Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Suzuki: The Autobiography

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 00:34, 18 April 2008.

[edit] David Suzuki: The Autobiography

previous FAC (02:21, 12 February 2008)

Check external links

I think this article meets all the FA criteria. It was created in late-January, became a GA on Jan 29, a DYK on Jan 31, but failed a FAC in Feb. It is worthy of another chance at FA-status. --maclean 18:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose — It is missing citations. Fails criteria 1 (c).
  • There is no reference for "The publishers, Greystone Books and Douglas & McIntyre, won the CBA Libris Award for Marketing Achievement of the Year." (in the 2nd paragraph of the lead).
  • There is no reference for "The book won the 2007 Canadian Booksellers Association's Libris Award for Non-Fiction Book of the Year and the 2007 British Columbia Booksellers' Choice Award." in the first paragraph of the "Reception" section.
  • There is no reference for "This is Suzuki's forty-third book and, he says, his last." in the 2nd paragraph of the lead.
  • I don't like the red link in the first paragraph - you might just want to remove the link and leave it as that.
  • The article itself is very short - I am not citing this as a reason for opposing this FAC, but I am sure more could be said about this book - it would help to actually engage the reader.
  • Was there no criticism for this book?
  • I think an External Links section would be of some value (you could provide a link to the author's official website).

— Wackymacs (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I added the citation for the awards, citations to the lead, an external links section, and removed the red link. [1] I placed all the opinionated criticism in the second paragraph of the Reception section. --maclean 22:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks much better now, I would say it fits the criteria. — Wackymacs (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Right on. Thanks. maclean 19:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Where are the citations? The third paragraph of Content has none and when the book is the source please give page numbers.GrahamColm^Talk 19:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I added cites to the book [2] --maclean 22:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• • The other citations are not appropriate. For example Scientific concepts and explanations, especially in the biological sciences, occur throughout the book.[14] Why is the book not used as the source, (with page numbers), and the cited source does not support the statement. GrahamColm^Talk 20:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the in depth review. On this example it was coming from the reference's "...mixes memoir and science, culminating with his thoughts...". So I have removed the "biology" specification [3] --maclean 22:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support The article is well-written with fairly engaging prose. Please check for any WP:MOS issues, (which I'm not very good at). GrahamColm^Talk 16:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your time. MOS is an unending task. maclean 19:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comments

• Support For a smaller page, it seems quite right. The above all seems to check out also. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your time and the review. maclean 19:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Could do with a significant copy-edit, not so much for grammar as for style. The article's very choppy. I tried to make a few changes myself, but the prose remains rather unengaging. I do also find the article a little thin, but perhaps that's my problem with articles about this kind of topic. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your edits. I think I got the technicalities of prose down pretty good, but the flow and engaginess often escape me. It is something I'm working on and your sample edits do help me see the difference. On your other point, I've exhausted my search methods for sources. If you come across anything drop a note so I can pursue it. -maclean 19:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. This article is concise and well-written. I just have two minor remarks:
  • You may disagree with me, but the main article link under "Content" section title seems kind of ridiculous to me. David Suzuki is already linked before and I think people generally figure that this article will have more information on his life. But, like I said, feel free to disagree.
    • I agree, for what it's worth. What's more the link is misleading: it's a link not to an article that is devoted to the content of this book (as such links are usually used); it's simply to the author and subject of the book, which is a different thing. In short, it's confusing the written autobiography with the man himself. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree, also. I put it in reluctantly in the first place and thought about removing it several times. I just borderline didn't care enough. This provides me with the motivation to do it. Thanks. --maclean 19:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Two weeks before its publication an excerpt was printed in the national daily newspaper The Globe and Mail.[27]" Where that sentence is placed seems a little odd to me. Doesn't that belong to the publication history more than it does to the reception? Also, putting it between two sentences discussing how the book ranked in bestsellers' lists feels weird.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Good point. I moved it. --maclean 19:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Why are two book covers being used (a paper back and, presumably, hard cover)? WP:NFCC#3A requires minimal use, specifically "Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." Both images even have identical purposes in their rationales. Why are both needed "To identify the subject of the article"? What significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#8) does a second cover make above and beyond that provided by the first? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for assuming I had good reasons for using the image. I just thought that an image of the paperback would be appropriate for the Publication section. It is mentioned there, but the image is not necessary for understanding. So I removed it. maclean 02:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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