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 17:40, 30 September 2007.

Rachel Carson[edit]

previous FAC

This article has been improved considerably since its first ill-fated FAC a few months ago. The lack of illustrations is regrettable, but all the images of Carson I know of except the government photo at the top are unfree.--ragesoss 00:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes "Rachel Carson Papers" and "Rachel Carson Centennial" look like you simply made the terms up is that they are upper cased and you don't use the terms in their sections. It's akin to having a section on Silent Spring and never using that name in the section, just alluding to it. Standard practice is to wikilink full dates, including refs, as in May 11, 2007. I'll look over the rest later. I still think the quote needs to go, but we'll wait on that one.
Standard practice on linking access dates is just silly. The date a website was accessed has nothing to do with the content of the article. I changed the section titles to "Collected papers and posthumous publications" and "Centennial events".--ragesoss 13:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting comment on standard practice and wiki policy from an admin. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Footnotes, esp the 3 lines near the end beginning "*Plunkett, John..."Rlevse 13:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not confuse standard practice with policy. The citation guideline doesn't even mention anything explicitly about linking access dates, it's just in the example. That aspect seems to me like simply a case of overzealously applying the guideline on linking full dates (which is a good thing within an article's prose) rather than a fully-thought-out recommendation for citations. I've brought this up at the guideline page. If someone can explain to me, here or there, why linking access dates is a good thing, then I'll change it. In any case, we use a wide variety of citation formats; it's consistent within the article, which is the main thing. (And being admin is no guarantee of knowing, much less agreeing with, every aspect of the style guidelines. Many admins know little of the evolving style guidelines, since they don't do much writing.)--ragesoss 14:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncomfortable with the quotation in the lead as well. None of the biographies of major or minor writers that I have seen so far on wikipedia use quotations in this fashion. Because there is no analysis of the quotation, it is unclear what the reader is supposed to glean from the quotation. Is this quotation frequently cited, for example? In other words, I think the reader needs to be given a reason to pay attention to this quotation. (See A Vindication of the Rights of Men for one way to do this.)
  • The quote is quoted frequently, but I don't know of any particular significance except as a clear statement of Carson's own conservation ethic. I see it basically as a summary of Carson's worldview (which is why I think it's appropriate for the lead). Regarding JayHenry's related comment below: it was published in her lifetime (perhaps more than once in similar form, I'm not sure), just not in her books. It was republished in the source that was given in the footnote (Lost Woods: The Discovered Writings of Rachel Carson). It has been used frequently by the environmental movement, from well before its recent republication, both as a tribute to Carson and a clear statement of the sentiments of other environmentalists. But I don't know how to convey that concisely (and most of the above explanation is technically original research, anyhow; I don't know of any explicit analysis of the quote). So since it doesn't stand on its own (which I and some others I've asked think it does, but you three—Rlevse, Awadewit and JayHenry—along with the Good Article reviewer think it doesn't) I've removed it.--ragesoss 04:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's used that frequently, certain someone reputable has said "this quotation encapsulates Carson's worldview" or somesuch? That way the quote could be included with that explanation, which I would fully endorse. Awadewit | talk 04:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead feels a little repetitive at the moment. The emphasis on SS in the first and third paragraphs was what led to this impression, I think.
  • I rearranged it so that Silent Spring isn't mentioned until the third paragraph. Normally I would expect it to appear in the first sentence, but it's a pretty concise lead so I think it works out.--ragesoss 02:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • was an American marine biologist and nature writer whose work is often credited with having launched the global environmental movement. - This sentence implies that her work as both a marine biologist and as a nature writer helped launch the environmental movement. I don't think that is quite correct, is it? Perhaps "whose books are often credited.."? Awadewit | talk 05:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think about adding a few phrases describing her other books in the second paragraph? Awadewit | talk 05:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a bit, and clarified the first sentence.--ragesoss 17:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • She especially enjoyed the St. Nicholas Magazine (which carried her first published stories), the work of Beatrix Potter, and the novels of Gene Stratton Porter, and in her teen years, Herman Melville, Joseph Conrad and Robert Louis Stevenson. - Do any of your sources say why she enjoyed these authors in particular? I see a thread of authors interested in nature, which would of course be relevant for her later writings.
