Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010 Nobel Peace Prize/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by Ucucha 14:52, 17 December 2011 [1].

2010 Nobel Peace Prize[edit]

2010 Nobel Peace Prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article for the reasons previously stated. The article has been carefully rewritten following the withdrawal of the first nomination; the previous nomination apparently fell by the wayside through lack of activity. On successful promotion, I hope to submit for TFA on 10 December, first anniversary of the award ceremony. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consecutive footnotes should be in numerical order - ex. [12][49] instead of [49][12]
  • According to this, Netease is a news aggregator - was FN 40 originally from a different source?
  • FN 64: page(s)?
  • FN 63: I'm not sure citing a search-engine results page is the best approach here. Is there no secondary source that draws this conclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • footnotes now in numerical order
    • FN 40: the citation, together with its accompanying text are removed as minor coatracks to the article.
    • FN 64: page number - hard copy request under way. will update asap
    • FN 63: presumably you meant FN73? Now replaced. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I should probably preface my vote by noting that, according to the nifty tool at the side, I am the second highest contributor to this article. That said, I believe I am still objective enough to vote. I just ran through the article, making some small copyedits as I went (please check over them to make sure I haven't messed anything up), and I believe the article meets the criteria – it's well-written, well-referenced, presented with a neutral POV and follows the MoS. I'm sure Nikkimaria's comments and anyone else's will be resolved by Ohconfucius. Jenks24 (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link check - no DAB-links, no dead external links, wikilinks look good, one problem with WP:LEAD:

