Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sacred Cod/2

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Sacred Cod

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: General consensus is to keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings all. The following is a slight rewrite (after receving feedback from @EEng) of what I wrote on the article's talkpage (this is my first time opening a reassessment so I put it in the wrong spot): First and foremost is my concern that this constitutes a dramatic over-use of quotations, mainly because this has resulted in overly-long sentences and paragraphs that hamper reading clarity and fail to add information that our own prose could. As we all know, WP:GACR requires compliance with the manual of style, and MOS:QUOTE discourages excessive quotation use as "incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style", recommending the use of quotation only when it serves a clear clarifying or attributive function. For example, we have:

  • "painted to the life" in the very first sentence. I had Googled this phrase and didn't get a result; a second more thorough search after hearing from EEng made clear what this means. However it's still presented in Wiki voice, and it's in the very first sentence. At minimum, inline attribution of the quote would make sense, because even with quotation marks it still reads like we are presenting it as fact.
  • "a memorial of the importance of the Cod-Fishery to the welfare of this Commonwealth" also in the first sentence. This is the second in a single sentence and it can be easily and more concisely paraphrased without quotation.
  • "historic and continuing symbol", ALSO in the very first sentence. This quote was attached to a broken citation (since fixed by EEng) but said citation is from the Massachusetts legislature, which I would not consider a reliable source on whether its own traditions are "historic."
  • A "prehistoric creature of tradition", a couple of sentences later, fitted with alleged attribution to "the authoritative source." What is said authoratative source? It's not cited in this paragraph, and we're now at four quotes in the first two sentences of the article. I also (and admittedly this is subjective, but I think it's all part of the bigger picture) disagree with the structure "if it really existed—". It seems whimsical and loose, and I don't believe that this article being about a somewhat silly subject means that every paragraph should be packed with flowery prose. Most good articles are not.
  • Same story in paragraph two. We have a very long inline quote about investigating the significance of the Cod. This could be trimmed dramatically to "to investigate the significance of the emblem" or paraphrased to "to investigate its historical significance." Nothing is added here by the quote and it's far too much information for the lead.
  • I also don't think that we should use the pun "Cod-napped" in Wiki voice. This is again a broader issue with the article; the lighthearded tone I think goes beyond what I think is welcome. If we're going to use the pun, say something like "The Sacred cod was briefly stolen by editors of the Harvard Lampoon, in an event later termed the Cod-napping."

To be more specific, WP:GACR has the following requirements:

  • "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience"; three quotes in one sentence is not concise, especially given that I've illustrated how said quotes can be trimmed down
  • "it complies with the manual of style for lead sections"; the Manual of Style makes clear (MOS:QUOTEPOV, the "unnacceptable" example) that the mere use of quotation marks does not take a quotation out of Wiki voice. The phrasing in the beginning of the Cod-napping section does this right.
Now scrolling down, you would notice the Second Cod section consists about 80% of a single quote. Said quote is whimsical but imparts minimal information. I fail to see why we can't paraphrase most of it. Then the Third Cod section has a very very long sentence that is again mostly quotes which could be easily paraphrased. Same story on the Committee on History of the Emblem of the Codfish; you don't need a quote to say that they researched and investigated for two months or that they ordered its removal.
Again, in "Cod-napping" and other incidents, you have a sentence that constitutes the entire second paragraph, containing four separate quotes. Also, calling this a "crisis" in Wiki voice seems a little too silly.

