Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Avery Brundage/archive1

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 promoted by GrahamColm 14:22, 23 June 2012 [1].

Avery Brundage[edit]

Avery Brundage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria and hope the community will agree. Avery Brundage was Mr. Olympics to a generation; one source jokes that it was popularly thought he came down from Mount Olympus with the gods. He's not well regarded today, for a number of reasons, but is a man who dominated the Olympics as perhaps no man will ever again, and was also a major builder and art collector. My thanks to the University of Illinois for making the Avery Brundage Collection available to me on my visit there earlier this spring.Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments by Ling
    • NOCs or NOC's? – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • NOCs, fixed, thanks. The one remaining NOC's is a possessive.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anal nitpick moment of the week: I don't like the dangling blockquote that wraps up the legacy section. Surely you can add some more text after it? – Ling.Nut (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its not dangling. I generally conclude my non-numismatic articles with a blockquote. I find it gives good finality to an article and it sounds authoritative because it is someone else's voice.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • that's an interesting tactic. It's my perception (whether correct or incorrect I'm not sure) that the practice flies in the face of convention. The UNC Writing Center's Quotations page is fairly typical when it states, "Follow up a block quotation with your own words." It goes on to state that one good way to do so is to explain the significance of the quotation. – Ling.Nut (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, but see Mark Hanna, Cross of Gold speech, Checkers speech, William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896 (conclude with a poem), United States Senate election in California, 1950, California's 12th congressional district election, 1946, Carousel (musical), Statue of Liberty and about thirty others. I'd respectfully suggest they were not considering a blockquote to end the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Two points: First, I'm not gonna Oppose over this, so no need to worry on that score. It is a genuine faux pas, but I personally can't categorize it as a fatal one. [I've had reviewers from academic journals ask me to revise my papers for the same reason, which is how it came to my attention.] Second, a moment's reflection would help you see that citing past FAs as support for present practice is poor logic (it is WP:OTHERSTUFF.. but much worse, it is actually self-defeating. Sure, it may (probably will) help you jump this hurdle to getting the bronze star, but in the process you decline to learn new things. But all of this is philosophical. You have stood your ground, and since I do not see it as a fatal error, I will not press you further. :-) – Ling.Nut (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thanks. My writing style is very much shaped by how people react to it. I often think of "well, I better not phrase it that way or it will cause a problem at PR". You've made a point about the blockquotes. That becomes something I take on board and will think of as I conclude articles. (Note: My next likely FAC, Nickel (United States coin) does not end with a blockquote.)--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey the "communist/capitalist nations different goals re amateurism" bit in the legacy looks like an interesting thread of thought. I skimmed the "amateurism" section and didn't see it developed. Did I miss it? If not, moderately unacceptable to introduce new points in the conclusion. – Ling.Nut (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Soviet Union subsection.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I found that section slightly scattered, though as always I may be flat wrong. I reorganized things slightly in User:Ling.Nut3/sandbox, basically consolidating the "ain't those Soviet athletes da bomb" text and the "but it's cheating/not amateur" text as well. Would you look at it? If you don't like it, that's OK. – Ling.Nut (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think you've hit it fine. There is a LOT more that can be said about the Soviet involvement in the Olympic movement. I tried to hit the high points, with a worried look at the 100K I think the community expects me not to exceed in an article which is not about a head of state or government (I consider the limits for those about 130K). At that time, the US-Soviet relationship was on very shaky ground and people were sensitive to anything that made the Soviets look good. And of course the Olympics was a major forum for US-Soviet rivalry.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you think the sandbox text is OK, then should I copy/paste back into the article? Especially beware of separating ideas from their cited references... – Ling.Nut (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I had assumed that you had carried references along with the text. I will have to look at it in a bit more detail, then. The text is fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I actually think everything is OK, but my butt cheeks are still stinging from a couple paddlings I've received lately on this score, so I am being circumspect. – Ling.Nut (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • People can be touchy around here :). I will look it over, make any necessary adjustments and cut and paste in probably within the next couple of hours, and will leave a note here when I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Compared it to the text I had by pasting into your sandbox, and not saving, but "show changes". I saw no problems, but I did split the final paragraph. Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Ling.Nut (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image comment: several extra images have been added since I peer-reviewed the article. One of the new ones is File:Brundage 1916.png which is an excellent action shot. It is, however, very large (even though I have slightly reduced it via the "upright" instruction), and I feel that it overcrowds this part of the article with images. The one that follows it, File:Brundage 1932.png, could be removed; it is not altogether necessary, as you have a pic of AB in 1936, as part of a group. The removal certainly would clear the decks a bit - I've tried it out - and I would recommend that you do this. A few more general comments will follow shortly; I had my main say during a long peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone. Thank you for reviewing it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to have a look at this article at some point, but don't want to step on Brian's toes if he's about to give a full review. Please ping me when his review is finished so I can give one of my own. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, please go ahead. I've done my full review at PR. I only have a handful of final points which I don't think will bring about any major changes to the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Support: I did a very detailed peer review on this article, and most of my recommendations were incorporated into the final version. I am very impressed by the depth of research that has gone into the article, and also by the extent to which Wehwalt has produced an even-handed account of a rather unsympathetic subject. I have just a handful of points to raise now:

