294:(p.423). Thus although "Chicago" certainly does allow for a system of full bibliographical (etc.) details in a note the first time the given source is referenced, it (or anyway its rather old 13th edition) asks for an alphabetically ordered list for this, and it does not require full details in the footnotes if they are in an alphabetically ordered list. ¶ What we have in this article is the alphabetical list but not the first full citation in the footnote, a system that appealed to the creator of the article, appealed to me as editor, avoids a lot of clutter, seems to do little or nothing to make the sources harder to identify, and was fully approved of by "Chicago" in 1982, even if it's not approved of by the latest (2003) "Chicago". (I really don't know about the 2003 edition. I'm not buying a copy because I see nothing wrong with the old copy that I already possess, because the new one includes
194:, I'd much rather see a gallery (implying uploading them to wikipedia, as they all seem to be public domain because of age) within this section of the article than a list of external jumps. 6 months from now, it would look bad if they were all dead links. Also, the lead needs to be expanded to summaries each section just a little bit more, per
313:(tsk tsk, comma splice). That seems to allow for the sourcing system used in this article, though admittedly it's not entirely clear. As for WP:SOURCE, , no offense intended to the good people who have no doubt labored over it, but it strikes me as an awful mess. A footnote dump (via <references /: -->
686:
The image gallery wraps off my screen - please resize. The first footnote is incomplete - please add biblio info including publisher and last access date. Also, the end of the third paragraph in the section "Farsari and
Yokohama shashin" has uncited commentary which appears as opinion or original
375:
I'll be happy to go the extra mile, or two, or three, if I thought that doing so would either add to the article or result in the article adhering to a coherent guideline. But I don't see how fleshing out notes in this way would add to the article (other than in simple bulk), and WP:FOOT appears to
447:
The images whose rephotographs (or perhaps scans) we're looking at are indeed in the public domain. Offhand I'm not at all sure about those rephotographs (scans). I suspect that a scan or recent rephotograph of a public-domain image is itself copyright; I had a quick look for this issue in vaguely
159:
and something like MLA or
Chicago. Given wikipedia's inline citations rules, that would eliminate harvard referencing. I don't even know why we still let people use Harvard Referencing, academia largely walked away from it 20 years ago because of its deficiencies and aesthetics. Right now, you're
356:
would be okay; let's put aside quibbles about whether the page number should be preceded by "p." and suchlike stylemanualcruft.) I'm willing to follow the main thrust of what this "guideline" says, but the details are so shoddy that I have difficulty summoning the enthusiasm needed to follow its
704:
Not sure how to help you with the gallery size issue - it's fine in the three browsers I use on two computers and though I've looked through the relevant pages in
Knowledge on Gallery mark-up I haven't found out how to resize. Maybe someone who understands this technical issue better than I can
543:
I don't know enough on the subject to have a clear opinion about the nomination. I did however thoroughly enjoy reading the article and found it to be of high quality. I did a bit of copyediting and some more is probably needed to reach brilliant prose. For instance, you might want to rephrase
223:
n.b. the section on
Harvard Referencing) Also considering that several older FAs don't meet today's criteria (and as such deserve to be subjected to FA review), comparisons to other FAs are not often valid. Your comment doesn't take into account WP:CITE's policy, and will mislead the article
258:
I didn't mean ibid in that context. I should have marked my words more carefully. I was equating their last name, page number style with ibid. and that was just wrong of me. But that doesn't negate my above comments regarding citations, and thank you for agreeing with me on that point.
651:
Just one comment. While using a gallery is ok per WP:MoS, I've seen a few instances in the past where use of gallery wes rather discouraged. However, since some experienced wikipedians have already reviewed the article and supported it, I believe this is not a major issue. Nice article.
207:
Actually, I've seen this format used quite often for
Featured Articles that rely heavily on books. It's cumbersome to cite the full book each time it's used. Since the full citations are given in the References, I think it's perfectly fine to just list last name, page # in the notes.
548:
which sounds clumsy to me. I also think that it would be suitable to have at least a few notes (in the last section) on whether or not
Farsari's work is still being exhibited. Have there been fairly recent Farsari exhibits? If so, where? If not, why? If not, have there ever been?
