Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alboin/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 SandyGeorgia 20:57, 16 September 2010 [1].

Alboin edit

Alboin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Aldux (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to nominate this article because wikipedia lacks a FA on this period in Italy, so I wrote an article on this Germanic king that played an important role in Italian history, replacing in this way the old Britannica article. I was also motivated by the contrast existing between the paucity of primary sources on him and the interest towards him among scholars. I've put my hands on pretty much all solid sources available in English, and a good amount of those available in Italian, so I'd say it's pretty complete. In addition let me mention here for their contributions Junipers Liege and Hawkeye7 who gave me an important help in making the prose flow better.Aldux (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - no dab links or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—all images are in the public domain or released under free licenses. Imzadi 1979 → 16:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak opposeComment: This is an interesting article about a period in history scarcely acknowledged in the UK. It is clearly the product of much reaserch, and looks like a genuine piece of scholarship, but it may have come to FAC a bit prematurely. It was lightly peer-reviewed in January, but I would like to have seen another PR before its nomination here, concentrating in detail on the prose which is, in some places, distinctly ropey. For instance, in the lead alone:-

  • Three of the four paragraphs begin with "Alboin" and the other with "He" (meaning Alboin). Some variation of phrasing is necessary. And paragraphs should not begin with pronouns
  • "In the first war the Gepids had the upper hand..." This war should be dated, rather than described as "the first"
  • "...to crush his enemies once and for all" is not encyclopedic prose. Perhaps "to defeat his enemies decisively".
  • "Feeling uneasy with the increasing power of his new neighbours, Alboin decided to leave Pannonia, and put together a large motley group of peoples to migrate to Italy, then held by the Byzantine Empire." This sentence clunks several times, and needs rewriting.
  • "The occasion appeared propitious..." What "occasion"?
  • "...passing the Julian Alps." Do you mean "crossing"? I'm not sure that you can "pass" the Alps.
  • "...without meeting opposition took in 569 Milan" Very weird word sequence. At the very least, "took Milan in 569", or better still, "and took Milan in 569 without meeting opposition".
  • "In these years, signs of disintegration and loss of control over the army started to manifest themselves." Who/what was disintegrating, who was losing control? Sentence needs rephrasing.
  • "put in action" → "put into action", and you should say who Helmegis was; don't force your readers to use links.
  • The lead ends inconclusively; it should have a more "rounded" ending, reflecting the article itself.

I have not read the rest of the article closely, but it is likely that the prose issues in the lead will recur in the main text. I also have problems with the maps:-

