Wikipedia:Peer review/Charun/archive1

Charun[edit]

After the huge edit-war, the page may finally be getting somewhere if original research isn't added by the primary contributor to the edit war. Please give feedback, espcially in light of the discussion page. De Grummond tells me the material will be on pages 213-220 of her book, but since what she provided was a Word document, I can't transte that into specific pages yet. --Scottandrewhutchins 22:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just from a brief reading by someone without any foreknowledge, a few things come to mind. Lead section should be a bit more descriptive, as it uses some pretty technical vocabulary for the average reader. All inline citations should be outside of punctuation marks. The references section is an oddity. The writing there needs less pov and most red links are unecessary. Joshdboz 22:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Etruscan experts like Massimo Pallottino, Nancy de Grummond and Larissa Bonfante instead of authors of sci-fi and children's books (Jeff Rovin) or pornographic materials like Alice K Turner might help reduce POV significantly. --Glengordon01 08:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops sorry, did I say pornographic materials by Alice K Turner? Yes, my bad. Please ignore this link and don't consider how insufficient the references might be based on the fact that input from valid Etruscan experts are few and far between. --Glengordon01 08:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Scott on Charun, Jeff Rovin, reknowned author of children's books and science-fiction but not a single academic resource in Etruscan studies says: "He is depicted with a hammer with which he is believed to have bashed the souls of the dead, after guiding them on horseback to the underworld."

As we all know, children's books are much better quality than university books and we should never go to university because we might get crazy ideas :)

Larissa Bonfante & Judith Swaddling. Etruscan Myths, University of Texas Press, 2006. p.33:

"Many scenes feature the two purely Etruscan underworld demons, Vanth and Charu, whose job is not to punish the dead but rather to escort them to their final destination. This is the only aspect of the Etruscan Charu, aside from his name, which connects Charu to the Greek Charon, the boatman of the dead."

The "edit-war" was provoked when Scott was unwilling to fess up to shoddy references and probably still isn't. --Glengordon01 08:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was not the finding of Wikipedia admin: [1] --Scottandrewhutchins 17:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rd parties avoided offering any "finding" on Charun here, any more than there is a "finding" about your recent 24-hour block for accusations and abusive language by Doc glasgow. Let it go. --Glengordon01 03:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just briefly looked over the list of references. Most of them appear respectable although I have never actually read any of them, although I would not use Jeff Rovin, as his book is a children's book and shouldn't be used as an encyclopedic reference for such an academic subject. Alice Turner's is more iffy, so I would say use your best judgement. Does she have a bibliography or notes section? If not, I would be careful using her book unless you can find a second verification for each statement of her's you include. Joshdboz 11:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rovin's book is not a children's book. It mak not be the best source, but it is a reference book from a respectable publisher. I know of no libraries the shelve it with the juvenile books. --Scottandrewhutchins 17:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the citations. I haven't followed this disagreement over the hammer, but making it clear that debate surrounds it is definitely going in the right direction if that is the case. I would reiterate though that the Encyclopedia of Monsters is not a great source, especially seeing that it is relied on several times. Rovin obviously got the information in it from somewhere, so it might be better to retrace his steps if possible. Other than that, I would get rid of all the redlinks to authors' names and move the notes section above the reference section. Joshdboz 19:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the cover of this book. Now imagine you're walking in the corridors of your local university library. Do you picture that book leaping out at you? I just don't see stuff like that at the University of Manitoba libraries. What's your university like? --Glengordon01 03:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, wait. Check out this irony. "I know of no libraries the[sic] shelve it with the juvenile books." Well I guess we're going to have to tell Amazon.com that they made a mistake of classifying your references from Jeff Rovin in the "children's books" category: [2]. (Look at the breadcrumb links to the left up top: "Books › Children's Books › Jeff Rovin") Hahaha, so cute. --Glengordon01 03:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the place to leave Peer review comments? If so, I have two:

If two editors are still fighting over this article, I think it is premature to ask for input here; obviously the text is still in flux. Try WP:RFC first.
I'd say this article is long enough that the Stub notice at the bottom can be removed.

Bring this article back to Peer review when the editors involved have come to a consensus about the article's contents & its sources. -- llywrch 21:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A note to peer reviewers[edit]

Glengordon01 has been the subject of a user conduct RfC for behavior related to the Charun article. Three neutral editors agreed that his conduct was inappropriate; none supported him. Scottandrewhutchins has raised this page from a redirect to Charon to a reasonably sized article with over 20 line citations and a variety of sources. Durova 15:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is going to be mentioned, Durova, please explain the whole story, not the parts that suit you.

First, you were the one entering the request. So your mention of it here has bias, a kind of subtle personal attack in order to attempt to invalidate my points above by emotional rhetoric rather than logical considerations or knowledge of the subject in question.

Second, Scottandrewhutchins is in denial that certain books he cites are children's books (which at least two people here understand to be true). Certainly having showed what Scott has cited to my real-life contacts who are high school teachers by profession, all I can say is that Scott would have a tough time passing. It's not sufficient in high school so why is it acceptable amongst mature adults?

Third, if I should suggest that they be removed, Scott has continued to attack me as "incompetent" and the like (which is all explained in the Response section of the RFC filed against me. So at this point, I refuse to edit the subject because Scott clearly needs to boost his ego by "hijacking" the article for himself. As you can see in the history, it's Scott's page and if it should be replete with factual errors and low-grade references, the existing admins think that's okay.

I don't think it's okay, and filing RFCs against me doesn't make me shutup about pseudoscience. --Glengordon01 01:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a request for peer review on an article that Scottandrewhutchins has been working to build. The other disputant agreed to stop editing the article at RfC. Since he did not disclose that with his comments, I deemed it appropriate to add a link. Scottandrewhutchins appears to be making a sincere effort to improve the article and seek fresh input. I hope more editors will assist this effort with substantive feedback. Durova 05:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 15:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]