Talk:The Voices of Morebath/GA1
GA review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Pbritti (talk · contribs) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 11:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Image review
File:Eamon Duffy (4548480973) (cropped).jpg: what reliable source confirms that it depicts Duffy?File:Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie par Claude Truong-Ngoc octobre 2014.jpg: what reliable source confirms that it depicts Le Roy?Borsoka (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)- If there's an RS requirement on determining that an image is of a person, please let me know (I was not previously aware), but the photo of Duffy looks like this one and the photo of Ladurie looks like this one.
- I am in trouble. :) My instinct suggests that we need a verification, otherwise anybody could add pictures depicting old alcoholics or prostitutes presenting them as someone else. @Nikkimaria: may I ask you to comment on this issue? Borsoka (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- As per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Image_description_pages, "Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken. If such sources are available, it is helpful to provide them." (Of course if there is a reason to disbelieve the identification that is a problem!). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. Now, I understand the logic. Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- As per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Image_description_pages, "Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken. If such sources are available, it is helpful to provide them." (Of course if there is a reason to disbelieve the identification that is a problem!). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- I am in trouble. :) My instinct suggests that we need a verification, otherwise anybody could add pictures depicting old alcoholics or prostitutes presenting them as someone else. @Nikkimaria: may I ask you to comment on this issue? Borsoka (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- If there's an RS requirement on determining that an image is of a person, please let me know (I was not previously aware), but the photo of Duffy looks like this one and the photo of Ladurie looks like this one.
Source review
- Scholarly works of high standards (including several reviews) are cited.
Why are Binski, French, Little, Loades, and Tittler untitled?- Title added for Binski per this. I'm following JSTOR for the others, as no title is given for these particular reviews. I once received guidance in favor of doing the "[Untitled]" approach (though from who and where eludes me at present). I am willing to use the formatted citations of the book that precede the reviews as their titles if that is preferred.
.doi is missing at Tittler.- Done
Do you have information how the work was received among historians of the Continent?Borsoka (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)- I've looked across the Wikipedia Library's resources with one French author, Jean-Pierre Moreau, discussing it a few times. Added from him.
- References 2 (except 2g), 15, 37 checked.
- Inman (2019) is a dead link.
- Duffy would describe The Stripping of the Altars as "a runaway success". According to the cited source, Duffy describes the Reformation as "a runaway success". Borsoka (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Comments
In the first sentence of the main text I would clarify that Morebath was a village in England.- Performed some tweaks to that whole sentences.
..."remote and poor"..."church ales" Name the author in the text, alternatively, delete the quotation marks.- Done. I adjusted the church ales bit but feel like there is punctuation missing there. Should I italicize?
- I like it now, but I am obviously not an authority in English ortography. :)
- Done. I adjusted the church ales bit but feel like there is punctuation missing there. Should I italicize?
Introduce and link Duffy when he is first mentioned in the main text.- Done.
...historian of British religion... Is he? I think he is a scholar of church history in Britain.- Done.
...traditional religious practices... Is the adjective "traditional" necessary?- Done. I wavered on this at first. A crucial element of Duffy's work–beyond just Morebath–is the notion of a traditional English Christianity with roots in the Middle Ages. If you've read the book and came away comfortable dropping "traditional", then I think the amnesia test suggests I ought to remove it.
Do we know why Bruegel's painting was selected for the front page?- French posits that, alongside the other illustrations, the painting "invoke[s] a sense of community and nostalgia for 'bygone' England". I've added that.
I would link "impression" to Impression (publishing).- Done
...their medieval context... Medieval?- Rephrased. Or is the issue that I'm using the adjectival form?
Can we refer to the period of the English Reformation as medieval?- Since the RS does so (and the portion of the book in question is largely concerned with Morebath in the decades preceding the English Reformation), I'd say so. In some contexts, particularly architecture, you can even see references to even the 17th century in Virginia as "medieval".
- Rephrased. Or is the issue that I'm using the adjectival form?
Chapters four and five... Not five and six?- Heckuva a mistake on my end. Fixed.
My problem is that chapter four/the fourth chapter is mentioned twice, but any reference to chapter six/the sixth chapter is missing (although the article writes of the seventh chapter).- I doubled up on typos there. The source is saying that the content previously attributed as the fourth and fifth chapters was in the fifth and sixth. Thanks for spotting that something was funny there.
- Heckuva a mistake on my end. Fixed.
Introduce MacCulloch with one or two words.- Did it in three.
Thank you for this article. I decided to read the book. Borsoka (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Borsoka: Thank you for the review! I'm glad you decided to read the book. My first exposure to The Stripping of the Altars helped guide my interest in Anglican liturgy, though I think I now disagree with some of Duffy's appraisal of that history. Either way, I'm glad to have someone as intrigued by it all as I was! Please let me know if there is anything outstanding; I've tried my best to respond to each issue you raised. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
(Lead:) I would introduce Duffy as a church historian.- Done
(Lead:) ...the English Reformation and Tudor period... Do we need both?- Probably not, removed Tudor period.
(Lead:) ...in a small conservative Catholic community... I would delete "Catholic".- I'm keeping it, as their retention of Catholic practices (rather than embrace of Protestantism) was a driver of conflicts described
(Lead:) ...pre-Reformation English traditional religion... I would delete "traditional".- Done.
(Lead:) Lucy Wooding, a historian of the Tudor period, called the work "invaluable" as "a contribution to debate on the English Reformation" and suggested that Duffy's own views had developed during his time writing the book. Robert M. Kingdon, a historian of the Reformation, acknowledged that the number of wider conclusions that could be drawn from the book was limited but lauded Duffy's "remarkable empathy and impressive technical research skills". Consider deleting the two sentences.- You're right. Done.
Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Rephrase note 3. Borsoka (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Borsoka: I'm traveling this weekend and away from the device I use for most of my editing (as well as my copy of the book). I'll respond more sometime late Sunday/early Monday UTC. My apologies for the delay. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- No problem. Have a nice weekend. Borsoka (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- A swell weekend it was, Borsoka, and I hope it was likewise for you. I think I'm caught up on your comments. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- No problem. Have a nice weekend. Borsoka (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Borsoka: I'm traveling this weekend and away from the device I use for most of my editing (as well as my copy of the book). I'll respond more sometime late Sunday/early Monday UTC. My apologies for the delay. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)