Impalement edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for a new peer review because I have followed the very valuable ideas in the previous to create an explicit bibliography, in addition to to create a much improved "Methods" section. I hope that other editors can come with some constructive criticisms to an article I know (finally) regard as "finished" on my part
Thanks, Arildnordby (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Excellent work. You've been putting a lot of work into it I know. GA material now I reckon. Basket Feudalist 19:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Always especially pleasing with a 180 degrees thumb reversal! :-) However, I'll try to pull in a few "quid pro quos" here at Peer Review prior to a GA nomination.Arildnordby (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Excellent work. You've been putting a lot of work into it I know. GA material now I reckon. Basket Feudalist 19:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- You have written a well-researched article which seems to cover the most relevant aspects about impalement. Some things I noted was however that the sections about Africa and America are very brief compared to the sections about Europe and Asia (Africa only about Algiers and America only mention one instance). Although I know the source material generally is far scarcer about the two former continents, I couldn't help thinking that it should be possible to find more information here? Thhist (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- A good point, but it has been, in part, a judgment call on where to put the material, rather than lack of it (but also that). For example, Americas: The only native American case I've found is impalement as occasional punishment for adultery among the Aztecs, and I chose to put that chance reference within the note in "main uses", within the adultery and sexual crimes reference. Furthermore, it was a judgment call as to where to put a couple of references on the Conquistadores in the Americas section; I chose to put them within the references attached to European colonialist practice in "Main Uses". Africa: I have found three accounts on "barbarous customs" of human sacrifice among the natives of Africa, all of which are accessible on the human sacrifice note in "Main Uses". It was a judgment call to merely explicitly refer to Herodotus in the "Human Sacrifice" sub-section, I should possibly include one of the "barbarous customs" accounts there?Arildnordby (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- The guiding principle I chose for the "Regional/Other studies" section in this draft was partially geographic, but mainly distinctiveness of cases or iconic representations. That meant I had to split asunder the geographical surveys I had previously, because those had become repetitive in case type, and also jumping. Thus, reference to Zulus was previously in Africa section, but is now in Main Uses, under military punishments, and Morroccan rebellion punishment is contained within a note there. Egypt is represented with the Thevenot acount, upon which I rely heavily in "methods". Under European colonialists, the Dutch and Portuguese are credited with a couple of examples. India and the Kingdom of Kandy, both hotspots of impalement have been effectively shunted into the memory hole, because they were just "normal" treason/highway robbery cases, adequately represented elsewhere, I think. But, it is kind of difficult to find the appropriate balance on these issues...Arildnordby (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- A good point, but it has been, in part, a judgment call on where to put the material, rather than lack of it (but also that). For example, Americas: The only native American case I've found is impalement as occasional punishment for adultery among the Aztecs, and I chose to put that chance reference within the note in "main uses", within the adultery and sexual crimes reference. Furthermore, it was a judgment call as to where to put a couple of references on the Conquistadores in the Americas section; I chose to put them within the references attached to European colonialist practice in "Main Uses". Africa: I have found three accounts on "barbarous customs" of human sacrifice among the natives of Africa, all of which are accessible on the human sacrifice note in "Main Uses". It was a judgment call to merely explicitly refer to Herodotus in the "Human Sacrifice" sub-section, I should possibly include one of the "barbarous customs" accounts there?Arildnordby (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Procedural note: You have not formally closed the previous peer review. And PR rules require that you wait 14 days before resubmitting an article for review after closure. We can waive that, but please close the first review (follow the instructions on the WP:PR page). Brianboulton (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- I placed the oldpeerreview|archive=1-template on the talk page. My view says that I received a peer review, but that that is now archived. But, I was rather surprised to see that the first Impalement Peer Review still showed up at the peer reviews, but thought the reason for that was that I was the nominator, while others would see it as closed. Evidently, I have made a mistake here, and I don't understand how I should close, other than using that template. I will make a try.Arildnordby (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- It seems I forgot one of the two steps in closure process; now I believ it is properly closed?Arildnordby (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- I placed the oldpeerreview|archive=1-template on the talk page. My view says that I received a peer review, but that that is now archived. But, I was rather surprised to see that the first Impalement Peer Review still showed up at the peer reviews, but thought the reason for that was that I was the nominator, while others would see it as closed. Evidently, I have made a mistake here, and I don't understand how I should close, other than using that template. I will make a try.Arildnordby (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)