Talk:Ecstatic dance/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 02:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this and should get comments here soon Kingsif (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Style

• I don't think there needs to be certain examples in the lead, so the "as different as the Kut ritual of Korea and among the San of Southern Africa" and "including Sufi dervishes; from Nigeria, Morocco, Ghana, and Senegal, and the Candomble of Brazil, derived from African traditions" - is there any reason to highlight a few and not others?

removed.

• Wine and emotions don't need wikilinks

removed, though ecstasy may well need explanation.

• The Diversity section is just Different forms; the section could be renamed this (or something more accurate to its content) but would still need to be heavily rewritten to not just be "In X documentary these forms are listed" - also, DVD is a viewing form, not a genre of presumably documentary.

Renamed, repositioned.

• The use of "For example..." isn't a great signpost (and, in terms of coverage, is a giant flag that this isn't comprehensive)

removed; and misleading, it was just a connective.

• Shamanism section structured poorly and about 50% quotation.

Edited. It now just says that Berggren relates ED to shamanism, i.e. it's a near neighbour to this article; that may be all we should say on the matter.

• No real connecting structure between anything, throughout

Reorganised. The main challenge is the 'Religious and traditional' where a list is more or less inevitable, given independent traditions around the world. We could use a table for this; academic connecting threads might be found, but of course any such theory would just be one scholar's point of view, while the traditions are undeniable.

• Hellenic section needs better separation of what is mythology and what was enacted by real people

Separated and reworded.

• Hindu section largely quote, but also includes "furiously wild but innocently playful" in Wikipedia voice (i.e. not attributed), which is quite a strong description to not come from a source

Trimmed.

• Does the Hindu section not belong under religious? Because the source about the real followers doing it is from 1992, so it also doesn't seem ancient.

Moved.

• Fail - evident that needs a lot of rewriting and some more thought on structure

• Article looking better from a glance; I can re-read it soon and provide any more feedback. Haven't looked at in terms of coverage since first review. Kingsif (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Coverage

• Lead about right length for article

Thanks.

• Ecstasy section is two brief sentences. I would expect some detail about researching experiences of ecstasy both dance and not, and some coverage of how it can be expressed through dance in traditions and individual. Or for the section to not exist.

Extended.

• Diversity section also doesn't discuss diversity but list different examples.

Moved: no diversity section.

• Having Shamanism under ancient seems inaccurate, given the fact it still exists and the first sentence acknowledges this.

Moved.

• Shamanism section very brief

The subject of another article. I'll think about this one: it's both a major subject obviously related, and straying from our scope.

• Hellenic section has low but probably sufficient detail on the Maenads. Everything after these first two sentences are only brief mentions of many other groups, i.e. 5 sentences devoted to 8 different groups and their practices.

Groups about which little is known, especially of what their ecstatic dances may have consisted of; at least with the Maenads we have the described circumstantial details which are suggestive of ecstasy.

When faced with this, including in the text that little is known does give more information (knowing that there's little known is still something that is known) Kingsif (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. Said so.

• Hindu section also is about mythology and is a brief (and quotation) description of what has been called an ecstatic dance.

Trimmed.

• Fail - minimal coverage that is not sufficient to cover the topic in any part of the article

Well obviously I don't agree. Clearly we can beef up some topics if need be.

Yes, from my view, ecstatic dance is something with a lot of history and research - a few recent quotations and most forms only getting a line saying "X culture did Y" isn't a good article. It's harder with the coverage of other articles, but this should be comprehensive overview that gives sufficient information without reading the other pages. Kingsif (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I've mentioned connecting threads above; this needs thinking about.

Illustration

• Article looks messy, a result of many images and short sections

See next.

• Probably a few too many images overall

Not a GA criterion; and easily fixed. I see it has made a bad impression out of proportion to what is actually a minor issue. Regrouped.

• Two lead images; should only be one
  • Ideally leave the map, rather than the vase

Moved it.

• • The map, however, suggests there is no ecstatic dance in Europe at all. That seems wrong. Especially since Europe is mentioned in the article.

No, it already shows the Anesteria. But I'll have another look for others.

