Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ormulum/archive1

Add links
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 by Dana boomer 23:01, 18 October 2010 [1].

Ormulum

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]

Ormulum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: Geogre, Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, Religious texts, Middle Ages, Lincolnshire, Bible, Christianity

I am placing Ormulum up for FAR for failure of 1c. Parts of the article are unreferenced, with the "Orthography" section being completely unreferenced. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Perhaps it would be reasonable to try to specify more precisely where the article may be falling short of 1c: "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate"
I would have thought the seven books cited as sources, plus the external link to the Ormulum Project, represented "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" – is the nominator aware of newer works that need to be added?
Since the article text has stood as a FA since 2005, I would postulate that the text is verifiable against the named books, which I believe to be "high-quality reliable sources". Is there an assertion that the text is not verifiable? Is there an assertion that they are not high-quality reliable sources?
Much of the article lacks inline citations, which of course were less common at the time of promotion than they are now. Nevertheless, the requirement for being "supported by inline citations where appropriate" leads to "inline citations are required for direct quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." The quotations are clearly attributed to Holt (1878). Should the the attributions be copied to a point directly after each quotation per WP:BURDEN?
Since the Orthography section is singled out as "unreferenced", is the nominator asserting that the text of that section is likely to be challenged and needs inline citation?
I believe the perceived problem with this article is not a lack of referencing, but a lack of inline citations. I suggest that it would be helpful if the nominator were to specify which parts of the text they felt were being challenged, or those parts which they found were not verified by reference to the named sources. --RexxS (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Orthography" now referenced; can you be more specific on what else you feel must be cited? I noticed a citation tag, but it seems uncalled-for - surely it's logical to say that the uneducated did not understand Latin? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It also caught me by surprise when the article was on the front page. I suppose it goes to show that FA standards were more lax then, at the time of the review, than they are now. On the other hand, there's an explanation on the talk page by an anonymous IP who appears to speak on behalf of the original author, who has sadly passed away. He (it's a he) insisted that no footnotes were to be used, inline notes only, but the latter were removed by some other editor. If so, that would mean that we need to hunt for citations in the edit history (!). Cavila (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In many ways you're right, standards were different when the article was promoted. The original author knew about the subject; sat down with the best books available; wrote the article using parenthetical referencing where direct quotations were used; and listed his sources at the end, so anybody could read the books and check that he had got his facts right. You can see how that had worked by looking at the article as it was when promoted almost five years ago. From what I can glean, there was a general assumption that creators of multiple FAs could be trusted to write neutral, accurate content. In some ways it's a pity that trust has disappeared. I don't have the books, so I can't be certain, but I'd very much doubt that anybody with access to the books would argue with the accuracy of the text. It's instructive to note that nobody has actually claimed that the text fails verification; only that the absence of inline citations makes verification significantly more difficult. If that's sufficient to demote a Featured Article, then so be it. I can't help but think it says more about our obsession with process than the quality of the article. By the way, I am informed that the original author (Geogre) is alive and well; one can only assume that he alludes to his "passing on" from Wikipedia – a sad loss indeed in that sense. --RexxS (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, glad to know that Wikipedia didn't kill him. Never mind about the "lost citations". The IP user was right about the earlier use of inline notes, but they have not been removed as such. They have simply been converted to footnotes, as far as I can see. Interestingly, this is not the first time that editors have expressed concerns over the lack of inline citations. A tag was added at least three times, each time followed by a reversion. Cavila (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't really think the reasons for the alleged failure of 1C have been demonstrated. I'm afraid it was I who changed the referencing system from in-text to inline citations, mainly because people were making such a fuss about it on the talk page on the day it was TFA'd. As far as I can tell from the FA rules, though, there's nothing to say that articles must have inline citations, as long as it has citations of some description, which this certainly does. In-text citations are a thoroughly respected academic referencing style, and as noted above, there are certainly a big pile of scholarly texts listed in the bibliography, paragraphs are on the whole cited, and it's only recently that the "one or more references per sentence" trend has appeared. This wouldn't be appropriate here, as it's not exactly a controversial topic and Geogre notes that many of the references only feature one page about this particular topic. I agree with RexxS's speculation that parts of the article are intended to be read as an assimilation of several listed sources into one sentence. As an aside, I thought it was quite refreshing to see a page on such an obscure topic on the main page, and it made nice change from all the video game and Family Guy episode articles that one so often gets at TFA. Bob talk 22:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with GamerPro64 (talk · contribs). However, it must be noted that the article should not mixmatch two different citation styles. It appears in-line is now predominantly used. That should be made uniform, throughout the article. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, WP:CITEHOW is clear on this issue: Citations in Wikipedia articles should use a consistent style. Any of the following styles are acceptable so long as each article is internally consistent. You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected. I would disagree that changing from parenthetical referencing to an alternate style is an acceptable change, particularly if done as a fait accompli. --RexxS (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article already uses predominantly in-line cites. Therefore, the very quote you gave, says we should be consistent, with that. Thanks for clarifying that for us! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Nope, the original author used parenthetical referencing and the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected - that should be clearer now. There is no dispensation to count up and "decide by majority". I'd recommend reading WP:ARBDATE#Optional styles and WP:ARBDATE#Fait accompli to better understand the consequences of what you are proposing - even if you meant it as a joke, someone else might think you were being serious and end up in hot water. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are implying, but: 1) The article does predominantly use in-line cites. 2) The article, per your cited quote, should not mix and match different citation styles. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(1) is not part of any criterion for deciding what style to use; (2) The article should not be mixed style; (3) The actual criterion for deciding which style to use is to respect the style use by the original author, who used parenthetical referencing. What I'm saying - and I'm sorry that I was not clearer for you - is that the citation style needs to be made consistent with parenthetical referencing. Changing style from parenthetical to another style (particularly as a 'fait accompli') is a serious enough breach of our conventions that ArbCom chose to define such changes as a 'Principle' in a decision. HTH --RexxS (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we agree that the article should not have a mixed style. :) It now uses 100% in-line citations. Let us keep it that way, and not fall backwards. Thanks! Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also glad we agree that mixed style is inappropriate. However, parenthetical referencing is not considered by the community as a "falling backwards". Changing style to meet a personal preference is just a recipe for edit-warring. What response could you possibly have if someone were to change all of the in-line citations to parenthetical? --RexxS (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I don't think it would be a backwards step to go to parenthetical referencing; I don't use that style myself but many do and it has its partisans who could argue for it. I agree with RexxS that if someone were to revert to the original style that would be a reasonable thing to do and would be consonant with the guidance he quotes. I wouldn't take the time to do it myself, but I feel that an editor working on this article would be within their rights to recover the original citation style, if they wished to, and to subsequently defend that style. On a separate note, I wish I had the sources available to help work on this article, but I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to help. Mike Christie (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree that it was a mistake to change the referencing style, although was largely undertaken as a measure to prevent this type of review which was being threatened on the talk page. I've converted the last intext citation, so it's now fairly uniform with regards to citations, although I guess it might make sense to put the page number of "Matthew" in the inline reference, rather than the bibliography. I'm going to hold my hand up and admit, though, that I have absolutely no expertise on this text whatsoever (and I respectfully propose that neither GamerPro64 or Cirt do either), so I wonder whether it's really acceptable to judge if this is well-referenced or not? Even if it had a reference for each sentence, has the nominator claiming it's unverified checked the book sources himself? I suspect nobody has because they're all pretty specialist texts, which with the exception of the public domain Robert Holt reference would probably be difficult to locate outside of a copyright depository or university library. Bob talk 23:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let us avoid comments about individual contributors at this FAR page, and keep it focused to comments about content, thanks. As to verifiability, it makes it much harder to verify text, when we do not know which source is verifying which part of the text or paragraph or subsection. Even more difficult, when we have the source, but do not know which page from that source to check, to verify. -- Cirt (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Parenthetical referencing does not require year of publication inline. See WP:CITE#Parenthetical referencing for a description of how the full source is cited at the end. --RexxS (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is needed, to determine which work it is. There are works with the same author, but two different books, from two different years. Year is needed, in this specific instance, for verification. -- Cirt (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the books are identified as 'Bennett' and 'Bennett & Smithers' - there's no requirement for a year when it's clear from the authors which work is referred to. --RexxS (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check the cites. They do not identify which "Bennett" is being referred to. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But they do! Geogre would never cite "Bennett" for a quote when he meant Bennett & Smithers. Absolutely unthinkable. --RexxS (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, so we can therefore remove, "Bennet & Smithers" - because it is not used as a source at all in the article? -- Cirt (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, you have to keep up with the story: Geogre used parenthetical referencing inline when it was required for quotes. He just didn't happen to quote "Bennet & Smithers". The whole article is sourced to the books named in References. So no, we can't go removing the books that Geogre used as sources. Don't forget the purpose of this phase of review is to find ways of improving the article, not gutting the references section of all the important sources on the subject. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, you think that "Bennet & Smithers", was not used for any parenthetical referencing? -- Cirt (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As sure as I am that Geogre was one of the great content contributors (that means I'm certain, in case it's not clear). We have always required direct quotations to be directly attributed to the source (for avoidance of plagiarism), and that was no different in 2005 from now. The next step is to conclude that the article never had inline citations for the purpose of verification, but that's already agreed. An accepted style then was to write the article and append the books used at the end. To verify the article, all you had to do was read the books. Sadly, those days are gone now. To improve the article, the task before us is to decide on what pieces of text are likely to be challenged and find the page in the sources that verifies it. I'd suggest asking around to see if anybody else has access to the books, because without the sources, we're sort of talking in a vacuum at present. Unless, of course, we can reach a consensus that we'd trust Geogre to have used the sources accurately? I know about WP:BURDEN, but I'm honestly trying to be as constructive as I can. --RexxS (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Holt is available on Google Books. ODNB has an online edition, and the paper version is probably in most academic libraries - there's one in my local library, if we need it. Actually, my library has all of the sources, although a couple are 2-hour reference only - if you let me know exactly what it is that needs to be cited, I can probably manage it sometime in the next couple of days. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's wonderful news, and I think we'll all be grateful for your generous offer to help. I'll make a section on the article talk page Talk:Ormulum#Citing challenged text and copy your offer there (hope that's ok). You have probably volunteered for a lot of work here, but as long as everybody keeps in mind the objective of improving the article, I think it should be a manageable task. I'd like to help, but having checked on Worldcat, the nearest library that would be of any use to me is about 40 miles away :( That's what I get for living in the middle of a cultural wasteland. --RexxS (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two "Bennett" sources will need to be checked. -- Cirt (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Clearly underreferenced by current standards, though anyone familiar with the subject area with 90 minutes to spare in a university library could fix that. It was clearly against policy to change the reference style without considerable consultation, but that does not really affect FA status. Cirt, please don't be perverse on this point! There is a US spelling in the lead - "meter" - which should not be there; maybe there are others. Looking at the online bibiography from Sweden, there don't seem to be many major sources missing, except those on linguistic minutiae; but perhaps some of those contain more general points worth having - the sources used are either rather non-specific or fairly old. I note this published paper, available online; among other things it says: "The only modern edition of the text appeared in 1878, an edition which is far too unreliable to be used for any investigation of the language in the manuscript." But that is the only edition there is. Otherwise no one has really made serious points against the article. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delist: I don't care what the naysayers are saying about the sourcing. I still say the article fails 1c. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fine then. Library's closed for Thanksgiving, but if somebody would lay out what exactly needs to be fixed with the sourcing (more specifically than "fails 1c", please), I can get to work on it tomorrow. Being neither an expert om Ornulum nor a mind-reader, there's not much I can do without more information. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of tags, but especially every para should have a ref, and now the guard dogs are alerted, the end of every para too. Also things in the lead that are not repeated below. Most of the sources' coverage is probably pretty compact, I'm guessing. The offer is much appreciated. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've taken out all of the books that can be borrowed, and will add citations and go back to look at the in-library ones within the next few days. If someone could cover the Holt source, which is available full-text on Google Books, that would be very helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since that is 1878, it's probably best to do the modern ones first, & then supplement with Holt where necessary. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, since you have the books, I wonder if this entire issue couldn't be resolved simply by returning the article to parenthetical referencing? It appears that it has been established in the conversation above that the change from the original editor's (now apparently deceased) choice of parenthetical referencing to inline citation was in direct violation of WP:CITEHOW, and it also appears from the conversation above that it would be acceptable to change back to parenthetical referencing. I think this can be done quite easily by also referring to the version of the page on 14 September 2010 when it was protected in anticipation of TFA, and using the books where needed elsewhere. I'm not involved in any way and have no particular preference, just wanted to throw that thought out there. Aaron north (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would work; whichever is easiest. Johnbod (talk) 10:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be helpful, as I'm not really familiar with the citation style now in use - parenthetical is so much simpler. However, I really should point out that per comments above the original editor is not dead, but has merely left Wikipedia. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, strongly oppose going back to the old citation style. That is what got us into this mess in the first place: namely, poor issues with citing, failure to cite years, and pages, etc. -- Cirt (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've made your disregard for policy on this matter perfectly clear above. If you are not going to assist in improving the article, and of course we all know that won't be happening, at least don't hinder those who are trying to do the work! Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason why Nikkimaria should not go back to the old citation style if that helps save the article's featured status. Per WP:CITEHOW it should not have been changed. Mike Christie (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no way of how it would help save the article's featured status at this point in time. The article has actually been improved a bit by recent changes, including the citations. -- Cirt (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've started adding citations but don't really want to get in a big argument about citation style; I'll just add them as I've been doing and let whoever cares about such things figure out the "correct" way to format them. And since the original note says that all quotations are from Holt, someone should probably look at it...Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a fix yet, those cites are missing years. -- Cirt (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there are still a few places that need cites. -- Cirt (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that in my view I am happy with this remaining at FA. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree, but okay. -- Cirt (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've now consulted every source except for Holt. The following remains uncited: "it may be interpreted as either "Reflection of Orm," or "Researches of Orm.""; "The text has few topical references to specific events that could be used to identify the period of composition more precisely. Orm may have been an eyewitness to the Anarchy of the reigns of Stephen and Matilda, but if so, he is quite elliptical, as the sermons almost never stray from their source material."; "Orm, however, says in the preface that he wishes Walter to remove any wording that he finds clumsy or incorrect; this implies that a revision or approval process was anticipated.". I am fairly confident that the last of these can be cited to Holt; the others may be too, I haven't checked, and if not they can be cited to an as-yet-unused source or removed altogether. I believe everything else in the article is now cited. Are there any remaining concerns besides these three uncited sentences? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked in Holt's Preface for these points, & can't see them (it has relatively little on the work itself). I can't work out where his notes are. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first part of the third point is citable to the first two pages of the text itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I scanned them, but my Middle English isn't great & I couldn't see it. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Nikki, it looks like you're doing some good work. When you feel that the article is up to standards, please feel free to ping the editors who have already entered "delist" votes and ask them to re-check the article. Also, as a note on sourcing, the style can be whichever way you would like it to be, and actually should probably correctly be parenthetically, since that was the way it was originally written and there was no consensus to change. However it ends up, votes entered simply based on the use of parenthetical references versus ref-tagged references are invalid. Also, all of the voters are reminded that simple citation counting is discouraged - at this point in the process you should show why specific sentences need referencing (is it a quotation? an exceptional claim? a contentious BLP statement? an opinion? data or statistics?) rather than just saying "needs more references". Dana boomer (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Great work by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), excellent job overall with the research, thank you! :) As for those uncited sentences, perhaps they should simply be removed, until properly referenced. -- Cirt (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I already did that yesterday. Cirt, do you have any further concerns regarding this article's FA status? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, there are numerous misstatements and misunderstandings of WP:WIAFA and parenthetical inline referencing throughout this FAR, by Cirt-- it is absolutely inappropriate to change the original citation style on an article, and it doesn't appear that Cirt understands the difference between parenthetical referencing and the cite.php method also used on Wiki. I'm glad the article is now acceptable to reviewers, but the change in citation style that occurred here was wrong, and this misunderstanding about the citation style must be corrected for future reference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note There was no misunderstanding of policy by Cirt. The relevant section of WP:CITE#HOW was pointed out to him and clarified ad nauseam in the thread following the fourth comment (by Bob 22:14, 29 September 2010) in the Review commentary above. It appears he deliberately chose to ignore the normal conventions and decided to push through his own idiosyncratic views, without respecting the style used by the original author. I am frankly dismayed by his dismissal of parenthetical referencing as a "fall backwards". As I see no evidence that he intends to change his stance on insisting on removing parenthetical referencing from FAs, I can see no way that any of this will be "corrected for future reference". --RexxS (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • After Nikkimaria's excellent and hard work here, that's the only reason I bring this up-- this should not happen again, it is plainly against WIAFA and CITE. WIAFA is perfectly clear on parenthetical citation, and there is no excuse for this. However, in this case, it looks like what's done is done, so it's best to move on. As long as it doesn't happen again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Bob Castle (talk · contribs) "converted intext variations into inline", followed by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) "refs, minor ce", followed by Bob Castle "converted single intext ref", followed by more by Nikkimaria [2], [3], [4], [5]. Note: SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) unduly focuses her criticism in her comments at this FAR page on one particular individual user, instead of focusing polite comments about content, for some odd and disturbing focus on a particular user over a prolonged period of time that is quite uncomfortable and unsettling, but it is important to note that I was not the editor to initially make such in-line citation style changes to this article, though I do think they have helped improve the article's quality. It is interesting to note the attacks made against me over comments in support of improvements to the article's quality, and none against the actual users that made the actual citation changes to the article itself. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The others either didn't understand or explained their actions above, while you continued to either misundertand or misstate the guideline even after it was pointed out to you. Hence, the importance of making sure you do understand CITEHOW and WIAFA, so that this doesn't happen again. I do not think the change from parenthetical citations was an improvement here, but since the article is now cited, and it's a fait accompli, what matters now is that this doesn't happen again. And stop alleging personal attacks-- it's an unhelpful diversion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At no point to my knowledge did I misstate the guideline. At several points on multiple pages on Wikipedia, SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) has seemed to have an intense and undue focus on one particular user, myself. Even when I did not make the actual edits in question - the users that did are not questioned at all about this. The attacks are focused on me. It is quite disturbing. I wish it would stop. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of editors wish the problems here would stop. The editors who made the actual edits didn't continue to advocate that parenthetical citations were a problem. They aren't. You did. I hope you now understand the guideline, and that some articles' style is more conducive to parentheticals. Stop the martyrdom, or at least, take it elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for stating it is a guideline, and not a policy. I hope you will take your undue focus elsewhere, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, I have never stated either WIAFA or CITEHOW is policy. As long as you want to continue sniping, I can decide whether I'll leave you the last word. Cut it out. It is not undue focus to correct serious misunderstandings that occurred on this FAR and were furthered by you so that this won't happen again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I struck out an inappropriate comment I made above [6]. I made a clarifying comment below [7]. Hopefully this is now satisfactory. -- Cirt (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of the problem that occured on this FAR is terminology-- both parentheticals and cite.php formats are inline citations, as required by WIAFA. If you would understand that and make a clearer distinction in the future, further misunderstandings might be better avoided. The requirement for inline citations that was added to WIAFA in 2005 after the Siegenthaler incident did not specify which form they must take, while CITEHOW says not to change the original citation style. The discussion at the top of this article confuses the subject by referring to parentheticals as if they were not inline citations-- it's not clear to me if you understand this distinction yet, but it could just be the confusing terminology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I thought in-line was one thing, and parenthetical another. I appreciate you clearing this up. Thank you. I will make an effort in the future to keep this in mind. I apologize for the confusion. I am sorry about that. -- Cirt (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Ormulum/archive1&oldid=1086102682"