278:
the references need to use one format or another. Can't use
Harvard referencing in a "footnotes" format. Either put the references in the body to comply with the requirements of Harvard Referencing, or make the footnotes full citations, per WP:CITE and something like MLA or
189:
As you can guess, I'd prefer the second style, but I can't hold that against you for using HR. Now, to pre-empt one response, MLA and
Chicago formats require a full citation before you can start using ibid. and op. cit. For the section entitled
241:: "Avoid using Ibid in footnotes. Other editors who add new references to the article may not take the time to correct Ibid references broken by their addition. Furthermore, not all readers are familiar with the meaning of the term.
705:
help...? The first footnote has been expanded to include access date - it is a webpage, so there isn't any further publication data to add. The missing citation (accidentally left off at some point in the editing) has been added.
289:
Section 15.82, in turn, is very simple; though taking up slightly more than two pages (pp.423–5), the great majority of it is taken up by a lengthy example of each of two layouts of alphabetically ordered bibliographies; it says
380:(13th ed.) definitely does approve of the system now used. Again, I'm open to reasoning -- and the reason can be pretty weak. Yes, given even a weak reason, I'll certainly make the changes, and with good grace. --
74:
77:
is the debate; in my opinion, some objections were valid at the time but are valid no longer, at least one was not valid even then. The latest draft of the article before it was first nominated is
285:
Chapter 17 is devoted to "note forms", i.e. the forms that foot/endnotes should take. Section 17.2 (p.486) is within this context (it's most certainly about the use of notes), and it starts:
590:
Yup. Thanks. As I said, I know too little about photography or Japan for that matter so I don't think I can be a good judge of the article's overall value. Best of luck
Pinkville.
389:
My reasoning: What if someone comes by and divorces the reference section from the article and no one notices it for several weeks, months, years? Heck, the false accusation that
219:
NO, it's not. Right now they're using a hybrid of different citation methods and must choose one or the other, because they're using one method quite heavily, but incorrectly (see
287:
A source should be given a full reference the first time it is cited in a book or article, unless it appears in an alphabetical bibliography at the end of the work (see 15.82).
224:
nominator. They'll hit themselves later if it's my objection that fails this candidacy, only because they listened to you instead of doing the revisions demanded.—
530:
I've created a gallery using the photographs and other items formerly listed in the "selected photographs" section. I'll deal with expanding the lead tomorrow.
70:
the content was inserted, by a single editor, and I'm not that editor. However, I did goad him along to some extent; I'm not unrelated to the editing process.
63:
An informative, very readable, and excellently illustrated survey of a nineteenth-century photographer that I believe meets all the FAC criteria with panache.
474:
I'll see what I can do with the lead a bit later today. I'll also look constructing an image gallery, if indeed the consensus is to go ahead with that idea.
245:" (Emphasis added.) A fuller citation is required the first time a particular work is cited, though, and that hasn't been done in this article at present.
177:
Bennett, Terry. Early
Japanese Images. Rutland, Vermont: Charles E. Tuttle, 1996, 44-45. ISBN 0-8048-2033-3 (paper), ISBN 0-8048-2029-5 (hard).</ref: -->
243:
If a reference is reused in more than one footnote, it is preferable to use the format "Smith, 182" rather than "Ibid, 182", so as to avoid these problems.
566:
sentence. And I'll see about mentioning something about recent exhibitions - the source I mainly used is actually an exhibition catalogue from 2004.
638:
I believe all of the questions/issues raised here (and in the previous bid for FA status) have been answered. Any further comments, requests, etc.?
292:
The bibliography arranged in a single alphabetical list is the most common and usually the best form for a work with, or without, notes to the text
161:
tags for harvard referencing, and that's just wrong given how HR is meant to work. Example on how it has to be done, from "Early Years" section:
742:
40:
308:
Consider maintaining a separate bibliography/references section, then just the page number and book name can be given in each note, following
168:
He married an American, but the marriage failed and in 1873 he left his wife and two children and moved to Japan.(Bennett, 44–45; Dobson, 27.)
30:
17:
508:
Aside from the potential reference-format issue (which is a minor detail), this looks to me like a well-written and comprehensive article.
