Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Benjamin Banneker/archive1

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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2017 [1].

Benjamin Banneker

Nominator(s): Corker1 (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains a biography of Benjamin Banneker, a historically significant person. The article has a concise lead section and infobox, consistently formatted inline citations, an extensive list of verified references and two relevant images with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. A number of references contain direct quotations from their sources to enable readers to easily access this information. Where possible, all references are archived. The article has a number of links to other relevant Wikipedia articles.

Because the article has many inline references, a number of references contain subsidiary reference lists (i.e., (1) ...(break) (2) ... (break)... (3) .... (break)). By reducing the number of inline references, this enables the article to be more concise and readable than if the article had listed each inline reference individually.

As the article states, many biographies of Benjamin Banneker contain undocumented information that published reviews have questioned. Therefore, although the article mostly relies on information from secondary sources, the article contains a number of direct quotations from primary sources that confirm the accuracy of the article's information. As a result, the article has more blockquotes than do many featured articles. The article therefore provides examples of the appropriate use of blockquotes in a Wikipedia article.

The article cites only the most reliable secondary and tertiary sources, except where identifying significant secondary sources that have information that either published or on-line reviews have questioned. The article does not contain any original research.

Images are appropriately licensed. However, I'd suggest taking another pass through citations, as there are some inconsistencies - for example, sometimes newspaper names are italicized (as they should be) and other times they aren't. Similar sources should be similarly formatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Nikkimaria: I have italicized all newspaper names in article. Please identify any other inconsistencies in the article's citations that you may find. Corker1 (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mix {{citation}}, the {{cite}} family, and untemplated citations. Date format is inconsistent. Hyphens are used where dashes belong. Locations are presented inconsistently. Also, some of your references appear questionable - for example, what makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This looks like the nominator's first FAC; the article appears to have undergone no prior review process, and as a result seems somewhat underprepared.

The last paragraph of the article is uncited. At least a couple of other paragraphs end without a citation.
By contrast, there are numerous instances of over-citation, sometimes of apparently simple facts, leading to lengthy unsightly citation strings.
The prose is often fractured and jerky, with too many short single-sentence paragraphs.
There is too much use of lengthy direct quotations, when simple paraphrases would make for much easier reading.
Many of the citations are hugely over-complicated. Their function is to pinpoint the sources used, yet in this case ref 35 incorporates an essay of several hundred words, and ref 44 list fifteen different sources. These are just two examples – there are many others.
I have not checked out the sources themselves, although I see that Nikki has highlighted a few issues above. One link that I tried, ref 57 – Phillips, pp. 116-117 – went to a different source.

I would seriously consider withdrawing this nomination, and working with a mentor before resubmission here. Brianboulton (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. My response to each comment follows:

The last paragraph of the article is uncited. At least a couple of other paragraphs end without a citation.

Response: The last paragraph of the article ends with a link to a section in a subsidiary Wikipedia article, i.e., (see Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker), that contains many citations. There are too many of these citations to place at the end of the paragraph. No single citation can encompass many of these citations.

Statements made in this article need to be cited within this article; you cannot simply refer a subsidiary Wikipedia article. Since you have a hatnote link to the subsidiary article, I see no need for the uncited paragraph, and the simplest solution might be just to delete it. But it cant be left as it is. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could find only other one paragraph outside of the lead that ended without a citation. I have removed that paragraph's last sentence, which enables the paragraph to end with a citation.

OK. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By contrast, there are numerous instances of over-citation, sometimes of apparently simple facts, leading to lengthy unsightly citation strings.

Response: As stated in the justification for the nomination and in the article itself, there are many publications about Benjamin Banneker that lack adequate documentation. Many secondary and tertiary sources cite other sources that lack adequate documentation.

Some of the article's secondary and tertiary sources state that there are actually only a few "simple facts" about Banneker's life and accomplishments that primary sources have documented. The apparent "over-citations" enable readers to determine for themselves whether "simple facts" are well-documented or whether they are not. While some of the longer citation strings are indeed unsightly, they do help the reader determine whether the cited "facts" are adequately documented. The article's subordinate reference system ((1) ... (break) (2) .... break (3) ...) reduces the length of citation strings, but cannot eliminate all of them.

