- 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 promoted by Karanacs 20:49, 22 May 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets FA criteria. This article on an interesting man, who seems almost saintlike until you can see the anger expressed over decades of being "the man who Nixon beat" has passed GA and gone through a peer review. I should note that it does use a fair use image. I have visited the National Archives and called the House of Representatives seeking a free use image; they don't have one. I'm planning to do some research at Cal Poly Pomona and Claremont College, each of which has a Voorhis archive when I go to California, most likely in July and have been in touch with them, but for now, there is no free use image of Voorhis available, and honestly I don't think there's going to be.Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I was going to ask about the picture, and I don't think that's problematic, sometimes free pictures are difficult to obtain and he is also dead. I see you found something about the "cowboy" time in Wyoming, that is good. I personally think "nevertheless" at the beginning of that one sentence is unnecessary, as are some whiles and thoughs, but these are minor issues and I'm not regularly on FAC and don't know whether that is considered to contribute to engaging prose, but the changes added since the GA review complement the article. Hekerui (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it was my fault, I thought the cowboy thing was connected with the year he spent in Laramie, actually it happened earlier. All straightened out, I'll do a reread and see if I can get rid of a few of the "though"s.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - Two non-free images of US congress men is unfathomable, the US federal government is the richest source of free image content on this site, it is not plausible these images meet NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've explained that I've looked for images at the National Archives in College Park, in person, and by calling the House of Representatives. If you want me to delete the Houser fair use image, OK, but Houser was never a congressman, and thus he would have been unlikely to have had a free use photo taken. I have also enquired of the special collections people at Cal Poly Pomona, where the Voorhis papers are stored, have not heard back yet. According to the people at the House of Representatives, the Congressional Photo Directory did not start until 10 years after Voorhis left office. They suggested I consult the National Archives. Which I had already gone to in person. If you have suggestions as to how I might proceed, Fasach Nua, I'd be grateful.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have stricken the oppose, will take the matter under consideration and will return to the issue Fasach Nua (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I hope you do. We need some sort of accepted guideline to cover people whose career fell between 1923 and the dawn of the digital camera age. I would love to have a free use image of Voorhis, since I would like to see this article TFA someday, and I'd like it to have a free use image of him.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I had my say at peer review – not much as it happens – and my concerns were pretty much met. Just a few petty niggles now:-
- I noticed some missing no-break spaces
- Can it be clarified that the "Bibliography" is a list of works by Voorhis?
- In that bibliography I noticed there was The Life and Times of Aurelius Lyman Voorhis. A distinguished forbear, perhaps? Any idea who he was and why a book should be written about him?
- In the peer review I asked if there was any information about the origin of the name "Voorhis". Do I take it your investigations drew a blank?
These are very minor points which do not detract from the article's quality. A worthy FA. Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Responses to BB: Thanks. My responses are:
- I'll check on the nbs. I take it we are talking about prior to an ellipsis?
- I'll make that clarification
- The next two go together. I'm trying to get hold of a copy of that book, Aurelius was Voorhis' grandfather and founded a bank and other businesses in Kansas and fought in the Civil War (he left a diary, which I imagine is Voorhis' source for much of it). I am hoping to get ancestry information from that. Bullock doesn't help, he mentions that Aurelius was born in Indiana but he doesn't say where the family comes from. However, I'm trying to avoid buying a copy, for obvious reasons, and am arranging for some library searches, so far no good.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the nbsps, I was actually thinking of things like 300 Democrats, 15,000 votes etc. On Aurelius, I'd say the bit of information you have is worth including as family background, even if you can't lay your hands on the book. Brianboulton (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do that, citing Bullock and will insert the nbsps today. I'm sure the Voorhis collection will have the book when I get out to California in the summer. Right now I am scheduled to fly out on July 12, but that is very much subject to change not within my control. I don't mind sacrificing a few hours to look over his papers, take photographs of the things named for him, etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder a bit about the naming practices in the Voorhis family. "Aurelius" is bad enough, but who in their right mind would name their kid "Horace Voorhis" (say it a few times). Jeez. No wonder he went by Jerry.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
The only problem I have is that your book refs in the notes use books listed in the Further reading. Further reading is for books/articles/etc NOT used in the notes.
