Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ludwig Wittgenstein/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 19:43, 29 December 2007.

Original nominator left. Messages left at WP LGBT Studies, WP Bio, WP Austria and WP Philosophy. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article fails 1c. Large numbers of "citation needed" tags and huge swathes of text lacking footnoes. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - article's lead is also too short for an article of this length. John Carter 16:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I did some work on the article -- not sure if it's sufficient to bring it over the threshold yet. I'll probably do some more later. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c) and LEAD (2a). Marskell 07:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Significant progress has been made. If anyone still feels there is cause for removal they ought to speak up with new concerns, but as it stands I don't think there's any case to remove status. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Some fixes needed. The WP:LEAD could be expanded to a compelling, stand-alone summary of the entire article. That infobox is horrid; I'm not sure that's within the control of this article, but is all that needed? The External link farm needs serious pruning, see WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:NOT. Citations need to be completed, for example, author and date (John Ezard, February 19, 2005) is missing from Philosopher's rare 'other book' goes on sale. Guardian; publishers are missing on many sources, and some sources are just blue links, sample: ^ http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~fgati/chapter17.html See WP:CITE/ES. Section heading "Works online" is actually External links, see WP:EL. Image caption, Hitler (far right) and a boy who may be Wittgenstein in a school photograph taken at the Linz Realschule in 1903, according to whom?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, please review dead links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The assertion about the school photograph is (following the link in the caption) from The Jew of Linz by Kimberley Cornish (that is to say, from the book itself, not our article). Whether this is undue weight for the claim, or an adequate source, is another question; but the sourcing is perfectly clear. A footnote would be harmless clutter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• After the opening there are still insufficient references. Pity, because apart from that, it should be retained, I think. Tony (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As elsewhere, this would be actionable, and far more useful, if accompanied by a list of statements which are both likely to challenged and not trivially findable. (This appears to have, like many biographical articles, a single default source; in this case Ray Monk's biography, which I believe to be the most recent scholarly life.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is an indication work will begin, this should go. Lead is clearly inadequate, its poorly organized, the citations are spotty, and the infobox really is horrible. We can wait a couple of more days. Marskell (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll see what I can do. It will be difficult to keep the lead down to three paragraphs.
• All the {{cn}} tags have been dealt with, except for two on Steve Reich at the very end; it will be difficult to do anything about them until the holidays are over. As always, a list of points likely to be challenged and not trivially findable would be very useful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove Not FA material at the moment. Here is a sampling of problems:
  • As stated above, lead should be expanded.
  • References need proper formatting. A stand-alone URL is not enough.
    • I got rid of URLs... not sure if the reference formatting can be called complete though. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 08:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was said to be unusually adept at whistling lengthy and detailed musical passages." "...and is said to have remarked that he approved of this instrument because it took a proper role in the orchestra." Surely we can do better than unsourced weasel sentences in an FA?
  • "Whilst in Cambridge Wittgenstein often liked to go to the cinema." Unsourced, and don't see how this is particularly relevant or notable. Lots of people like going to the cinema. Did it have a profound impact on him?
    •  Done, referenced. I'd say it merits a sentence, but probably not more. (After all, lots of people were born in 1889...) — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 08:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(to the point that he became known to his fellow soldiers as "the man with the gospels")" Needs citation.
  • The anecdote about the difficulties between Wittgenstein and publishers in "Developing the Tractatus" could use a citation.
    • pp. 176, 203 Monk. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anecdotes about his giving away his inheritance and his time as an elementary teacher in rural Austria ("general suspicion amongst the villagers that he was somewhat mad") need citations.
    • Pp.170-1; pp193-209 Monk. (gives a different emphasis than our article, but clearly the same events. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In one meeting Wittgenstein refused to discuss the Tractatus at all, and sat with his back to his guests while he read aloud from the poetry of Rabindranath Tagore." Citation?
    • pp. 243 Monk Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "grave mistakes" If it's in quotes, it should be cited.
  • "Well, God has arrived. I met him on the 5.15 train." Quotation needs citation.
  • "What has become clear, at least,..." Why is it that these things have become "clear"? Especially when the sentence ends with the vague "possibly Ben Richards." Sources for these claims?
