This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I promised at the Reliable Sources noticeboard to show how I'd indicate the improvements needed to this article, because I think it's been done in an inappropriate way.
Having promised this, I got interested and have found some additional sources, so what I promised to do is not so much needed now: instead I have information and sourcing to add to the article. Onward and upward. However, I'm going to keep my promise. So, just for the record, my first edit to the article, in 15 minutes' time, will show how I would have indicated the improvements needed, and the next section on this page, "Better sources needed" below, will show how I would have explained the sourcing issue here. And rew D alby 14:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I've removed all the footnotes. The reason is simple. We have only one source, and it is not accepted as reliable in Wikipedia terms, so other sources must be added. In the meanwhile, it is of no use to the reader or to us to footnote every assertion: it's clear where they all come from, we cite all three relevant sections of Medlands (and they are quite short and internally linked) so any reader can follow our tracks. Sorry, Jeanne and PBS, but footnoting at that point was a waste of time.
Within the footnotes were a few notes on Cawley's sources. These are primary sources (and Cawley cites very few for this person) but I agree it's useful to mention them and I will add (some at least) to the next stage of the article.
Hidden after the footnotes were the following notes on Cawley's weak sourcing, which I paste in here for visibility:
I rewrote the references section, not using the template, because
Marie's husband didn't reign so his deputy shouldn't be described as regent (I think). Cawley uses "administrator" so it is misrepresenting him to cite him for our "regent" claim.
Cawley says Bourges and that's where it was. He also says precisely that it was at St Etienne (the cathedral) so I am adding that information (which I will be able to source).
I've added to the template a note that it's an open wiki
I've added this template at the head, inserting as extra text that the reliability of the one source is questioned (that could be rephrased, of course). And rew D alby 17:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The article was originally entirely based on Charles Cawley's Medlands site: right now it still is. The reliability (by Wikipedia's definition) of that site has been fiercely debated on the reliable sources noticeboard -- see here and here. The current consensus is that we don't count it as reliable because it is not discussed or referenced in professional historical work.
In the case of Marie de Berry that site isn't at its best, anyway, because it cites scarcely any primary sources (such citations are often its strong point). So Wikipedia needs better sources for the Marie de Berry article. Any statement in it should be verifiable, and, especially and most urgently, anything that is "challenged or likely to be challenged". "Better sources" is most likely to mean relevant reliable publications by professionals and academics. Please help if you can, and feel free to discuss the issues here. And rew D alby 17:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm beginning to make some additions and insert references to better sources. This is work in progress. If while it's going on anyone wants to add more, and indeed to cite better sources wherever at present a footnote cites "Medlands", that would be very welcome. And rew D alby 20:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
From my talk page:
-- PBS ( talk) 11:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
AD, I have seen some ancestry trees that contain citations, but it is not something I bookmark, Next time I come across one, I'll be happy to provide a link to the article on your talk page.
To answer your question about "At what stage [could I] justifiably remove your uncited-section tag" as soon as there is one inline citation, but one swallow does not make a summer and it should probably probably be replaced with a refimprove-section tag. When that should be removed is similar to the question about when should {{ refimprove}} be removed (and possibly substituted with {{ citation needed}} on specific points). It is a matter of judgement and consensus.
"'No such list exists for each of the ancestry sections' I'm afraid I don't understand this sentence" OK let me do it with an example: Take the article Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington at the bottom of that article are over twenty navigation boxes. In most cases (every case?) there is a link to an article that contains the information, so one can check the validity of the information in the navigation box by looking at the list to which the navigation box links. For example the first navigation is for his being a member of Parliament for Trim, and the place to query who proceeded and succeed him is in the article Trim (Parliament of Ireland constituency) or to take another one British Ambassador to France etc, etc. So in a reasonable interpretation of WP:CHALLENGE, the place to challenge a navigation box error for British Ambassador to France would be in the article British Ambassador to France.
In this case, the ancestry of this individual can not be easily extracted from any one article on Wikiepdia other than in this specific article, so the entries for ancestry in this article needs to be cited in this article.
In the case of a navigation boxes there are usually only two nodes that need to be correct (and usually a Wikipedia list to find out it if is sourced correctly), but it only takes one entry early on in an ancestry tree to be wrong for large parts of the tree to be inaccurate. Suppose one wrong entry for a grandmother. Such a mistake would mean that a quarter of the tree would be wrong, because no matter how accurate the sources for the linage of the grandmother, if the grandmother's entry is wrong so are all the ancestors who proceeded the grandmother. In this case suppose that the entry "7. Beatrice of Clermont" is wrong and in fact the grandmother was "Reine de Got" ( John I, Count of Armagnac first wife) then the next level (positions 14. and 15.) would be Gaillardde de Got and Pélegrine de Blanquefort (according to the unreliable source which I used to trace the ancestry of Reine de Got).
Does that explain why ancestry trees are not like navigation boxes and why if they are included they need to be sourced? Of course in the long run, if a tree is accurately sourced and the children of a marriage are accurately recorded then like using Logo, Wikipedia articles can fit the information from the mother's tree into half of the ancestry tree for the children. But if the mother's tree is not accurately sourced there is a good chance that the errors will be propagated into the children's trees. -- PBS ( talk) 17:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
full citation needed !--Not clear if this is a book or a journal, and lots of publications probably La Revue des Arts March 1952--! "Revue" is the French for a journal, and there is a
La Revue des arts that started in 1951, so that looks OK doesn't it?{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
full citation neededThis article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I promised at the Reliable Sources noticeboard to show how I'd indicate the improvements needed to this article, because I think it's been done in an inappropriate way.