  • On an issue raised above by Ling, I generally share his antipathy towards ending articles with blockquotes. On this occasion, however, I think it's OK to do so, as the quote has a suitably final air about it. I am less happy, however, that overall the article contains seven blockquotes (three of which are used to end earlier sections). I think that the overuse of blockquotes (rather than paraphrase or brief, embedded quotes) is an issue that needs addressing in featured articles generally.
  • On images, does File:Brundage 1941.JPG really add anything to the article? This is the fourth of six successive images either of Brundage or including him. In all the others he is doing something; in this one he simply stares bleakly ahead.
  • I wonder if the Legacy section should begin with a summary judgement? Maybe readers should draw this conclusion for themselves.

These points don't detract from my admiration for the completion of what must have been a very tough job. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support and the comments. I will look into reducing the blockquotes by a couple, anyway. I do prefer tham, that is the lawyer in me. The 1941 image, I felt, was the clearest image I had of the middle-aged Brundage. He is wearing headgear or is partially obscured in the two from 1936, we do not see him again until 1960, when he has morphed into the wizened man those of us of a certain age recall from television. I will look into padding the legacy section slightly where you suggest, but surprisingly few of the sources I found (and I at least looked at probably at least a hundred sources on Brundage) were willing to offer a historical judgment on him. It was hard getting the tone right for the 1936 part especially, obviously what he said and did was repellant, and he was somewhat extreme even for his times. To present it dispassionately was difficult.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have eliminated two of the blockquotes, both of which were section-enders, leaving only Red Smith's quote as a section-ender before the end. That's needed to balance "the Games must go on" that due to its length must be a blockquote.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – All of the following are relatively small points; from what I've read, the content itself is definitely FA-worthy.

  • In the lead, the 1936 and 1972 Summer Olympics don't need multiple links; the ones in the first paragraph are sufficient on their own.
  • Rise to leadership: Very minor point, but it feels like there should be a word ("stated") between "and" and the "You know..." quote.
  • Berlin: Again minor, but the semi-colon before "and the matter remains controversial" is better off as a regular old comma.
  • Road to the IOC presidency: Comma after "to build a new German embassy in Washington" needs removal.
  • I'm mildly confused by "Brundage was elected by a vote of 30 to 17 for Burghley on the 25th ballot." Sounds like the voters were choosing Burghley, not Brundage. I'm not sure the "for Burghley" is helping the sentence at all.
  • Amateurism: Don't think "Alpine skiing" needs the capitalization.
  • South Africa and Rhodesia: "decided to allow the Rhodesian to compete as British subjects." Not sure about this, but should it be "Rhodesians"?

I'll try to come back to look at the remainder of the article within the next day or two. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments; I have made those changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Political demonstrations at Mexico City: Comma before "in one incident" should be a semi-colon instead.
  • Relationships: "She had a strong interest in classical music, an interest which may not have been fully shared by her husband". The use of "interest" is redundant here. Getting rid of "an interest" would appear to make no difference in the meaning while making the sentence tighter.
  • For the newspaper and magazine cites without authors, some of the dates have en dashes in them and some don't. I wouldn't use dashes here, but either way their usage should be consistent. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are now fixed. Shout out to Br'er Rabbit for taking care of the dashes.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – In prose, content, referencing, and everything else, this exceeds the FA criteria, rather than merely meeting them. Well done. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the review, the support, and the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger comments
Yes, I had two reviewers and figured you'd find it here!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There remain some instances where 3 in a row are on the left or the right. If the middle of the three were moved to the opposite side that would help.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you move File:Brundage 1941.JPG down one paragraph and to the left side?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He'd be facing off the page then ... MOS issue. I agree, that's the one that's difficult.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Early life; athletic career
Thank you for reviewing, and on Crane. I generally don't link in a quote unless it's a "stopper" but if someone questions that, I tend to accommodate. I'll link that and Big Ten as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unlink as you please, but find a way to link it in some prose. We should link his school affiliations.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, which beyond Illinois and Crane?
I just meant to link Crane.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you piped Crane. I could put it in the infobox, but I'm not sure that's customary. Regarding Alger, the only thing I find on a hasty search is in Guttmann, calling Brundage "like the lucky, plucky heroes of Horatio Alger" (page 3)--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will, but as a Chicago expert, your input would be valuable.
I am frustrated with the Monroe Building. Not sure if it is the New York Life Insurance Building, Chicago or something else. Have no clue about National Biscuit Company Building.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to look ahead a the "Construction executive" subsection, it's just filled with Chicago sites.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand up "US all-around champion in 1914, 1916, and 1918". Was this at an AAU event, a US Track and Field Championships event or what?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AAU-sponsored. Really, they ran the show at that stage in track and field, I'll stick that in. Unhappily, we lack an article on the all-around, which seems to have died out in the 1920s.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not for fair use. It does not contribute enough to the reader's comprehension of Brundage. The main article has it on fair use..--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Construction executive
I'm inclined to say that would be overlinking, but I welcome the comments of other revieweres. I am working my way through your comments this morning, Tony. Thanks for the links.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Back up to date. I moved a couple of images left, but there's a slight bias right because of MOS or positioning. I want to keep the images in the sections they are now.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing more than two in a row on either side now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of my issues have been addressed. However, as WP:CHICAGO director, I do not get involved in the GA or FA promotion decisions for works within our project due to conflict of interest. I do however feel that this is one of the best articles on WP and would otherwise Support it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I greatly appreciate it. I worked hard on it and put about 1,500 on a fairly new car for it, so I was determined to make it good. With your help, we may just have succeeded.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I took part in the peer review, where my queries and suggestions, such as they were, were dealt with. Since then the piece has been made even more impressive, and to my mind clearly meets all the FA criteria. I am particularly impressed that I am still not sure, having read the article three times now, to what extent Wehwalt actually likes or approves of Brundage – that's an impressive example of neutrality.

