Talk:Sphinx Head

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has been nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it meets the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. Please add comments to the article reassessment page.
Sphinx Head is currently a good article nominee. An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article, and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

Date: 15:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 15 May 2006. The result of the discussion was delete.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 9 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.


I dont understand why this article would be considered for deletion. If you have any suggestions for how to make it better please post them here. Cornell1890 (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The biggest issue I would see for this article is the list of notable alumni. If you look at some of the pages regarding freemasonry, and its appendant/concordant bodies, we have tried to limit those lists to only a very few, specifically looking at those who are notable because of their membership, or their activities which relate to their membership in the group.--Vidkun (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] New York Times reference

Can a single remark in a 541 word article appearing over 79 years ago in the New York Times be construed as a basis for that paper's endorsement: 'recognized by The New York Times as "the highest non-scholastic honor within reach of undergraduates.'? I do not think this citation in a very old article can be construed as any sort of endorsement that the current day paper would undertake about the current day society. And while I pray that this article's wait in the Good Article nomination queue will be considerably shorter than 79 years, I do hope that editors will make use of intervening time to consider how well such references work. In addition, I find that the very comprehensive, and apparently very carefully referenced, list of notable alumni detracts from the article. In my opinion, the list as a whole plunges into considerably greater detail about just one facet of the society — notable alumni — than what other facets explored by the article do. The list is about an invigorating a read as a telephone directory. In light of this, please consider the Manual of Style Embedded list guideline; a paragraph of clear prose far outweighs an exhaustive, even exhaustively referenced, list, which is a mechanical communication effort at best – my humble opinion, of course. Gosgood (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA

I've remove the article from WP:GAN because it is more of a list than an article. If you want to, you can nominate it at WP:FLC.

I disagree with this.
  1. The article was nominated in good faith.
  2. It has been in the queue for a long time
  3. It does not obviously quick-fail.
  4. In light of that, it should remain on queue until such time that an editor can evaluate the article fully in connection with the good article criteria and render a decision in accordance with those criteria.

Simply removing an article from the nomination queue for a reason that has not been established as a quick-fail criterion is irregular, which has a knock on effect on the trustworthiness of the Good Article nomination and evaluation process. I've made further remarks here. EyeSerene has opened a Good article review page as well. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Gosgood (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review of Sphinx Head

Following the discussion on the Good Article Reassessment page, there is general agreement that a misunderstanding has taken place, that articles should depart from the nomination queue only after an evaluation has taken place and has been published on a subpage. I am undertaking that review now. Accordingly, I am taking the extraordinary steps of reverting EyeSerene's edits to restore the {{GA nominee}} template and establish a review page, which will be transcluded to this section here. Apologies to the editors awaiting an evaluation for so long now. Thank you for your patience. Gosgood (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sphinx Head/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Sphinx Head is under review as of 16:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Outcome: In progress

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. It is well written.
(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and Pending
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation Pending
  1. Lead: ()
  2. Layout: () (1) The headling levels don't seem to be correctly set. "Founding" appears to be the peer of "Membership" at level two. The following sections, "At Cornell", "After Cornell" and "Notable Alumni" really concern the canonical progress of a Society member at the university, after graduation, and into the roles of people of prominence. These headings should be at level three, as children of the overarching concept "Membership". (2) Image sizes are being forced to explicit widths (…‎|thumb|170px|…) when there seems to be no compelling reason to do so. Since these override user preferences, it is an unfriendly practice. See Displayed image size, a part of "Image use policy."
  3. Jargon: () The prose employs standard American English throughout.
  4. Words to avoid: () I've found no cases of words being used in a loaded way.
  5. Fiction: () Not applicable; the article does not concern a work of fiction.
  6. List incorporation:()
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
(a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; Neutral The manner of presentation of sources is well done; the sources themselves are not especially divorced from Cornell, and, by extension from the Society. I've addressed this issue in greater detail in the following requirement. I'm bemused that sources published a century ago and more are employed to corraborate such things as the number of seniors elected each year. As noted in the next section, references best support coeval things; can I still trust these old refernces to actually corroborate contemporary matters?
(b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and Fail The keyword in the nutshell of WP:RS is 'third party.' I do not think the large number of cites to Cornell and alumni newsletters establishes the separation of concerns that the phrase 'third party' calls for: a publication fully and completely external to Cornell, but which reports on a facet of the University notable enough to engage reporters to develop stories, and editors to furnish oversight. To my mind, campus-based publications do not furnish the necessary separation of concerns between the reporting publication and the reported item. So is the Society notable enough to attract outside interest? I leave it to the editors nominating this article to explore that question and, one hopes, uncover that interest in a wider range of supporting sources.

I feel obliged to fail on this facet of the evaluation because one of the few third party, reliable references cited in this article was misued. As I noted on the main talk page, a historical newspaper reference has bearing only on coeval topics; but the article lead is written as if the present day New York Times is commenting on the current Society; that has a disingenious appearance which reflects poorly on Wikipedia's scholastic practices. Opinions the Times had 80 years ago are not pertinent or supportive of the broad sentiment expressed in the lead.
(c) it contains no original research. Confirm There appears to be no guesswork or undue extrapolation.
3. It is broad in its coverage.
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and Neutral With organizations, there is the internal view, of which members are most familiar, and then there is the external view, of which observers in the society at large are most familiar. I perceive that this article is biased toward the internal view; it is about the Sphinx Head Society written by members of the Sphinx Head Society. But secret societies still interact with the world at large and facets of the world at large strive to change, and are changed by, the secret society. However, this article does not give me much sense of that give and take. For example, I find it a bit incredible that this article makes no mention of Quill and Dagger, the other secret honors society at Cornell. Surely there must be some kind of notable interaction between these groups. What of E. B. White's inflammable editorial which so agitated the Sphinx Head Society members in the early twentieth century? The lead notes that the society is an organization of men and women, but the CV of Elizabeth M. Lewis suggests that women were not admitted to the organization until 2002. What did people make of this persistent gender bias? Now, I'm not insisting that the article address these particular ancedotes, but I do think these ancedotes illustrate the kinds of connections between the Society and the outside world which the article should explore. What I sense is a gap in coverage: where is the Sphinx Head Society's worldliness? the article doesn't particularly explore the consequence of this society to the world at large, a strange lapse, given how worldly many of the members are.
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Fail the alumni list, encompassing over a hundred individuals, does not materially add to my appreciation of the Society. It could be fifty individuals and my eyes would be glazed. It could be two hundred individuals and my eyes would be just further glazed. It is simply a mass of information and not a development of ideas. Its size constitutes a level of detail at a much finer grain than what characterizes the rest of the article. In the context of the larger article, the list is unnecessary detail and should be pruned.

There is a reason that large lists are an anathema to prose articles. Lists disrupt focus because they serve different purposes than prose. Effective writing develops concepts in readers' heads through conscientously constructed chains of ideas. When organizing prose, a writer considers how well sentences establish particular concepts, further develop concepts established in antecedent sentences and stage concepts that will unfold in successor sentences. The mechanics of keeping prose well focussed entails managing how sentences effect the development of concepts in readers' minds. In this model of crafting prose, lists of items lack most of the mechanical structures needed to unfold ideas. They are simply itemizations of things. Lists support directories, navigation aids, and enumerations, but lack the dynamics that arise from coupling noun and verb phrases — objects and associated actions, which is the business of writing stripped down to its essentials. Please see embedded list guideline in the manual of style. In a limited case, there are times when a topic at hand has a hierarchical structure which a list of prose paragraphs aptly traverses; the embedded list guideline gives a good example of this.

  • Recommendation: Spawn the list off into an auxiliary article, as was done with Quill and Dagger.
  • Recommendation: limit 'Notable alumni' to at most a half a dozen or so individuals who have conducted truly 'notable lives.' Willard Straight possibly sets the bar for this list.
4. It is neutral; it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. Confirm The tone of writing is neither critical nor sympathetic to the Society.
5. It is stable; it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold. Confirm The article has largely evolved through the efforts of GoBigRed1865 and Cornell1890, who work without conflict.
6. It is illustrated, if possible, by images:[1]
(a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and Neutral One image is missing author information. Two images do not use the {{Information}} template. These defecencies are not fatal with regard to a Good Article evaluation, but I believe in the fullness of time, all three images ought to be bought into conformance.
  1. Image:Sphinx Head Emblem 1891.jpg GoBigRed1865 {{Copyrighted free use}} The author or producer of the photograph has not been furnished. Uploader has been informed.
  2. Image:SH1899.jpg Cornell1890 Placed into the public domain Lacks good formatting. Recommend using the {{Information}} template and filling out the requested information.
  3. Image:Sphinx Head Tomb.JPG Cornell1890 GNU Free Documentation License Lacks good formatting. Recommend using the {{Information}} template and filling out the requested information.
(b) the images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Confirm I do find the images unremarkable and not especially insightful about the organization. The 1899 group photograph of the Society is like a thousand other photographs taken of college men around the turn of the twentieth century and is undistinguished. The original insignia of the organization is mildly interesting, but begs the question as to what the current version is and why it was not used in the article. The contemporary photograph of the entrance to the Sphinx Head Society's 'tomb' is poorly framed, is at an unsettling angle, and is evenly skylit, so it is difficult to make out detail. It has the appearance of being casually shot, when it should be deliberately composed. I think if any of these images were omitted from the article, I would not miss them in the slightest.
7. Overall Pending Since this is a trial run of the open review process, I will not close this evaluation before June 16, 2008, and may extend it to gather further input.
  1. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[edit] Additional comments

In accordance with the open review format, I invite any and all members of the community to comment here. No bars, no restrictions. Especially welcome are comments that take issue with any review conclusion above, so long as they are well-reasoned. I appreciate discussion over Terse "votes" (support, oppose, neutral) that have no supporting text, other than agreement with other editors. However, having stated 'No bars, no restrictions' I suppose I really can't forbid that kind of commentary. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. (Discussion starter) Lovely day in the neighborhood, hey what? Gosgood (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)