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 01:10, 15 April 2008.

Lazare Ponticelli[edit]

Self nomination I know what you're thinking. This article is tiny, and from what, 15 sources? Well, every single thing in this is sourced, and it passed GA and was peer reviewed. I know that the fr: wikipedia's version is longer, but then again, it does have unsourced statements in it. The only thingwe can possibly thaw information out of is his autobiography, which is in french and apparently has lots of pictures. Any issues stated here will be adressed immediatedly. Editor of the wiki 00:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the links worked and the sources look good. (Thank goodness for short articles! Yay!) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a support? Editor of the wiki 09:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a comment, because I don't have time to do a full review on every FAC, but I do try to look at the sources of every FAC and see how reliable they might be. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yup. Neal (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comments When I click on the "[A]" note, I'm not taken to the bottom for some reason. "In his later years, he was critical of war in general and kept his war awards in a shoe box." Two disparate ideas (unless the second is somehow connected to the first...sentence does not explain) mashed together into one sentence; makes for awkward sentence. Read further down, and saw "A recipient of several awards, Ponticelli knew it was his age that gave him the medals and kept them in a shoe box", which again tries to somehow connect these two ideas, but isn't very successful. Also "knew it was his age that gave him the medals" is quite awkward and ambiguous. "...the emphasis to be on..." What emphasis? BuddingJournalist 17:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) The A note works perfectly for me, it must be something with your computer.

2) The war awards stuff implies to the reader that, while Ponticelli was proud of his medals, he was humble about it and didn't go around hanging his legion of honor.

3) Because he was le der des ders the last of the last, he was given these medals, and he knew it.

4) The emphasis of the procession.

All added to article. Editor of the wiki 20:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update for 1): it looks like it may be a problem with my popups; if I'm logged out it works fine for me too. BuddingJournalist 21:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For 3), the source says these were "war medals". Are you sure these medals that he had in his shoe box were ones earned because of his age? BuddingJournalist 21:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He earned them for his service and because he lived so dang long. If he hadn't, he wouldn't have received any of the medals.

Conditional support This is good and it reads nicely. But I would suggest you remove all the citations that are repeated. It really does not help to cite the same Times article a dozen times. There's a growing tendency for people to think that just because there's a footnote behind every sentence or a word, that makes it good. The John McCain article is example of this sort of thing going slightly over the top. Wik idea 18:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific, I would suggest combining references where possible. If two or more consecutive sentences are sourced to the same reference, then just reference the last one; it's then implied that everything prior is sourced to that reference. BuddingJournalist 18:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I peronally like sourcing every sentance, even if it was with the above source. If you could link me to a policy or guideline I'd be happy to fix it. Editor of the wiki 20:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any relevant policy or guideline about this. It's just a stylistic suggestion, since it makes article text much easier to read. Many of the articles on Wikipedia employ it, and it's common in academia to have a single citation "cover" a multi-sentence paraphrase of another work. BuddingJournalist 21:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have fixed everyone I noticed. Editor of the wiki 10:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~. Excellent article - the fact that it's so short only reflects the fact that there probably just aren't that many notable things to say about him. I just have once concern: the Sarkozy quotation at the end of the article isn't at all integrated into the prose. This kinda makes it seem like Wikipedia is advancing the view Sarkozy is expressing. I would suggest either removing this quotation or, if it is part of the statement mentioned two paragraphs before, moving it to that paragraph.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was thinking of a good way to do that... However, I have discoved a Quote Box that I have added to the article. Editor of the wiki 19:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Although I can't say I'm completely content with this solution, since I feel having this quote box the way it is does still sort of editorialize Ponticelli's life and his military service, I'm willing to settle for this. --Carabinieri (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SupportSlight oppose for now, mainly because of some prose rough spots. Changed to support.

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead, did he lie about his ancestry or his age? The second sentence of the first paragraph of the lead is a bit confusing. I would think he lied about his ancestry and age, which would explain why he was transferred to the Italian armies. Ah, now I see. The two events aren't really connected. He was tranferred because Italy joined the war, correct? The lead should reflect that, because as it is now written, it implies that he lied about his ancestry and was discovered, which the article itself doesn't support.
World War I section, the first sentence of the first paragraph seems awkward to me. Perhaps "In August 1914 when he was 16, he lied about his age to join the 1st Regiment de Marche of the French Foreign Legion, where his older brother Celeste was already serving."?
Same section, last paragraph, the third sentence feels odd to me. Perhaps "In 1918 he was gassed in an Austrian chemical attack that killed hundreds of his fellow soldiers."?
The quote in the next section needs a citation directly on it, per WP:CITE#When quoting someone
Last sentence of Work with Ponticelli Freres section, I think the "there" is unnecessary.
I think the third sentence of Later life might work better if it ran something like "Originally offered a state funeral by Jacques Chirac, he initially asserted he did not want one,..."

Other than these prose concerns, it is a good article, and I'll be happy to support when these prose rough spots are smoothed over. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I have addressed the above issues in a suitable fashion. Editor of the wiki 01:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Quick work. Changing to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unconditional support. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support with one comment: even in references, the names of newspapers should be italicized. Karanacs (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Editor of the wiki 19:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.