Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Decipherment of rongorongo

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:08, 29 September 2008 [1].

---

Decipherment of rongorongo

Nominator(s): kwami (talk)

This was part of a longer article, Rongorongo, that was split in two during that article's FA nomination and review. Rongorongo is now FA and appeared as the daily FA on 2008 August 23. The main issue remaining at the time of the split for this half of the original article was that the section on Pozdniakov did not assign the global references to each paragraph and claim; that has now been done. kwami (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Interesting, very interesting; Harvard citations. In the lead:

• "the lack of context such as illustrations in which to interpret the texts" - this could be phrased better; I had to read it twice to understand.

better? kwami (talk)

• "and so may not correspond well to the tablets either." - "so" is not necessary here.

done. kwami (talk)

• "Since the idea was proposed by Butinov and Knorozov in the 1950s, perhaps a majority of researchers have taken the line that..." - "perhaps" a majority of researchers?

yes, but deleted anyway. kwami (talk)

Erm, okay. I'm not sure what you mean by that, though. 23:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• "For those who believed it to be writing, most assumed it was logographic" - "For those... most..." isn't correct.

why not? what would be correct? kwami (talk)

The majority of those who believed it to be writing assumed it was logographic. (?) --Ettrig (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• "irregular pieces of wood, sometimes driftwood," - I'm sorry? Is driftwood not wood as well?

of course, but irregular pieces of wood are not necessarily driftwood. kwami (talk)

Ah, okay. I was questioning the phrasing, actually, but now that I reread it, I erred in that. 23:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• "outline appearance" - "outline" is not an adjective.

attributive noun (though I'd welcome an adjective if you can think of one). kwami (talk)

I was thinking simply of "outlined", though "characteristic" would have to be changed to "characteristically". Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• "human, plant, artifact, and geometric forms" - Firstly, why is artifact linked? Secondly, I'm fairly sure that "artifact forms" doesn't make sense.

done. kwami (talk)

• "and are now scattered in..." I'm not sure why "scattered" is necessary; indeed, it seems not to convey the museum and private collection idea well. I suggest "and are now in various..."

those who have tried studying the texts have expressed frustration that they are scattered across the world in twos and threes. kwami (talk)

Fair enough. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• "None remain on Easter Island." - best merged with the previous sentence.

done. kwami (talk)

• "in the Smithsonian, R and S." - the comma needs to be a semicolon.

no, that wouldn't make sense. kwami (talk)

Another goof on my part. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Working my way through the article. More later. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! kwami (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Responded. One more comment on the lead: Why is "vast majority" in quotes? It reads like scare quotes from where I stand. If it's a direct quote, then a source should be given, but I don't think a fact like that needs to be a direct quote. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a direct quote from the following citation. Will remove. kwami (talk)

More comments - The prose is engaging; a swift reading of the text didn't yield much, though I probably missed many awkward or ungrammatical phrasings.

• "Metoro to decipher four of the tablets by then in his possession" - "by then" is completely unnecessary.
• "including some European words" - redundancy.
• "There are a number of objections to Fischer's approach:" - Clearly, there are "a number" of them. This could be phrased as "Objections to Fischer's approach exist:" or something similar.
• "he dug up some yam shoots..." same as above.
• "From this he deduced that rongorongo is essentially a syllabary with possibly some logographs " - doesn't read well. Suggest "...a syllabary, possibly with..."

Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, None Left. (Hey, if you spelled your name "Nouser Namesleft" /ˈnaʊzɚ ˈnɑːmɨslɛft/, people would scratch their heads over your nationality. "Namesleft" sounds vaguely Slavic.) All done, except for "a number", which is simply common phrasing and IM-not-so-HO flows better. (It's also left over from the other principal editor of this article, whose contribution gets whittled down the more I work on it. I'd like this to read as if it were written by both of us, not just me, and in several places I've tried to preserve the character of his wording.) kwami (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Authentic rongorongo texts are written in alternating directions, a system called reverse boustrophedon.. rongorongo is written as reverse boustrophedon, but written in alternating directions just defines "normal" boustrophedon. jimfbleak (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

okay, changed to "specifically, in a system called reverse boustrophedon." kwami (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments by jimfbleak

• Rapanui – needs linking or explaining. The next (also unlinked) occurrence is Rapa Nui. Is this something different?

