Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dark Archives/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 September 2023 [1].

Dark Archives edit

Nominator(s): Vaticidalprophet 01:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about, when you think about books bound in human skin? Some people think of the French Revolution, the rumoured revolutionary tanneries spreading in propaganda; others think of Nazi Germany, the same grotesque mass dehumanization as the supposed lampshades made from human skin; yet others think of serial killers, individual evil, one-off aberrations of a society that knows better. They're all wrong. The nineteenth-century fad of anthropodermic bibliopegy (I assure you that's what the author calls it) was a practice of respected doctors, high-profile and high-status men acting with the approval of their peers and doing things they never doubted the virtue of for a moment. Medical ethics is a recent creation, a historical aberration; even in the middle of the previous century it wasn't a given that medical school cadavers gave their consent beforehand. Earlier? Do what thou wilt.

Dark Archives is an absolutely fascinating book on this subject. Our article on it, as a minor side effect, actually provides more and clearer background on anthropodermic bibliopegy than the article at that title does. (It's on the list! I'll get to it!) I wrote this explicitly intending FAC, and have gotten it as far as I can on my own; it recently passed a highly complimentary GAN by Premeditated Chaos and survived a solid-views DYK without major issue. Over to you. Vaticidalprophet 01:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:Dark_Archives_cover.png could use a more expansive purpose of use statement, and is the author also the cover designer?
Cover designer and US tag have been added respectively. The purpose of use statement is the one the upload wizard fills in for book covers (which can't be edited in the wizard) -- is there anything particular that's missing to add now? Will bring it up at the FUW's talk to get that fixed in the future if so. Vaticidalprophet 04:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, that's interesting. The version provided by the book-specific template is more comprehensive. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced it with the infobox version from the book template and will see who to poke about possibly expanding the FUW version. Vaticidalprophet 04:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

  • Looks good to me. A fine example of Wikipedia's best work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bneu2013 edit

Will have comments tomorrow. Working on something else at the moment. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest linking first use of "DNA testing" in Background section to Genetic testing.
  • Since this is an article about a book by an American author, shouldn't "rumour" be "rumor"? Ditto for any other British English uses that I missed.
  • Suggest changing link appearance of "New York Times" to "The New York Times".

Support pending comments are addressed. Excellent article. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Bneu2013! I believe these should all be addressed. Vaticidalprophet 09:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Lending my full support now. I'd appreciate if someone else would be willing to take a look at one of my FACs. Bneu2013 (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ian edit

Recusing coord duties to review, it's a fascinating topic and the article reads well. Copyedited per my usual practice, pls let me know if any concerns. I'm leaning support but will await a source review before committing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, the article has had a source review now if you're still interested -- thanks so much for being willing to review! Vaticidalprophet 15:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian. I would normally be thinking about looking at this with a view to closing, but your comment is outstanding. Is it still your intention to review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed the source review had finished and was considering the Archeota thing -- I not sure how we'd class a student publication as a HQRS so I'd be more comfortable ditching it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been able to replace that one between two other cites (the NYT review by Hamblin and an LA Times article). Vaticidalprophet 21:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good show, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Golden edit

I only have two small comments:

  • I suggest providing a brief description of the Anthropodermic Book Project and its activities.
  • In the Scholarship section, the term Anthropodermic bibliopegy is linked for the second time in the article body. — Golden talk 14:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I give some context on the ABP in the synopsis -- they're mostly involved in PMF testing (I assume they do some kind of...outreach?, but I can't find much details on it). Is there any particular context in the background you'd like? I tried to think of ways to revise it, but I ended up with clunky sentences when I did. Regarding the duplink, WP:DUPLINK now permits one-link-per-section rather than one-link-in-the-whole-body. Vaticidalprophet 02:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. That provides sufficient context. I had just expected to see it mentioned at the first reference to the project. — Golden talk 10:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, following the source review. Very good article. — Golden talk 23:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC edit

Putting down my marker for a source review. I reviewed this at GAN and found all my prose concerns resolved by the end, so I'm also a support on prose. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Optional, but author-link may be useful in refs 2 (and 8, 10, 12, 13, 14), 5, and 17
  • All refs are appropriately archived where useful
  • Refs to the primary source are limited and appropriate - referencing things discussed in the book, for example
  • The majority of the sources appear suitable - for the most part, the article relies on scholarly journals, reliable newspapers, and science magazines. A couple of outliers:
    • Archeota is a student publication from San Jose State University. Although it's only used once, it seems to be backing up something non-contentious that's already referenced by a reliable source. Is it necessary?
    • Nerdist is more blog than anything else. Can you sub it for a better source?