  • File:Kll.jpg needs to be made more informative, via its caption. As a minimum the three red areas must be identified.
  • I found File:Carphatianbasin gepidia.png almost impossible to read, let alone interpret. In this form, it only adds confusion to the article.
    • I see you have removed the first and replaced the second. I'll comment on the latter as I go through the article. I note, however, that Elcobbola has queried its use (see below). Brianboulton (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure whether the prose issues can be resolved in the course of this FAC; that might depend on the prompt appearance of a copyeditor. It's certainly an article that I would like to see improved to FA status so I hope you will keep working on it. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've solved the issues with the maps. As for the prose, I'll try working on this tomorrow. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment Thanks to the priceless help of Malleus Fatuorum I believe the issues with the lead have been solved; the images also should be OK. The prose flows better after the lead according to Malleus, so I would invite you to either modify your judgement or revise now the main body of the article. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another comment The article has now been fully copyedited for the prose. Aldux (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, certainly the lead is much improved, and I have struck my weak oppose as a gesture of confidence. It may be a day or two before I can read the rest, but I will certainly do so. Brianboulton (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Aldux asked me to help with the prose, which I've done with the lead, and which as he says I think now addresses the valid points Brianboulton raised. From my rather brief look through the rest of the article so far I don't believe that the lead was typical of the article's body, but there are still some prose issues there that need to be sorted out, which I'll raise with Aldux on the article's talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rubens school and Landseer painting images have perfectly clear sourcing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never said Rubens school had unclear sourcing. Please read WP:IUP regarding the other. Эlcobbola talk 00:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Landseer (like Rubens) has been dead long enough that simplying saying that he painted it, and what it is, plus a {{PD-art}} license tag, is all that's needed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That belief is incorrect and does not reconcile with requirement two of WP:IUP or with WP:V. Whether an image has a source and whether an image is public domain are entirely different concepts. Эlcobbola talk 16:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the first image; the map isn't very important to Alboin. As for the second image you objected to, I've removed it and replaced it with another one, which is sourced better. As for the third, I've repaired the broken link. Coming to the fourh, Landseer's picture, I've found a link. If somebody doubts of the authorship, this should be enough. Coming to the last image you've asked about, the map was sourced in the svg version but the author forgot to write down the sources on the gif map so I've put this in order. This should solve all issues with criterion 3, so I would invite elcobbola to revise his judgement.Aldux (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above issues are resolved, but File:SouthEastern Europe mid-6th century AD.png is now a problem. It is a derivative work. The base map was taken from Euratlas.com (the image is, literally, a sea of watermarks). That site does not indicate that its works may be freely licensed. Эlcobbola talk 16:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Thanks for adding new input; but while it isn't a big problem removing the map, I'm not completely sure I can agree with your evaluation. I've looked at the Euratlas map and it is quite far from being the same as the map on wiki: the current wiki map seems to be based on multiple sources, of which euratlas is just one, but please correct if I'm getting it wrong; after all, I'm not as savvy in the image rules as I are in other parts. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a derivative work (see USC 17 § 101). From perhaps a more intuitive angle, consider if the base image were a picture of Bart Simpson instead of a map. Adding transparent colored areas, labels, etc. on top of Bart wouldn't eliminate the copyright. So too is the case with this map. The original work of authorship (the map, the copyrightable aspect) is still entirely perceivable; the modifications may or may not generate a new copyright, but, if they do, that new copyright is an addition to, not a replacement of, the old one. Эlcobbola talk 14:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that issue has been solved now as it was deleted for the reason you indicated. There shouldn't be any more problems with the images now.Aldux (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. Issues resolved. Эlcobbola talk 14:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps this is unreasonable, but when we look at insular early Medieval featured articles, for example Mike Christie's Æthelberht of Kent or Offa of Mercia or Ine of Wessex, there is usually some discussion of the sources near the start. Here we get introduced to sources one at a time, and it's harder to get an answer to the question "how do we know what we know?". For example, I have no idea if Origo Gentis Langobardorum is a source that historians place the least reliance on and the article on it doesn't help me either. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment First of all, let me excuse myself for answering so late to the issues you've raised. I'm a bit skeptical of such an approach, as it goes against how featured ancient and medieval biographies are normally written with the exception of some of the insular ones. My reluctance also comes by the fact that it is a pretty rare thing for biographies, take for example the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani that despite its monstruous size and painstakingly accurate and thorough bibliography for each entry does not contain an introduction on the sources. Let me add that the discussion on the sources is something that should be through the whole article, so to highlite the points where the disputes on the sources are especially important, like concerning the death of Alboin, one of the few points of Alboin's life where there are multiple sources. Passing to the example you've made, those sources that are treated with skepticism by scholars I made this emerge, like with Theophylact and and Gregory, by mentioning the criticism advanced, often posed the sources one against the other and mentioned repeatedly the scholars. For example, Goffart uses the Origo as a source to demolish Thophylact. But in general, keep in mind that the Origo is almost completely subsumed in Paul's work and if you saw the text I placed on the article from the work, its piece on Alboin is extremely brief. Another reason of reluctance is that this is only the first of a revamp of the articles on Lombard kings, and I don't want to impose myself a model that I don't feel comfortable with. Aldux (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the explanation. I did say it might be unreasonable, and it seems that it is. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't there be some information on the etymology of his name? Ucucha 16:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If I can be completely honest, I'm not sure it's a good idea. It's an issue that scholars avoid as trivial, so for this reason it's not mentioned. It's something that involves not the historical figure, but the name in general and as such it should be mentioned only at an article that involves all those to whom rhis name is applied. To make myself clearer, in writing George Washington one isn't expected to expain the etymology of "George". Also, to take a FA frome the period like Ine of Wessex, you'll see no etymology of the name is present. Aldux (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough; I see the etymology is given at Alboin (disambiguation), which seems a better place. (And don't be afraid to disagree with reviewers, please.) Ucucha 17:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's fun to read, and that's generally a good sign :) ResMar 02:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fascinating read - I'd never heard of him before, though I'm certain I was familiar with his assassination. Well-researched too. Other people raise good points about improvements needed in other areas, but I'm happy to support. Aiken (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I helped Aldux a bit with the prose as a result of BrianBoulton's concerns, but that's been my only input into this article, which I believe fully meets the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 14:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query, per MOS, should it be "(530s " or "(c. 530 " ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I raised this with the nominator a little while ago, and "530s" is right. To say "c. 530" means that Alboin was born around that date (obviously), which could for instance be in 529. But he was born between 530 and 539, hence "530s". Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Alboin/archive1&oldid=1085529201"