Talk:Wube Haile Maryam

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Comments on the draft article

Hi, Thanks for reviewing the draft. I understand what you have mentioned. I had a couple of references earlier that I removed as they were suggested to be unreliable sources. But, thanks for reviewing it. Brownweepy (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Brownweepy: You are welcome. I might even relent sometime and help a bit more - but not right now. I did see on a quick search that other sources are possibly available. Best wishes. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure. should I delete the draft or it will automatically expire? Brownweepy (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Brownweepy: Ah, well, frankly my "crazy idea" was, I think, that I was pushing it back on to you to have the opportunity to actually sort out the details by working through the steps for yourself. Rather than walking away in shame. But you could of course abandon it. You have every right as a volunteer to do that. If so, then eventually probably somebody will come along and clean it up. I think it can be salvaged from what I see. So make up your own mind if you or someone else is doing the actual work. To answer your question, it will not be necessary for you to actively delete it if you decide to abandon it as there is a process to decide collectively what to do eventually should that be how you go about things. But then that would imply you aren't up to cleaning up your mess. I had been thinking I might do the heavy lifting on the other article I was trying to help you salvage. But again, an article on this bloke can probably be derived from the sources I saw, and you have to decide whether you are up for that. If a machine process were hypothetically in existence that you were academically trying to tweak, you would of course want to actually understand the mechanics of article generation and improvement. Ultimately, if you are going to poop incomplete stubs into draft space, I suppose we will have to decide if that's helpful or a major disruption, and that's not for me to individually determine. Regards. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

And it's probably the best course of action if I cut and paste this all to the draft article's Talk page, and have it there for general availability, so I am about to pick it up and nudge it all over there. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I misunderstood then. The reason why I created the draft article was because I wanted to 'actually understand the mechanics of article generation and improvement'. However, I am not sure if me editing would be fine with other admins as my work on machine generated stuff created a lot of trouble for so many editors. I would be happy to work on improving this draft and find better sources. Sorry for not understanding your point correctly earlier. I was never intending to write bad articles and post to drafts. Brownweepy (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Brownweepy: No problem at all. I personally think it would be so much better if you worked on it. I can't see why anyone would have an issue if you sort out this article properly. I might even pitch in to assist you at some point, who knows. (This dialog was originally posted to reviewer's Talk page as is advised in the AfC tag - it's moved here to avoid this being a one person backwater situation.) FeatherPluma (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Brownweepy: By the way, because this is in draft space you have oodles of time to eventually work on this, so if there's other stuff that has a time clock running, you would want to get to that first. I don't have a full grasp on your situation. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@FeatherPluma: I understand. Thanks for giving me a chance to work on this draft. I found some better (reliable) sources that support the arguments. Removed/commented out certain parts. From the sources, more information can be obtained. I will work on it soon and resubmit. But before that, I will let you know such that you can suggest me if I am going wrong somewhere. Brownweepy (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Brownweepy: At first glance, your interim edits seem to have taken this to very close to mainspace text. Very nice indeed! Let me work it through a couple of times, and check that all the details look good. Please feel free to do any other improvements you want. It should be possible to bypass another AfC submission with modest further work, and I will help you with that. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Brownweepy: Advanced to mainspace after some additional edits. I find lots of additional sources and aspects that could be added to this new article and I have tagged it as under construction, hoping that you / various editors might pitch it to upgrade it. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@FeatherPluma: Thanks a lot. It looks great now. I will work based on the suggestions in the talk page and try to improve the content further. Brownweepy (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@FeatherPluma: It seems that the Zemene Mesafint ended at the battle of Ayshal and not when Wube lost. https://books.google.com/books?id=lkxyAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Battle+of+Ayshal%22&dq=%22Battle+of+Ayshal%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwics82ur-XOAhUM2SYKHWOJClEQ6AEIaDAP . May be it should be mentioned that there is contradictory info and we should mention both? Let me know, I can edit it. Brownweepy (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Brownweepy: Yes, I think both should be mentioned since 1. both are in reasonable sources and 2. both are logical, Ras Ali II being the bigger fish, and Wube being a lesser but very last regional fish. Very good job. I think this article is now quite interesting ! FeatherPluma (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I have changed a sentence in the first part to account for both the sources. Brownweepy (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Brownweepy: I have removed the {{under construction}} tag. Although there is more detail that could be added from sources, I like how it touches on all the principal ingredients I saw in sources. Very nice salvage. It would be kind of cool to see together if we might want to nominate this article for Template talk:Did you know, with the hook being something like "...that the ending of Ethiopia's century-long Zemene Mesafint era is variously dated to the defeat of Ras Ali II in the Battle of Ayshal in 1853, or to the 1855 defeat and imprisonment of Wube Haile Maryam?" We have only a few days if we want to nominate this, so I wonder how you feel about it? We might need to clean it up a bit further, and we would absolutely have to get the remaining {{cn}} tags and the small amount of remaining hidden text resolved. Want to try / clean it up with me a bit more ? FeatherPluma (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@FeatherPluma: Thanks. I am not sure how the nomination process works, but as you are an experienced editor you can take the call. I will try to clean up the article a bit more as per your suggestions. Brownweepy (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@FeatherPluma: Cleaned up remaining citation template and added some more content from the cambridge source. Brownweepy (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Brownweepy: Thanks. I will aim to get to the WP:DYN before the deadline altho I hv some RW action going on too. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK

Eligibility criteria

1. is less than seven days old and does not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article;
2. is a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose;
3. does cite the fact(s) mentioned in the hook;
4. is within policy;
5. am exempt from QPQ.

FeatherPluma (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy

It's worth pointing out that various sources are in modest disagreement on many of the finer details that are contained within the present wikitext. For example, the precise date of Tewodros II coronation is inconsistent - most are roughly 1 to 3 days post-battle but there are some that deviate even wider, occasionally by a large margin. The text as provided is as closely supported as possible from the weight of sources collectively, trying to weigh the sources for their own referencing, relevancy and cohesion, as well as cross-cohesion with other sources. Philosophically, I wonder how we can do better than this on topics that are interesting but which are slightly away from the thrust of Western writing to some extent. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Removed maybe useful later

First sentence in the article Reason:removed, because there are accesible sources available that confirm this, a WP:RX is pending, the source may have use somewhere else in the article.

British Museum website Reason: Removed the British Museum website as source, short biography used for the year of birth (1800) contradicts other seemingly more reliable sources that say 1799, also the website short bio about Wube doesn't reveal anything what is in more elaborate reliable sources.

Need to verify alleged intoxication of Wube Reason: It's not supported by the other source (Flint ), so it should be in Abir source one on page 112, until the source is verified i will put verification needed tag behind intoxicated in the article.

Failed verification along with British Museum source, Reason: Neither British museum source, nor The Nakfa documents supports the claim about Wube death in 1855, both British museum source, and Nakfa Documents pp.20 say 1867, and 1855 the year he lost to Kassa Hailu future Emperor Tewodros II