Wikipedia:Featured article review/Felice Beato/archive2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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) 7:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC) [1].
- Notified: Pinkville, Hoary, GillesdeF WP Bio, WP MILHIST, WP Photography, WP Japan, WP China, WP Italy, WP Journalism, 2025-02-24
This article met the lower inline citation standards in 2005 when promoted, and improvements were made in a 2011 FAR. However, there is still some work to be done here in that respect as the featured article criteria now stand - mainly in the Burma section. I also wonder if there is more to be said about his legacy; Beato's work seems to have been fairly significant in its time. There were some discussions on the article's talk page regarding ongoing improvements in 2023 and 2024, but these seem to have stalled out. A lot of this uncited content was added in 2013, after the FAR - editors with more familiarity in this subject matter may be able to determine if this content is actually suitable for the article. Hog Farm Talk 03:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing I notice is the lead is kinda short for a feature article, only ~137 which is lower than the usual 250 to 400 words for WP:FA articles which is also stated in MOS:LEADLENGTH. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The problematic addition was made by GillesdeF, who I think hasn't been seen hereabouts since 2018. Material, as yet untapped, about the Burmese period is available. ¶ When a lead is kinda short, I'm kinda happy; indeed, I'm kinda irritated by requests to bulk up a lead. (To me, "Too short leaves the reader unsatisfied" sounds kinda dumb: the lead-reader is thereby invited to proceed to the body of the article.) A different matter, of course, if somebody points out that the lead omits mention of such-and-such but should include it.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It gladdens my heart to drop in here after a long absence and see your "name". I couldn't agree more abut "ledes". Wikipedia has some peculiar conventions that don't have much to do with useful ways to present content. Oh, the lost cause against infoboxes... Pinkville (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pinkville and Hoary: - The Burma content has been sourced now - do either of y'all have any additional thoughts about this one? Hog Farm talk 02:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hog Farm, there's nothing in particular that I'm now planning to do to the article, but certainly I'd consider requests to do this or that. -- Hoary (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Is "Luminous Lint" still something that would be considered to be a high-quality RS in 2025? Hog Farm talk 02:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question, Hog Farm (and if you'd only pinged me, I'd have noticed it sooner). No it wouldn't. Two LL items were listed in "References". One wasn't actually referred to. The other was only used as a convenient quotation from a book by a Dr Rennie. As the original of the latter is anyway available at archive.org, I've linked to that instead, and have removed all mention of Luminous-Lint. -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hoary and Pinkville: - this is looking much better! Just a few other questions:
- "that "Felice Antonio Beato" represented two brothers, Felice Beato and Antonio Beato, who sometimes worked together, sharing a signature. The confusion arising from the signatures continues to cause problems in identifying which of the two photographers was the creator of a given image." - is this in ref [6]? I just want to make sure that we've got this covered with a citation, given the significance of the claim here
- "but it is now generally accepted that Beato travelled there alone." - this should have a direct citation, as it is stating the view of the published work to be incorrect
- "The photographs were not taken in this order, as the photographs of dead Chinese had to be taken first—before the bodies were removed; only then was Beato free to take the other views of the exterior and interior of the forts" - should this be counterbalanced with the claim earlier in the article that Beato had the bodies dug up to photograph?
- Like I said above, this is looking to be in pretty good shape. Hog Farm talk 01:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- First, regarding the issue of the Chinese dead. According to the sources, Beato requested the Chinese dead be left where they were (though there's obvious photo evidence that they were moved anyway). The disinterred bodies were earlier, in India, not China. Are you asking for more information to relate these two events? Pinkville (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Second, the "Felicice Antonio Beato" surce is, indeed, (6) Zannier. But I confess the reference is weird because of the mention of Chantal Edel. I'm trying to remember (I don't have access to the book, at the moment), but I reckon Chantal Edel contributed an essay to the Zannier book - which is a small exhibition catalogue. If that's the case, it should have been referenced directly. Pinkville (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Third, "but it is now generally accepted that Beato travelled there alone." This is difficult to source. At one time, it was claimed that the two brothers both went to India. In more recent scholarship, there's no mention of this claim - because there's no evidence that Antonio ever went to India as early as 1857. It'll take some work to see if there's anything to add, otherwise, it might be best to remove the whole sentence (i.e. the Gernsheim claim). Pinkville (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hoary had posted some responses to my comments at Talk:Felice Beato; where I just responded before seeing this here. I misread the article regarding the corpse-moving. I found a source that may help with the other two things. Hog Farm talk 03:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hoary and Pinkville: - this is looking much better! Just a few other questions:
- Good question, Hog Farm (and if you'd only pinged me, I'd have noticed it sooner). No it wouldn't. Two LL items were listed in "References". One wasn't actually referred to. The other was only used as a convenient quotation from a book by a Dr Rennie. As the original of the latter is anyway available at archive.org, I've linked to that instead, and have removed all mention of Luminous-Lint. -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Is "Luminous Lint" still something that would be considered to be a high-quality RS in 2025? Hog Farm talk 02:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hog Farm, there's nothing in particular that I'm now planning to do to the article, but certainly I'd consider requests to do this or that. -- Hoary (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pinkville and Hoary: - The Burma content has been sourced now - do either of y'all have any additional thoughts about this one? Hog Farm talk 02:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It gladdens my heart to drop in here after a long absence and see your "name". I couldn't agree more abut "ledes". Wikipedia has some peculiar conventions that don't have much to do with useful ways to present content. Oh, the lost cause against infoboxes... Pinkville (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There's one minor external linking quibble being discussed on talk, but I'm comfortable posting a close without FARC. Most of the content was already gone through in the 2011 FAR; the post-2011 editions have been trimmed/sourced, and some further improvements have been made. Hog Farm talk 02:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose, sourcing and images look good to me, but the source formatting is rather archaic. I would still vote keep. Matarisvan (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.