Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Samantha Smith
Fits the criteria in my opinion - deserves a nod. PMA 04:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It needs work. The introduction needs a brief description of her and why she became famous, sans the letter itself. I tried fixing this but couldn't make it work. It also needs better sectioning (the TOC is halfway down the article). →Raul654 04:47, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
I think, these were reasonable concerns. I've just made some mostly cosmetic changes proposed by you.We dealt with these issues. Cmapm 15:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Object, at least for now. The current sectioning is rather poor, with an immense lead that contains the full transcription of the letters and nearly the whole story. The texts of the letters are almost all that the article contains; it's not comprehensive enough, missing many details of the social repercussions of her story in the US and the USSR, while mentioning trivial information. External references should be put under External Links, not in the article's text itself. Dubious copyright status of the sole picture included. While not a bad article, it's not near FA status.-- Shauri 05:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've just included some info on social repercussions into the section Worldwide success.Cmapm 11:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)The article has improved, and I withdraw some objections, but I also must add now a minor objection regarding the presence of some POV, like Wordtraveller says ("tragic death", "famous letters"). That's easy to solve, tho.-- Shauri 19:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)- All my objections have been taken care of. Now Support. -- Shauri 20:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. Her letter to the Soviet leader and Andropov's reply to it is the first and the main thing, which made her famous. Therefore, I see it pretty natural for it to be included into the leading section or at least to be contained in the first section of the TOC. As concerns "external links", there are many featured articles, which even were on the Main Page already, with many references to external sources inside the article (e.g. Isaac Asimov, Laika etc.). In my opinion the "social repercussions" were trivial (general love in both USSR and USA and negative reaction of the lesser part of people, mostly Soviet emigrants and dissidents), however, details on this can easily be found through external links. All details of the image copyright status are clear from the {{Fair use}} template, article's and image's talk pages: Patrick Carkin is the copyright holder, whose image was placed "for educational purpose" on (now not-functioning) PD website Proactivist.com and was taken from there under Fair use to at least two websites before it has been uploaded into Wiki. While some places of it may seem infantile and too simple for some people, I believe, that considering that the article is about a child, this does not make it less encyclopaedic. I think, after some recent edits by other people and many my ones the article became much less simple and lost much of its "infantile" details. I personally think, that "complicated" and "adult" style is inacceptable for articles about such young persons, but I still support it as FA candidate, mostly because it became very informative. However, I give up all my possible edits of this article at least until its status (whether FA or non-FA) becomes clear, because firstly, I don't want to be its constant "English grammar worsener" and secondly, I don't want to completely destroy myself my ideal of the article about a child. Cmapm 15:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Object for the moment - I had never heard of Smith until I read it and found it a very interesting article. But I think that although it's an excellent short summary of the story, I'm not sure it's comprehensive. What did she do in the Soviet Union? Was she accompanied? So she 'became a social activist' - how so? How did the meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan come about and what did they say? I see that her book was co-written with her father - how much did he write? Did her parents push her into all this at all? Were they politically active at all? How come her plane crashed?
More minor points: some of the writing is not very clear, eg Nearly the same situation was in the USA, although certain part of its population, mostly 1950s emigrants from the Soviet Union, called Samantha Pawn in Propaganda War. Also, there's a lot of very short sentences which don't really flow very well. Some POV as well, for example I don't think you need to title the section 'tragic death' - it's evidently tragic without the need to explicitly say it. Worldtraveller 19:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I expanded some sections, including info, directly related with some of your questions. However, I believe, that for a complete answer on all of them a separate solid research should be carried out with the free access to all possible sources and with the ability to browse a lot of them in other languages (e.g. Japanese one to browse sources on all Japanese Prime Minister's meetings). I seriously doubt, if some info requested by you can be retrieved at all, but well, once again, it's my POV. However, I did all I was able to do to the moment, maybe someone else will be a more lucky searcher.Cmapm 00:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)- I'll just summarize, what your questions I've answered.
