The article was kept by Raul654 21:33, 13 August 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
Notice to the nominator: Please notify relevant parties (editors and projects) per step 6 of "Nominating an article for FAR; otherwise your nomination is incomplete".--
Yannismarou (
talk) 08:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
Current problems with this article:
Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Wait A couple issues remain. There are several
dead links,
dabs, and the images in the templates need alt text.
Dabomb87 (
talk) 00:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
I'm afraid I maintain my objections. Note N-1 isn't just "describing" a primary source; it is very explicitly interpreting it ("Contextually, this observation indicates [...]"), without the guidance of a reliable secondary source. That's the very definition of OR. N-2 clearly "synthesises" the two assertions, and again interprets the result ("..., thus,..."), without guidance from a reliable secondary source regarding the notability of the claims and the representativity of the primary sources exemplifiying them; moreover, the last part of the claim ("many people in the country also think...") is entirely unsourced. My objection about N-3 is not so much about its content, but about the fact that it duplicates something that already has its own section in the body of the text, the "politics" section. – The more I think of it, the more I am also generally dissatisfied with the whole idea of having such footnotes dedicated to the topic of what might be "offensive" to whom. It smacks of context disclaimers, which we don't do. Either the "offensive" nature of this or that term is notable enough to be made an explicit object of sourced analysis; then it can and should go into the body text; or else it should simply be ignored. – Finally, about the issue of double footnote systems, you may well be right about wiki precedents, but still, in half a lifetime of academic reading I cannot remember having ever seen anything in print that does something similar. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by Raul654 21:33, 13 August 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
Notice to the nominator: Please notify relevant parties (editors and projects) per step 6 of "Nominating an article for FAR; otherwise your nomination is incomplete".--
Yannismarou (
talk) 08:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
Current problems with this article:
Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Wait A couple issues remain. There are several
dead links,
dabs, and the images in the templates need alt text.
Dabomb87 (
talk) 00:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
I'm afraid I maintain my objections. Note N-1 isn't just "describing" a primary source; it is very explicitly interpreting it ("Contextually, this observation indicates [...]"), without the guidance of a reliable secondary source. That's the very definition of OR. N-2 clearly "synthesises" the two assertions, and again interprets the result ("..., thus,..."), without guidance from a reliable secondary source regarding the notability of the claims and the representativity of the primary sources exemplifiying them; moreover, the last part of the claim ("many people in the country also think...") is entirely unsourced. My objection about N-3 is not so much about its content, but about the fact that it duplicates something that already has its own section in the body of the text, the "politics" section. – The more I think of it, the more I am also generally dissatisfied with the whole idea of having such footnotes dedicated to the topic of what might be "offensive" to whom. It smacks of context disclaimers, which we don't do. Either the "offensive" nature of this or that term is notable enough to be made an explicit object of sourced analysis; then it can and should go into the body text; or else it should simply be ignored. – Finally, about the issue of double footnote systems, you may well be right about wiki precedents, but still, in half a lifetime of academic reading I cannot remember having ever seen anything in print that does something similar. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply