Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jifna/archive1
- 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:59, 20 June 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): Al Ameer son (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating Jifna for featured article because now, after working on it for over a year, I strongly believe that this Good article deserves the status of a Featured article. It has gone through two Good article nominations (passing the last one) and it has been successfully peer reviewed. Naturally, an FA review is the next step. Al Ameer son (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
- Two deadlinks with the link checker tool.
- What makes the following reliable sources?
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/ofm/mad/discussion/051discuss.html- http://www.jifna.org/History.htm
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=239&letter=Chttp://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/muslimwars/articles/yarmuk.aspxhttp://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htmhttp://www.palestineremembered.com/GeoPoints/Jifna_1225/index.html- http://www.jmcc.org
- http://www.universalworkshop.com/xenophil/pages/Palestine.htm
- Flavius Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book III Ch. III:v Which translation and edition was used? Also, the title should be in italics
- What is "Ber. 44a; TJ, Ta'an. 4:8, 69a" referring to? (I see from the text it's the Talmud, which version? Also, suggest not using abbreviations, not everyone is going to know them)
- Current refs 47 and 48 (About the council and Jifna Today..) are lacking last access dates
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the pointers! I'll fix the ref templates, find an archive for the dead links, and will make the necessary adjustments to the remaining Talmud and Josephus refs.
- As for the reliability of the above sources, most are totally reliable while a few are reliable in particular situations. I don't know how the first source could be questioned since the entire page it links to is cited by reliable authors (Michael Avi-Yonah, Edward Robinson, Herbert Donner, A. Schneider, Tawfiq Canaan, and others). The second, the Jifna Hope Association is arguable because its basically sponsors Jifna, but none of the info it backs is contradictory to the information provided by other source. The 4th and 5th sources have nothing to do with Jifna really-they're just used to back general events like the Battle of Yarmuk and the Six-Day War (they could be removed if necessary). Palestine Remembered is not a reliable source, but when it comes to simple facts like population and elevation, I see no problem using it since the above two figures are supported from actual censuses and atlases. I don'ts see how the JMCC could be questioned for its reliability and the sentence used from the Universal Workshop is backed by this source (Traditional Palestinian Embroidery and Jewelry, by Abd as-Samih Abu Omar (Jerusalem, 1986)). --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. As for specifics, the first site doesn't have an author, and it's sparsely cited (nor does it give full details for what it does cite). If, as you say "Palestine Remembered is not a reliable source", why should it be reliable for the information, rather than citing it to the censuses and atlases? JMcc gives me a malware warning when I go there. The last isn't "backed" by the source, it mentions on the page that some traditional shawls are shown in that work. The FA standard is "1 (c) well-researched: it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations" which is the standard you need to meet.Ealdgyth - Talk 18:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will try to get info from the censuses and atlases that Palestine Remembered used and the JMCC was used by the BBC [2] for a survey on Palestinian views. The JMCC is really a source for surveys and polls in the Palestinian territories. As for the first source, I don't see how it's sparsely cited, almost all of the info is backed by a reference. Anyhow, the editor/publisher of the page is Studium Biblicum Franciscanum - Jerusalem, a Jerusalem-based archaeological group. They have many publications on archaelogical digs in Israel and the Palestinian territories, and manage a museum and library in Jerusalem. Is there a way I could get STF-J to officially pass as a Reliable Source? --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would regard the SBF-J as a reliable source. It seems to be run by the Faculty of Biblical Sciences and Archaeology of the Pontificia Universitas Antonianum in Rome. [3] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it certainly has all the symptoms of being a reliable source, and it has never been doubted before. As for the issue with Palestine Remembered, I have been unable to find anything about the 1922 and 1931 populations of the town in google books or on the web. If anyone has access to those figures, that would be great, but until then, I believe I will be forced to remove those two figures from the article. Luckily, we still have a population figure from 1927. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I would use Palestine Remembered for entirely non-contentious issues like this. I googled a little to see if I could find an alternative source, and I couldn't, but I did find a source who says it was apparently 100 percent Christian in the 16th century, if that's of any interest. It's here, and in case you can't see what I'm looking at (Google Books sometimes shows different people different pages), it's Thomas Evan Levy, The archeology of society in the Holy Land, p. 511, footnote 31. He includes Jifna in a list of cities with a majority Christian population in the 16th century, but of Jifna says it was 100 percent according to Toledano. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it certainly has all the symptoms of being a reliable source, and it has never been doubted before. As for the issue with Palestine Remembered, I have been unable to find anything about the 1922 and 1931 populations of the town in google books or on the web. If anyone has access to those figures, that would be great, but until then, I believe I will be forced to remove those two figures from the article. Luckily, we still have a population figure from 1927. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would regard the SBF-J as a reliable source. It seems to be run by the Faculty of Biblical Sciences and Archaeology of the Pontificia Universitas Antonianum in Rome. [3] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so the first one is acceptable. I'm willing to leave the JMCC stuff out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. That still leaves a number of other sources that need to have their reliablity shown. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just removed the Jewish Encyclopedia reference because it was just an additional source.