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed the section to "Bibliography", which is what I've used in other FAs. That section contains only books used as refs. Thanks for the check.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Sources" works also, if you're concerned about a conflict between his own writings and sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was. I'll do that. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support but with comments - 1) National Archives -II- is in College Park. :) 2) "he faced a military school principal" makes it seem like being a principal makes the candidate weak in the context. I didn't see anything else that stood out. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the support. Yes, technically it is the Archives II, I guess, though most people seem to prefer College Park for research. As for the military school principal, the exact quote, from Gellman, is: "The next contender, who lost by a wider margin, was the commander of a small military school for boys." It's what the source says.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose till image concerns sorted out:
- File:Voorhissig.jpg: this is a perculiar situation... I doubt we copyright our signatures. Regardless it is a derivative work—copying a signature. I am quite uncomfortable here (and uncertain if any policies/guidelines cover this). Should we not go for a genuine signature? What says the community?
- To explain my discomfort (since as explained by Wehwalt below, US signatures are not copyrightable), my issue is that I would prefer to see the man's own work (and learn of the pen-pressure and style as he signed off his name)? Can we not upload the original signature itself? Jappalang (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Frederick F. Houser.gif: WP:IUP asks not for this to be a GIF. Furthermore, as Houser has his own article, by what significance and purpose should his image be here as fair use?
- File:Nixon while in US Congress.jpg: the doubts of this image's copyright has been brought up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Checkers speech/archive1, and the image has been brought to commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nixon while in US Congress.jpg.
- File:NixonThimble.jpg: point to the page that hosts the image, not directly to the image. Is this image copyrighted?[2] The page might make it clear.
File:Lt Cmdr Richard Nixon 1945.jpg: no given source or information to verify the details of this photo. The closest image is at http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq60-8.htm but there is a lack of information to properly license this image (if we take their public domain claim to heart).[3] It would be best to confirm with them if this image was taken by their personnel (OTRS). For all we know, it could be a photo submitted by Nixon (privately taken) to his Naval office and they mistakenly thought it was their own. Jappalang (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voorhis' portrait is okay as fair use (I have reinforced the fair use rationale as best as I could); searching through Google, LoC, and National Archives reveal no ready images of him. Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments I've changed the copyright tag on this (of course, I took the photo of the signature) to pd-ineligible per [4]. That seems to be the common practice for non Federal gov't employees in the post 1923 era. Does that work for you?
- Houser: sliced, replaced with one of FDR.
- Nixon: replaced with one of him in the Navy
- Thimble: I removed it. I really didn't like having a Nixon thimble in Voorhis' article anyway. I do intend to bring the article on the campaign up through the ranks, and I own one of the famous thimbles (they are not rare) and will photograph it in due course for that article. For this article, I've axed it and put in one of the Cal Poly Pomona campus. I will be going to California in July; maybe they have some Voorhis election memorabilia I can photograph. But this should do for FAC purposes.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the signature issue, please also see here. I'm not going to the wall on this; it is merely in the infobox for ornament, and if there's a view that it's copyright, I'll get rid of it. Or please just get rid of it yourself. I'm not going to hold up the FAC of a worthy (I'm biased) article on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As explained above, I am not going against it on grounds of copyrights (I was wondering about it), but more of a "if it was not copyrighted in the first place, why not upload Voorhis' own work?" Jappalang (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a digital photograph of his signature, how is that not OK? I don't have a scanner, if that's what you're talking about. I will add the info you want on the source, and replace the Nixon photo again. I hope that will do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I was thrown off by "I created this work entirely by myself." All "free" images in the article verifiably in the public domain or licensed. The single copyrighted photo complies with fair use. Jappalang (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then, thanks for the check. I'd be grateful if you could advise me how to handle that situation better, but my talk page is a fine venue for that. To recap, we have three supports, no opposes, and the article has passed technical and image checks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
