Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Macedonia (terminology)/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
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 Raul654 21:33, 13 August 2009 [1].

Macedonia (terminology)

edit
Toolbox

FAR commentary

edit

Notice to the nominator: Please notify relevant parties (editors and projects) per step 6 of "Nominating an article for FAR; otherwise your nomination is incomplete".--Yannismarou (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now notified all four wikiprojects, and the only two original main authors who are still active, NikoSilver (also the original nominator) and Francis Tyers. Anybody else? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think that's fine!--Yannismarou (talk) 09:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current problems with this article:

  • Etymology section: was an amateurish and redundant mix-up of actual etymology and mythology. Partly cleaned up now, by importing text from elsewhere, but may need further scrutiny.
  • History section: far too wordy and far too much detail. This is a complete fork of a "History of Macedonia" article. It needs to be reduced to those bits that are actually necessary for the article's task: making the terminology understood.
  • Linguistics section: account of Ancient Macedonian is confused, making an ad-hoc distinction between "sister language" and "cousin [language]" (which doesn't exist in linguistic terminology), also stylistically awkward.
  • "Ethnic Macedonian nationalism" section: unnecessary POV editorialising about "extremist ... nationalists". Overlong block quote, of a size that makes it a fair-use / copyright problem, should be removed, paraphrased and/or broken down into smaller units. Same for the overlong block quotes in the following section.
  • Geography section: needs better maps/graphics to illustrate the various different boundary lines discussed
  • Demographics section: problematic POV statement that "As a regional group in Greece, Macedonians refers to ethnic Greeks (98%, 2001)". This specifically Greek meaning (as opposed to one that covers all the ethnicities including the Greeks and the local minorities) seems barely existant in English.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close.This is a WP:POINT nomination just on the eve of the Macedonia arbitration by an involved party, with a direct objective to undermine the featured status of this article, which elaborates on the ambiguity and complexity of the issue.--Avg (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close: The nominator is most obviously not acquainted with FA criteria, and the relevant procedures. Thus the above nomination fails to explain why the article in question should be de-featured. As I can also notice, another FAR nomination was filed, which was recently closed. In such a short time from the previous one, I see no grounds for the current FAR. In addition, taking into consideration the weird coincidence with the Macedonia arbitration (filed by me by the way), I am wondering if the reasons for this FAR are spurious. In any case, I would like to remind to the nominator that FAR is not a place for the resolution of content disputes among editors. You should thus raise your case in the article's talk page, and not here.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty obvious from my nomination which criteria are not met, isn't it? I said: "History section: far too wordy and far too much detail". That's obviously criterion 4 ("stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail"). I also said: "account of Ancient Macedonian is confused", and: "etymology section: was an amateurish and redundant mix-up". That's obviously criterion 1c ("well-researched"). I also raised concerns over copyright/fair use problems. That's the spirit (though not the letter) of criterion 3, which deals with "acceptable copyright status" and "non-free" content problems (it is ostensibly only talking about images, but of course NFC problems related to text are no less serious.). As for contacting people, how many would you deem necessary? As for the Arbitration case, it has nothing to do with it, except for the coincidence that I saw an arbitrator recommend reading this article, which I then went to do, surprisingly, for the first time, finding the article in the state it is. As for the previous review, it dealt exclusively with an entirely different set of concerns, and was speedy-closed on the grounds that those other concerns were baseless, so I dare say that's pretty irrelevant to the validity of the concerns I am raising. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fut, read step 6, and you'll see that it is pretty clear which are the parties you should notify. I do not intend to do your job! As far as to your remarks, let me just notice that, when a FAR nomination opens, the reviewrs do not focus solely on the nominator's arguments, but evaluate the article themselves. At the time, distinguished FAR reviewers concluded that the article adhered to FA criteria. You argue that, in the meantime, suddently something changed. Let's see; you may be correct, while I may be wrong. Nevertheless, I still believe that these are issues which are mainly content-focuses, and should be thus raised in the article's talk page; not here. I stand by my opinion that this nomination should be speedy close, and I keep my doubts about your weird timing despite your explanation.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the previous review including all the responses to it dealt exclusively with the issue of whether or not an article that dealt with the meaning of a word was legitimate in principle. Apart from that, the discussion only has vague assertions that the content was overall "good". Nobody ever dealt with concerns of the sort I'm raising. BTW, at the time of the original promotion, the overlong quotes (which are directly in contravention of any number of rules and guidelines) weren't yet there. But the etymology section used to be even worse back then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fut, if the problem is the quotes (I also do not like them, but this is not a reason strong enough to defeature an article), raise the issue in the talk page, and split or remove them, or turn them into proper prose. Whatever! I haven't yet read in detail the "Etymology" section, but I honestly don't see any major problems; in any case, I'll look closer to it. As far as the "history" section is concerned, I dont's see why both "Early" and "Modern History" do not adhere to WP:SS. They are indeed summaries of the main articles (which are much longer), and I think that this history summary is very useful for the reader, in order to grasp the theme. If you disagree, again go to the talk page, and say why the history section souldn't be like that. I continue! You say the "Ethnic Macedonian nationalism" sections is POV. Why? Because of the quote? I answered before to that. By the way, I also see a "Greek nationalism section", so isn't that balanced? If you disagree, and you think that there should only be a "Greek nationalism section" (?!), then again go to the talk page. In any case, I can't keep wondering: what are you doing here?