I'll remove MidEastWeb and Military History Online (they're just used for general information and I'll replace them with more specific info backed by book sources).I have removed MidEastWeb and Military History Online. I'll remove the the Palestine Remembered info when we could get access to a more reliable source for the 1922 and 1931 censuses.I'm trying to get an archived link to one of the dead links (the Palestinian Association for Cultural Exchange) which will replace Palestine Remembered as the source for Jifna's elevation. On your note about Jifna's population in the 16th century, I have actually included that already with the same source you mentioned actually ;) --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just removed the Jewish Encyclopedia reference because it was just an additional source.
- I will try to get info from the censuses and atlases that Palestine Remembered used and the JMCC was used by the BBC [2] for a survey on Palestinian views. The JMCC is really a source for surveys and polls in the Palestinian territories. As for the first source, I don't see how it's sparsely cited, almost all of the info is backed by a reference. Anyhow, the editor/publisher of the page is Studium Biblicum Franciscanum - Jerusalem, a Jerusalem-based archaeological group. They have many publications on archaelogical digs in Israel and the Palestinian territories, and manage a museum and library in Jerusalem. Is there a way I could get STF-J to officially pass as a Reliable Source? --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. As for specifics, the first site doesn't have an author, and it's sparsely cited (nor does it give full details for what it does cite). If, as you say "Palestine Remembered is not a reliable source", why should it be reliable for the information, rather than citing it to the censuses and atlases? JMcc gives me a malware warning when I go there. The last isn't "backed" by the source, it mentions on the page that some traditional shawls are shown in that work. The FA standard is "1 (c) well-researched: it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations" which is the standard you need to meet.Ealdgyth - Talk 18:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the reliability of the above sources, most are totally reliable while a few are reliable in particular situations. I don't know how the first source could be questioned since the entire page it links to is cited by reliable authors (Michael Avi-Yonah, Edward Robinson, Herbert Donner, A. Schneider, Tawfiq Canaan, and others). The second, the Jifna Hope Association is arguable because its basically sponsors Jifna, but none of the info it backs is contradictory to the information provided by other source. The 4th and 5th sources have nothing to do with Jifna really-they're just used to back general events like the Battle of Yarmuk and the Six-Day War (they could be removed if necessary). Palestine Remembered is not a reliable source, but when it comes to simple facts like population and elevation, I see no problem using it since the above two figures are supported from actual censuses and atlases. I don'ts see how the JMCC could be questioned for its reliability and the sentence used from the Universal Workshop is backed by this source (Traditional Palestinian Embroidery and Jewelry, by Abd as-Samih Abu Omar (Jerusalem, 1986)). --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article isn't comprehensive enough or strong for a featured article. I think a lot of the sections such as economy and education etc could be fleshed out and more sources could be found. You have less than 50 citations. It's a good article but featured quality? Needs a lot of work, as an example: "A legend about Jifna's spring, which the village survived on for centuries, involves it running low on water" -very awkwardly written. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason it's not as comprehensive as one would hope is because the very small size of the village (pop. 1700) and the lack of sources there are on the net about modern Jifna. There's really not much more to write in the Education section other than what's already there. The Economy section could use more info, but I just have had no luck in finding anything else on it. As for the last sentence, I rewrote it to make more sense. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- However, you don't have to only use online sources for articles. In fact, it's encouraged to seek out and find printed sources for articles, as often they are the better sources for information, especially for subjects that predate the web. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes absolutely. I have used 13 books for this article (See Bibliography), but I couldn't find much on modern Jifna i.e. its Economy, Government, Education, Transportation, etc. in books. The books mostly covered the History and Demographics sections, as well as providing some info for the Geography and Culture sections. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- However, you don't have to only use online sources for articles. In fact, it's encouraged to seek out and find printed sources for articles, as often they are the better sources for information, especially for subjects that predate the web. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.