Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rongorongo/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted 19:02, 9 April 2008.

Rongorongo[edit]

previous FAC (22:01, 22 January 2008)
Check external links

Self nomination. I had nominated this article prematurely. It has now gone through peer review, and several editors (including the other principal contributor to the article) have suggested it may now be ready for FA. —kwami (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Other links check out fine. I do note that large sections of the article are lacking inline citations, at least to page numbers of the various sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can Wayback the first link. I don't know what happened to the other; it was up a week ago. — kwami (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, got a Google cache. No images, but they're not as important as the text. — kwami (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the appendices do not conform to WP:GTL, and the article uses mixed reference sytles (both inline and cite.php, see WP:WIAFA, crit 2c regarding consistent reference formatting). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the appendices, did you mean they're in the wrong order? I just moved External Links down.
Now corrected, struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for mixing reference styles, I ran this by WP:CITE, and was told that the article is "well within accepted practice" for FA, with Pericles given as an example of a similar setup.[1] All the citations but one were inline, and I'm remedying that one. Or did you mean something else? — kwami (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pericles does not mix Harvard inline citations with cite.php; it separates footnotes and citations, using the same style (superscripted notes). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I ran it by WP:CITE for their approval. The FA requirements do not state that notes and citations need to have the same format, only that citations need to be consistent among themselves ("consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing"). The citations in rongorongo are all Harvard style, and so meet FA requirements. Also, Wikipedia isn't equipped to handle notes and citations in the same format: The notes in Pericles needed to be manually numbered, and any additions or deletions will require manually renumbering all the notes. People have complained about this, but supposedly it's due to a fundamental defect in the Wikipedia code and can't be easily corrected. I'd be happy to change the setup if the Wikipedia code were corrected, but otherwise maintaining the article in proper form after it achieved FA would be an undue chore—unless it doesn't matter if they're numbered sequentially? — kwami (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the above link WP:CITE wasn't addressed, I'll repeat it here:
"I think this is fine. Many articles use different systems for explanatory footnotes and citation. Often, the cite.php system is used for citation and the ref/note template system for explanatory footnotes. For instance, see the FA Pericles. Your system is somewhat different, but serves a similar purpose of differentiating content footnotes from citations alone. This isn't to say that someone won't complain at FAC, but I think your method is well within accepted practice." Christopher Parham (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the diff you posted, you got one response at WP:CITE, WP:CITE is not WP:FAC, and that response was from Parham. The criteria says, "consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing": you've used both, mixed them, Pericles does not do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was the first response. There were four altogether, two in direct support, and two who chimed in about wiki coding being problematic for what you want, without contradicting the first two. The other supporting opinion was,
"Parenthesised in-text citations in combination with numbered content footnotes would be consistent with (for example) APA style, so I don't think there should be any problems." [2][3] --SallyScot (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where better to ask about citations, than at WP:CITE?
As I've said, I'd be happy to change the formatting, if you can come up with a viable alternative. At WP:CITE they were not able to.
And no, I have not mixed citation formatting. All citations are Harvard. — kwami (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1a—The writing could do with a careful polish by someone new to the text. Fascinating subject!

  • "The objects are mostly tablets made from irregular pieces of wood, sometimes driftwood, but also include a chieftain's staff, a bird-man statuette, and two reimiro ornaments." The "but" and the "also" don't work, and we're left assuming that the named objects are not of wood. Recast.
  • "There are also ..." Remove "also".
  • "the writing may have been considered sacred."—But above it says "If rongorongo does prove to be writing", which is uncomfortable. Can you get the tone even?

And just at random I saw: "the fact that the islanders were reduced to inscribing driftwood, and were extremely economical in their use of wood, may have consequences for the structure of the script"—"may have had"? Tony (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Yes, I'm too close to it to see it clearly anymore! — kwami (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are external jumps throughout the text (external links belong in citations or external links, see WP:EL) and the article needs attention to dashes. There is uncited text everywhere, sample: Of the twenty-six commonly accepted texts that survive, only half are in good condition and authentic beyond doubt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will take care of the external links and take a look at the dashes. [Done]
I thought we only needed to cite claims that might be challenged. That's what the MOS says. If we list 26 tablets, and describe their condition and provenance, a statement like that is not likely to be challenged. Or do we need to give generic cites for every statement? — kwami (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point isn't it? Same principle as not citing the lead because its content is given in greater detail and cited later on. It might be a problem if the example given were drawing complicated conclusions from the facts, but in this case it's just a mechanical summary of information covered in more detail later. 4u1e (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed a number of sentences below that I think need citing. It's so easy for a vandal or a well-intentioned editor who is unfamiliar with the topic to insert incorrect information. Without citations for others to use to verify the text, it's impossible to know if the text is accurate. For a featured article (esp. one about a somewhat obscure topic), that should be unacceptable. Karanacs (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't want this to turn into a big argument, so if Kwami can easily find a cite then maybe that's the best way forward. But I don't agree that a simple summation of information referenced elsewhere requires its own citation. Adding one won't make any difference to the likelihood of someone spotting the kind of changes you suggest (imho!) :) 4u1e (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The info is summarized in Fischer's appendices, so I added that as a ref. kwami (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, the article is a rather long, but when I've suggested cutting things under peer review, people preferred I didn't. I did move the old calendar and the individual texts to separate articles, and cut the section on modern manuscripts out completely, as I did three additional decipherers (with dozens of references) who have sections in the Spanish article but who I didn't feel were noteworthy.
I think 32 references is plenty, even if it doesn't approach the 75 at Pericles. There isn't all that much material about rongorongo, except in obscure non-peer reviewed journals. — kwami (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: I make it more like 68kb of text, once the pics, tables and refs are stripped out. I believe this is the appropriate measure. Sandy? 4u1e (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
According to Drpda, 60KB prose, 10KB refs, but since some of the refs are Harvard inline, they don't get counted as refs. (I don't understand ref counting.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'd peer-reviewed this just before its FAC nomination, and the minor points I raised at the time have been satisfactorily addressed. Overall, this is a highly readable and engaging account, compiled with detail and care, attractively presented and appropriately referenced. I think it easily measures up to existing FAs in a similar topical vein. One could probably go on dotting i's, crossing t's and tweaking words, but I can't see any jarring nonconformities or missing points that would prevent this becoming a deserved FA. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose, primarily on citation issues and length.
    • There are a mix of citation styles - footnotes and Harvard references. Please pick one. I saw the discussion above, but there definitely IS a mixture here. Footnote 1 is referencing the translation and providing extra information all at the same time.
Other FA articles place citations within footnotes, and all citations are Harvard (except in the cases where they are spelled out), so I don't see why this should be a problem. I think I see what you mean. Should be okay now.
    • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, quotations of less than 4 lines should not be offset; they should be inline.
Done.
    • The two images at the top of Form and Construction section should not be right on top of each other - on my computer this leaves several blank lines before the beginning of the Writing media section
On your computer. But if I change it, it will mess up on someone else's computer. I've juggled the images around quite a bit to get them to display nicely on both IE and FF. After a certain point, we have to accept that different browsers display things differently.
    • For quotes that are offset, use <blockquote> </blockquote>
Per MOS, both formats are acceptable. It was a peer reviewer who put them in this format in the first place.
    • For the long quotes that should be offset, there is often no transition from the paragraph to the quote.
    • I think there are too many long quotations; some of these should be paraphrased instead
I hesitate to do that. The historical accounts of RR are already dubious. Paraphrasing them would make them even less reliable.
    • I see a few instance like this, where there is a statement and a citation, and then a clause explaining it that has no citation. "while others were carved on a fallen mo‘ai topknot,[7] suggesting they were carved after the mo‘ai was knocked down." I think that needs to be cited or it is on the line of original research. There are multiple other instances in the article.
    • I don't like the fact that the history section is divided up by sections named after people. The sections should instead have names descriptive of the history of the writing so that readers who haven't heard of these people can still follow.
Done. This was also the choice of a peer reviewer.
    • Month-day combinations should be wikilinked
Why? Aren't dates overlinked on wikipedia as it is?
    • Need citation for "It is not clear whether he observed islanders writing on tablets or if he was merely told that the tablets were engraved with "sharp stones"."
Deleted.
    • Need citation for the first paragraph of Florentin-Etienne Jaussen section.
    • Need citation for "Of the twenty-six commonly accepted texts that survive, only half are in good condition and authentic beyond doubt."
As stated above, that is like asking for citations in the lede. I should be able to find something, though.
    • Need citations for Corpus section first paragraph
    • Need citation for "However, despite its shortcomings, Barthel's is the only effective system ever proposed to categorize rongorongo glyphs."
    • Need citation for "The evidence was never published, but similar figures have been obtained by other scholars, such as Pozdniakov."
This is linked to a source below. Done.
    • Need citation for "Barthel's line drawings were not produced free-hand, but copied from careful rubbings, whence their faithfulness to the originals."
    • Need citation for "This may be due to an error in the inking, since there is a blank space in its place. The corpus is thus tainted with quite some uncertainty. It has never been properly checked, for want of high-quality photographs."
Done.
    • Need citations for much of what is in the first paragraph of Decipherment section
    • Need citation for "during which time he made an impressive number of observations, including some which are of interest for the decipherment of the rongorongo."
Done.
    • Is there any other information on what Thomson observed?
There was a lot of ethnographic observation, which can be read at the linked website. However, these were the two points most relevant for RR.
    • Don't use ibid in citations, because someone could come along later and insert another citation between that one and the one it references (the joys of a wiki)
Removed.
    • Need a conversion for distances (such as 19,000 km)
Conversion to what? Miles? No, we don't need that. People can do it themselves. We should stick to international standards.
The MoS says we should, bearing in mind that we're a general purpose encyclopedia and miles (for example) are widely used even in notionally metric countries (like the UK!). 4u1e (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Done.
    • I think the article may be too long. I think that "Decipherment" could be split into another article and summarized here.
That's a good idea.
Done: Decipherment of rongorongo. Can we consider both articles, then, since both halves have gone through the same peer review? Though the lede needs some fixing up.
    • In your footnotes, publishers need to be listed for things like 13 (Relibility of Barthel's reproductions) and 14 (see the Jaussen list online)
Done.
    • I am sure there are more areas that need citations, but I stopped reading the article partway through Decipherment.

Karanacs (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being specific on where I need additional citations. Not sure I'll be able to get to them soon, as I'm busy with other things now. kwami (talk) 07:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 60kb is way way too long--there should be ways to condense this or break it into subarticles with summary style. Most readers won't be able to get nearly halfway through this. Encyclopedia articles are not intended to be treatises but instead give a concise overview of the subject. Mangostar (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I guess you're referring to the fourth FA criterion: "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail." Could you identify which of the details are unnecessary to the topic? 4u1e (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Decipherment of rongorongo. Can we consider both articles, then, since both halves have gone through the same peer review? Though the lede needs some fixing up. kwami (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2008 (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/Rongorongo/archive2&oldid=1138470277"