Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sacred Cod/2

Sacred Cod

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Greetings all. The following is a slight rewrite (after receving feedback from @EEng) of what I wrote on the article's talkpage (this is my first time opening a reassessment so I put it in the wrong spot): First and foremost is my concern that this constitutes a dramatic over-use of quotations, mainly because this has resulted in overly-long sentences and paragraphs that hamper reading clarity and fail to add information that our own prose could. As we all know, WP:GACR requires compliance with the manual of style, and MOS:QUOTE discourages excessive quotation use as "incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style", recommending the use of quotation only when it serves a clear clarifying or attributive function. For example, we have:

• "painted to the life" in the very first sentence. I had Googled this phrase and didn't get a result; a second more thorough search after hearing from EEng made clear what this means. However it's still presented in Wiki voice, and it's in the very first sentence. At minimum, inline attribution of the quote would make sense, because even with quotation marks it still reads like we are presenting it as fact.
• "a memorial of the importance of the Cod-Fishery to the welfare of this Commonwealth" also in the first sentence. This is the second in a single sentence and it can be easily and more concisely paraphrased without quotation.
• "historic and continuing symbol", ALSO in the very first sentence. This quote was attached to a broken citation (since fixed by EEng) but said citation is from the Massachusetts legislature, which I would not consider a reliable source on whether its own traditions are "historic."
• A "prehistoric creature of tradition", a couple of sentences later, fitted with alleged attribution to "the authoritative source." What is said authoratative source? It's not cited in this paragraph, and we're now at four quotes in the first two sentences of the article. I also (and admittedly this is subjective, but I think it's all part of the bigger picture) disagree with the structure "if it really existed—". It seems whimsical and loose, and I don't believe that this article being about a somewhat silly subject means that every paragraph should be packed with flowery prose. Most good articles are not.
• Same story in paragraph two. We have a very long inline quote about investigating the significance of the Cod. This could be trimmed dramatically to "to investigate the significance of the emblem" or paraphrased to "to investigate its historical significance." Nothing is added here by the quote and it's far too much information for the lead.
• I also don't think that we should use the pun "Cod-napped" in Wiki voice. This is again a broader issue with the article; the lighthearded tone I think goes beyond what I think is welcome. If we're going to use the pun, say something like "The Sacred cod was briefly stolen by editors of the Harvard Lampoon, in an event later termed the Cod-napping."

To be more specific, WP:GACR has the following requirements:

• "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience"; three quotes in one sentence is not concise, especially given that I've illustrated how said quotes can be trimmed down
• "it complies with the manual of style"; the Manual of Style makes clear (MOS:QUOTEPOV, the "unnacceptable" example) that the mere use of quotation marks does not take a quotation out of Wiki voice. The phrasing in the beginning of the Cod-napping section does this right.

Now scrolling down, you would notice the Second Cod section consists about 80% of a single quote. Said quote is whimsical but imparts minimal information. I fail to see why we can't paraphrase most of it. Then the Third Cod section has a very very long sentence that is again mostly quotes which could be easily paraphrased. Same story on the Committee on History of the Emblem of the Codfish; you don't need a quote to say that they researched and investigated for two months or that they ordered its removal.

Again, in "Cod-napping" and other incidents, you have a sentence that constitutes the entire second paragraph, containing four separate quotes. Also, calling this a "crisis" in Wiki voice seems a little too silly.

My original argument, EEng's reply, and my response to him can be found here. Cpotisch (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)