Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pericles/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 08:56, 10 September 2007.

[edit] Pericles

[edit] Review commentary

I strongly question whether this article should be considered well-written and well-referenced. It relies heavily on primary sources, on a subject with abundant reliable secondary sources. This leads to the article being plague with unreferenced claims and original research. Additionally, it treats the ancient sources as accurate and factual, citing claims from them as it cites claims from modern published sources with editorial oversight. Archaic sources are widely studied and commented upon, in relation to their accuracy, authorship and cultural context. Best practice would be depending upon reliable published secondary sources, relying upon modern scholarship to interpret the historical truth (or lack thereof) present in ancient manuscripts. Thoughts? Vassyana 08:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment: The writers did use lots of secondary sources, but prefered to reference with the primary source everyone uses. The secondary sources conclusions were used without explicitly citing them. So the criticism is about the citation style. Wandalstouring 08:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • If that is indeed the case, then I would likely agree. If it appears the primary sources are used to support the claims, then there's an appearance of original research. In addition to clouding that issue, it causes the verifiability of the article to suffer drastically. Thank you for the clarification. Vassyana 09:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yannis, like me, prefers to direct readers to the original source of a statement (i.e. the primary source) in the citations, but this is all thoroughly backed up by secondary sources; I know that he used Paparrigopolous extensively while writing it, and I checked extensively against Kagan and Fine while reviewing. Controversial statements are cited appropriately to secondary sources, but for broadly accepted facts there's no harm in pointing to the primary source, and it actually enriches the article by providing readers with frequent connections to the texts on which all this scholarship is eventually based. --RobthTalk 15:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • We've gone over this on FAR talk, but I'll reiterate that I don't think this is an article that has original research problems. Certainly for the reader, the most useful citation is to the primary source. Unless specific areas are addressed where the use of primary sources undermines the neutrality of the article, or is contradictory to modern scholarship, I think it should remain an FA. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Featured articles are supposed to be the absolute best we have to offer. Can someone please explain how in the world an article that (at least) appears to be filled with original research and lacking verifiable citations from reliable sources is considered an example of best practice?? Are all the primary sources used supported by secondary sources? Are all the primary sources considered reliable and accurate by modern reliable references? If so, why is this not clearly articulated in the article? Vassyana 01:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I tend to agree with Vassyana, but if it is true that Yannismarou has backed everything up with secondary sources (and I am sure he has done so), then I would suggest modifying the cites to add in the secondary source info. For example:
6. ^Plutarch, Pericles, III as quoted in Paparrigopolous, History of the Hellenic Nation (Volume Ab), p. 236
That would certainly solve most of my objections. However, I would also say there are cases where obvious conclusions are drawn/analysis is made, and in those cases it should be cited to the reliable source that draws those conclusions to prevent any confusion regarding original research. Vassyana 19:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
That should take care of objection and the FAR can be closed fairly quickly. --RelHistBuff 08:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment — Is there any reason why the "Notes" are separate and in a different format than the citation notes? Looks like the "Notes" should be regular notes like in the "Citations" section, which should be renamed "Notes". (Hopefully that's understandable) Cliff smith 18:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Usually this is done to separate notes that contain information, in which a general reader may be interested, from notes that are simply citations. It seems fine to me. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I have to agree that the two sections for footnotes and citations isn't a problem. The template used itself specifically states: "Note: Content Notes created using {{hcref}} or {{cref}} and {{cnote}} can co-exist in an article along with Source Notes using the m:Cite/Cite.php system. The two systems do not interefere with each other in any way." Vassyana 20:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Robth, as Yannismarou seems to be busy or on a break, could you add the secondary source info to the citations? You mentioned that you have Kagan and Fine. Once that's done, Vassyana can check them out so that his concerns could be dealt with. --RelHistBuff 20:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I am sorry I cannot work on the article and deal with the nominator's concerns. For the next 15 days I will be traveling, besides some other pending issues keeping me away from Wikipedia for some time now, and having, in general, disturbed my life. And I am so sorry for that ... Now, to the point: Robth's statement covered me, and I have nothing further to add. Yes, I do use primary sources, but all the controversial statements are cited appropriately to secondary sources. A detailed look at each of these 150+ citations, and at the secondary sources of the references prove the accuracy of the above statement. I must also point out that in almost all the sections there are extensive analyses of controversial issues, and exhaustive comparisons of primary and secondary issues. Yes, for some cases where the primary sources are not questioned or disputed I did not provide secondary sources, but these are cases where the secondary sources just confirm issues never questioned or disputed. The easiest thing for would be, If I had time (I regret I haven't), to add secondary sources to these cases, but IMO they would add nothing but the self-evident. I want also to ask the reviewers here to read the two extensive FACs of the article (one unsuccessful and one successful), where there have been extensive and harsh criticisms (even from final backers of the article such as Robth), and where the reviewers went over the article with a fine-tooth comb, before they unanimously promoted it.
Once again, I am so sorry I cannot help at this particular period of time; my regret is bigger because this is the first article I nominated for FA, and I still regard it as the best of all and a masterpiece of Wikipedia (mainly due to a rookie's appetite, Konstable's perseverance, and, first and most important of all, Robth's breathtaking prose capabilities). And this conviction of mine will remain no matter the final outcome of this FAR (that I will unfortunately see probably after I return full-time to Wikipedia). A masterpiece is always a masterpiece! But I must confess that I would like it to remain a masterpiece crowned with a star. Thank you!--Yannismarou 15:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add that the primary sources in the References are currently only external links and they should be expanded and provide the complete bibliographic info to give proper credit to the editor, translator, and publisher. For example:
Plutarch; Arthur Hugh Clough (ed.), John Dryden (trans.). Lives of Noble Grecians and Romans. Wikisource (original paper publisher not given). 
For the Plato source,
Plato; W.R.M. Lamb (trans.) (1967). Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 3. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674991834. 
If ever the website goes down, at least the original paper source can be consulted. In my opinion the article is not necessarily a gross violation of WP:PSTS as it says, "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." So I would not vote to remove if this went to FARC. The only point is Vassyana's concern about original research. Perhaps Vassyana can point out which items are potential original research items. --RelHistBuff 08:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I will collect some examples to better show my concern in specifics. However, much of my problem is the article using ancient sources as factual, accurate and reliable sources. If the article intended to do so, there needs to be at least an assurance from some reliable source that these sources are indeed accurate and reliable. I have some skepticism, though not doubt, in that regard. Even the Gallic War, generally considered a relative pinnacle of linguistic precision and reporting, is also well-known as a masterpiece of propaganda. Reliable sources should really be called upon to verify that the historical works, or the cited portions thereof, are reliably accurate. This preserves the reliability and verifiability of an article. Vassyana 08:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
By the by, I'd much rather see the article citation improved, than for this otherwise well-written and informative article go to FARC. Vassyana 08:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Any progress? If someone would add the secondary sources to the cites and Vassyana, if you could give some more details to your objections so that they could get treated, then this FAR could just be closed. --RelHistBuff 16:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I regret to see that RelHistBuff does not appear to know the standard conventions of citation for classical texts. They should be cited by book, chapter, and section alone (for Plutarch, Life and section); to cite the pages of any particular edition is to place obstacles in the reader's path, by compelling her to find a specific edition before she can check the quotation. Adding any particular one of the literally hundreds of editions of Plutarch to the references would be harmless, if silly; the Loeb seems the obvious choice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I know that there are specific conventions for various fields. I only speak here of Wikipedia conventions. The reason citations ought to be fully expanded is to satisfy the verifiability policy. It assists the verifier by giving the edition/publisher/page number/ISBN in case the website is down. The references examples I gave above are simply info direct from the website. --RelHistBuff 19:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
They should probably be converted into links to Project Perseus; but any link is a mere convenience. The (adequate and expected) citation, perfectly sufficient and verifiable as it stands, is "Plutarch, Pericles, IX". Referring to any specific edition is redundant; doing so by pagenumber would harm verifiability enormously. Consider how unhelpful it would be to cite John 12:35 by pagenumber in a particular printing of the RSV; what you propose is almost as bad. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is reference quality (1c). Marskell 13:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The use of primary sources is of concern, but by itself it is not enough of an issue to defeature, as I mentioned previously. --RelHistBuff 15:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep featured. As discussed above, I don't believe there is any conflict between the use of sources here and our original research policy. The article is definitely an example of our best work. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per my comments above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.