  • There was apparently some misunderstanding in the last FA-discussion. Direct quotations, and contentious material about living persons, must be attributed with a reliable source immediately, regardless of their placement in lead or not. References for most other non-contentious or summary informations (except those 2 cases) can be placed in the main text. Please see WP:V, WP:LEAD and especially WP:LEADCITE for more information. In the actual lead i would cite all quotes (or rephrase them in your own words, where possible) and the 2-3 most controversial statements. GermanJoe (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad I didn't remove these outright, choosing instead to comment them out. The refs are now reinstated; I did a corresponding reordering of refs. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead says the award was "bitterly attacked by the PRC government and the state-owned media." Who is deciding that the attacks were "bitter"? And that they were attacks rather than legitimate grievances? The sentence "The government strongly denounced the award, and summoned the Norwegian ambassador in Beijing to make a formal protest", uses appropriate neutral language, and I'd like to see more of that, and less of the "bitter attacks". SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the Chinese media section: "Students, apparently unanimously..." apparently comes from the source, though is this comment factual or a personal viewpoint with implied negative tones? Is there widespread concern that the students' view were not unanimous, or is just that particular writer who is saying this? Either way, a rewording for clarity and to avoid the suggestion that it is Wikipedia which is casting doubt on the China Youth Daily report would be useful. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "people with ulterior motives" is put into the mouths of the students. This is not clear from the source, which says it is "used twice in the article". SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Liu Xia. "Chinese police cordoned off the area and to prevent her from giving interviews" - this is not given in the two sources cited. The police cordoned off the area, though the Guardian says the police were guarding her house and wouldn't let journalists in, but they didn't know why - and then they do a phone interview. The other source has Liu Xia saying "They want to distance me from the media." But that is her opinion, and should be presented as such. Also, the sentence needs sorting - is it meant to say "Chinese police cordoned off the area to prevent her from giving interviews" or "Chinese police cordoned off the area and prevented Liu Xia from giving interviews"? Neither of them suitable anyway. To get the balance right you'd need to have both sides - the police said they were guarding her, she says they wanted to distance her from the media. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Temporary blue hoardings, supposedly construction barriers" - I assume supposedly is taken from the journalist's opinion that the building work was "a peculiar coincidence". It's difficult to mention the barriers without making a leading statement. Perhaps, "By what the Guardian's journalist called 'a peculiar coincidence', construction barriers were erected on both sides of the road at the southern entrance of the residential complex, obscuring the estate." SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"a little-known figure inside the People's Republic of China (PRC) due to official censorship" and "Although relatively unknown in China through the efforts of the authorities". Where is the evidence for this? A little later in the article we are told "Web searches using Chinese search engines for "Liu Xiaobo" in Chinese without attaching the words "Peace Prize," gave information about Liu", which suggests that before the announcement there was no censorship - and, indeed, after the announcement, it was only the Nobel Prize nomination that was being censored as people were still able to access info on him. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link you provided says: "Many have commented in the days since the award that Liu Xiaobo is far from well known in China, and that his victory will never be significant there. This is irrelevant as well as untrue." There appears to be a lack of clarity regarding how eminent he was as a scholar and how much the public were aware of his role in the Tiananmen Square protests and Charter 08. Sources such as the Guardian also talk about him doing prominent things, then says "Thanks to China's strict censorship, Liu's name is barely known in the country.". I feel a nuanced approach to this aspect might be appropriate. A close reading of the more detailed sources, such as the emagzin article below, indicates that he had some form of public presence, but that his publications were banned. This banning appears to have been escalated by some media sources into the public totally forgetting him, as though a widespread brain washing had taken place. How little known could he be, when shortly after Tiananmen Square he was interviewed by the state media? So, banned, yes, unknown, it doesn't appear so. An approach might be to remove the definitive statement saying: "a little-known figure inside the People's Republic of China (PRC) due to official censorship", as well as "Although relatively unknown in China through the efforts of the authorities", and to have a section on Liu Xiaobo which summarises the main points of his life and would include the banning of his publications, and would mention that the media in reporting on the nomination would say that due to "strict censorship, Liu's name is barely known in the country". That would balance the statement, and would move it from a known fact to a media comment. While we should report what sources are saying, we shouldn't present one version as fact, especially when we have sources which present an alternative view. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reading this as well as our own article - Liu Xiaobo, it seems he was known to the Chinese public, though his books were banned, and he was jailed several times. He is mentioned as "rising to great prominence in 1986". I would think it helpful to have a summary of the man in the article perhaps as the first section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a tricky topic in regards to NPOV as most of the reporting appears to jump on the bandwagon of any Chinese dissident is immediately worthy of Western support, and few commentators have looked closely at Liu Xiaobo's rather right-wing writings. There is considerable opaqueness, and even a simple fact like how well known he was/is in his homeland cannot be pinned down. The urging of the Chinese authorities that he is little known in China have been taken up only too readily by journalists; though as one of the most public figures in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, who was afterwards frequently denounced on state TV, I find this odd. And when the state's own newspaper in an effort to show how little known he was, indicate that only 28% of people in Shanghai knew of him,[2] I'm sensing a poorly constructed smokescreen. I think the article is moving in the right direction as regards neutrality and pinning down the facts, and is laudably attempting to present all sides of the story, though I still get the impression that the article is an attack on China's human rights record. It may be that the nature of the topic is that most sources will be biased, and we can't move too far from that without going into original research. However, we can limit any potential bias by the way we present information, and that items which may be seen as negative toward the Chinese authorities are not all foregrounded with the balancing statements coming much later in the paragraph/section/article. I have made a few adjustments here and there in the article which indicate what I mean, though there are other areas which still concern me, such as "the country's Chinese-language media launched a concerted assault on Liu", and I compare that with this more sober line from 2009 Nobel Peace Prize: "There was widespread criticism of the Nobel Committee's decision from commentators and editorial writers across the political spectrum." I think a little less of the emotive military language would be helpful. Having said that, I do find that within the article there is a commendable amount of material gathered from all sources. I feel reassured by the end of the article that all aspects have been covered, including criticism of Liu from The Guardian.[3] I am still just a little bit concerned that the tone may be inclined to be critical of the Chinese government rather than neutral. I think we're almost there, and I wish I could spare more time to help out, but I am off to France in a couple of days to take part in the Nice-Cannes Marathon, and I have a few other on-Wiki matters to sort out before I go. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, inclined to oppose. Sampling the first three paragraphs of the "Nomination and announcement" section of the article, it seems to need a bit of a work-over. I also fully agree with SilkTork's comments, most of which now seem to have been addressed. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shouldn't Nobel Committee be wikilinked?
  • "The monetary component of the prize is 10 million Swedish kronor (US$1.5 million)." Obvious tense issue: out of date.
  • "Although the Nobel Committee has had a policy of confidentiality of nominations for 50 years" Another tense issue.
  • The Huffington Post reference (Ian Macdougall, 2 February 2010) is dead.
  • "Also on the list were six Chinese dissidents". The source doesn't say there were six, it just mentions six of "A number of Chinese dissidents".
  • "who was jailed for 11 years on 25 December 2010". Seems to be the wrong year. 2009 maybe? And how do we know the exact date?
  • "wrote to lobby on his behalf". Wrote to whom? Publicly or privately? That's important, I would think.
  • "Xu Youyu, and others, wrote an open letter in support of Liu". Was it the same open letter? The source doesn't suggest so. It suggests Xu wrote an article and others joined in an open letter and doesn't suggest they are the same.
  • "The Chinese foreign ministry asserted that awarding Liu the prize would be against Nobel principles, and warned that it would damage ties between the two countries." What two countries? It's not apparent from the context that the article is talking about Norway.
  • "On 7 October 2010, Norwegian television networks reported that the imprisoned Chinese dissident, Liu Xiaobo, was the front-running candidate for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize". Howcome Liu's suddenly introduced by his full name and "imprisoned Chinese dissident..."? He's been "Liu" in the two previous paragraphs. Also we already know that this article is about "the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize".
  • "experiencing a noticeable increase". "noticeable" seems redundant in the context.
  • Thanks. The specific points you identified have been treated. There may have been connectivity problems with the Huffington article – it's working for me. I will make another pass through to see what others I can pick up. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this article is well-written and remarkably comprehensive, my only concern is that {{Cquote}} and {{Rquote}} aren't used properly. See the templates' Template documentation. The article should use {{Quotation}} and {{Quote box}}. Also, regarding the "Nobel Peace Prize Concert" section—How was this event received in the press, if at all? There was most likely some kind of commentary somewhere. Did any of the performers or hosts make statements about the prize itself, the recipient, the concert, or the ceremony? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was unaware as to the prescribed use of the {{cquote}} template, but consider it more aesthetically pleasing than the {{quotation}} template. However, so as not to be in breach of the conventions, the quotes have been reformatted. As to commentary on the concert itself, that which did exist seems to have disappeared from search engine results. To avoid needing to develop the section on this non-central subject, I merged it into the preceding one. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Your work on this article is highly commendable, especially your commitment to balanced global perspectives on a controversial, relatively recent topic. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The infobox is a bit confusing. Some of the fields is about "2010 Nobel Peace Prize" and some is about "Nobel Peace Prize". I don't think it is useful to have the first and last awarded fields in every article about "xxxx Nobel Peace Prize". It will also look very strange in december when "Currently held by" is updated. Then the winner of the 2010 award, which this article is about, will not be mentioned in the box but the 2011 winners will. I suggest removing the three last fields and add a field for the 2010 winner. The fileds for location etc may be useful to keep if it has changed (I don't know if it always have been in Oslo) but fields that will be exactly the same in all "xxxx Nobel Peace Price" articles seems unnessecary. Iusethis (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Media Review This page is surprisingly not blocked in the PRC. My only issue is that I'd appreciate it if someone could translate the Chinese descriptions into English for the images that do not have English descriptions on their file information pages. It's not a requirement, but it is a kindness. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Looks like Wikipedia is going to get blocked in China for a few days after the 10th. Yay me.
  • Spotcheck concern 3/153 cites for supporting their claims, plagiarism, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • fn50 (Branigan 10 Dec 2010) clear
    • fn100 (Dasgupta, Saibal 13 Oct 2010) "conspicuously silent" may be an overstretch. Please check any emphatic claims against their sources, or respond to this concern inline, as to why it isn't an overstretch?
    • fn150 (news.com.au 13 Dec 2010) clear
  • Comment. The lead looks good. Please ping me when you've got some kind of resolution on the issues raised above ... I expect I'll be able to support on prose. - Dank (push to talk) 03:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. Reading the first couple of body paragraphs and a bit more at random I found several examples of weak prose and one apparent chronological error. The style is also somewhat jerky; it feels like a sequence of disconnected sentences rather than a smoothly written continuous narrative of events. The oppose is weak because I haven't reviewed the whole article yet; I'll be happy to revisit once the items below are fixed.