That's all I have. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've swapped out Nerdist for a primary interview with UCLA and a conference paper, which is hopefully good enough (coverage is weirdly sparse of exactly what she does even though everyone's enthusiastic to talk vaguely about the connection). Archeota is hard -- I couldn't actually find anyone else clearly say "she went to Europe and America, and nowhere else" rather than vague allusions. Vaticidalprophet 05:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's reasonable. I'm a full support on sourcing and prose. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

SchroCat ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, soz. Been hectic at work for a week or two - will be here shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "A book on the human soul merits that it be given human clothing". I'm not a fan of this at all. It's got no context and, according to MOS:BLOCKQUOTE, a blockquote should only be for forty words or more. We don't tend to have pithy quotes at the start of chapters or sections – that's for books. As a quote box to the side, it may be OK, but not at the start of the body of an article. This would probably be better a bit lower in the description of why some people did this.
  • I presume this is in AmEng? If so, it may have fallen out of favor, not "out of favour"
    • I have...disfavored-the-'favoured' :) (I'm not sold on the interpretation of STRONGNAT that includes "if a work is first published in X country you must use X English even if it doesn't colloquially have 'strong national ties'", but it's the tendency I've been asked for here before, so trying to work to AmEng here.) Vaticidalprophet 11:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Synopsis
  • "librarianism": is that actually a word? Even if it is, is there a way to rephrase it to something that doesn't sound made up?!
    • I ended up removing 'in librarianism' -- it wasn't a great phrasing in the first place. Not sure if it's necessary, as I thought while originally writing that, to specify "other librarians, rather than specifically only members of the Anthropodermic Book Project" (who come from multiple backgrounds). Vaticidalprophet 11:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "discourage their public reveal": is this OK in AmEng? It jars my BrEng ear, but is it's fine in the US, then no problem
Research and publication
  • "disagreed with Rosenbloom's attitude": I'm not sure you've made her point of view clear yet. You've done excellent work outlining the contents, but not her position or thoughts on the practice.
    • Ye-es, will work on that. The Rosenbloom-Needham juxtaposition is the biggest example, but a little hard to fit into the already-very-full synopsis; I'll take a look at what can be revised.
  • This section has only one very short paragraph on the publication. Is there nothing else available to discuss? (Any second editions or reprints, in audiobook format, sales details, book lists, etc. Probably not, or you would have already included them, I'm sure, but worth asking.
    • Certainly worth asking. Book sale numbers tend to be very sad, and accordingly not well-publicized. Even getting much on the agency is unusually good. It's possible this can be expanded over time (we're not so far from publication for the book to have many editions yet), so I'm looking towards it from a future-proofing/living-document perspective. I like your suggestion about combining the recommendations, and will see what can be done there. Vaticidalprophet 11:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
  • I have a bit of an issue with the first paragraph here. It's broad and sweeping in the claims it makes, but bases those claims on only two reviews. The opening sentence "Dark Archives received generally positive reviews" needs a citation as it's OR at the moment. The rest of the paragraph has a series of claims (such as "Commentators discussed", "Several reviewers", "stances were also a subject of reviews" etc) that make this look like a meta review of reviews of the work, but the two sources are just two standalone reviews for the book.
  • "The book was praised by reviewers for its depth of scholarship and its reckoning with ethical issues." Again this is OR and needs a source (even if the sources you use elsewhere in the paragraph are dropped in here to justify it, it still needs a citation)
  • "The writing style, aesthetic sensibility, and philosophical leans of Dark Archives attracted attention from reviewers": Another introductory sentence to a paragraph that is OR without citations
    • Yes, all of these are tricky. I've had the opposite query in the past re. "subsections have insufficient context" and am trying to find the neither-decontextualization-nor-OR middle ground. I've cited the first sentence of "Scholarship" and have currently commented out the other two while deliberating what to do with them. I really wasn't happy with the introductory paragraph myself, so am mulling over it a little, but expect it'll probably be removed. Vaticidalprophet 11:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rosenbloom is a high-profile member of the death-positive movement": the first part of this paragraph would be better suited to the background section. You can then start with "Sheilah Ayers at the University of Lethbridge..."
    • Good idea, will rearrange. (The background was written about a year and a half before the rest of the article due to...editing hiatuses.) Vaticidalprophet 11:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "criticised" x 2 -> "criticized"
Recommendations
  • Is it worth moving this up to the "publication" paragraph? It's a topic that straddles both reception and publication and you're thin on one and full on the other. Just a thought and I'll leave it to you.

Interesting piece – I'll have to get hold of a copy of the book now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your comments! I've given first replies to most of them and will work towards resolving the lot soon. Vaticidalprophet 11:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Working updates: I've tweaked the reception section somewhat to cite more clearly (if creating a bit of a taxi-cab ref rank effect) -- this and other changes can be compared in this diff. I'm still thinking about a good way to make Rosenbloom's stances clearer in Synopsis, but should hopefully get that sorted soon. Vaticidalprophet 16:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Vat - just let me know when you're ready for another look and I'll pop back. If you need any suggestions or thoughts, just ask. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vaticidalprophet, how are you getting on with addressing SC's comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm alright for the reception now and should hopefully have the synopsis resolved in the next couple days for another look (am drafting revisions offwiki). Vaticidalprophet 17:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vaticidalprophet, it has been nearly a week, how is this going? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've restructured the reception somewhat to make the links between citations and statements clearer, and back up some trickier things (e.g. the generalized "positive reception" statement is now sourced to the aggregator Book Marks). This also saw it trimmed a little, which I hope is okay. The synopsis has been expanded to explicitly mention the range in views on this topic -- I think it's still okay on length. I'm struggling with the quote -- I don't see a good place for it much further down, and I think it genuinely works where it is. SchroCat, what are your thoughts at the moment? Vaticidalprophet 00:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support OK. This is much better now and I'm happy to support. I'm still not on board with the quote where it is, but aside from that, it's a great article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2023 (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/Dark_Archives/archive1&oldid=1177531184"