Was she accompanied? What did she do in the Soviet Union? Did her parents push her into all this at all? How come her plane crashed?So she 'became a social activist' - how so?Minor points you mentioned, that short sentences and POV issues have been also dealt with.The remaining your points: 1. How did the meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan come about and what did they say? (some info on her visit to Japan added, but concerning details on meeting Prime Minister seems unbelievable to answer at the moment). 2. I see that her book was co-written with her father - how much did he write? (I cannot get the book, in any sources I found so far no details on this) 3. Were they politically active at all? (I added info on where they worked, I didn't find any info on whether they took part in elections or were some pol. party members). Cmapm 15:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)- Great work on the article, I think almost all of my original points have been answered, and the article is much improved. But I think there are two points that need more expansion. When you say she became a social activist, I think that needs more explanation. Did she give up normal activities like school? What exactly was her social activism? I think it might actually be easier just to omit that sentence - I don't think it harms the sense and flow of the article to omit it. Also, the fact that there were no US government representatives at her funeral is attributed to many in Reagan's administration regarding her as a Soviet dupe. That definitely needs some kind of attribution or reference, otherwise it looks like speculation or weasel words. Worldtraveller 16:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Should the letters not be at wikisource or somewhere else and be summarised here instead? violet/riga (t) 14:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I personally think, the long reply from Andropov may well be e.g. in wikisource (although this seems minor for myself as the article itself is not very long at the present), but a short Samantha's letter should be here. The problem is that it will be pretty difficult for myself to summarize Andropov's letter, if someone can, you are welcome.Cmapm 14:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)- Wikisource is for something along the lines of the US constitution. Using it for a 20-odd sentence letter is definitely overkill, particularly when it's intimately relavant to this article. →Raul654 14:57, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Support this then - I agree with the replies above. violet/riga (t) 15:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Object - While I can tell that a lot of hard work went into this article, I still find the way that it is written to be too infantile and simple, and includes a lot of irrelevant information that makes it less encyclopaedic. The lead section also needs to be much longer, and which airport did her plane crash in? What were the rumours around her death over? Why would the CIA or the KGB want to kill her? And the section about the memorials is blatantly POV, and again poorly written. Páll 00:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The leading section made longer, e.g. it is now longer, than that of "Main Paged" FA Suzanne Lenglen. We've also dealt with other issues you mentioned. Cmapm 19:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- There were a lot of good edits to this article, but I maintain my objection. The writing is better, but still very immature sounding. What does "loved" mean? American people cannot just "love" someone they see on TV. Páll 16:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Object - I think a lot of the style is very (as stated above) "infantile and simple". Examples - the reader does not need to know her dog's name, or that she was "having a problem" with mathematics - that's trivia, and simply not encyclopedic. In the section about her death "she was only 13 years old" - is it necessary to tug at the heartstings? Reading it, I can almost feel a solemn pause hanging in the air at that point, and it should not be there. The article says she was born in 1972 and died in 1985 - and yes, that's very sad, but it's enough information to calculate her age at death and that should suffice. There is a fair degree of POV, example - the seeming indignation that her "anniversaries" are not "even" recognised. How about her popularity in the US? ("she was generally loved"). I'm not doubting she was popular, I remember her popularity very well, but how is public adulation quantified? Was it genuine adulation or was it just whipped up by the media. Also wouldn't it be equally true to say that a lot of cynical Americans may well have had opinions about her other than "love". Couldn't they have also believed she was being used by the media, or was this clearly only the opinion of Russian Americans? Once again, how can such a statement be quantified, let alone verified? Finally, it is conventional to consistantly refer to a person by their surname in the body of a biographical article, or their full name if considered necessary, but never by the given name alone. ie "Samantha Smith" and "Smith" are both fine. "Samantha" is not. It changes the tone of the article considerably. Having said all that, I think the article is one that could be easily elevated as most of the hard work has been done and I'm hoping that I'll eventually be able to support it.Rossrs 13:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We've just dealt with some of these issues.Cmapm 14:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)- Greatly improved. A couple more suggestions : do you think it may flow better if the "death" and "funeral" sections are combined into one section, and also the three individual "tribute" sections combined into one? Also in the funeral section, I think the representative of Gorbechev should be mentioned first ahead of Robert Wagner, whose presence at the funeral is less noteworthy. I like the article - I'm glad people have taken the time to develop it. Rossrs 14:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I love Samantha, my contributions to this article, including some POV, corrected by guys here is a consequence. As concerns merges, partially agree (article corrected). But I think, if we combine Russian and Soviet tributes, USA tributes will seem poor. And if we combine all three in one, it'll be completely unclear,what and when.Cmapm 15:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've made a few edits, which I think are fairly minor - removed a few superfluous phrases/words and changed others.
- Support now. Rossrs 06:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Object interesting story, but seems to lack comprehensiveness. More about her social activism is probably called for. And it still needs a good copyedit. See for example this train-wreck sentence: No representative of the American government was present, certain part of them, probably, due to the fact, that many people within administration circles saw her as a Soviet dupe. Fawcett5 15:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The problem is that both Samantha and Arthur's 1985 book and the 1987 biography of her are out of print and trying to locate copies of them has proved difficult. PMA 15:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support There is more that could be added to this story, but then there always is. It no longer suffers from English-as-a-second-language problems, and I can no longer find evidence of POV issues. I'm at a loss as to why you see the need for a "good" copyedit. Not only can I find no evidence of the sentence you quote, but I have worked through the article almost word by word, correcting bad grammar and irregular constructions. Denni☯ 21:30, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting I made it up? It seems unreasonable to expect to find evidence of a particular flawed sentence 6.5 hours and several edits after I pointed it out to the world on FAC. And as you said yourself, you went through word-by word fixing things. So it sounds like YOU might have been the one that gave it the "good copyedit" I requested. Anyway, I will give it another read through when I get the chance, and will reconsider then. By the way, Denni, I'm going to make a final push on Louis Riel and Red River Rebellion this weekend to get them ready for resubmission.. I'll drop you a note sometime soon. Fawcett5 21:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)