My original argument, EEng's reply, and my response to him can be found here. Cpotisch (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. The best thing this review can accomplish is to introduce even more Wikipedians to an article that is so well written, formatted, and produced as a work of art about a work of art that it should have been featured years ago. EEng has ably addressed each criticism presented here, as well as previous criticisms, on the article's talk page. Sacred Cod not a good article? Go fish. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have tidied the article, especially its citations, to bring it more into compliance with some of the picky aspects of MOS. As for the above, my interpretation is that the primary objection is the use of words like "historic" and "crisis" and "cod-napped" in the voice of Wikipedia. At least some of those words appear in reporting about the events in reliable sources, in which case they can be placed in quotation marks, with in-line references to reliable sources, to show that it is not Wikipedia using this flowery language. With respect to the balance of quotations and prose, upon scrolling through the article and skimming it, the balance seems fine to me. The quotations impart a flavor to the article that plain prose would not. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. Nothing new has been brought to the table and there was already a fraught GAR awhile ago. Yes, the writing style of this article is unusual for Wikipedia. But there will always be some winner for the award of "most off-beat", if it wasn't this article it'd be something else. I don't see any actionable complaints about factual accuracy. If this article is in the top 1% most ratio of quotes-to-prose of a GA, well, again, something has to be there, there will always be a GA with the most quotes. Per Jonesey95, lots of quotes enables transmitting some of the inherent ridiculousness of the situation while not using Wiki-voice as much. It's fine. SnowFire (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been pinged to this discussion (and the previous one) so I'll give my thoughts - the quotations appear to be somewhat excessive. I make use of quotations in my writing for sure, and they are not at all incompatible with GA status, but the giant blockquotes are excessive in my opinion and I think they should be trimmed. I appreciate that some of the giant quotes have been moved into the separate notes section, but there too they are beyond what's encyclopedic in my opinion and my understanding of MOS:QUOTE. There are two instances of sandwiching which should be addressed per MOS:LAYIM which falls within the MOS sections included in the GA criteria. I appreciate the useful work by Jonesey95 to tidy up the refs. This was a good faith GAR by an editor in good standing, and I do not want to see a repeat of the abysmal conduct directed at the nominator at the previous discussion here. You can disagree, even strongly, without insulting other editors and I'm pleased that so far no personal attacks have been flying here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your thoughts. Which quotes in particular do you think are "beyond what's encyclopedic"? I imagine we're on a similar page here but would want to confirm (the last time I made any minor solo edits to quotations I received some quite forceful pushback). Cpotisch (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You never made any "minor solo edits" -- you made one gigantic edit which eviscerated the article (cutting it literally in half) and turned it into a mishmash of simple declarative sentences [1]. You did have one earlier edit [2] (adding the "Essay-like" tag) which carried the edit summary, "the article’s prose is does not flow naturally and does not synthesize sources to nearly the extent that it should" – whatever "does not synthesize sources" could possibly mean. EEng 13:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The two blockquotes that are in templates, along with the large quote under the Second Cod section which takes up the vast majority of that subsection. It's a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that we don't just quote others but rather summarize what others have said. I don't buy the arguments of "people just don't like the lighthearted tone"; my issues are with excessive use of quotations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entire existence of this GAR and the opener's long-winded arguments can be boiled down to a single much-shorter quote: "This is again a broader issue with the article; the lighthearded tone I think goes beyond what I think is welcome". Oh no! We have a Wikipedia article that doesn't treat a wooden fish effigy with the seriousness it deserves! Someone call the fire department!

To be serious: there is absolutely nothing in the GA criteria saying that we must avoid lightheartedness. The closest is #4 on neutrality, and that merely states that we must represent the mainstream opinion(s) on this topic accurately. If mainstream opinion is that the Sacred Cod is somewhat silly, then it is not a violation of #4 to present it as somewhat silly; indeed, that should be a requirement. Any GAR based on a different premise is a botch before it even started and should be closed quickly to put it out of its dry-hearted misery. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the subject is “somewhat silly” and that the article can reflect that. Where I disagree is that silly quotes should not be included simply because they are silly. I’m on my phone so I have to circle back tomorrow for specifics, but there are inline and block quotes in this article that ramble and could be dramatically cut down to get the same fun information across. Cpotisch (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you spare us that, and tell us which of the GA criteria aren't met? Since it's been explained to you now OVER and OVER that MOS compliance (and MOS:QUOTE) don't apply, can you find something other than quotes to complain about -- something relevant to GA -- or else give a rest? EEng 05:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is arguing for a dry or boring article, and I've had disagreements with reviewers of my own writing to defend language with some level of lightheartedness or non-seriousness. In my current FAC I have argued in favor of the retention of this non-serious quote from a locomotive builder to a customer: I have never furnished Flag Staves. They are expensive and boyish ... One pump is sufficient... You paid $800 less for an engine than I have ever sold before. You should not expect too much in the way of extra furnishing. The issues here are beyond tone - the quotations are excessive in length. My example here is around 200 characters, well within a reasonable length. What's not reasonable is having a 1200 character blockquote in the top of the history section or a 750 character blockquote thrown in the middle of the body. I included a 520 character humorous quote in Nashua, Acton and Boston Railroad, but I set it off to the side instead of throwing it in the middle of the body and crowding the text. In Hartford and New Haven Railroad, I wrote in wikivoice An extension of the Middletown Railroad, appropriately named the Middletown Extension Railroad, was chartered in 1857... I provide these examples to counteract the narrative here that anyone critical of aspects of the article simply can't handle an article that isn't completely serious in tone. The article can keep a lighthearted tone, but proper writing should summarize the quoted material and only keep as direct quotations the most interesting bits which don't lend themselves to being summarized or would lose meaning and/or humor if so. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Sacred_Cod/2&oldid=1236188712"