Talk:Nampa figurine

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nampa figurine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 13:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Review

• I'll take this on for review as part of the Women in Green Good Article Editathon -Mujinga (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Template

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

• Looking at this version
• No high percentages on earwig, I wanted to check the highest match but it didn't load so I'll return to that
  • Bizarre, I checked it again and now it gives a 53% hit with source1, picking up things I noted below. The two 14% hits I wanted to go back to check aren't anything.
• Article is stable but actually also very new
• It has a decent focus and it is neutral
• Images currently on article are relevant and appropriately licensed. Perhaps a p;icture of Nampa the place could be added, although I didn't find much. Failing that, maybe a pic of Holmes and/or Wright?
• It's not a GA requirement but ALT text is always welcome on images per MOS:ALT for accessibility

Prose

• Lead - I made some copyedits, feel free to revert or discuss
• (also known as the Nampa Image or the Nampa Doll) - if these are in bold I'd like to see redirects for them
• "1.5 inches (38 mm)" so this refers to its height or length?
• "concluded that the piece could not have been made" - "who concluded that the piece could not have been made" ?
• "The figurine has often been compared to the Venus of Tan-Tan" - suggest another sentence to explain what the venus of tan-tan is and why it is comparable
• Charles Francis Adams Jr. alongside a team of archeologists were contacted" - was contacted or maube you want to rephrase
• "in his assessment of the rock layers, would conclude" - concluded - i can see your last edit was chopping out some woulds, so hopefully you'll agree here
• "Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews would argue" - argued
• "clay balls" - were they made by people ?
• "Additionally, the first humans were estimated to have come to the Americas only 13,000 to 13,500 years ago" - the tense feels off here, depending on what exactly you want to say. I'm reading it as a continuing from " At the time of discovery", so then I'd suggest "Additionally, the first humans were thought to have arrived in the Americas only 13,000 to 13,500 years ago" or similar
• "..once directed attention to the character of the incrustations of iron upon the surface as indicative of a relic of considerable antiquity. There were patches of anhydrous red oxide of iron in protected places upon it, such as could not have been formed upon any fraudulent object." - it's long enough to be blockquoted per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE but I'm not sure if it really needs to be. If it is blockquoted, it doesn't need the quotes.
• Further, it is G. F. Wright being quoted in that quote, not Fredrick Ward Putnam
• "Powell would state the toy was nearly identical" - first time that toy is mentioned, so it woudl need contextualizign - presumably you mean Powell thought it was a toy
• The American Antiquarian and Oriental Journal can be italicized
• 'Members of the Pocatello Indians were later" - Pocatello Indians can be wikilinked, first mention in text body
• "would echo similar claims the figurine was a hoax" - suggest "would echo similar claims that the figurine was a hoax" but that might be a BR-Eng/US-Eng thing
• "Due to the controversial circumstances under which the artifact was found, the Nampa figurine has been used by creationists to support their claims" - i know what you mean, but i think it's worth another sentence saying what their claims are
• Charles Sellier and David W. Balsiger have claimed the artifact is evidence of the Genesis flood narrative in Christianity - is this what Wright was doing too, or a distinct and separate theory?

