Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eric Heffer/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eric Heffer[edit]

This is a complete self-nom - as of now, no-one else has edited the article. It's a biography of a left-wing Labour Member of Parliament from Britain. The article is comprehensive and one of the longest biographies of British politicians. It has an extensive list of references. David | Talk 21:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I haven't read the entire article but have a couple of suggestions to bring it up to standard: the prose needs to be cleaned up and, less importantly, it could do with a few more pictures. --Oldak Quill 22:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree about the pictures but they would almost certainly have to be fair use and I don't think my good friend Carnildo would like that. David | Talk 11:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it looks good and certainly seems comprehensive. I would like to know why Image:Ericheffer.jpg is considered PD. There are also more sections then there need be, especially at the beginning where there is a section per paragraph. - SimonP 22:44, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • I can answer the image question quickly: the image in question is an official publicity photo which was given out c. 1975 to those who wanted a picture of Heffer to print. Such images are, certainly in the UK, considered as free of copyright by implication: if you ask for someone to send a photo to print in your book or magazine, and they send you one, they are consenting to its publication. A few years ago I was involved in compiling a book of biographies of current MPs and sending out letters asking for photos, which we were advised did not need to inquire into copyright status. David | Talk 22:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • An official publicity photo in 1975 was presumably a good sharp paper copy? Is it possible to get a better-quality scan of it? This is really blurry. :-( Bishonen | talk 00:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems like it should be tagged {{PD-release}}. Alternatively the {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} might be more appropriate if someone still does own the copyright, but will not, or cannot, enforce it. Either way it would do no harm to add the explanation of why the image is free to use to the image description page. - SimonP 00:19, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
        • It does say it's a publicity photo in the image description page. David | Talk 08:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from a quick skim over it, the table of contents is overwhelming, and many of the section headings are totally uninformative, so I think it could be organised better. There are also lots of terms that could be Wikilinks. The lead is missing a couple of things, who described him as one of the best read MPs? Which left-dominated city council? Is it known what illness killed him and where he is burried?--nixie 23:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had a go at tackling these objections. The TOC is now cut down to headings and subheadings and the lead is rewritten. The article already explained that he had cancer. David | Talk 11:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The images Image:Heffer'slastspeech.jpg and Image:Heffer1985walkout.jpg are listed as "fair use". Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia. As such, fair use images should be avoided if at all possible. If they must be used, the source of the image must be given, and a rationale for why the image can be used under "fair use" needs to be given for each page the image is used on. --Carnildo 07:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I move to strike out this objection. The article is what is being featured, not the pictures. David | Talk 08:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the pictures aren't a part of the article, then I assume you wouldn't object to them being removed? --Carnildo 19:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whoah there Neddy! If this article wasn't up for FAC would you have similarly objected? The fair use images do now have justifications in commented-out text, and perhaps you will consider whether this is enough to withdraw your objection. David | Talk 11:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, on condition that "He was rated as one of the most effective of the large 1964 intake of Labour MPs" is explained (rated by whom?)Deus Ex 17:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This statement is partly my impression given that Heffer is almost always named among examples of MPs from the 1964 intake, but also on the offer of a job which he got in 1967 (one of the first of that intake to be offered something). I've tracked down one direct reference though. David | Talk 09:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very impressive stuff. Mark1 03:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think maybe this is not important enough of article. 內布拉斯加 00:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Not important enough" is not suitable grounds for objection. You need to specify fixable problems with the article that keep it from being suitable for featured status. --Carnildo 03:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you missed the question I asked above about the quality—the blurriness—of the top image? Is it possible to do something about it? I do find this article very interesting, and I'm not about to object because of a blurry image, but it is the first impression a reader gets. If you've scanned it from a less-than-good print in a book, I suppose the quality can't be helped, though. (I've wikified the Lead suitably, I think, please see if you agree.) Bishonen | talk 03:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm working on it but it will take some time. Thanks for your work on the lead, which was written after the rest of the article. David | Talk 23:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very impressed. Well structured and appears thorough to my limited knowledge of Eric Heffer. Rwendland 22:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Eric_Heffer/archive1&oldid=214952456"