--Yannismarou (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the two sections are both bad. The one is tendentiously worded, and the other is non-existent, because if you take away the block quote there's nothing left. That's why I'm finding the block quote issue hard to fix, too hard for me to fix it without more time and appetite. If we wanted to take them out, we'd be left with an asymmetrically empty ruin. We'd have to re-write the whole section. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you take away the quotes (after you summarize them of course) in both sections, still more than something is left. Shorter sections, but they will continue to exist with good content. I see no empty ruins! By the way, I am not sure if the quotes from the Greek nationalism section should be removed. They are excellent summaries of the Greek nationalism and wrongdoings, dealing also with the use of nationalist and scornful terminology such as "Skopians". Yes, long but indeed very accurate and useful. I still fail to grasps the POV problems (probably you sole real argument concerning the article's FA status) concerning these two sections. Both sides' nationalisms are presented in a detailed and sourced way, and I think quite balanced. You do not like the quotes? This is another issue! So, I'll keep asking: what are you exactly doing here?--Yannismarou (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes are non-free content. They must be removed unless the their precise wording is an object of critical analysis, on the same criteria we must remove non-free images that are not the object of such. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm doing here? I'm doing precisely what the FA process says I ought to be doing: discussing "possible improvements" with the aim "to improve articles rather than to demote them" in a situation where they would otherwise fall short of the FA criteria. What do you think I'm doing, please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotes in the Greek section already paraphrased. If you like my "job", I'll do the same with the Ethnic Macedonian nationalism as well. Of course, "it would be good"! I did not say the opposite. I just said and I insist that this is no argument for de-featuring.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. But for my taste that's still a good deal too long and wordy. In fact, your summary of Danforth repeats things that I'm sure the article is already saying elsewhere (e.g. that Greeks say "Skopje"), and it's generally just following the progression of ideas too slavishly. I think this could easily be cut back further to no more than half the size. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updating: Possibly, but there are definitely no copyright problems now (and I believe no POV problems as well). "For my taste", as I said above, this long expose is not necessarily wrong. There may be some repetitions, but sometimes this is inevitable in an encyclopedic article. And I am not sure it is treated before in the article why Greeks say "Skopje" or "Skopjans". And, even if it is, it is this sections which provides the necessary in-depth analysis. So, I am not sure it should be trimmed.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The other section paraphrased as well. "Extreme" POV terms removed; references to the language trimmed (they look to me as the standard ethnicMac position, and no "nationalism"); shorter quotes fully in accord with WP:QUOTATIONS kept. Any further real FA concerns?--Yannismarou (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, by the way, any (serious) criticism I hear until now about the article is a classic {{sofixit}} case.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't because the problem of the overlong history section concerns a radical change to the whole scheme and scope of the article, which I would neither want to push through without prior discussion, nor do I have the time and inclination to fix it. I just feel that it isn't FA stuff. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I just feel that it isn't FA stuff" is not good enough Fut. When the article was promoted and kept the overlong history section existed. Unfortunately, my concerns about the reasons this FAR was initiated are reinforced by the vagueness of your arguments. In any case, even under these circumstances, I am happy to see you at last at a FA-related page. We both made our cases; let's see what other experienced reviewers shall say.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, when it was promoted the history section was a lot more concise. That old version was actually quite readable [2]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are only partly correct (again!). I now checked it in detail, but the longer version existed indeed when it was kept. The only serious difference I see comparing the current version, and the version of the article when it was promoted, it is the first quite long and uncited paragraph of "Early History". Personnaly, I won't disagree to remove it (and I may even do it per BRD). Now, the rest of the two history sections have minor differences. Yes, some minor details have been added, and the bullets have gone, but the focus remains on the terminology (with the exception I repeat of the first paragraph of the first sub-section). In any case, a problematic paragraph is not a reason strong enough to defeature an article.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would go a long way if we could get the "early history" passage back to the way it was around the time it was featured. I can try and find when the expansion took place and identify the best prior version. As for the thing I mentioned initially about needing better maps, I seem to remember we once had one where different versions of "geographical Macedonia" from the 19th century were compared. Perhaps we can exchange that for the one historical map we have in the geography section now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
for the "geography" section?