  • Yes, Lear talks about the connections: basically everything she liked had to do with the natural world, and by her teens years, particularly "the ocean and seafaring". I've made the connection explicit now.--ragesoss 05:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the urging of her undergraduate biology mentor Mary Scott Skinker, she settled for a temporary position with the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries writing radio copy for a series of educational broadcasts entitled "Romance Under the Waters". Based on the research for the series, she also began submitting articles to newspapers and magazines. - Could you say anything more about these radio shows and articles? It is not entirely clear what they were about.
  • I added a bit more about these projects.--ragesoss 05:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carson's supervisor, pleased with the success of the radio programs, asked her to produce an introductory brochure on fisheries bureau - This sentence needs to be fixed, but I wasn't sure what it was supposed to say.
  • "...the fisheries bureau" was what it was supposed to say, but I've clarified it a bit further.--ragesoss 05:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like the last two paragraphs of "Early career and publications" need to be reworked; they are rather stubby and don't flow. The last sentence of the paragraph third from the end is "Instead, her interests were turning to conservation" so the reader expects the next paragraph to be about conservation. However, it begins "Family tragedy struck a third time.."
  • Better. Awadewit | talk 05:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was extremely with the final version of the script by writer, director and producer Irwin Allen; she found it untrue to the atmosphere of the booank and scientifically embarrassing, describing it as "a cross between a believe-it-or-not and a breezy travelogue." - This sentence needs to be fixed and the quote needs a citation. Awadewit | talk 05:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information on Carson's relationship with Freeman belongs in the "Life and work" section somewhere; it is not really part of her "Legacy" (current location).
  • I had it within "Life and work" originally, as the final subsection, but it's as much or more about interpretations of the relationship (i.e., her legacy) as about the relationship itself, and everything else within "Life and work" is chronological while that section doesn't really work chronologically. I'll move it back to the end of Life and work; let me know if you can think of anything better.--ragesoss 05:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it works well where you have placed it. Awadewit | talk 05:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carson and Freeman knew that their letters could be interpreted as such, though they would not have described it that way - Pronouns need to be clarified.
  • Shortly before Carson's death, they destroyed hundreds of letters. - Not terribly clear in context who "they" is. Awadewit | talk 05:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Posthumous honors" feels like a list - perhaps best to make it one?
  • I've tried to make this feel less like a list, though I'm not sure how well it works. You really think a list would be better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragesoss (talk • contribs) 01:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much better - no need for the list now! Awadewit | talk 05:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Posthumous criticism" should be worked into the "Legacy" section where topically appropriate. "Criticism" sections in general do not help readers easily see all sides of the issue as they separate the sides. See also WP:NPOV#Article structure.
  • I moved that section wholesale to immediate follow the environmentalism section (since it basically picks up from there) and retitled it "Reactions to environmentalism and DDT restrictions".
  • I would urge you to include the criticisms when the relevant topics are discussed or to structure the "Reactions" section chronologically, charting the legacy of the book more clearly. Right now, the section feels a bit like a list of reactions. X group says A, Y says B, and Z says C; the section doesn't have any real narrative or analysis for the reader to grab hold of.
  • Why are all of these differing opinions included? Why, for example, is Human Events, used as the representative example for the conservative viewpoint in the opening paragraph?
  • I'm also not sure how the third paragraph is a "furthermore" - it seems like part of it might be a contrast to the previous paragraph.
  • "Recently" is not that precise - does it mean the 1990s? the oughts?
  • You cite Monica Moore from PANNA, but that is an organization dedicated to fighting pesticide use - does she have any other credentials?
