| Revision as of 20:36, 26 February 2008 editMattisse (talk | contribs)78,542 edits →Work on article: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:10, 26 February 2008 edit undoRedthoreau (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers23,540 edits Problems to address in March 10th versionNext edit → | ||
| Line 129: | Line 129: | ||
| : I hope there will be an attempt to avoid citing the popular press (BBC for example) when better scholarly or academic sources are available. Also, the featured version did ''not'' use cite templates, I personally hate them since they chunk up the article size and loadtime so badly, and if you intend to use them, you'll have to switch over all of the existing citations, which would be very time consuming. Since ] says not to mix citation styles, and not to switch the original style used (specifically, not to switch to cite templates), I highly recommend sticking to the citation method established by Zleitzen. ] guidelines dictate the same, unless there is consensus to change. ] (]) 20:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC) | : I hope there will be an attempt to avoid citing the popular press (BBC for example) when better scholarly or academic sources are available. Also, the featured version did ''not'' use cite templates, I personally hate them since they chunk up the article size and loadtime so badly, and if you intend to use them, you'll have to switch over all of the existing citations, which would be very time consuming. Since ] says not to mix citation styles, and not to switch the original style used (specifically, not to switch to cite templates), I highly recommend sticking to the citation method established by Zleitzen. ] guidelines dictate the same, unless there is consensus to change. ] (]) 20:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::As I said above, I will use whatever others are using for reference formatting. As far as sources, I only have a few books on Cuba, and none specifically on Che Guevara. I will have to count on Polaris999 then. ] 20:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC) | ::As I said above, I will use whatever others are using for reference formatting. As far as sources, I only have a few books on Cuba, and none specifically on Che Guevara. I will have to count on Polaris999 then. ] 20:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ==Problems with March 10th version to address== | |||
| *If there is a tidal wave to revert then I may not be able to stop it, and thus will accept it. However from reading the March 10th version I noticed some glaring issues that would have to be addressed, I believe in the new article, (Which I would want to be a part of crafting) | |||
| '''Problems with March 10th version that must be addressed ...''' | |||
| - ''“Revolutionary, politician, and Cuban guerrilla leader.”'' – no mention of him being an author ? He wrote more books during his lifetime than most authors. Also no mention of his contributions as a military tactician or social theorist ? His ideas involve philosophy just as much, if not more, than military theory. | |||
| - ''“Arbenz’s Social Revolution”'' ? Huh ? That is about the worst way to describe the systematic changes that Arbenz was attempting to implement. | |||
| - ''“Guevara Died at the hands of the Bolivian army”'' ... what kind of wording is that ? Were they cradling his head as he passed away from old age ? | |||
| - Inclusion of the fact that Che ''“pawned jewelry”'' when money was tight ? How is this relevant and significant ? Especially when other minute details are considered “overbearing”. | |||
| - ''“Guevara met Fidel”'' – sounds like they attended the same soccer game and bumped into each other. Raul (Castro’s brother and current Cuban President introduced Che to Fidel) | |||
| - 4 lines on Che’s role in the Play ''“Evita”'' ? There should be 0. | |||
| - The entire criticism section is for lack of a better word ''“crap”'' and would have to be removed to another article. Also what is with the shout out to Chemart.com ? Are we going to also link the article to Che-lives.com as well and offer discounts on T-shirts? The criticism section does not belong in the new article whatsoever and if people desire it, it should be a sister article. Also citing Álvaro Vargas Llosa makes the article laughable. He is a self-identified partisan hack. | |||
| '''With that said''' ... I believe that the March 10th version could be morphed into a good article with the work of several people. I myself would want to take part in the process as I consider my knowledge on the issue considerable, and I have the desire to put in the effort and will cede final decisions on my contributions to Polaris ... whose judgment and objectivity I trust. ] (] TR 21:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:10, 26 February 2008
This template must be substituted. Replace {{FAR ...}} with {{subst:FAR ...}}.
 | Che Guevara is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 18, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Template:Communism Portal selected Template:WP1.0
Featured article review
Discussions leading up the featured article review are contained in Archive 14. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm putting the dead link checker at the top of the page, as it may be needed often: Check external links SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Planned article revert
Consensus has developed on the featured article review that the article should be reverted to one of these versions:
- Featured version, March 10, 2006 (42 KB readable prose)
- After main page appearance, June 19, 2006 (46 KB readable prose)
and rebuilt from there.