Hey I found it. It's pretty good, I think, only that it would be even better if it also showed the modern country boundaries for comparison.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Added.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, balance, comprehensiveness, clarity. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1c issues throughout. If you like I can tag these parts of the article with {{fact}}, so it is more clear where the article is lacking. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate that.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added some. Cirt (talk) 06:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. 3 out of 10 gone. Give me a couple of days to go through the remaining ones.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 or 3 still left I think.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait A couple issues remain. There are several dead links, dabs, and the images in the templates need alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can see only two dead links, and two dabs; one of the dead links (CIA Factbook) had been fixed by me days ago; I don't know what is going on with it. I'll fix them again later tonight, and I'll also try to further back the two sources mentioned by Matisse, especially the second one, which is indeed problematic.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem with that. But do you have the relevant page(s)? The problem with google book is that it offers you a partial reading, and, if you don't find quite fast what you want while searching, you suddenly come along a polite announcement that unfortunately you can no more see any other page from the rest of the book!--Yannismarou (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to. It's p. 83 in the Google Books edition, paperback; I think I've added the hardcover to the list of references. The link should now work better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well written; sorry to be lazy, but I'm commenting only WRT 1a. Pity if this can't be saved. Tony (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Citation 101 is showing up as dead. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • True. Now that you draw my attention to that passage, I'd like to question the whole structure of the double notes system: a separate set of footnotes numbered "N-1", "N-2" etc., which contain additional content and in turn point to other, normal footnotes for referencing. For one thing, this strikes me as highly non-standard in formal terms; but additionally, this material is also rather questionable in content terms. These notes seem to have been used systematically as a way to push borderline OR material of a speculative nature out of the main body of the text. All this speculation about what is "offensive" to whom should either be integrated in the main text – if we are confident about the sourcing – or removed. Note N-1 is pure OR (citing a primary source and drawing interpretative conclusions from it); N-2 is drawing interpretative conclusions from two sources (one of them dead) by way of novel synthesis; N-3 is a redundant re-statement of the Macedonia naming dispute and as such redundant with the section on "politics"; N-4 is entirely unsourced speculation; N-5 has more or less acceptable sourcing, but could easily be integrated in the main text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The distinction between notes for citation and notes for commentary is not novel; this is the original divergence between footnotes and endnotes. In Wikipedia, compare the FA Pericles. I don't use it myself, but it is permitted by WP:FOOTNOTE and seems well-intentioned. PMAnderson 22:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I regret disagreeing with FP on this, but this seems ungrounded. N-1 describes a primary source; that cannot be pure OR if the book exists. (If it doesn't, we have much more serious problems.)
      • N-2 contains an assertion that Pirin Macedonia has been used by Bulgarians, but some Bulgarians now find it Republican propaganda. I see no synthesis, although I wouldn't mind breaking this up into two assertions.
      • N-3 is a statement of the Greek POV, from an official source. If FP wants to break this up, fine - but describing the various POVs here is the point of this section of the article, and I see nothing wrong with doing so in the parties' own words. In text it might be undue weight; but down here?
      • N-4 is unsourced, but asserts that FYROM can be offensive to both sides (extreme Greeks object to the use of Macedonia at all). This seems obviously to be the case; we have anons replacing FYROM with Vardaroscopia, don't we; but I'll see if Danforth says so.
      • N-5 could be incorporated, but then we would lose the quote. Why? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I maintain my objections. Note N-1 isn't just "describing" a primary source; it is very explicitly interpreting it ("Contextually, this observation indicates [...]"), without the guidance of a reliable secondary source. That's the very definition of OR. N-2 clearly "synthesises" the two assertions, and again interprets the result ("..., thus,..."), without guidance from a reliable secondary source regarding the notability of the claims and the representativity of the primary sources exemplifiying them; moreover, the last part of the claim ("many people in the country also think...") is entirely unsourced. My objection about N-3 is not so much about its content, but about the fact that it duplicates something that already has its own section in the body of the text, the "politics" section. – The more I think of it, the more I am also generally dissatisfied with the whole idea of having such footnotes dedicated to the topic of what might be "offensive" to whom. It smacks of context disclaimers, which we don't do. Either the "offensive" nature of this or that term is notable enough to be made an explicit object of sourced analysis; then it can and should go into the body text; or else it should simply be ignored. – Finally, about the issue of double footnote systems, you may well be right about wiki precedents, but still, in half a lifetime of academic reading I cannot remember having ever seen anything in print that does something similar. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read it differently. This is an international dispute; people may well want to know what words and terms are causes of offense in that dispute. These are facts, and non-trivial facts, about the dispute; as useful as other articles about ethnic slurs.
The argument that we should pussyfoot around offensive language on this matter has just been rejected by ArbCom; we were both there. That should suffice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closest parallels I can think of in academic publishing are book-length; but it is not uncommon to move long notes to the end of the volume, and keep the citations on the page. If I run across one before this is resolved, I'll note it here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Compare Zimmern's Greek Commonwealth or on a much larger scale, the two dozen appendices to Tarn's Greeks in Bactria and India.
    • But I cannot address FP's complaints about what these imply, because I don't see the implications myself; if he wants to modify them while keeping the (non-synthesized) content, I would like to see the result. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 5 August 2009 (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/Macedonia_(terminology)/archive2&oldid=1089816480"