Difference between revisions of "Talk:Alan Feraday"
(Added Talk template) |
m (Text replacement - "WikiSpooks" to "Wikispooks") |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talk}} | {{talk}} | ||
| − | {{HighTraffic|As of | + | {{HighTraffic|As of November 2015, this was Google's #1 hit on {{t|Alan Feraday}}}} |
== Alan Feraday == | == Alan Feraday == | ||
| − | As he is the subject of the article, all the material presented should be more or less directly relevant to '''Alan Feraday''', and the connection should be clear to someone without expert knowledge. I'm still failing to find ''clear'' connections. I've just revised [[ | + | As he is the subject of the article, all the material presented should be more or less directly relevant to '''Alan Feraday''', and the connection should be clear to someone without expert knowledge. I'm still failing to find ''clear'' connections. I've just revised [[Wikispooks:Style_Guide#Encyclopedic_Style]] which is my attempt to explain what is wanted in terms of style. |
As a specific example of my concerns, consider the two images at the top of the Alan Feraday page, the captions of which are confusing to an uninformed reader, who naturally expects ''directly relevant'' images, such as, say, photos of Alan Feraday himself. There are one or two more lines in the article (e.g. "On 20 May 2012, Megrahi died of prostate cancer") which have no clear relevance to Feraday, but a more serious weakness is poor organisation. I may have a go at reorganising it, such as through headings and sub-headings, but I'm aware that you wrote most of it and are better informed than me. I don't think it needs much work, just some reshuffling of content so that Feraday remains the clear topic of all parts of the article. The top should have a clear hierarchy of headings preceded by a short lede to give an overview. | As a specific example of my concerns, consider the two images at the top of the Alan Feraday page, the captions of which are confusing to an uninformed reader, who naturally expects ''directly relevant'' images, such as, say, photos of Alan Feraday himself. There are one or two more lines in the article (e.g. "On 20 May 2012, Megrahi died of prostate cancer") which have no clear relevance to Feraday, but a more serious weakness is poor organisation. I may have a go at reorganising it, such as through headings and sub-headings, but I'm aware that you wrote most of it and are better informed than me. I don't think it needs much work, just some reshuffling of content so that Feraday remains the clear topic of all parts of the article. The top should have a clear hierarchy of headings preceded by a short lede to give an overview. | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
== lede needs a serious trim == | == lede needs a serious trim == | ||
| − | One or two paragraphs is enough for the lede. As suggested by the [[ | + | One or two paragraphs is enough for the lede. As suggested by the [[Wikispooks:Style_guide#Encyclopedic_Style|style guide]], it should give a ''brief'' overview - not obscuring the table of contents which is a good means of navigation for people who don't want to read the whole article. As it currently stands, this article is offputting in both lede length and total length. [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 14:20, 19 February 2014 (GMT) |
:Thanks for the reminder, [[User:Robin|Robin]]. Having trimmed the lede today, hopefully making the story more gripping for the reader to want to venture further into the article, I emailed it to the MSM at 15:16 hrs (copying to you and [[User:Peter|Peter P]]). I'll report any significant reaction.--[[User:Patrick Haseldine|Patrick Haseldine]] ([[User talk:Patrick Haseldine|talk]]) 16:28, 19 February 2014 (GMT) | :Thanks for the reminder, [[User:Robin|Robin]]. Having trimmed the lede today, hopefully making the story more gripping for the reader to want to venture further into the article, I emailed it to the MSM at 15:16 hrs (copying to you and [[User:Peter|Peter P]]). I'll report any significant reaction.--[[User:Patrick Haseldine|Patrick Haseldine]] ([[User talk:Patrick Haseldine|talk]]) 16:28, 19 February 2014 (GMT) | ||
==My edit revert== | ==My edit revert== | ||
| − | My disdain for | + | My disdain for Feraday is no less than Patrick's. The 'OBE/Odious Bomb Expert' juxtaposition would be fine in a polemical document article, but it is not appropriate in a regular encyclopedia article page, if only because he would be the only one with that property. --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 19:59, 14 November 2015 (GMT) |
| + | |||
| + | :Cannot disagree with the logic, [[User:Peter|Peter P]].--[[User:Patrick Haseldine|Patrick Haseldine]] ([[User talk:Patrick Haseldine|talk]]) 20:32, 14 November 2015 (GMT) | ||
Latest revision as of 17:14, 14 October 2018
Alan Feraday
As he is the subject of the article, all the material presented should be more or less directly relevant to Alan Feraday, and the connection should be clear to someone without expert knowledge. I'm still failing to find clear connections. I've just revised Wikispooks:Style_Guide#Encyclopedic_Style which is my attempt to explain what is wanted in terms of style.
As a specific example of my concerns, consider the two images at the top of the Alan Feraday page, the captions of which are confusing to an uninformed reader, who naturally expects directly relevant images, such as, say, photos of Alan Feraday himself. There are one or two more lines in the article (e.g. "On 20 May 2012, Megrahi died of prostate cancer") which have no clear relevance to Feraday, but a more serious weakness is poor organisation. I may have a go at reorganising it, such as through headings and sub-headings, but I'm aware that you wrote most of it and are better informed than me. I don't think it needs much work, just some reshuffling of content so that Feraday remains the clear topic of all parts of the article. The top should have a clear hierarchy of headings preceded by a short lede to give an overview. Robin (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2014 (GMT)
- Yes, Robin, I agree the article needs some work and I'll certainly devote the necessary time and effort.
- The subject of the article and I go back a long way. In 2007, I wrote the Wikipedia biography of Alan Feraday. It didn't take long to become "controversial" and was eventually deleted by WP Admin JzG aka Guy Chapman. I kept a copy of the article and reentered on WP a few months later. JzG quickly re-deleted it and for good measure blocked me from editing on WP. I reported this sorry saga to Prof Robert Black and he promptly posted the Alan Feraday article on his blog The Lockerbie Case, where it remains today - even though Prof Black and I are no longer on speaking terms!
- You mention using photos of Alan Feraday. The problem is that because of all his (trumped up) evidence against the IRA, Alan is very camera-shy. If he is called to give his 'expert' evidence at the Old Bailey trial of John Downey beginning today, perhaps the press will oblige us with a portrait of the 76-year-old Feraday.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2014 (GMT)
- Copying this section to Alan Feraday talk page.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2014 (GMT)
- Eureka! We've finally captured Alan Feraday, in a June 2013 wedding photo, giving away his daughter Caroline to lawyer Mark Lewis.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2015 (GMT)
lede needs a serious trim
One or two paragraphs is enough for the lede. As suggested by the style guide, it should give a brief overview - not obscuring the table of contents which is a good means of navigation for people who don't want to read the whole article. As it currently stands, this article is offputting in both lede length and total length. Robin (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2014 (GMT)
- Thanks for the reminder, Robin. Having trimmed the lede today, hopefully making the story more gripping for the reader to want to venture further into the article, I emailed it to the MSM at 15:16 hrs (copying to you and Peter P). I'll report any significant reaction.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2014 (GMT)
My edit revert
My disdain for Feraday is no less than Patrick's. The 'OBE/Odious Bomb Expert' juxtaposition would be fine in a polemical document article, but it is not appropriate in a regular encyclopedia article page, if only because he would be the only one with that property. --Peter P (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2015 (GMT)
- Cannot disagree with the logic, Peter P.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2015 (GMT)