546:
As a further example of the studio's high reputation, by the 1890s it had exclusive rights to photograph the Imperial Gardens in Tokyo
411:
As per above, this article has my support. Though, I'd still like to see the "Selected photographs" section in the form of a
176:
He married an American, but the marriage failed and in 1873 he left his wife and two children and moved to Japan.<ref: -->
393:
was involved in the JFK and RFK assassinations was around for several months before someone noticed it and complained. —
198:. The article is well-written on the other hand, and I'll gladly support this article once the above are remedied. —
728:
709:
699:
676:
661:
642:
632:
619:
603:
594:
585:
570:
553:
534:
524:
512:
478:
467:
456:
442:
428:
419:
406:
397:
384:
370:
361:
263:
249:
228:
212:
202:
127:
114:
92:
309:
695:
390:
448:
relevant-looking WP pages but didn't turn up anything. (I suggest that we continue this discussion on
366:
When in doubt, go the extra mile. I think the policy is clear. But if you want to doubt, so be it. —
657:
463:
Those photograph scans are covered under {{PD-art}} and the relevant case law attached to that tag. —
449:
238:
148:
147:
in a "footnotes" format. Either put the references in the body to comply with the requirements of
144:
295:
591:
550:
669:- great article. I think the gallery is entirely appropriate for an article on a photographer.
615:
I've expanded the intro somewhat to more comprehensively summarise the sections of the article.
718:
688:
434:
Open page with picture. Right click. Save as. Open wikipedia. Log in. Click upload file, etc.
412:
464:
439:
416:
394:
367:
260:
225:
199:
66:
The huge majority (ninety-eight percent?) of the work on this article was done, and I think
653:
299:
108:
143:. Well referenced, however, the references need to use one format or another. Can't use
725:
706:
639:
616:
600:
582:
567:
531:
475:
303:
220:
195:
156:
124:
57:
629:
670:
509:
246:
453:
425:
403:
381:
358:
99:
89:
209:
179:
Dobson, Sebastian. "Yokohama Shashin". In Art and Artifice. 27</ref: -->
521:
123:
The paragraphs dealing with his origins and his death cite "Dobson, 27".
276:
I don't fully understand the objection here. After markup stripping:
741:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
424:
Me too, but unfortunately all six images are hosted elsewhere. --
344:
The very first of these strikes me as grotesque. (Something like
298:, because it's rather expensive, and, well, because every day is
357:
every minor pronouncement. Still, I'm open to persuasion. --
520:
Quite a remarkable article on a very little known subject.
717:
Can anyone help with the gallery resizing request from
562:
Thanks for the comments. I'll have a look again at that
326:
1. Miller, E: "The Sun.", page 23. Academic Press, 2005
82:
78:
599:
Thanks for your help, improvements, and good wishes.
402:
You wanted biblio stuff in the notes, you got it! --
73:(The article was nominated for FA on 9 February 06.
735:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
281:I have in front of me the 13th edition (1982) of
81:; the latest before its failure was announced is
745:. No further edits should be made to this page.
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
452:in order not to clutter up this FAC page.) --
302:.) ¶ I now turn from Chicago to what WP says.
628:. Well written, interesting, meets criteria.
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
98:Reference for the dates of birth and death?
581:I hope I've resolved these two issues now.
239:Knowledge:Footnotes#Style recommendations
743:Knowledge talk:Featured article review
41:Knowledge talk:Featured article review
351:(New York: Academic Press, 2005), 23.
18:Knowledge:Featured article candidates
7:
192:Selected photographs and other works
433:They are public domain by now: -->
24:
329:2. Smith, R: "Size of the Moon",
415:, I won't hold it against ya. —
1:
729:16:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
710:17:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
700:16:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
677:15:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
662:15:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
643:02:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
633:13:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
620:04:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
604:05:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
595:04:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
586:04:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
571:04:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
554:03:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
535:04:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
525:11:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
513:08:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
479:18:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
468:22:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
457:10:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
443:10:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
429:09:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
420:09:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
407:09:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
398:08:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
385:07:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
371:07:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
362:07:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
283:The Chicago Manual of Style.
264:05:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
250:05:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
229:04:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
213:03:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
203:02:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
128:13:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
115:09:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
93:07:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
237:Actually, yes, it is. See
31:featured article nomination
762:
738:Please do not modify it.
564:studio's high reputation
310:Knowledge:Citing sources
151:, or make the footnotes
52:06:16, 31 January 2007.
36:Please do not modify it.
339:4. example footnote xyz
336:3. example footnote abc
391:John Seigenthaler, Sr.