Spotchecks

• 1: The figure was presented to Fredrick Ward Putnam, who stated:[1]"..once directed attention to the character of the incrustations of iron upon the surface as indicative of a relic of considerable antiquity. There were patches of anhydrous red oxide of iron in protected places upon it, such as could not have been formed upon any fraudulent object." - as mentioned above, it is G. F. Wright being quoted in that quote, not Fredrick Ward Putnam, so this needs rewriting
• 1: listed as October 2012 but source says Spetember-October 2012
• 1: as look further into this source, I wonder what makes you think it's reliable? i see editors but not an editorial statement
• 1: right now 1 is basically the only source in the "description" section and I'd be happier if there were other sources
• 1: source says "The Nampa figurine (Fig. 1), a small female figure made from fired clay", we say "The Nampa figurine is a small female figure made out of fired clay." so that's too close
• 1: source says: "The Nampa figurine [..] was found in Nampa, Idaho in July of 1889, by Mark A. Kurtz, a respected local businessman. Kurtz and his business partners were drilling for water" , we say "The figurine was found in Nampa, Idaho in July 1889 by Mark A. Kurtz, a local businessman. Kurtz and his business partners were drilling for water, hitting a depth of 320 feet (98 m) while lining the bore hole as they went", also rather close
• 1: "The figure was found to be well worn with faint markings that may have represented clothing or jewelry around the chest and neck. The right leg of the figure was broken off." - not seeing this in source?
• 1: Frank Fanning Jewett is F. F. Jewett in source?
• 2: we say: "The figurine has often been compared to the Venus of Tan-Tan" - this is not mentioned in the source. also is http://www.badarchaeology.com/ a reliable source?
• 7: we say: "The figurine is now housed in the Idaho State Historical Society Museum". Source says "Today, the Nampa Image is located in the Idaho State Historical Society Museum in Boise". So the source backs the info, but is https://www.onlyinyourstate.com/about/ a reliable source? it appears to be user-generated
• 12: we say: Carl Feagans, an expert in pseudoarchaeology, has claimed the figurine is a hoax. Feagans argued that during the time at which the figurine was found, archeological hoaxes were commonplace. Feagans compared the figurine to the Cardiff Giant, another archeological hoax at the time, and affirmed that the Nampa figurine was a 19th century Native American doll. Furthermore, Feagans would cite Frank Fanning Jewett's replication as evidence that the artifact was not stained by iron oxide deposition but rather contained iron oxide during its original firing. the source is Feagans' blog, so he may be a subject area expert but we'd need another source to say he is "an expert in pseudoarchaeology". Regarding "Furthermore, Feagans would cite Frank Fanning Jewett's replication as evidence that the artifact was not stained by iron oxide deposition but rather contained iron oxide during its original firing", I don't think that is a good summary of the source which says "Perhaps this was the prevailing scientific assessment of the 19th century, but what, precisely, is Cremo’s excuse for failing to recognize that iron oxidation occurs on clay when intentionally fired this way."
• SHOUTING in ref 6
• 16: we say "Other paranormal and occult theories have arisen that the artifact is evidence of a lost civilization or time travel.[16]" - i don't think the source is backing that, it doesn't mention occult theories or a lost civilization, even though it does mention aliens and time travel

Quickfail

• I stopped to have a think and I'm going to quick fail this on verifiability grounds since in doing some spotchecks I encountered various issues such as close paraphrasing, unsourced statements and dubious sources. Any one of these issues would be something to discuss, but rolled together they push me towards the quickfail. If I was going further, I would have wanted to discuss the lead in more detail and the article structure but that could come another time. I'm sorry to quickfail, but perhaps the article was nominated a bit too soon, it is very new. I was also concerned about broadness but I checked a few databases through the wikilibrary eg wiley, jstor, sage and taylor&frances and there isn't really anything there. I hope the comments I've made on prose are useful and wish you the best of luck with the article in future. Mujinga (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

@Mujinga: First and foremost, thank you for grabbing this review, its greatly appreciated. I would argue that FN 1 is reliable as it gives a rather neutral take on the Nampa figurine and a cursory glance shows that it does appear to have some level of editorial standard, plus its a newsletter written by archeologists. I expected some pushback on Fitzpatrick-Matthews' source bad archeology, there is a strong case for WP:BLOG, seeing how his blog is widely cited in other wikipedia articles and I've found a few news publications that make mention of it. The rest is fair criticism though, and I'll get working on it. Do you mind expanding on your Lead and layout concerns? Would you like me to ping you when the page gets renomed? Etrius ( Us) 18:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hiya thanks for the response. On those two sources you mention, I'd be leaning the other way since I would expect that Fitzpatrick-Matthews could be justified as a subject area expert whereas the Pleistocene Coalition News does not seem to have a clear editorial policy and says it's "challenging the tenets of mainstream scientific agendas" which triggers my suspicions. Thus, basing almost an entire section on only this second source is cause for concern. Anyway it's a matter for debate as you suggest; you could always ask at RSN or get the opinion of another reviewer. Regarding article structure, I thought you could merge history and description, since it's strange to me that the discovery comes after the description and also I wasn't sure about the conspiracy theory subheading (and whether Sellier and Balsiger had the same theory as Wright). Regarding the lead, I just meant the lead could better summarise the article and the claims in the lead should be backed by what is said below, always for me a final step to check. I'd be happy to give further comments at a later stage but prob would rather someone else took on the next GA review. All the best, Mujinga (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see. I'll cut Pleistocene for now to be safe. It's unfortunate since PCN is the most explicit in terms of the events leading to discovery so I'll see how much Wright and Powell discuss it. That'll be a few days since I need to go to the library to pull up Powell's article, plus I'm plenty busy in my own life at the moment. Etrius ( Us) 03:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)