  • "It was reported that Russian human rights activist, Svetlana Gannushkina, the International Space Station, and three founders of the internet – Larry Roberts, Vint Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee and the Internet itself – were among the nominees." A couple of problems with this. I'd suggest deleting the comma after "activist": as it stands, Svetlana seems to be the second item in the list. The use of parenthetical dashes makes the Internet seem to be included among the three founders of the Internet. I'd suggest restructuring the sentence anyway; when the list includes the ISS and humans I think you should be kinder to the reader and put the "Among the nominees were" first.
  • "Having studied Western philosphy, his ideas were provocative": this is a non sequitur as it stands -- I think you mean something like "He had studied Western philosophy, and his article include Western ideas that were found provocative by Chinese readers".
  • "Since his involvement there ... the Chinese authorities censor his views as a subversive": it would read more naturally to say "have censored", or even "his views have been censored by" -- "since" doesn't usually work well with a declarative present.
  • "The Chinese foreign ministry warned Norway that awarding Liu the prize would be against Nobel principles, and that it would damage ties between the two countries." This appears to be out of position in the article; it's cited to a Time article that makes it clear the statement was in response to the actual award, but its position in this article makes it appear the statement was issued prior to the award.

When I got this far I skipped further down the article to see if I would find frequent prose concerns and it does appear better, but I did find these:

  • "Although relatively unknown in China through the efforts of the authorities, those who had heard about Liu had mixed views about him." Dangling modifier: those who had heard about Liu were not relatively unknown in China.
  • "One person claimed that his SIM card was deactivated after sending a text message to a relative about the Nobel Peace Prize." Same problem.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/2010_Nobel_Peace_Prize/archive3&oldid=1140103753"