Fixed. kwami (talk)

• (Pozdniakov and Pozdniakov 2007:5) etc. I found this disrupted the reading, normally these sources are relegated to notes with an in-line link except where essential

This follows the formatting of the main article when it passed FAC. I find it disrupting to relegate the sources to notes, because I then need to follow each one to see if there's anything there worth reading. kwami (talk)

OK, fair enough - Jim

• The glyphs themselves have a characteristically outlined appearance. – The glyphs are typically outlines?

Okay, better. kwami (talk)

• except for the two tablets in the Smithsonian collection, R and S. - Why are texts in a US museum inaccessible?

No idea. You'd think a state institution funded by taxes would be accessible. I can't even find a copyrighted photo of tablet S that post-dates 1890, when it was acquired by the Smithsonian. kwami (talk)

Fine, just wondered - Jim

• Fanciful decipherments – formatting error in para 3

Where? I don't see anything. kwami (talk)

Nor do I now, must have been a temporary glitch - Jim

• doesn't - (in Sound values para 2) is too informal

Done. kwami (talk)

• References - please assure me that capitalising authors accords with MOS. Foreign language texts need (in German) etc

They're automatically capitalized by the {{aut}} template. They also passed FAC that way on the main article.

OK, can't say I like it, but that's not a FA criterion

Language tags: Done. kwami (talk) 08:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

jimfbleak (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment The article title implies that rongorongo has been deciphered. But it hasn't. Suggested title: Attempts to decipher rongorongo or Rongorongo decipherment attempts. --Ettrig (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. First, decipherment is a process. Many of the refs quoted here are of the opinion that a start has been made to decipherment. Secondly, the word 'decipherment' is often used for a proposal, regardless of whether one accepts it, rather as 'a grammar' is used for a book on grammar. They speak of Fischer's decipherment being spurious, for example. By that definition, there have been dozens of decipherments of rongorongo. kwami (talk) 08:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Choess & Legoktm tried doing something—I'm not sure what—and left a mess, so after trying to fix it I ended up reverting them. Please let me know if it had anything to do with the FAN. kwami (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• ARGH! Your notes section is full of bare links and numbered links. Bare numbers that are external links need to be formatted with at least a title. If the links are being used as sources, they need to give title, publisher and last access date at the very least.

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, they look kinda funny with the forced formatting, but is that what's needed? kwami (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

To me, they look better. More importantly, they not fulfill the MOS. If they are being used as sources, you will need publishers and last access dates, but if they are informational links, you're fine now. I quite honestly wouldn't have the first clue if they were being used either way, so I'm striking my concerns! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I only meant the formatting is now wrong. For example, all of them end in a full stop, even though they may be in the middle of a sentence. kwami (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Can you explore the accessibility issues with the folks who use screen readers? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've taken care of most of the color issues (I have one in-line graphic I need to add), but I have no idea how to add a caption for the blind. kwami (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Color issues should be finished. As for captions, what is appropriate? I've started, but stopped because I'm getting into OR. When we have a glyph as inline text, is "glyph 280" acceptable as a caption, or do I need to say what it is? The problem with that is that it will almost always be OR. kwami (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Done? I've added minimal descriptions ("glyph 6" etc.) to all inline images in order to avoid OR. kwami (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ottava

• Oppose - there are problems with the lead. Too many paragraphs, little structure, and some sentences seem isolated. The last sentence also works as a "see also" section, although there is a wikilink in the first line which covers that. The last paragraph of "Kudrjavtsev et al." section is indented. Any particular reason? There is a large gap in "Barthel" section, which seems inappropriate. Some of your "left" images are at the left, some are indented from the left. Why the discrepancy? It seems inappropriate that "Objections" section is formated as a bulleted list. Why is the final quote in a quote box at the end of the section instead of normal blockquote formatting? Why is the distribution chart in "Statistical evidence" centered and disrupting the formatting? Same with vocalic chart in "Sound values" section. Your reference system with years but without names is severely problematic. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your only real objection (as opposed to a few quick fixes) appears to be the intro. I'd appreciate it if you were specific in what you object to. Other than that, there was only one small fix I could make based on your comments.

[Edit conflict]: the last line can be removed. It's just a clumsy transition. kwami (talk)

Intro: Okay, take a look. kwami (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Kudrjavtsev: the last paragraph is a caption. All captions are all indented.

