Deep Throat)

Self nom. Previously a FAC (the old nomination is here), but defeated apparently on the grounds the article was too new. So after letting it age three months, I'm trying it again. It is well researched, has a sea of footnotes, has photographs. I would appreciate specific explanations for why it does not qualify as a FA. PedanticallySpeaking 16:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I wasn't prepared to support this last time because it was too soon after the revelation, but this is a great article. My one concern is that the fair use images need more detailed explanations of why they can be used in this article. I personally doubt ones like Image:Carl bernstein.jpg and Image:Bobwoodward.jpg do qualify. - SimonP 16:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because of the image status. The first image, Image:W Mark Felt screenshot.jpg, is a screenshot which as I understand it can only be fair use if it's used to comment on the TV programme, not on the person pictured. Image:Hoover-JEdgar-LOC.jpg has no source or copyright information. I'm not sure on what grounds Image:Bobwoodward.jpg and Image:Carl_bernstein.jpg are claimed to be fair use. And Image:Tv MarkFelt 1jun05 150.jpg claims to be PD, but I'm not sure why (does it count as federal government?) Stephen Turner 17:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you have a poor understanding of fair use. I suggest you reread the article - this is a totally inaccurate comment. If the image has a transformative usage then it sits quite well under fair use. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there's an objection with pictures! I didn't upload any of these pictures so I can't answer your questions. I don't know what you're talking about with Hoover. I just clicked there and it's marked public domain from the Library of Congress. Do you have any comments about the article itself? If I deleted every photo would that be acceptable? PedanticallySpeaking 17:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: Not all things on the LoC site are PD. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the tag on Image:Hoover-JEdgar-LOC.jpg -- it's not a work of the federal government, but the LOC lists no known restrictions on reproduction. --Carnildo 21:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Object please convert those ((ref)) notes to ((inote)). They are a major hinderance to reading the text. Use the {ref} only to mark text which really needs quick referencing, ie contentious phrases, disputed numbers etc. One of the problems of having the {ref} style is, as the numbers increase, maintainence becomes harder. See for example [83] leads to [84]. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a valid reason for objecting or just a personal preference? I haven't seen anything saying that this is an official policy, or that having more than a certain number of fn3s should in itself prevent an article from being featured. Incidentally, I am starting to agree with you on this point a little more than I did before, it's just that I'm not convinced that it's enough on its own to justify an oppose vote. CTOAGN 18:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect to Nichalp, no, it's not a valid reason for objecting. The standard is that an article has inline citations -- the choice of style is left up to the author (so long as the article is consistent). This objection is invalid. →Raul654 08:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really. My Windows 2000 article got to FA status and it has an absolute heap of them. And if you don't like the text, you can modify your stylesheet to hide the numbers. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Heh heh. Beat you. :-) I'm in favour of them as well. I think you may have misunderstood - I was just pointing out that I didn't think the objection was a valid one. CTOAGN 00:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • P.S. not sure by why he thinks it's harder to maintain them. It's really not that hard. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe commonsense should dictate the use of footnotes. Why would you need to reference every second statement, which points to a useless ibid? If the text needs to be modified later, care should be taken that the refs are linked properly after modifications. With such a large amt of {refs} it becomes harder to locate and fix. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The reason is that you may not always be around the project. Any editor might challenge any fact not referenced: after all, what fact may seem obvious that you may not feel requires an ibid may in fact be very difficult to locate later on (another editor may not realise you used the same source for a different fact or opinion). I'm of the opinion that all facts should be referenced to stop challenges. It could happen (I've done it before - if the text had been referenced then I would not have had a problem with it). - Ta bu shi da yu 02:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I disagree. Felt was born in Twin Falls, Idaho. Is there a need to bookmark where he was born? A google search will give you ample results. Using inotes does not mean that it is in any way less referenced. Use ((explain-inote)) to notify users that inotes are used. One of the articles I've worked on is Economy of India. Using normal footnotes soon became a logistical and stylistic nightmare, so we settled for inotes, with footnotes for essential points. Another article was Nepal. I've added a phrase that "women are sold to brothels". Now this statement would need to have a reference that definately calls for easy access, so I've used the footnote style to quote my reference. I'm not asking the authors to abandon the footnote style, only just that it should be used sparingly. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Neutral, great article, extremely well researched, but I feel it needs a longer intro, summarising his whole life. I'd have thought 3 paragraphs would be necessary for an article this size. I'll change to support if this is done. One minor nitpick: it'd look better if all the footnotes at the end of sentences went after the full stop (Like this.^[1] Not like this^[2].) I'd still vote support without that changing, though, and might do it myself if I get bored. CTOAGN 19:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro's still a bit light (I know, ((sofixit))), but I've changed my vote to Support. If an article this well written and researched can't make it to an FA, there's no point submitting anything. CTOAGN 00:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object
  1. The image Image:W Mark Felt screenshot.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but there does not appear to be anything significant about that particular TV appearance. A fair use claim is doubtful, and the image should probably be removed.