    • Because correspondence has been found and published. For Skinner, pp.401-2 Monk et passim, for Richards, pp. 503-6, for Keith Kirk, p. 426. The uncertainty is in the sources; largely the question of whether the love and sensuality discussed was Platonic, for which Wittgenstein expressed a preference. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "claiming that he was the illegitimate son of an "Aryan"." Source?
  • "was 1.7 tonnes of gold". Specific stats should be cited.
    •  Done, referenced. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 08:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The only known fragment of music..." Paragraph seems quite out of place.
  • "The work also contains several innovations in logic, including a version of the truth table." "Innovations" implies that he invented some new things; could use further explanation of what these "several" are and a citation that he was the one who invented them.
  • The Philosophical Investigations section states that the work had two parts, but does not describe the two. Also, was the second part written by Wittgenstein or the editors? "Added" makes it unclear.
  • When quoting from his works, citations should really be provided, especially since the originals were not written in English. Readers ought to know which translation/edition the article is using.
    • Since translations of Wittgenstein's works are cited, this is scrupulousness; a competent reader will check the one in the references. In most cases, this is the standard English translation; in some cases, I believe there is only the one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but I don't see the a specific edition cited in the references. All I see are Philosophical Investigations, §__. An yes, there are multiple editions of the translations. But no matter what, quotations require specific citations (which the article neglects to do in some cases ["when he writes in proposition 6.54: ‘My propositions...", "that is, philosophers must “bring words back..."]). Also, I strongly disagree that this somehow assumes that the reader is an incompetent dolt... BuddingJournalist 03:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The references say Philosophical Investigations, translated by G.E.M. Anscombe (1953); a competent reader will click on the link and see, of course, that this is the original Blackwell Press edition. If someone wants to add that, fine; books from 1953 have no ISBN.
        • "Philosophical Transactions II, §64" is the the standard method of citing the work, because both more precise and more useful to the reader than a page; since the section numbers are identical in all editions, including the German originals, they do not require our readers find a specific printing to inquire further. Changing to page numbers would be unhelpful to the reader and harmful to Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Philosophical Investigations, translated by G.E.M. Anscombe (1953)"...but that's not in the references section...that's in the Important publications section. Does that mean then that whatever is given in the Important publications are the references used to create the article? Quite misleading. The section is intended to just give a list of his publications. Furthermore, I never said anything about page numbers...please don't resort to straw man arguments. I'm asking that whenever specific quotations in English are given, that they cite whichever translation is used. No need for a specific page number. BuddingJournalist 17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Works online is out of place, and implies that he published works online.
    • Here I must disagree. BJ is reaching; the adjective asserts only that the works are now online. We are not required to cater to readers who both fail to understand a figure of speech, and do not realize that the internet did not exist in 1951. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, but I'd still suggest that this is out of place and better suited as External links. BuddingJournalist 03:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nonsense. To merge with External Links renders the article less informative, by requiring the reader to mentally sort what is now physically sorted. This is a small degradation, but why make any? Don't let our guidelines get in the way of writing the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not sure what you mean here; I still maintain this would be better suited (and make the article more organized) to have this under an External links. I don't particularly think this puts any added burden on our readers, nor would it make the article any less informative. But this is a small quibble; if you're insistent that this is the perfect way to structure this, then I guess I can't really make you see otherwise. BuddingJournalist 17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Works about Wittgenstein needs formatting cleanup. BuddingJournalist 15:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • About half of these are quite well known, and are doubtless from Monk, which has a copious index. But the list is useful; I have commented on two which assume that the reader is an incompetent dolt, needing protection from his own cluelessness. The remainder should be checked. This is a vast improvement on the vague assertions made heretofore. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both BJ's new comments here would inconvenience the reader for the sake of our internal guidelines. It is policy to do the opposite. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added pages from Monk for some things. Since those on which I was successful took me about 5 minutes each, a reference to Monk as default source is probably just as useful to the reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove, almost two months in, and the article still doesn't even have an adequate lead, has an external link farm, and unformatted references. Just not there, not enough happening to raise this to standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong retain. The lead does need work, and there are some incidental citation problems; but this article does not embarass me as many of the ones we now pass do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 28 December 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.