(waiting for clarification of caption formatting guidelines, which aren't at wiki:captions)

Barthel: I don't see any gap.

Ah, I see. It was a choice between having the calendar run into the next section, or leaving a gap with some screen sizes. Fixed. kwami (talk)

All 'left' images are indented.

(The little one was not; that's been fixed.) kwami (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

MoS doesn't allow "indented" images. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ref? kwami (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It says how to format images. It gives you the left or right ability. It does not say "in addition, you can indent these images". Ottava Rima (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Bulleted list: What would you prefer? Numbers are irrelevant, and a slew of unmarked paragraphs is hard to follow.

(waiting for explanation)kwami (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Bulleted lists have a specific reason in MoS, and I don't think the section fulfills that idea. If it is meant to be a simple list of items and not true encyclopedic section, then it can stay. However, it read as if it was supposed to be a standard section. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

All I can find is "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." In this case, it is important to mark whose opinions are whose, so a bulleted list is appropriate. The reader needs to be able to scan through them: if they dismiss one author's opinion, with a list format they can skip to the next. Without that visual cue, it's easy to get lost. kwami (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"In this case, it is important to mark whose opinions are whose, so a bulleted list is appropriate." I've seen no precedence for such and I would like further examples before I can accept the use of it in this way. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

All long quotes are box quotes. Why should that one be any different?

Already follows MoS. kwami (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked and I don't see MoS allowing this. I responded to it below. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Box quotes are specifically allowed: "Block quotes can be enclosed between a pair of <blockquote>...</blockquote> HTML tags, or {{quotation}} or {{quote}} can be used." kwami (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

None of those are quotes in a box. They are block quotes. Not box quotes. Please stop confusing the two. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You're the one confusing the two. You say {{quotation}} templates violate the MOS, but the MOS specifically allows {{quotation}}. kwami (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that there is a mix and match of various templates. Pick one formatting. Also, I believe that the wording to claim that the "quote" box is a type of blockquote is incorrect, because it does not actually indent from the right side as a block quote would require. Also, the "quotation" box is not a blockquote, because MoS describes such used as images, hence the background and the big black line surrounding it. Block quotes have a clear academic term, and there is only one type of block quote. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

How do the charts disrupt the formatting? They look fine to me.

(waiting for explanation) Never mind. I just removed the centering. kwami (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Should I really repeat "(Pozdniakov and Pozdniakov 2007:xx)" twenty times? I was trying to avoid that.

Asked at relevant MoS page.[2] Waiting for answer. kwami (talk)

I repeat the author names in all of my works, and I don't know of any scholarly works that only use a year. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

MOS agrees with you, and I have added the full names. I'm still waiting to see if there's a way to abbreviate them, but will leave them as is until then. kwami (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You could switch to an inline citation style, which would turn them into foot noted numbers. Or, you could get rid of the years except in authors with multiple works. I don't know really. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

kwami (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my "real objection" happens to be every single point, as each are a violation of specific principles that would deny this being an FA. If you don't see the gap, then I would suggest you to change your formatting so you can, as it shows up quite clearly on multiple computers that I have used. All long quotations shouldn't be in box quotes either. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Gap's been taken care of.

"All long quotations shouldn't": Does this mean "No long quotations should", or "Not all long quotations should"? (Logically it means the first, but you only objected to one instance.) kwami (talk)

MoS is clear - long quotations go in blockquotes or in quote templates. It only provides a limited number of options. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Or box quotes. See above. kwami (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Quotations - requires use of blockquotes. Also, if "the last paragraph is a caption" then I would recommend a formatting overhaul, because this is not in standard caption formatting, especially with this not being within an image tag. These are just the glaringly obvious MoS violations, and this needs a much closer look to find the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like the MoS has changed; the box quotes weren't an issue when the first half of this article went through FAC.

I take that back. Box quotes are still part of the MoS. kwami (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, you confuse boxes with blocks. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you point out the caption formatting guidelines? There's nothing I can see at MoS or Wikipedia:Captions. kwami (talk)

They show how to caption images. All captions are part of the image wiki formatting. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's for thumbs. They say nothing about how to format figures, so the issue is simply undefined in the MOS. kwami (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

We should seek to have it defined. I would be interested in opinions on the matter from the MoS participants. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to note - no where in the MoS does it allow for images to be indented via "::" marks, which many of these images are. I would recommend a closer analysis on this. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a violation of the MoS to do things that the MoS doesn't cover. This wasn't an objection for the previous FAN, which was quite long and involved.

