Wikipedia:Peer review/Rosetta Stone/archive1

Rosetta Stone

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has undergone significant expansion and improvement over the past month primarily by User:Andrew Dalby and myself. I believe the article is thorough and reasonably complete. This nomination is related to WP:GLAM/BM. The plan is to take this to take this through the Feature Article review/nomination process once it has been properly Peer Reviewed. All comments to improve this article further are welcome!

Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria

Interesting article, but in its current state I'd probably oppose at FAC. First off, note that dablinks and dead external links are among the first things checked at FAC, and you've got both.

I believed I have managed to fix both of these issues. Captmondo (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's more extensive commentary below. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use consistent spelling, for example with artefact vs artifact

Well spotted. Fixed. Also did a quick check to ensure that British spelling terms are used throughout (i.e. "honour", etc). Captmondo (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section headings shouldn't start with "the"; the first section heading is particularly problematic

Have adjusted Andrew Dalby 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to minimize the use of one- or two-sentence paragraphs

Done! Still a couple of examples, but they are (I believe) legitimate. Captmondo (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading should be below footnotes; however, I think you're using it as a bibliography? See WP:Layout

Have reorganised footnotes and references Andrew Dalby 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would highly recommend finding one or more people to copy-edit the article, or asking the Guild of Copyeditors to take a look (I'll take a brief run-through myself later today)

Will seek them out as you suggest! Captmondo (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Years shouldn't be wikilinked

Year references duly de-wikilinked. Captmondo (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use consistent date formatting - 1 January vs January 1

Have chosen the latter form, which is now consistently applied throughout the article. Captmondo (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid wikilinking the same term more than once in article text
WP:W2W - beware of potential editorial bias

I take your point, but can you list an example or two for reference? Captmondo (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Believed to be authoritative yet in many ways misleading" is a good example, but I'm sure there are others. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just saw that one and I think it's OK now -- the comment is revised and footnoted. Andrew Dalby 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"19th Century visitors" -> "19th-century visitors"

In order to be consistent with the rest of the article, have simply made it "19th century visitors" (lower-case "C", no dash. This actually seems to be common usage on the rest of WP from what I can see, for example 19th century. Captmondo (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"19th century" is appropriate when using the term as a noun, as in "The 19th century was a turbulent time". However, when using as an adjective, as in "The 19th-century turmoils resulted in instability", the hyphen is necessary. See WP:MOSNUM. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the WP reference on style. You are quite right, and I have fixed it. Captmondo (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some categories overlap (i.e. you include parent and daughter categories)

Again, is there any WP guidance on this? I could say that "Ancient Egyptian steles" and "nouns" overlap (not a real example, obviously), but the former is arguably more useful. Captmondo (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We agree on this point. You are correct in saying that the article should be in "Ancient Egyptian steles" instead of "Nouns". Per WP:CAT: "Pages are not placed directly into every possible category, only into the most specific one in any branch. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." For example, the article is currently in Category:2nd-century BC steles and Category:2nd-century BC works. The former is a daughter category of the latter, and thus only the former should be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes, I'd already removed a couple but I didn't expect those two to be direct parent-child. I'll do it now. Andrew Dalby 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent in the use of BCE/CE vs BC/AD dating, and in whether you include periods in those abbreviations

Done. Standardized on "BCE", with first reference only wikilinked Captmondo (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... but you left the ADs! I have now changed those. Andrew Dalby 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I rarely write history articles "above" the BCE period. ;-) Captmondo (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try to avoid having images compress section headings

I believe the expansion of the article has helped this to some degree. Given that users may be using any number of browser/display configurations, I am not sure that this is avoidable (especially for anyone using a handheld device). Is there any WP recommended guidance on this? Captmondo (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need citations for everything that could be challenged - for example, your statement that the BM / unnamed officials were "oblivious of these concerns". You must also cite all direct quotes, naming both the author and where you got the quote - for example, Hawass said "If the British want to be remembered, if they want to restore their reputation, they should volunteer to return the Rosetta Stone because it is the icon of our Egyptian identity", but where? When? Under what circumstances?

I have taken care of the first one (replaced it with a less-contentious cited anecdote, and moved the info about it going to Paris for a month further down in the article where it arguably belongs), and Andrew Dalby has taken care of the second by citing the quote as it appeared in the The Daily Telegraph. If there are more, please let us know! Captmondo (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think many formerly unreferenced details are not footnoted. Andrew Dalby 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Idiomatic use" could stand to be trimmed considerably

Have taken out unreferenced items. Andrew Dalby 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you include retrieval dates for some GBooks links, you must include it for all

Left in only those that provide some text, and dated them all. Andrew Dalby 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent in using HarperCollins Publishers vs HarperCollins

Checked publisher names. Andrew Dalby 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Include location for all or none of the publishers

None. Andrew Dalby 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use a consistent referencing style - for example, compare refs 3, 6 and 40. References need massive cleanup before FAC

I'm working on the notes and references now. I'm intending to follow the pattern of Royal Gold Cup, a recent FA on a comparable subject, with brief footnote references in "Notes" followed by an alphabetical section of "References" that gives details of all works cited in the notes. I see no point in Google Books links except where relevant text is available there, so I intend to remove most of the Google Books links (in my mind is that Google Books is an unreliable source on authorship, publication details etc., except when it makes the original title page and credits visible). That's what I'm thinking, but any further comments on this would be welcome. Andrew Dalby 09:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly done now. Andrew Dalby 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done now I think. Thanks very much from me for these extremely useful comments. Andrew Dalby 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Thank you for the detailed critique, and for answering our further queries! Captmondo (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For purposes of FAC, crystalinks.com is not a reliable source

Have replaced the single instance where crystalinks.com is referenced with a print citation that covers the same material. Captmondo (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]