331:Scientific American,
296:a stupid new section
450:Talk:Adolfo Farsari
149:Harvard Referencing
145:Harvard referencing
162:
160:using <ref: -->
320:footnote examples
139:
113:
753:
740:
722:
692:
111:
107:
102:
48:The article was
38:
761:
760:
756:
755:
754:
752:
751:
750:
749:
736:
720:
690:
376:approve of and
300:Buy Nothing Day
109:
100:
61:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
759:
757:
748:
747:
715:
714:
713:
712:
680:
679:
664:
636:
635:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
576:
575:
574:
573:
557:
556:
528:
527:
515:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
472:
471:
470:
354:
353:
352:
347:1. E. Miller,
342:
341:
340:
337:
334:
327:
324:
323:
322:
274:
273:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
266:
253:
252:
232:
231:
186:
185:
184:
183:
182:
181:
173:
153:full citations
133:
132:
131:
130:
118:
117:
60:
58:Adolfo Farsari
55:
54:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
758:
746:
744:
739:
733:
732:
731:
730:
727:
723:
711:
708:
703:
702:
701:
697:
693:
685:
682:
681:
678:
674:
673:
668:
665:
663:
659:
655:
650:
647:
646:
645:
644:
641:
634:
631:
627:
624:
623:
622:
621:
618:
605:
602:
598:
597:
596:
593:
592:Pascal.Tesson
589:
588:
587:
584:
580:
579:
578:
577:
572:
569:
565:
561:
560:
559:
558:
555:
552:
551:Pascal.Tesson
547:
542:
539:
538:
537:
536:
533:
526:
523:
519:
516:
514:
511:
507:
504:
503:
480:
477:
473:
469:
466:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
455:
451:
446:
445:
444:
441:
437:
436:Hint, hint...
432:
431:
430:
427:
423:
422:
421:
418:
414:
410:
409:
408:
405:
401:
400:
399:
396:
392:
388:
387:
386:
383:
379:
374:
373:
372:
369:
365:
364:
363:
360:
355:
350:
346:
345:
343:
338:
335:
332:
328:
325:
321:
318:
317:
316:
315:
312:
311:
305:
301:
297:
293:
288:
284:
280:
275:
265:
262:
257:
256:
255:
254:
251:
248:
244:
240:
236:
235:
234:
233:
230:
227:
222:
218:
217:
216:
215:
214:
211:
206:
205:
204:
201:
197:
193:
188:
187:
180:
174:
172:
169:
166:
165:
164:
163:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
138:
135:
134:
129:
126:
122:
121:
120:
119:
116:
112:
106:
103:
97:
96:
95:
94:
91:
86:
84:
80:
76:
71:
69:
64:
59:
56:
53:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
737:
734:
716:
683:
671:
666:
648:
637:
625:
614:
563:
545:
540:
529:
517:
505:
435:
377:
348:
330:
319:
314:) gives us:
307:
291:
286:
282:
277:
242:
191:
178:<ref: -->
175:
170:
167:
152:
140:
136:
104:
87:
72:
67:
65:
62:
49:
47:
35:
28:
687:research.
465:ExplorerCDT
440:ExplorerCDT
417:ExplorerCDT
395:ExplorerCDT
368:ExplorerCDT
261:ExplorerCDT
226:ExplorerCDT
200:ExplorerCDT
724:? Thanks.
652:Regards.--
306:tells us:
726:Pinkville
707:Pinkville
654:Dwaipayan
640:Pinkville
617:Pinkville
601:Pinkville
583:Pinkville
568:Pinkville
532:Pinkville
476:Pinkville
333:46(78):46
125:Pinkville
541:Comments
279:Chicago.
50:promoted
721:Georgia
691:Georgia
684:Comment
672:Johntex
667:Support
649:Support
626:Support
518:Support
510:Shimeru
506:Support
413:Gallery
378:Chicago
349:The Sun
304:WP:FOOT
247:Shimeru
221:WP:CITE
196:WP:LEAD
157:WP:CITE
137:SUPPORT
155:, per
141:OBJECT
719:Sandy
689:Sandy
630:Giano
454:Hoary
426:Hoary
404:Hoary
382:Hoary
359:Hoary
101:Proto
90:Hoary
16:<
696:Talk
658:talk
210:Gzkn
83:here
79:here
75:Here
522:PHG
88:--
85:.)
68:all
698:)
675:\
660:)
171:or
105:::
33:.
694:(
656:(
438:—
259:—
110:►
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.