Talk:Sistine Chapel ceiling/GA1

GA Reassessment

Result was weak keep--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts, (belated direct notification of User:Amandajm, User:JNW, User:Ceoil, User:Johnbod)

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

As part of GA Sweeps, I am reviewing this article and noting its deficiencies. I am very confident in the prospects of rescue for this article given the solid track record of Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts at rescuing such articles. I have seen this group summon very solid efforts to salvage article reviews before (E.g., Henry Moore and El Lissitzky). As is usually, the case, I am harping on citations. My standard continues to be that every paragraph in a well-structured article should have at least one citation since paragraphs are suppose to contain distinct topics and all facts should be attributable to a WP:RS. So many paragraphs were without citation that I lost count. I do not want to delist this important article and hope that the project comes together to rescue this article as they have done for so many other important works. Because of the age of the work, all images pass without any fair use rationales. I would just like to know where all the facts are coming from.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Have you picked up on the "section references"? These reference the whole section above; there are usually more than 1, up to 5, per section. With these there are only one or two paras missing refs, and with about 80 footnotes the article is heavily referenced by GA standards. If the section refs were split out per para there would be well over 100. You need to be more precise about where you think extra references are needed. I should point out I've never edited the article that I can recall. Johnbod (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• As Johnbod has pointed out, many of the sections are referenced, rather than individual paragraphs. The reason for this is that in many cases information has been combined from a number of sources and restated in the writer's words rather than those of any one particular author on the subject.
• Also, what we are dealing with here, as in the case of other works of art and architecture, is a "primary source". Statements within the article which are purely descriptive are referenced by the object itself ie. the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

This includes statements such as: Above the level of the spandrels, where the ceiling flattens, is painted a strongly-projecting cornice that runs right around the ceiling, enclosing the main pictorial areas. These fictive architectural elements form a grid in which all the figures have defined spaces.

This sort of stuff is not interpretive, and isn't in any way contentious. It is merely a clear description written by an editor who is competent at describing artworks in formal terms.

Amandajm (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The other thing that I meant to say here is that I will get around to inserting more inline refs where appropriate, but it might take a day or so before I can find the time the time to do it. In almost every case it will just mean going to the "Section references" and deciding which one to put after which paragraph (or sentence). Amandajm (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we are hoping for inline refs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment

TonyThe Tiger, I just took a look at your page and the long list of FAs and GAs to which you have made some contribution. One of those articles is Fountain of Time.

This constitutes one of the most ridiculously over-referenced articles that I have yet found on Wikipedia. Almost every sentence is referenced and some sentences which are dead-ordinary and utterly banale have as many as three references attached to the end. There are so many references that the little boxes with numbers make the article disjointed and hard to read.

One sentence has four references within the text, three of which are for the same two pages of the same book. That is ludicrous! I sincerely hope that you do not expect me to emulate it. If this is the standard that you set, and you happened to be the personn assessing the quality of the article, then, No, I am not interested in playing the game, even if you are so "confident that it can be rescued".

Here's an example from the article:

The design was inspired by the poem "Paradox of Time" by Henry Austin Dobson:[46] "Time goes, you say? Ah no, Alas, time stays, we go".[26][39][45]

Good grief! How could any writer possibly need to support a short quotation like that with three references?

Amandajm (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to the article that just passed by a 5–0 count at WP:FAC yesterday. I am an inline reference junkie. I put a reference on every fact and sometimes two or three. All I am asking here is that each paragraph have a reference. I am not asking you to cite the work as extensively as I would cite a new promotion candidate myself.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