Please discuss and develop consensus here for which of the two versions is the best revert target. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Several questions/clarifications: you state "consensus has developed" ... exactly how was that was achieved, how many people were consulted, and when/where did it take place? I am aware of the fact that 3-4 people (1 overtly bias and one who arose out of nowhere) had mentioned that they felt the article had contained POV issues, but that was before Matisse and Polaris did extensive cleaning up. Has the article been examined recently? Also under what/whose authority has it been decided that a revert will be the course of action? Redthoreau (talk TR 19:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Have you read the FAR page linked above? Your questions are answered there. As of now, you are the only editor opposing a revert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Choice of versions
My preference would be for the earlier March 10 version because it is 10 kbs shorter and the writing cleaner. I think the POV has started to set in by the June 19 version. That version ends with the view of Che Guevara as "Jim Morrison with an assault rifle." This is the sort of statement I feel does not belong in the main article, as it represents a narrow global view and is culturally bound to a certain political view and even a particular age group. Mattisse 17:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am in agreement with Mattisse. -- Polaris999 (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'll accept either of the two versions, but agree that the brevity of the earlier version provides the cleanest starting place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Steps to restore
Several questions were raised on the featured article review. No, reverting doesn't affect the talk page, and no, a sandbox version of the original featured version isn't needed (it's in the article history). Someone may want to save a sandbox version of the current version, so that anything you later want to retrieve from it can easily be found. I offer to do the initial steps in the revert, including an {{inuse}} tag as needed until I'm finished, once the version is decided. Steps to restoring will include:
- 1. Revert to the chosen version. (I offer to complete all of the steps in 1)
- 1a. Reinstate infobox from current version
- 1b. Reinstate from current version categories, interwikis, nav templates at the bottom of the page, persondata; in short, everything in the current bottom of the article from {{Che Guevara}} down.
- 1c. Reinstate sister links from current version
- 1d. Review for current WP:MOS standards
- 2. Before any other changes are made:
- 2a. Recheck all hatnote template links at tops of sections
- This step includes making sure any new daughter articles (created since the featured version) are linked somewhere in the article; perhaps begin now to make a list of daughter articles?
- 2b. Verify that all wikilinks are still accurate (this will be time consuming, regular editors may want to divide up the work and go through each section, checking on old links that may have changed.
- 2c. Verify that all external links in sources are still live, some may need to be retrieved from the internet archive (www.archive.org) or from the current version. Restore and update all dead links: Check external links
- 2d. Scan the article and identify any outdated info, such as anything beginning with "as of".
- 2a. Recheck all hatnote template links at tops of sections
- 3. Once it is determined that the article is completely restored, further work needed before content changes begin:
- 3a. Review for citations needed
- Note: Zleitzen's version (rightly) used scholarly sources that may not be available online.