Hmmm, up to a point. But I rather doubt that a simple fact like "After his father died in 1759, Banneker lived with his mother and sisters" needs a double citation to prove its accuracy, or that "During the following year, Banneker sent George his work calculating a solar eclipse" requires triple citation, or that the hiring of Banneker "as a replacement to assist in the initial survey of the boundaries of a new federal district" requires four separate citations. Where multiple sources are properly necessary to support a statement, they can be bundled into a single citation in the form <ref>Smith, p. 1; Jones, pp. 2–3; Brown, p. 88; Robinson pp. 4–7</ref>. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is often fractured and jerky, with too many short single-sentence paragraphs

Response: Please identify the "many single sentence paragraphs" that you found. I can only find two (the last sentence in the "Death" section and the article's last paragraph). The remaining "single sentence paragraphs" are sentences that introduce blockquotes, which complete the paragraph.

It isn't so much the single-sentence aspect as the "short, fractured and jerky". For instance, three of the first four paragraphs of the "Notable Works" section. The prose flow isn't helped, either, by the profusion of blockquotes, each preceded by a short introduction, but see below my further comments on this issue. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much use of lengthy direct quotations, when simple paraphrases would make for much easier reading.

Response: The lengthy quotations within the body of the article are from primary sources (the writings of Banneker, the editors of his almanacs and Thomas Jefferson). Secondary sources that have paraphrased these writings have often altered their meanings and intent. While paraphrasing (which often occurs in tertiary sources such as Wikipedia) can enhance the readability of an article, the paraphrasing dilutes the impact of the primary source.

One of my justifications for considering the article to be a "Featured article" is to illustrate methods of presenting a subject whose secondary and tertiary sources have inadequately conveyed the language and intent of the original writers. The inclusion of direct quotations (even when lengthy) is one such method.

"Secondary sources that have paraphrased these writings have often altered their meanings and intent" reads as a personal opinion, but anyway I'm not sure that it's relevant here. If you have citations to the full texts, the reader can easily check your paraphrase against the original meaning. Whether your paraphrase "dilutes the impact of the primary source" depends on the care with which you do it – a paraphrase can of course include short in-text phrases from the original. My other concern is the number and proximity of the blockquotes – eight, I think, in the "Correspondence" section alone, comprising the great majority of that section's text. I think you need to consult WP:QUOTEFARM to apprise yourself of recommended WP practice. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the citations are hugely over-complicated. Their function is to pinpoint the sources used, yet in this case ref 35 incorporates an essay of several hundred words, and ref 44 list fifteen different sources. These are just two examples – there are many others.

Response: Ref 35 is perhaps the best review in the published literature that relates the confusion about Banneker's life that his biographers have produced. The reference contains the following quotation: "Recent biographical accounts of Benjamin Banneker (1731–1806), .. have done his memory a disservice by obscuring his real achievements under a cloud of extravagant claims to scientific accomplishment that have no foundation in fact. The single notable exception is Silvio A. Bedini’s The Life of Benjamin Banneker (New York, 1972), a work of painstaking research and scrupulous attention to accuracy which also benefits from the author’s discovery of important and hitherto unavailable manuscript sources." However, the reference goes on to state: "In consequence, Bedini’s otherwise reliable biography accepts the version of Banneker’s role in this episode as presented in reminiscences of nineteenth-century authors. These recollections, deriving in large part from members of the Ellicott family who were prompted by Quaker inclinations to justice and equality, have compounded the confusion."

The review thus points out that even Silvio A. Bedini, who many reviewers consider to be Banneker's most thorough biographer to date, has contributed to the confusion surrounding Banneker's life. If the Wikipedia article simply pinpointed the source (as many Wikipedia articles do), few readers would read the source and appreciate the extent of this confusion.

Reference 44 does indeed list 15 different sources. Each of these is a primary source (an almanac that Banneker authored). Each citation contains an OCLC number, which enables readers to identify a library that holds the primary source. No secondary or tertiary source contains this information. While Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, rather than a secondary source, a Wikipedia article needs to contain such information when no secondary source contains the information. This is also true for other references that contain multiple sources; they may appear "hugely over-complicated", but they also contain important information that enables readers to locate the sources. That is the real purpose of a reference list. regardless of how complicated the list appears to be.