All those little boxes are terribly distracting to the reader. It is unencyclopedic and unnecessary. You need to wean yourself off them. They don't make a good article. When the reader looks down at the refs, and sees that three references within a paragraph (or even within a sentence) point them to the same page, then it doesn't look convincing. It looks ridiculous. If I was reviewing an article for FA and it was referenced in that manner, one of my first comments would be "Clean up your references, so that the reader can read without interruption." You don't need every fact referenced individually, if most of the facts being presented are straight-forward and not matters of controversy or opinion. Anyway, the Ceiling is in the process of getting a few more inline refs. It's dinner time in the Land of Oz. Amandajm (talk) 08:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the question what policy in general, and GA policy in particular, has to say about section references? I personally prefer to combine multiple references in one note, but then I'm usually using books not websites. Over-referencing is definitely distracting; I see this was in fact raised in the first FAC on the sculpture (though at least I think Amanda & I are with you on the issues of images and a gallery, also raised). To my mind, and for say FAC, the only problem with the references here is that page numbers are not given. My style would be just to give refs like: "Shearman, 136; O'Malley, 95" or whatever at every para, which are fairly easy to copy over, changing the page no.s, if you are doing lots. The repeated O'Malley ref is to a 60-page stretch of his book. Giving more precise page details is what would actually help a reader trying to follow the refs. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Proper format for the inline refs would be "Shearman, p. 35" or "Shearman, pp. 35–37" using ndash.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No, my version is fine - see the policy. Just because you do things one way Tony, doesn't mean that is the only way, or the best way. Johnbod (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Citation styles vary across fields and your method clearly identifies the location of the source of the content. Thus, yes your method is fine. I was merely encouraging you to use a style that I have been encouraged to use during some FAC debates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

←I am quite pleased with the progress that is being made with this article. However, 16 entire paragraphs continue to have no citations and it has been six days since the last edit was made to this article. Please let me know if there is further near-term improvement expected. It is possible that if the article goes over seven days without improvement it will be delisted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 17:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still here, Tony. I've been sick for the last ten days. I hope you've been maintaining my watchlist! Amandajm (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

further comment I just had a search for the "16 unreferenced paragraphs" you referred to. Frankly, I think that you are being ridiculously nit-picking. I really don't give a stuff whether you are pleased or not. I have been too ill in the last ten days to continue the process. But regardless of that fact, removing a green button from the article will do nothing to reduce its quality. And adding the same references over and over will do little to enhance it. As it is, the article is informative, useful and well-written. If adding four or five distracting references to every sentence is what wins cookie points and gets green buttons, then I don't want them. Amandajm (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you have been Ill, I will keep watching this page in hopes that you return to health in the near future and decide to continue the improvement of this page. Yes, according to Wikipedia:WIAGA criterion 2, proper in-line referencing is now the current standard. I am only requesting at least one citation per paragraph and not actual fact-by-fact inline citation. I do hope you get better and are able to help improve the quality of this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:WIAGA

Thank you TonyThe Tiger for initiating this discussion on referencing in one of the Project's GAs. To quote the relevant part of the policy (my numbering):

(b) [A good article is ... factually accurate and verifiable: ] it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for

(1) direct quotations,

(2) statistics,

(3) published opinion,

(4) counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and

(5) contentious material relating to living persons;

I can't see a "one citation per paragraph policy" in WIAGA but I'll be happy to learn in case such a policy exists. I don't see that WP:ATT automatically requires such a policy and such a mechanical placement of references would seem a little out of line with the very reasoned approach taken in WIAGA, in which good scholarly practice is emulated well. I have carefully reviewed the article and will be making the following changes over the next days to help conclude this GAR:

re (1): one citation is unsourced: "it appears as if the viewer[...]" , it should be easy to fix, I have to get to the library though;

re (2): statistics are all sourced;

re (3): published opinion is all sourced;

re (4): the article does not appear to contain "counter-intuitive or controversial statements";

re (5): the article does not contain material relating to living persons.

Point (4) has some leeway in interpretation but if there is contention regarding this, I would appreciate if someone could point out the specifics; it can certainly be quickly fixed.

Additional points to be addressed:

(A) in some places the article is overreferenced, e.g.

According to Vasari, "The work was carried out[...]".[6][8] – this should have only one reference (to Vasari), not two.  Done Enki H. (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(B) in some places the references don't seem appropriate, e.g.