You haven't answered some of my questions, and I can't address your objections if you don't explain what they are. Everything else is done. kwami (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"It's not a violation of the MoS to do things that the MoS doesn't cover" I think we disagree, especially when it comes to an FA page. The MoS tells you how to perform a function. An alternate way should be passed through MoS first. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we do disagree. Many things are absent from the MOS because there is no agreement on a standard. To claim that such omissions define the standard violates the MOS consensus. Other things are not listed because they do not matter, or have never come up. Claiming that something violates the MOS because it's never been addressed is prognostication, which we shouldn't be doing in a FAC. If the MOS addresses this issue in the future, we can of course correct it then. But they haven't had a negative reaction to current FAs that have this formatting. As for my reasons, indenting the figures and their captions, besides being default typesetting in millions of print books, keeps the wiki layout even with the quotations. The MOS does encourage common formatting across an article, which this does, and common formatting with the main rongorongo article is also a prime style consideration. kwami (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is no agreement on the standard, then there is no consensus for the action. FA's have to follow consensus, and if agreement comes up later, then the item will have to be removed. It is better to be safe than have your page go up for FAR. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with kwami on this one. There is no prohibition on using indents to format content within articles. If the editors of the article have consensus to use indents, that is perfectly valid. Where the MoS is silent article editors are free to make their own decisions. Remember that "consensus" doesn't always have to mean consensus of everyone on Wikipedia. If the MoS has nothing to say and kwami is the only(?) significant author, he can have a consensus of 1. Kaldari (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so I don't take too much credit, this was mostly written (and formatted) while part of rongorongo. It was split off during the FAC of the main article due to length concerns. kwami (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"There is no prohibition on using indents to format content within articles" This isn't a talk page where double indentations (or more) are acceptible, and indenting images causes many formatting problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Then it should be discussed somewhere. kwami (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Commented earlier, having read again, and reviewed all comments above, I now think that it is of FA standard. jimfbleak (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. It would be nice (although certainly not required) to see this article use the grouped references feature, so that all of the notes and references are organized as footnotes rather than appearing inline. See Mary Shelley for a nice example of how this could be done. Kaldari (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that's nice! I was looking for something like that when rongorongo went through FAC. There was a big argument about having to lump everything in together in a confusing mishmash, because the MOS didn't specifically allow a split in-line/footnote approach, and the only other possibility anyone came up with was hand numbering the explanatory notes, which of course would be ridiculous to maintain. I wish I'd known about this earlier. I'll look into converting both articles. kwami (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we can't have ref citations in the footnotes, but that's not a big deal. kwami (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! I think it makes the article much easier to read. Kaldari (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't like the article before, but now I find it interesting. DrKiernan (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Although the article reads as quite opinionated and would benefit from further inline citations for the sake of confirmation, I cannot in fact point to specific comments which are unreasonable or counter-intuitive. Minor point: should "Konstantin Pozdniakov" be in bold? DrKiernan (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That was only done because he is not mentioned until well into the section that bears his name. I thought it was clearer to draw attention to his name when it was first mentioned. But there may be a better way to do it, or perhaps it simply isn't necessary. kwami (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I am not sure whether the objections above have been satisfied as some of them I cannot find in the MoS. I feel the editor of the article has worked hard to address all concerns. I find the article fascinating. Minor point: I do not like the sentence "It is not surprising that information provided by an uncooperative and increasingly drunk informant should be compromised." To me it appears unencyclopedic. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Article seems to be in good shape now. Can't find any other suggestions to make for improvement. Kaldari (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note: I cannot decipher how the unformatted notes (example: 4.^ "The Apai text".) correspond to the Bibliography entries; where do I find the publisher, last accessdate, etc? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Cross ref'd the bibliography. Last access date is today. I couldn't figure out how to format them without all that info being highlighted in blue as if it were the name of the link. kwami (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - comment: there are several opportunities in the lead for bolding; should this not be done? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The bolding of key words was removed per MOS. kwami (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.