  2. The image Image:Bobwoodward.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but since Bob Woodward is only periperally related to the subject of the article, any fair use claim is doubtful.
  3. The image Image:Carl bernstein.jpg has no source information, and may be deleted at any time.
  4. I suggest replacing the images of Woodward and Bernstein with the presumably-public-domain image from [3]

  --Carnildo 21:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a bit of a follow up to the above, I think the article suffers from a horrible disease known as picture-overloaditis. By a wonderful twist of coincidence, the cure for picture-overloaditis is also the cure for the copyright problems listed above -- delete the problematic images :) →Raul654 08:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very well written, researched and sourced. - Jord 00:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support of the strongest sort! VERY Well told story, extensively researched and supported. Everything an FA should be and a bit more.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (forgot to do this). - Ta bu shi da yu 02:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object because the number of references in the text is overwhelming - it seriously harms the readability of the text when every second sentence has a reference at the end. Also, I think the lead neads to be longer, and summarise more of the article content - three paragraphs would be nice. Worldtraveller 11:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree - I don't see how having a superscripted number at the end of a sentence is particularly intrusive. The FAC criteria certainly make no mention of such a problem. →Raul654 19:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me, citing a reference for where he was born and what his parents were called seems to be overdoing things. Citing his birth certificate when saying what his name is would not be too dissimilar. Many of the citations are necessary but I feel they could be trimmed somewhat. Links to references give the reader constant reasons to break away from reading the article, and I don't think that's a good thing. Worldtraveller 20:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I consider this a model of a well-cited article. Jokestress 23:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• support: Overdue. Ombudsman 19:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Sigh. The arguments above are so very frustrating. One tries to do good work but people won't say anything positive. It's always negativity, usually about trivialities. Before, someone objected because there weren't footnotes. Now that I have them, someone else objects to their presence. It's easy to see why many Wikipedians, even Administrators, just throw up their hands and walk out on the project all together. I know I've been contributing a lot less lately because of the tenor of debates here. Is it just me that gets so frustrated? PedanticallySpeaking 19:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone's saying there should be no footnotes. You can have too few but you can also have too many. I'm saying negative things because I want to help to improve the article - please don't take objections to FACs as attacks on the nominator, no serious editor would ever intend them as such. Worldtraveller 20:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it isn't just you. I recently put an FAC through for the first time and when it passed I just felt relief that it was finally off the FAC page. Seeing somebody object to X being missing, putting X in and then seeing someone else object to X is extremely frustrating. It's given me a few ideas on how we could improve the process; I'll post them on the FAC talk page when I get round to it. CTOAGN 19:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, FAC is a quality control process and yes, it is an exacting process. We aren't attacking the nominatior, all what we're doing is suggesting ways in which the article can be improved. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very substantive article, very well written and VERY VERY well referenced. I think the delay did help, especially with the revelations about Felt's family and their motivations. --JohnDBuell | Talk 20:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support When this article was first nominated, PedanticallySpeaking encouraged me to vote. At the time I opposed it being a featured article, but the article is much improved now. Most of the dust has settled and it is no longer constantly changing. The time has also allowed the Wikipedia community the time to address all the delicate subtleties present with a controversial figure like Mr. Felt. While it isn't perfect, it certainly fits the bill as a shining example of what this community can build when they work together. Badammcqueen 21:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but only on the grounds that we find a way to shrink the references/notes down somehow, I agree that we need these... but they do consume an awful lot of the page, perhaps spin them to an article specifically for references? Other than that this article is an excellent example of what wiki is about.  ALKIVAR™ 21:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, having references on another page is a strict no-no =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in a FA, claims need to be well cited, don't see why some people think there are too many. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – look at this from another angle. If you were writing about a person, say Gandhi, would you add all possible books available (including clones of each other) under =references=? Would that really make the article more referenced? I really don't think converting from ref to inote takes too much time since I've done it in the past. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – the article and the dedicated effort that produced it. --Ian Pitchford 13:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]