Above the cornice and to either side of the smaller scenes are an array of round shields. They are in part supported by twenty more figures, not part of the architecture, but sitting on inlaid plinths, their feet planted convincingly on the fictive cornice. They are the so-called ignudi.[23] - The descriptive elements are referenced by the workitself and don't need a separate reference since there is no interpretation here. That these are called "ignudi" also should not be referenced here, since these are the topic of a section of the article, which Ignudi redirects to.  Done

(C) some of the references should have page numbers some added and some ref.s replaced, see no serious deficiencies now. Enki H. (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(D) the wikilinks could use some touch-up (link only the first occurrence per paragraph)... and some are missing (e.g. Erythraean sybil).  Done

(E) I think, in general, when particular details are described or interpreted, this should be either accompanied by, or linked to, an image if one is available.  Done

This was actually worthwhile to improve the article. I have created a refgroup for images and this elegantly allows to get to the actual visual evidence very quickly. I've also added about a dozen images from Commons to the gallery. Enki H. (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(F) Some of the sections could be restructured (description before interpretation)  Done Enki H. (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC) ;

(G) Capitalization and italics are not consistent (e.g. Ignudi).  Done Enki H. (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

N.b. I have an issue with threats "to delist the article". The discussion above demonstrates editorial disagreement, the appropriate process is therefore a Community reassessment, not a delisting.

Cheers, Enki H. (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. First of all in terms of disagreement, both Amandajm (talk · contribs), who has been the main editorial respondent and Ceoil (talk · contribs) have expressed a willingness to continue to improve the article in response to my concern. So rather than going to a community reassessment about whether the current version passes, the best thing to do is to allow the willing editors to improve the article. The article would be better with more inline citations if that is possible.

In response to WP:WIAGA, there is no one citation per paragraph policy explicitly stated. However, I feel my concern is reasonable because in a well-formatted article, each paragraph is suppose to present a distinct topic. If this topic has encyclopedic merit, it probably should present some factual opinion, statistic, conclusion, result, etc. that a reader would find worth learning. Lets call this thing the main topic of the paragraph. Suppose a paaragraph is presenting a main topic that a reader should not want to learn. IMO, this means that paragraph's main topic is unencyclopedic. I do not challenge that any paragraph presents worthless information. In fact, I believe the encyclopedic worth of each paragraph probably has an encyclopedic topic. If I felt this topic was to be hotly contested, I would go through each paragraph and identify its main topic. Then I would attempt to determine if the reader can WP:ATT it to a WP:RS as the article stands. If I feel the topic is such that it is attributed to a bunch of general reference that the reader would have to wade through or no particular reference at all, I would put a {{fact}} on the paragraph. In fact, if a community reassesment is demanded, I am serious enough about the citation per paragraph policy that I would do just this. Of course, any paragraph not presenting an encyclopedic topic, would be removed from the article. Thus, if this issue becomes a hotly contested debate, I would either attach a fact tag or remove each uncited paragraph outside of the WP:LEAD. However, at this time, I do have full expectation that there is improvement expected.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems a bunch of new references to primary sources (the images themselves) have been added. I know for some subjects primary source references are common, but I have not seen art articles with such a preponderance of primary references. Can someone who knows art let me know if this is Kosher.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Their use here seems fine - they are acting as detailed illustrations rather than references, I would have said, but of course do sometimes reference the point being made. Johnbod (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

FINAL RESULT KEEP In truth, I have trouble with the number of paragraphs that remain unreferenced. I hope the authors continue to improve the article. However, there are far worse examples of good work on WP.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Status (as of 3 May 2008)

I'll step away for a while; IMO reference issues have been addressed now. Just one thing: thirteen of the "references" go to Biblical source; IMO such primary sources might be better handled by wikilinks to wikisource since they should not be used to support interpretations, only to illustrate them. Or one could create a separate group="Scripture" or such . But AFAIAC I see nothing pressing left to do. Enki H. (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Until I have some commentary from art experts on the use of primary sources, I am uncomfortable passing this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

?? Not sure what you are asking us to do. Still missing references? Enki H. (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that despite my interest and experience with WP:WPVA articles, I am not sure if it is proper to reference using the primary source and telling the reader to agree with the WP editors interpretation. Secondary sources are usually the preferred method of citation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well of course, that would be a Bad Thing - but I thought I had repaired most of that ... care to point me to an example where that's still the case? Enki H. (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)