One curious point about the layout. If I access the article using Firefox it looks fine, but if I access it through Internet Explorer 9 I get several inches of white space between the section heading "Early life; athletic career" and the start of the text ("Avery Brundage was born in Detroit…"). I have tried this on two computers: a laptop and a desktop. Moving the image of AB in 1916 to the left-hand side between the first and second paragraphs eliminates this problem. – Tim riley (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made those changes. Thank you, and Ling.Nut3, for your reviews and support. I really don't have a strong view about Brundage, so neutrality was not difficult. And he was very good at what he put his hand to, which I admire, despite his deplorable views.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review from Crisco 1492
File:Olympic Rings.svg - PD tag for on-Wikipedia copy is invalid. According to the commons tag, the rings were designed by Pierre de Coubertin (1863-1937). May be PD-Simple.
File:Brundage clip.JPG - needs the original publication year as well. Also, please double check that the entire publication lacks a copyright notice.
File:Avery Brundage Signature.svg - looks fine.
File:Brundage 1916.png - Looks fine.
File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-2004-0309-500, Bremen, Avery Brundage eingetroffen.jpg should be cropped to remove the image description from the file. See WP:WATERMARK. Also, needs English description.
File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-2004-0309-502, Berlin, Olympia-Vorbereitung.jpg - Same as above.
File:Brundage 1941.JPG - Looks fine, although doublechecking that there is no copyright notice on the entire publication would be appreciated.
File:Brundage at AAU 1963.jpg - Same as above.
File:Squaw Valley medal ceremony.png - Looks fine, but for some reason I can't access the PDF to double check.
File:Parc Mon-Repos Villa Mon-Repos et fontaine.jpg - Should have an English description. Also, as France has no Freedom of Panorama, proof that the copyright on the building is expired may be needed.
File:Brundage at Squaw Valley.png - Looks fine, but for some reason I can't access the PDF to double check.
File:Olympiastadion Muenchen.jpg - Looks fine.
File:Brundage Corbally.jpg - Looks fine, but to be safe please double check that the entire publication lacks a copyright notice.
File:La Salle Hotel main.jpg - Needs a US PD tag. Also, I can't access the source.
File:Saturnism.jpg - Looks fine
Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk
  • Support on prose and images. Interesting article, fairly important person... although not one that I find myself agreeing with. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Few do. But he is nevertheless important enough to deserve a quality article.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gnoming by Br'er Rabbit ;)

I have been through this pretty carefully over the last few days. Wehwalt picked-up the {{sfn}} system from my work on his other FAs, but he did this one on his own.
  • I dropped the ISO dates on journal/newspaper footnotes as unneeded; the full dates are in the linked citations and disambiguation is not needed (the Sun-Times already had title-snippets for disambiguation).
  • Also dropped the year on the Brichford sources and used title-snippets for disambiguation.
  • I did some earlier tweaking, too; further back in history…
Both of the above were done in the context of the article not using years for the other footnotes, since there is little ambiguity and less repetition this way.
Spotchecks done on sources:
  • I reviewed the Sports Illustrated piece and checked the parts of the article cited to it and all are supported by the source.
  • Also reviewed both Brichford PDFs and checked that the cited portions of the article are supported. All is fine.
This is a nice article on a not-nice person (he's dead, so I could call him for what he is;). I read this at several stages of development including the old version before the rewrite. It has come along nicely and will serve as a fine example of what a Wikipedia article should be.
Thank you for the review and the praise. We seem to have ample support and checks done. If for some reason someone thinks something is missing, I'd be grateful for a heads-up.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2012 (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/Avery_Brundage/archive1&oldid=1076190990"