Wikipedia:Peer review/Antonio Barberini/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Antonio Barberini[edit]

Toolbox
(more info)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've edited the article extensively so I thought it best not to review anything myself. I'm inclined to think it qualifies as an A Class article, if not FA at some stage. But I'd like some outside opinion, advice and perhaps even copy-editing if others have a few spare minutes. Cheers, Stalwart111 11:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Dana Boomer

First of all, you've done a great job in expanding and improving this article over the last few years! That being said, there is quite a bit of work that needs to be done if you want to take this article to FAC. I don't think either of the WikiProjects that support this article have working A-class assessment groups, so a good article nomination may be a good first step instead of A-class. Some specific thoughts on the article:

  • The sourcing standard is far below what is expected at FAC, or even GAN. Many paragraphs and even full sections are completely devoid of refs. The entire Patronage of the arts section has only one true reference!
  • In a related comment, it may be best to split the notes and the references so it is clear which is which when reading the text. At this point, it looks like some spots have references, when in fact they only have notes that give even more unsourced information. Out of 15 refs at this point, four are actually notes, which reduces the (already slim) referencing by a quarter.
  • What makes ref #4 (Rome Art Lover) a reliable source?
  • For FAC, all book references will need page numbers, publishers, isbns (if available).
  • For FAC, web references will need proper titles, publishers, access dates, and authors if available.

Overall, the prose and layout appear quite well done. The referencing is the biggest hurdle to overcome if you're looking at a FAC nomination. In adding references, I often find that I come across additional information, which could be used to fill in some of the shorter sections (for example, the Early life and Later life sections). Some of the religious personage articles listed at WP:FA may be helpful as guidemaps for what these types of articles look like - sourcing, content and otherwise. I will be watching this page if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Great advice Dana! Thanks for taking the time to look at it. I'll try to prepare some more detailed queries - would be good to get some advice about some specific sources if you have the time. But for now, thanks again! I'll start working on your suggestions. Stalwart111 14:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • On ref #4 - Roberto Piperno is an amateur historian and the site in question is his own private site dedicated to the history of Rome's various buildings and associated historical events. It most definitely falls into the category of WP:SPS. But Piperno (while probably not notable in his own right) has been cited in a number of books as a reliable source of information on his specific subject area. He is variously described as a "scholar" and "expert" and has himself written a number of, admittedly also self-published, books on the same subjects. I wouldn't want to rely on it for notability purposes but my impression was that enough people had expressed view on his "expert" opinion to give his work some semblance of reliability. But I went through exactly the same thing when first added the source and, to be honest, never really entirely convinced myself that a better source couldn't be found - I was just never able to find it. Stalwart111 06:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Fair enough! It sounds like he's a fairly good source. It's always better to have non-SPS sources, but if this is the best you can find, it should be OK. Dana boomer (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Potential sources

I did a quick check around the Internet, and came up with some possible sources:

I don't know how accessible any of these are, or how useful. There are also a ton of mentions of him in other publications on WorldCat, GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar, so there's definitely a good amount of source material out there. Dana boomer (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Awesome, thanks! I had seen one or two of those but for some reason hadn't included them. I start work on adding them. Stalwart111 07:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I spent some time today adding some new sources and citing sources for particular sections where they were missing. In the process I found some more info and expanded the article a bit. Stalwart111 09:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It's looking better! Don't forget that for FA status, you'll need page numbers for books. It's often easier putting them in as you go along, rather than having to go back through all the books later trying to remember what page you got the information from! (Speaking from personal experience here :) Dana boomer (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I considered that. What's the best way to do it for sources cited multiple times? Stalwart111 13:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Are you referencing information to a bunch of different pages, or just a couple? If the latter (say, less than 5), you can just use ref naming, as you already do in the article. If you're using a bunch of different pages, or page ranges (for example, pp. 10-11, 25-28 and 92-94), you can either repeat the information for each separate page range, or you can use a short refs format. See for example the notes/references sections in Cleveland Bay, where all of the information for the refs is given once, and then just the author, title and page number are used for in-line referencing. You can use different combinations of information for the short refs - author, page number is another one, if you don't have multiple works by any one author, or author (date), page number is a third. There are a bunch of different ways to do referencing, but for FAC the only rule is to maintain consistency among all of your references and to, at some point in the page, provide full information for each reference. Dana boomer (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure which way to go. While I'd really like to see the article improved (I think it has been, somewhat) going back and re-referencing (effectively) represents a large amount of work for an article in a subject area where the vast majority of articles are barely referenced at all. Do I work on making one article brilliant, or a bunch of other articles okay? The Cleveland Bay article is awesome, by the way. Congrats. Stalwart111 00:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)