- 3b. Decide which images to bring forward from current version
- 3a. Review for citations needed
- 4. Begin content revisions
I believe those are the steps; please indicate anything I've missed so I can add it in. I also suggest allowing a few days to be certain consensus has formed before beginning this work. Discussion of the article should be on the article talk page; as the FAR moves along, others will be reading that page, and it isn't helpful to fill it up with unnecessary chatter and detail that can be dealt with on the article talk page. The FAR page should be used for determining whether the article meets or not featured standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have much time to help, but I just had a glance at this; it looks reasonable. Should we make a workspace page for sorting out problematic links, or should we just plan on fixing them in place? I would think a workspace page would be useful, because it would allow a complete list of all the links that had issues and then make it clear what has been done about each of them. - Jmabel | Talk 20:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Work on article
It seems to me that Step two is fairly uncontroversial and any problems can be brought to the talk page. I am certainly willing to list hatnotes and check wikilinks. I know some of the external links to sources are dead. Polaris999 probably has the off line sources Zleitzen had (I'm guessing), and he probably is best for replacing dead reference links. Also, searches of standard sources such as BBC News will probably due for standard biographical stuff. Polaris999 and I are adamant that only sources meeting WP:V and WP:RS be used. We can discuss any problems on the talk page. Polaris999 has said he will do the template stuff. As far as citation style, I am used to WP:CITE but will use what ever is preferred for the article.
At step three, we will discuss issues of image and vet all citations on the talk page. At step four, of course, we will have to discuss. My view is that Guevara had been dead for over 50 years. Overly detailed descriptions, controversies, and legacy issues can take place in daughter articles. Much of the controversy now about Che has little to do with him as a person, in my opinion, and more with our collective state of mind today. My view is that if we cannot settle on a consensus regarding wording, then leave whatever it is out.
Hopefully, by concentrating on the task at hand we will quickly develop a good working group so that POV issues can be rationally discussed, allowing for differing view to arrive at compromises. Mattisse 19:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I hope there will be an attempt to avoid citing the popular press (BBC for example) when better scholarly or academic sources are available. Also, the featured version did not use cite templates, I personally hate them since they chunk up the article size and loadtime so badly, and if you intend to use them, you'll have to switch over all of the existing citations, which would be very time consuming. Since WP:CITE says not to mix citation styles, and not to switch the original style used (specifically, not to switch to cite templates), I highly recommend sticking to the citation method established by Zleitzen. WP:CITE guidelines dictate the same, unless there is consensus to change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- As I said above, I will use whatever others are using for reference formatting. As far as sources, I only have a few books on Cuba, and none specifically on Che Guevara. I will have to count on Polaris999 then. Mattisse 20:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Problems with March 10th version to address
- If there is a tidal wave to revert then I may not be able to stop it, and thus will accept it. However from reading the March 10th version I noticed some glaring issues that would have to be addressed, I believe in the new article, (Which I would want to be a part of crafting)
Problems with March 10th version that must be addressed ...
- “Revolutionary, politician, and Cuban guerrilla leader.” – no mention of him being an author ? He wrote more books during his lifetime than most authors. Also no mention of his contributions as a military tactician or social theorist ? His ideas involve philosophy just as much, if not more, than military theory.
- “Arbenz’s Social Revolution” ? Huh ? That is about the worst way to describe the systematic changes that Arbenz was attempting to implement.
- “Guevara Died at the hands of the Bolivian army” ... what kind of wording is that ? Were they cradling his head as he passed away from old age ?
- Inclusion of the fact that Che “pawned jewelry” when money was tight ? How is this relevant and significant ? Especially when other minute details are considered “overbearing”.
- “Guevara met Fidel” – sounds like they attended the same soccer game and bumped into each other. Raul (Castro’s brother and current Cuban President introduced Che to Fidel)
- 4 lines on Che’s role in the Play “Evita” ? There should be 0.
- The entire criticism section is for lack of a better word “crap” and would have to be removed to another article. Also what is with the shout out to Chemart.com ? Are we going to also link the article to Che-lives.com as well and offer discounts on T-shirts? The criticism section does not belong in the new article whatsoever and if people desire it, it should be a sister article. Also citing Álvaro Vargas Llosa makes the article laughable. He is a self-identified partisan hack.
With that said ... I believe that the March 10th version could be morphed into a good article with the work of several people. I myself would want to take part in the process as I consider my knowledge on the issue considerable, and I have the desire to put in the effort and will cede final decisions on my contributions to Polaris ... whose judgment and objectivity I trust. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Categories: