Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sverre of Norway/archive1
- 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 removed 12:39, 24 August 2007.
Sverre of Norway[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
[Criterion 1(c)]. This article's lack of in-line references would probably disqualify it as a good-article candidate if nominated today. There are four in-line citations, in the Sverre and the church subsection, and none in the rest of the article. There's a few books in the references section but I have no idea if these were even used in writing the article (or were just appended randomly). It needs in-line references with page numbers. Simply put, its a dramatic example of the manner in which featured article standards have risen since 2005. Savidan 05:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose delisting. The common demand for ample and evenly distibuted inline citations is a criterion that I personally consider to be misguided when uncontroversial historical matters are concerned. In effect, FAC articles have higher demands on citations that scholarly publications. This is a tendency that IMHO should be *tempered* and not *encouraged*. There is little in the article that can not be found in any easily accessible book on Norwegian history.--Berig 06:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A scholarly publication is an entirely different animal: peer reviewed, etc. Wikipedia is by design only as good as its citations. The article's intro makes clear that the main source for these events is Sverre's biography, with the (also uncited) claim that it is biased. If this is so, then the need to cite specifically where material came from is more important. Claims like "The saga and the letters mostly agree about the hard facts" imply a need for citation throughout the article which should be comparing the differing sources. Savidan 06:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I think that these precautions cited in the article are rather sufficient. The reason is that the debate on the relative reliability of medieval Scandinavian sources is a matter that is more worthy of a separate article, linked from the intro, than a delisting of this one. The debate has been going back and forth since the late 19th century, and the debate is not about Sverre of Norway but on ideology. Some Swedish hypercritical historians have considered saga sources to be apocryphal when Sweden is concerned, and by inevitable extension also when Norway is concerned. It's simply too big a debate for this article.--Berig 06:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a few books in the references section but I have no idea if these were even used in writing the article Asking for inline citations is all very well but don't make bad faith accusations like that. Of course User:Barend used the sources he says he did, there is no reason to imply he is dishonest. Haukur 10:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not what I was implying. As a reader approaching the article I have no idea in what way each work contributed to the article. It might all be drawn from one of them, with the others used only passingly. One of the could have been added by not the main author, etc. Savidan 17:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I for one fully agree that it needs more citations. As always, the best way to deal with this is to ask specifically for it, so I added some tags to the article. Punkmorten 10:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As the author of most of the original article I have no objections to adding citations where they are considered necessary. However due to summer vacation I don't have the books used aviable atm. So if lack of citations is the only objection I kindly ask that you wait a couple of months before delisting. Fornadan (t) 12:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now added citations to most of places they were asked for. Of the remaing three, two are statements added by other editors (though I have no doubt at least the second one is true), the last one is a general statement I'll need to look around a bit more to find a specific reference. Fornadan (t) 11:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary[edit]
Comment: Per Fornandan's comments, we could freeze the nomination until he has the books again. Alternatively, if it is removed, it can go back through FAC after September. Marskell 18:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 21:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've dropped a note for Fornadan to give us an indication of whether work will start soon. Marskell 08:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove but with hesitation: This one is a tough call. The article is largely a straightforward reading/translation of the saga (I guess most of it from Jonsson?). I would expect some narrative in an encyclopaedia article, but also more historians' analyses of the events, the background, etc. What analyses that do exist in the article have {{fact}} tags on them and these are in my opinion the most important parts to cite. There are cites to a primary source, the Diplomatarium Norvegicum. Although this is not a major issue, it is preferable to use secondary sources as this would quote historians/experts rather than the original letters and documents. Of the remaining 5 secondary source cites, one of them, Bagge, is not listed in the References section. It is also unfortunate that the one English reference, which has a better chance to be used for verification, is not cited at all. I do believe the article is good, but if this article arrived at FAC now, I am not certain it would pass. --RelHistBuff 09:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold a little longer as it's just received some work. Marskell 12:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'm off again, this time on a field trip so I won't be able to anything more for a couple of weeks. I'd just like to add that the links to the Diplomatarium Norvegicum were originally added mostly as curiosities and then they've sort of migrated where they are now after the invention of the current reference system. Fornadan (t) 14:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing: Well, it's been two months and if work is going to cease again this will have to go. I agree with Rel—good but not quite there. Fornadan, there's no stopping you working on it in September to take it back to FAC. You might even contact some of the people in this review to look it over. Marskell 12:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.