• The Shakers image, the Kouretes image, and the Tantric union image are used even though they depict dances only briefly mentioned in their respective sections; non-indicative uses

The reorg has probably solved this.

• San bushmen image is of rock art from a group that has an ecstatic dance, which is tangential at best

Removed. In the eye of the beholder; a powerful image.

• No mention of Mississipi culture and yet it still gets an image, in the Effects section, no less

Reorganised.

• Fail - too many images, which are also poorly laid out and in several cases not appropriate uses, possible inaccuracy in map

Disproportionate.

6b: "Any images used should be appropriate to the article", 1b: "coherent formatting, good organization of the article into sections, appropriate use of wikilinks, and other aspects of the Manual of Style referred to in the Good article criteria" and MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE disagree. Images should be illustrative and are part of the layout, which I have assessed here rather than in Style because it puts all the image-related comments together (sans copyright issues, for obvious reasons). If the use of images makes the layout poor, that's within GA criteria. And of course, if it fails illustration, it has failed that section; I wouldn't fail a GAN just on that, given the typical ease to clean up images. Kingsif (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I've reorganised them, something that took just a few minutes. The map isn't in error though I'll double up the Shamanism label to span Europe.

Neutrality

• Seems to put more weight than appropriate on 5Rhythms - it is given much more information than any other form, despite being non-traditional and 20th century.

Well, the form was essentially dead in the West, and it's now vibrant, so perhaps she had some importance. I've cut the section down.

• Fail

This was fixed in a few minutes.

Yes. I didn't say every section that failed couldn't be quickly fixed. Kingsif (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Verifiability

• Sources look generally reliable
• Several are primary sources but generally paired with another source for info+verifiable, so should be ok
• Everything cited in line
• Pass

Stability

• some vandalism in May but hasn't reappeared
• Pass

Copyright

• Check looks fine
• Images all free
• Pass

Overall

• It is evident at this point, after giving the article a few reads and then making notes in detail on about half, that this is far from being a GA. The notes made in Style and Coverage are applicable to improving the whole article; the first issue is that it does not cover anything to a good level except maybe 5Rhythms, which also appears as a point of likely bias (on my first reading, the article seemed to be built around this and favor it). It is not structured well and does not have connecting language between paragraphs and sections. Even some sentences do not seem to relate to each other. Images are used too heavily and inappropriately. There appear to be some factual inaccuracies, and areas where the article contradicts itself. Much of the article is little more than listing some examples of ecstatic dances, not even sectioned off well. I'd honestly assess this just about C-class. I know there will be a lot of coverage of ecstatic dance, it is an extensive topic, and also think that some of the sources already in the article are not used as well as they could be (i.e. you can get more content for the article out of their information). When improved, I'll happily review it again, but for now, this is not close to being a GA and needs that significant improvement throughout. Kingsif (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps things are different down your way. I'm completely familiar with working through even major changes during a GAN process, the obvious advantage being that there's an ongoing dialogue to assist any tricky changes. However, I may take you up on your offer to review it again if that's your preferred approach. Meanwhile, many thanks for the detailed suggestions, which I'll follow carefully. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, I'd usually go through the nom, but I see almost a complete re-write needed. I'll review it again, of course; and, if you want to keep up a dialogue when editing, I will also be available for that. I can add the article to my watchlist if you want extra suggestions :) Kingsif (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Article still needs some tightening where parts have been moved around/tweaked, and if there's more coverage that would be great because I still think this is a very broad topic, but it's looking much better; I can only say that your work at improving is much stronger than I expected (based on some other GA reviews). So now, I honestly think we could work together and get this through. I'm not sure if there's a procedure for overturning your own GA fail or if you can quickly renominate this. Kingsif (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Kingsif Many thanks. I realised I hadn't looked at Oesterley, so I've added a fair bit from him. I'm looking at other research on Scholar and JSTOR but there really isn't a huge amount; I think it was quite fashionable in academic circles in the 1920s but not a lot after that until the recent interest in trance dance which isn't quite the same thing. There is no obstacle to my renominating within the GA rules, so I'll do that now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Further comments at Talk:Ecstatic dance/GA2 Kingsif (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)