Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nature fakers controversy/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Nature fakers controversy

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 Karanacs 17:14, 11 May 2010 [1].


Nominator(s): María (habla conmigo) 16:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Maria, and... well, this is hard to say, but I'll come out with it: I'm a Nature Faker. Yes, although I may appear to value

Lobo the King of Currumpaw"). Know and love these stories? Then you may be a nature faker yourself; or else, John Burroughs and Theodore Roosevelt
would have considered you one of their ilk.

The Nature fakers controversy is a quirky literary debate that, although largely forgotten today, nonetheless remains absolutely fascinating. I created the article out of a redirect last summer, and have been expanding it steadily over the past month. It was promoted to GA several weeks ago, and also received a Peer Review. As always, any and all comments are welcome. On a side-note, if promoted this article will mark my tenth DYK/GA/FA! :) María (habla conmigo) 16:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 16:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I just peer reviewed this yesterday and thought it clearly already met the FA criteria then. I found a few nitpicks in the PR, all of which were corrected. On looking the article over again just now I noticed that some names are linked in both the captions and the text, while others are linked only in the text. I would be fine with linking in both places, but think it should be done consistently in either case. An interesting read and very well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Ruhrfisch! I've made the links within the citations consistent as you've suggested. María (habla conmigo) 17:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comments, partial support

  • The article gives Burroughs' play on the title as "Wild Animals I ALONE Have Known", while the Atlantic itself gives "Wild Animals I Alone Have Known" (which could probably be "Wild Animals I Alone Have Known" in the article).
  • "Roosevelt sent him a letter of support as well as an invitation to travel West in each other's company."—use "travel west"?

I guess there might be more nitpicks if I look really hard; otherwise, I really like this article. It looks very well put together, consistent dashes, etc. It assumes little (which is good, because I simply wasn't aware of this controversy pre-article :sadface:), and explains the background nicely and succinctly. The images, from the info given anyway, appear to check out (I love Kloss's notes on

all but 1b and 1c. --an odd name 17:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Support Really good read, I made these edits please check that you're happy with them. Note that oriole goes to our orioles, whereas the new link goes to your unrelated but similar-looking birds. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Jimfbleak. I don't know an oriole from an oriole, so your birding expertise is definitely welcome. :) María (habla conmigo) 23:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interesting and nicely-written article, but I was left wondering where the balance of current scientific opinion on the instinct/training question lay? Hard to do without Synthesis perhaps, but was not Burroughs rather overstating the role of instinct for higher animals by modern standards? Johnbod (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • He definitely was; he was so resolute that instinct was responsible for pretty much any behavior displayed by a wild animal -- despite what he had previously written in his career, even -- but the trouble is is that we still don't know exactly what the balance is with learned behavior vs. instinctual. At least, that's what I gather -- this is really not my area of expertise. :) I had a line thrown in at the end of the article stating that scientists still debate the issue, but it was sourced to Lutts, whose book is twenty years old. The other sources I've used touch upon the literary aftermath rather than the scientific, so I'm not sure what to do. Any ideas? María (habla conmigo) 12:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Nice read. Although I was aware of Roosevelt's involvement, I didn't know the background to the controversy. Sorry, but I can't find any nitpicks for you to work on.

talk) 13:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Image review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just rechecked all of the images and they are all PD, all published in the US before 1923 or works or art old enough to be PD. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, Sandy, perhaps I should have mentioned that in the nomination statement? Will do next time. María (habla conmigo) 21:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • The link in Ref 86 confirms the existence of the two films you mention, but gives no information whereby we can verify that "Animation pioneer John R. Bray also showcased this new definition of 'nature faker'", or that the two films satirize Roosevelt's involvement in the controversy.

Otherwise, references all look OK, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2010 (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/Nature_fakers_controversy/archive1&oldid=1078803770"