Talk:Caffo/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I will conduct this review in a few steps.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See below Addressed
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Complies with all major MOS guidelines
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	See below Addressed
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See below Addressed
	2c. it contains no original research.	Looks sourced completely.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See below Seems good.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	See below Addressed
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Seems fine
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	None
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	see below Addressed
	7. Overall assessment.	Coverage may be lacking Good to go!

• 1a: Tense agreement in some places seems out of sync. For example, "He returns to Cybi carrying a red-hot coal in his clothes, without his clothes getting burnt" - This should almost definitely be past tense, as Caffo has been dead for hundreds of years.
  • Historic present tense changed to past tense. Bencherlite^Talk
• 1a: Flow seems confusing. Perhaps it is because of all the maybes and probablies, or it could be from combining ideas that should probably be separate paragraphs, such as in the second paragraph of the article.
  • I've tried to reorder some of the information - how is it now? Bencherlite^Talk

• Looks better. The additional section works wonders. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• 2a: You have two books that may be better to put in the bibliography section.
  • I generally only put books in a bibliography section if they are used for multiple page references; one-off books I keep in the reference section. See e.g. references 39, 42, 69, 75, 80, 81, 82, 109, 135 etc of Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford (an FA for which I am largely responsible). I don't see the point of making readers look in two places for the reference details unless it's necessary. Bencherlite^Talk

• Fair enough. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• 2b: What makes Google Maps a reliable source?
  • Who's citing Google Maps? The farm doesn't appear on it. I'm using the template to link to a variety of map sources, including the Ordnance Survey (which is unquestionably reliable). My understanding was that that template was used rather than a link to a particular mapping website so that people had the choice of formats. Bencherlite^Talk

• Ah... I don't doubt the Ordnance Survey's reliability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• 3a: This is what makes me feel that this article is not ready for GA. I understand that little is known about his life, but I have read the article twice and still don't see it as more than saying

  "Caffo was a sixth-century Christian, son of a nobleman, who is said to have carried a coal in his clothes without injury and was killed by shepherds, possibly for an insult his brother made; he has been venerated as a saint and martyr, as well as had numerous places named after him."

Why is he considered a martyr? Was his Christianity a factor in his murder? When was he sainted? Stuff like this is fairly important.

• • You're entirely right, the article boils down to not much more than you've said (in fact, I'd quibble with "numerous" - a village, a church and a well...). However, this is basically all that is known about him - as far as I can see, the first written records of his life - where he appears as an "extra" in the life of the much more important St Cybi - aren't until c.1200, several hundred years after he lived. Unsurprisingly, detail is lacking. He's a very minor saint in a small corner of Anglesey.
  • If the sources explicitly said that his Christianity was a factor in his death, I would say so. The obvious implication is that it was, otherwise he wouldn't have been regarded as a martyr, but I'm not going to add "he was killed because he was a Christian" if the sources don't explicitly back that up, or you'll rightly tell me off for original research. He wasn't sainted by a pope as would happen nowadays, but that wasn't how the Welsh church operated - I've added a note about that, and that is a good point. Otherwise, I don't think that I can take this any further. Bencherlite^Talk

• I am still somewhat uncertain, as 3500 characters in modern biographies is often classified as a start class. I will ask Quadell for feedback. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• 3b: In a article that is shorter than 3000 characters, I would expect less to be about other people. Take the blurb "(although the number of Caw's children varies from 10 to 21 between different manuscripts)". This could be rewritten to focus on Caffo, perhaps like this: "Caffo is thought to have had 10 to 21 siblings, including... (saints names)" That would keep the focus on Caffo.
  • Rewritten that phrase. Some explanatory context of the people with whom he is associated is necessary, or the reader will wonder who on earth this Cybi chap is. If you can see any other phrases that could be trimmed or removed, let me know and I'll see what I think. Bencherlite^Talk

• Naturally, but showing their relationship to Caffo is paramount. Your rewording seems fine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• 6b: Could at least one image be found, perhaps of the church?
  • GA status does not require that an article have any images. As there are no images of Caffo, I've added one of the church purely to keep you happy; I don't actually think one is necessary when there is a full article on the church complete with images. Bencherlite^Talk

• Indeed it doesn't, but they don't hurt. The image looks fine. I've tweaked the caption and added alt text. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please improve this as best as you can. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this one for review, and I think that our discussion and changes have improved the article. How's it looking now? Just a word of warning that I may not be able to respond now until Tuesday, as it's a holiday weekend here in the UK and I have family duties as ever... Bencherlite^Talk 10:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• You are very welcome. I will check with Quadell regarding the comprehensiveness of the article (for a second opinion). Everything else is fantastic. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps if you (re-)read Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not#(3) Broad in its coverage, you'll see that "comprehensiveness" is not required of a good article, and "arbitrary size restrictions" should not be imposed ("3500 characters in modern biographies is often classified as a start class"). Bencherlite^Talk 11:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion on criterion 3a

This article is about a subject for which few reliable sources exist, and about which little can be reliably said. It's not a slight enough subject to be nominated for deletion or merged into a list, but it's also not ever going to have a respectably-sized article either. This situation comes up quite a lot: minor historical figures, stars invisible to the naked eye, etc.

Usually when such articles are nominate for FA, they are rejected for not having enough sources to support a featured article. But GA standards are more lax. When I review GA noms where the 3a criterion is questionable, I look (Google and online library search) to see if there are more sources available that could give more info. If so, I say it doesn't qualify... but if not, I usually let it slide. (See HD 154672 b, for instance, which is a short article that contains all available information on the topic.)

In this case, there might be more information available, but I can't find any. This source gives more detail, but is clearly not reliable. Project Gutenberg has nothing. I'm pretty confident that I couldn't write a more full article on the topic without sacrificing reliability, so I'd pass it, personally. But different GA reviewers apply different standards, and this is an edge case. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I was leaning towards a pass myself, but I wasn't nearly sure what the standards are at GA. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• I am happy to pass this article. It is now a GA. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)