These arguments I think suggests a view of Wikipedia articles well beyond what is intended. Perhaps you should read the policy document WP:NOT. Essentially, our articles are written for general readers as summaries, not academic analyses, of the topic. Your approach seems more directed towards a specialist readership. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not checked out the sources themselves, although I see that Nikki has highlighted a few issues above. One link that I tried, ref 57 – Phillips, pp. 116-117 – went to a different source.
Response: Ref 57 does indeed link to Phillips, pp. 116-117. See the header at the top of page 117, which states: "Phillips: The Negro, Benjamin Banneker".

The link on Phillips goes to the cover of Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Washington (1917). I can't get the archived link to work, but I'll take your word that it goes to pp 116–117 of the Phillips article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am presently in the process of correcting the issues that Nikki highlighted. Bots that edited the article created some of these issues; unfortunately, bots will continue to do this.

I would seriously consider withdrawing this nomination, and working with a mentor before resubmission here.

Response: I nominated Benjamin Banneker to be a featured article candidate because it contains elements that can serve as examples for others to use when describing the lives of people whose published and Internet biographies are largely based on unreliable sources. The article is therefore rather unique; few mentors are likely to have had experience with such biographical Wikipedia articles. Corker1 (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the nature of FA mentoring. The mentor is not required to have subject expertise; the article will still be subject to review by other editors. The mentor's job is to help steer the article through the shoals and rapids of the FAC process, based on his/her experience of that process. My original judgement stands: I believe this nomination should be withdrawn pending reconsideration of the points raised here, and should not be resubmitted before it has undergone a full peer review. A mentor could be a considerable help here. I also concur with the point raised by RL0919, below. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corker1, since you have not addressed my own comments directly, I will insert myself here to reply to some of your remarks. Banneker would hardly be a unique subject for having conflicts or errors in the secondary sources. Yes, controversies among the secondary sources should be discussed where appropriate. For a positive example in this case, the article has what seems like a good summary of the question of his ancestry in the body text. But that does not mean it is necessary or desirable to bombard readers with lengthy citation lists for things that seem well established, or quote sources at length to prove they really say what they are summarized as saying. There could be some cases where a quote is needed in a citation or an unusual number of citations is appropriate, but usually not. Instead, questions about why one source was preferred over another or disputes about what sources say typically belong on the article's Talk page. --RL0919 (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RL0919

I will start by saying that this seems like a good subject for an FA -- an interesting, historically notable person from a time and place that should provide lots of reliable, accessible, English-language sources. Unfortunately I concur with Brianboulton's assessment that withdrawing this FAC is probably the best plan. In addition to the items already mentioned, I wanted to call out a few other points:

The "Murdock" source in ref 88 is a customer review on Amazon.com, which is not a reliable source for any article, much less the quality expected for FA.
Beyond having too many lengthy quotations (which I agree is a problem), it is unusual for an article to quote correspondence in full with headers and footers included (such as dates and signature lines).
In general there seems to be an excessive focus on primary source material. There are secondary sources, but they are often concentrated in the citation strings that are mentioned above, while other parts of the article are based mostly on his own publications and correspondence. An encyclopedia article should mostly come from secondary sources.
There are some additional images of Banneker on Commons, although the copyright status of some of them seems dubious. If no better image can be found, it may be appropriate to use woodcut image of him in the infobox.

My suggestion would be to withdraw and work on the concerns already raised, then submit for a peer review to shake out additional improvements before returning. You might want to post at WT:AFRO and WT:USA to solicit WikiProject input. Use of a mentor for the next FAC nomination is also a wise suggestion. --RL0919 (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: As there have been two suggestions that this article should be withdrawn, I will be archiving this FAC shortly. I would recommend listening to the advice given by Brianboulton and RL0919, consulting a mentor and at the very least going to PR before renominating. In any case, this article can be renominated after a two-week cooling off period, as stated in the FAC instructions. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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