Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Orion (mythology)

Reviewers reviewed[edit]

This FAC has certainly been informative. Its effects are certainly to be seen in the article. These can be grouped into five classes; in declining order of usefulness.

Those who wrote the article. Of these I would particularly note Pharos, Carcharoth, Theranos, Mattise, and (on one detail) Ksmrq.
Those who substantively criticized the article. sometimes severely: Yannismarou, Carcharoth, and Jim, on the talk page.
- I am deeply grateful to these; they noticed questions and problems I hadn't considered. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Praise and support, which are always welcome.
Minutiae.
- Whether or not to use {{cite book}}. This is discussed in the FAC page; but I don't see why any aspect invisible to the reader should matter here. I knew about the cite templates, and used to use them; but they are more trouble than they save.
- The insistence on n-dashes in the footnotes.
- The repeated demand, on condition of opposing, to use 116–17,instead of 116–7. This is trivial, and a good deal of work; also, it is nowhere in MOS.
Minor damage, again enforced on the pain of rejection:
- Placing only away from the word it modifies.
- The insistence on a comma splice.
- Most serious, the practice noted in this comment on the talk page: Mattisse combined paragraphs, violating the rule that a paragraph should deal with one subject, because he thought that otherwise FA would reject it. I have no reason to doubt his experience; but it has materially worsened the article.

What I find most striking is that all the help (except Yannismarou) was provided by non-regulars at FA, drawn in by the publicity and my search for a copy-editor; all the hindrances were produced by regulars. The article would have had the same benefits with any other way of attracting the same attention.

I have seriously considered requesting that some of the least helpful editors be barred from FAC; but in the long run, it would not help. FA fatally attracts the half-educated, who enjoy sitting in judgment over others' contribution; the mark of these people is that they decline to make the improvements which they declare to be essential to FA status. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see my comma concerns were eventually rectified by native English speakers. However, there are still many problems with the article. Eg. citations should be placed immediately after punctuation, em dashes should be unspaced, external links only belong in the external links section. Epbr123 21:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it has now passed FAC, you should feel free to make these corrections yourself. Will you consider doing this? Carcharoth 21:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If reviewers fix articles themselves, the main authors don't learn anything. If you guys fix these things yourself, you'll be more likely to remember to do them with your future articles. Epbr123 21:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - We could watch and learn. How about you do a couple, just to show us how to do them, and to make sure we don't get things wrong, and I'll happily do the rest? Seriously. Do one example each of the three problems you raise (citation position, em dash spaces, external links), provide diffs, and I'll fix the rest. Carcharoth 21:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done. There's only one EL to move. Epbr123 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        There were only 3 em dashes to fix and 4 citation spaces to remove. And I thought I was pedantic! :-) Actually, scrub that smile, as it's really not funny. Let's talk about external links instead. I see lots of them in the references. I thought you were talking about those, but you can't be, as you said there was only one. I think you mean the link to the "three volume epic poem Orion in 1843". I've now fixed that as well. Now, if we've dealt with that, would you mind responding to the concerns Septentrionalis has raised? FAC needs people making substantive criticisms, rather than copyediting comments. Copyediting should be done before FAC, and FAC should be spent reviewing the quality of the writing, the reliability of the sources, and the overall balance of the article's content (rather than style). Would you agree with that? Carcharoth 00:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, Septentrionalis should have got the article copyeditted before nominating it. In fact, it still needs copyeditting. Epbr123 00:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't help noticing this critique you'd written. I hope you don't mind me adding links to Orion (mythology), Talk:Orion (mythology) and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Orion (mythology). I think one of the problems is that those who are active at FAC feel a need not to get drawn too deeply into editing an article, for fear that they will be seen as supporting their own work. Maybe there should be a review stage where people can be encouraged to collaborate on editing articles before they go to FAC. I think that is the function Wikipedia:Peer review used to play, combined with a visit from a friendly copy-editor. I personally think all articles should be copyedited before they reach FAC, as getting a barrage of copyediting comments, instead of substantive critical comments, can be a most dispiriting moment. Carcharoth 21:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense - as long, drawn out FACs...well, do they drive people away? Not sure but I feel it is a gamble posting something and then copping an oppose from someone who doesn't come back to support once copyediting done - how often does this happen I wonder. As far as my initial comment - my time was limited and I thought chipping in quickly was better than nothing at all to start off with. I don't mind offering all examples of tweaks as at the end of teh day the aim is to get the article to featured status, rather than make it a 'test' so to speak, but if it makes active learning easier as Epbr123 says....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't intend to come back unless this improves; especially if I can get the same attention to an article by other means. More seriously, the focus on copyediting is letting some articles be approved without anybody ever considering neutrality, accuracy, the use of sources, or clarity to a general reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting attention to articles isn't the purpose of FAC. The article is certainly now clearer to read then when you first nominated it. In future, take articles to peer review and the League of Copyeditors before you nominate them for FA. Epbr123 16:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took it to peer review; we should mention the League if we're going to require them. As for the article being clearer to read, I really doubt it; the paragraphing alone has made it significantly less comprehensible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that getting attention is not the purpose of FAC. My objection is precisely that it is the only benefit it has delivered. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"we should mention the League if we're going to require them" - this exemplifies the level of clarity of the article when first nominated. Epbr123 18:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I hesitated between grammatical and physical number: the League is a singular noun, containing several people. I chose the English, substantive, approach to number over the American, formal, approach. English has subtleties, and FA reviewers should appreciate them — I do assume that this is mere ignorance, rather than a personal attack. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I just can't understand what you're saying. BTW, I'm not pro American English. Epbr123 18:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understood what he said perfectly. Carcharoth 17:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or is that, "I, what he said, perfectly understood"? :-) Carcharoth 17:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness for that. What did he mean by "we should mention the League if we're going to require them"? Epbr123 17:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he meant the guidelines for FAC should ask people to get the articles copyedited first, if they don't already. The League is, I believe, only one of a few copyediting organisations on Wikipedia. Carcharoth 17:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. Septentrionalis, the guidelines don't really need to say that; it's just basic common sense that you should try to get the article as good as possible before submitting it for Featured Article status. Epbr123 17:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I didn't know of any organized copyeditors before I came here; that's why we should mention them, and others if more than one organization is now functioning. When WP:PR did nothing of the kind, I went to the next step I knew of. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenmt) OK then well if anything comes out of this I can add that I like Greek mythology stuff and am happy to have a look-over to copyedit in future if you want. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would always be more than welcome. Please do not mind if parts of it are reverted; some scarcely visible tweaks can add up to errors of fact or implication. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's no biggie - just give me a heads up at the time.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]