  • Perhaps you could find the original for the Bate quote? Seeing it out of context like this is not very enlightening. Awadewit | talk 05:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section is tough to deal with in terms of balancing topicality with long-term significance (and I mostly rearranged what had already been worked out before I started in on this article, since much of it is too recent to be discussed at length in the books I used for the rest). In terms of chronology, this does pick up where the previous section leaves off; it's about the wave of anti-environmentalism that began in the 1980s and stretches tot the present, and it basically consists of discourse about Carson's more direct legacy (environmentalism and the EPA) in the 1960s and 1970s—the legacy of Carson's legacy, if you will. On the specifics: I tried to make the whole section into a better narrative, and fixed the specific style issues you point out. I also removed the Monica Moore paragraph, as I don't really a good answer to why that is significant and it somewhat redundant because of the initial framing in terms of attacks on Carson as a means to broader anti-environmentalism goals. I don't have a great explanation for why the specific opinions are included, except that it fleshes out what would otherwise be weasely generalities, and that's what the previous rounds of intense editing (before I got involved) had come up with.--ragesoss 05:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This version is an improvement. Awadewit | talk 07:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the "References" use a more standard style such as Chicago or MLA? They are hard to read right now.
  • Except the Lear book lists two publishers and dates - list the one used for the page numbers in the article - it's easier for the reader! Awadewit | talk 05:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed my minor comments regarding prose on the article's talk page as they do not affect my support for the article. Nice work. Awadewit | talk 04:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much closer to support. You might have someone read over the article - I keep seeing little typos as I read. Or read it aloud - that is the easiest way to catch the kinds of typos I am seeing: extra words, dropped words, extraneous letters, missing possessives, etc. Awadewit | talk 05:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just waiting on the small improvements to the "Posthumous criticism" section before I fully support. Awadewit | talk 21:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a pleasure, as always, to support good work. Awadewit | talk 07:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support my little concerns were addressed. I gave it a careful read through and made some minor changes. Some of it was nitpicky stuff and feel free to revert if I got anything wrong. --JayHenry 15:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from Jay
  • Leaning Support with a few comments:
    • I don't think there's too much emphasis on Silent Spring (as there's quite a bit on the rest of her life as well). It's not that Carson did nothing else, but she is important for primarily one reason, and it is this book. That said, the article on Silent Spring is actually a bit sad. Some of the information in the biography should probably be moved to the article about the book.
      • I did my best to keep the Silent Spring discussion in this article focused on Carson as much as possible; if and when I tackle Silent Spring (which will actually be a much more challenging article to do right, I think), it will have a different focus than the Silent Spring material here.--ragesoss 04:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first graph of posthumous honors needs rewritten in prose. The next graphs both begin with "a number of..."
      • The two paragraphs that start with "A number of" were written that way intentionally to provide some parallel structure for the parallel content; the second intro sentence ends with "as well", which was meant draw attention to the similarity and mitigate the possible awkwardness of repetition. Apparently it failed. I'll try to come up with something better.--ragesoss 04:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know about centennial events. I guess since this is sort of a current event it's okay, but once these events are over, I think the whole centennial could be covered in a single paragraph back in legacy. Such centennial celebrations are nice, but generally have little significance.
      • I pretty much agree; if it was 2008 already, I would probably have removed most of it. I've condensed it to a single paragraph, but it's still a separate subsection of "Posthumous honors". I need to think further about how to deal with this honors stuff better; it's tempting to drastically trim it and replace it with some generalities about many awards, but that would run the risk of original research.--ragesoss 04:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really sure why her relationship with Dorothy Freeman is in the legacy section (is it because their letters were published posthumously?) but I think it needs to be in a section about her life. It's okay for the biography not to be rigidly chronological, and the bit about posthumous letters can be mentioned when the relationship is dealt with.
      • I didn't like this idea at first, but I gave it a shot and I think you're right; it works better integrated into the life section at the point Carson meets Freeman.--ragesoss 04:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Convention seems to be for putting "references" below "notes" sections. This would be helpful; right now works by Carson sort of bleed into the works used to write the article. (I'm not advocating convention for the sake of convention; rather, this time the convention is also better.)
    • As for the quote, I concur with Awadewit. Is there any significance to this sentence, elevating it beyond the millions of other sentences that Carson uttered and wrote in her lifetime? It's not a quote from Silent Spring, but rather some sentence she dashed off in a writing she never bothered to publish in her lifetime.
      • (See response to Awadewit above.)--ragesoss 01:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So some work needed, but we're very close. --JayHenry 16:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
More