Having promised this, I got interested and have found some additional sources, so what I promised to do is not so much needed now: instead I have information and sourcing to add to the article. Onward and upward. However, I'm going to keep my promise. So, just for the record, my first edit to the article, in 15 minutes' time, will show how I would have indicated the improvements needed, and the next section on this page, "Better sources needed" below, will show how I would have explained the sourcing issue here. And rew D alby 14:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I've removed all the footnotes. The reason is simple. We have only one source, and it is not accepted as reliable in Wikipedia terms, so other sources must be added. In the meanwhile, it is of no use to the reader or to us to footnote every assertion: it's clear where they all come from, we cite all three relevant sections of Medlands (and they are quite short and internally linked) so any reader can follow our tracks. Sorry, Jeanne and PBS, but footnoting at that point was a waste of time.
Within the footnotes were a few notes on Cawley's sources. These are primary sources (and Cawley cites very few for this person) but I agree it's useful to mention them and I will add (some at least) to the next stage of the article.
Hidden after the footnotes were the following notes on Cawley's weak sourcing, which I paste in here for visibility:
I rewrote the references section, not using the template, because
Marie's husband didn't reign so his deputy shouldn't be described as regent (I think). Cawley uses "administrator" so it is misrepresenting him to cite him for our "regent" claim.
Cawley says Bourges and that's where it was. He also says precisely that it was at St Etienne (the cathedral) so I am adding that information (which I will be able to source).
I've added to the template a note that it's an open wiki
I've added this template at the head, inserting as extra text that the reliability of the one source is questioned (that could be rephrased, of course). And rew D alby 17:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The article was originally entirely based on Charles Cawley's Medlands site: right now it still is. The reliability (by Wikipedia's definition) of that site has been fiercely debated on the reliable sources noticeboard -- see here and here. The current consensus is that we don't count it as reliable because it is not discussed or referenced in professional historical work.
In the case of Marie de Berry that site isn't at its best, anyway, because it cites scarcely any primary sources (such citations are often its strong point). So Wikipedia needs better sources for the Marie de Berry article. Any statement in it should be verifiable, and, especially and most urgently, anything that is "challenged or likely to be challenged". "Better sources" is most likely to mean relevant reliable publications by professionals and academics. Please help if you can, and feel free to discuss the issues here. And rew D alby 17:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm beginning to make some additions and insert references to better sources. This is work in progress. If while it's going on anyone wants to add more, and indeed to cite better sources wherever at present a footnote cites "Medlands", that would be very welcome. And rew D alby 20:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
From my talk page:
-- PBS ( talk) 11:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
AD, I have seen some ancestry trees that contain citations, but it is not something I bookmark, Next time I come across one, I'll be happy to provide a link to the article on your talk page.
To answer your question about "At what stage [could I] justifiably remove your uncited-section tag" as soon as there is one inline citation, but one swallow does not make a summer and it should probably probably be replaced with a refimprove-section tag. When that should be removed is similar to the question about when should {{ refimprove}} be removed (and possibly substituted with {{ citation needed}} on specific points). It is a matter of judgement and consensus.
"'No such list exists for each of the ancestry sections' I'm afraid I don't understand this sentence" OK let me do it with an example: Take the article Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington at the bottom of that article are over twenty navigation boxes. In most cases (every case?) there is a link to an article that contains the information, so one can check the validity of the information in the navigation box by looking at the list to which the navigation box links. For example the first navigation is for his being a member of Parliament for Trim, and the place to query who proceeded and succeed him is in the article Trim (Parliament of Ireland constituency) or to take another one British Ambassador to France etc, etc. So in a reasonable interpretation of WP:CHALLENGE, the place to challenge a navigation box error for British Ambassador to France would be in the article British Ambassador to France.
In this case, the ancestry of this individual can not be easily extracted from any one article on Wikiepdia other than in this specific article, so the entries for ancestry in this article needs to be cited in this article.
In the case of a navigation boxes there are usually only two nodes that need to be correct (and usually a Wikipedia list to find out it if is sourced correctly), but it only takes one entry early on in an ancestry tree to be wrong for large parts of the tree to be inaccurate. Suppose one wrong entry for a grandmother. Such a mistake would mean that a quarter of the tree would be wrong, because no matter how accurate the sources for the linage of the grandmother, if the grandmother's entry is wrong so are all the ancestors who proceeded the grandmother. In this case suppose that the entry "7. Beatrice of Clermont" is wrong and in fact the grandmother was "Reine de Got" ( John I, Count of Armagnac first wife) then the next level (positions 14. and 15.) would be Gaillardde de Got and Pélegrine de Blanquefort (according to the unreliable source which I used to trace the ancestry of Reine de Got).
Does that explain why ancestry trees are not like navigation boxes and why if they are included they need to be sourced? Of course in the long run, if a tree is accurately sourced and the children of a marriage are accurately recorded then like using Logo, Wikipedia articles can fit the information from the mother's tree into half of the ancestry tree for the children. But if the mother's tree is not accurately sourced there is a good chance that the errors will be propagated into the children's trees. -- PBS ( talk) 17:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
full citation needed !--Not clear if this is a book or a journal, and lots of publications probably La Revue des Arts March 1952--! "Revue" is the French for a journal, and there is a
La Revue des arts that started in 1951, so that looks OK doesn't it?{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
full citation needed