This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
This page adopts a promotional tone and does not present a balanced view of the material. The article is replete with praise and the contribution of this monograph is inflated in my opinion. I do not believe the book meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia based on notability. A quick search on Google Scholar shows that almost all references to the term "revivalistics" are in the subject's own publications, co-authored publications, or reviews of the subject's book of the same title. (I will make no formal mention the fact that most of the saccharine reviews of the book are written by close associates of the book's author, a fact easily detectable to those of us working in this field.) Regardless of notability, the article reads like an advertisement. The only critical discussion of the book is in a LinguistList review; conveniently, this article only cherry-picks the words of praise and ignores the observation that Zuckermann's suggestions about 'revivalistics' are "rarely spelled out as a research program or accompanied by empirical data" and that "the book is too fragmented, does not give a state-of-the-art overview, is anecdotal over large parts, and does not introduce or define key concepts and research methodologies".
Pinging @ Mathglot: here, who I believe has also been looking into this, and @ SuzieMillen: who is the author and main contributor to this article. I believe the best course of action will be to nominate this article for deletion. Sunjaifriþas ( talk) 19:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello @ SuzieMillen:, cc @ Mathglot:. I am jumping into this dicussion because I have flagged the Revivalistics article as WP:PROMOTION. The article is written in a promotional, non-neutral tone. I also consider the article to fall short of the Wikipedia:Notability criteria. I appreciate that SuzieMillen has clarified her potential WP:COI issue. I also note that she has been reading and enjoying the book. However, the Revivalistics article in my view should be nominated for deletion. I intend to do this. Thanks for your attention, Sunjaifriþas ( talk) 23:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello again, Sunjaifriþas. I've moved the discussion here, as it's a more appropriate venue. Regarding your most recent question, absolutely rewriting it would be fine, as a WP:BOLD edit; see also WP:TNT. Given the amount of effort made by one user, it would be worth considering her prior work, especially with respect to keeping any sources that are worthwhile, and keeping any reasonable content based on them, but it's not a requirement, it's more hewing to the theme of collaboration here.
Anything based on an individual editor's interpretation by reading the primary source itself, can and should be discarded (and you shouldn't do any of that, either!). Of course, a few direct quotations from the primary source are fine, and ought to be included as illustrative examples of his key themes, but they should be illustrative also of points that authors of WP:SECONDARY sources are making *about* his book. It's important to avoid any whiff of WP:Original research, even if you are the author of the definitive critique of Zuckerman's work. (I should say, * especially if*, rather than "even if".) The place to start is with a bunch of sources, and if you're thinking of doing a TNT/rewrite, you can either do it piecemeal on the current page if you wish, unless that would make a neither-fish-nor-fowl crazy quilt during the transition, and in that case, you can, if you wish, just start fresh at Draft:Revivalistics, which will give you a blank slate upon which to begin. Click the red link if you wish to go that route. HTH, Mathglot ( talk) 00:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
This page adopts a promotional tone and does not present a balanced view of the material. The article is replete with praise and the contribution of this monograph is inflated in my opinion. I do not believe the book meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia based on notability. A quick search on Google Scholar shows that almost all references to the term "revivalistics" are in the subject's own publications, co-authored publications, or reviews of the subject's book of the same title. (I will make no formal mention the fact that most of the saccharine reviews of the book are written by close associates of the book's author, a fact easily detectable to those of us working in this field.) Regardless of notability, the article reads like an advertisement. The only critical discussion of the book is in a LinguistList review; conveniently, this article only cherry-picks the words of praise and ignores the observation that Zuckermann's suggestions about 'revivalistics' are "rarely spelled out as a research program or accompanied by empirical data" and that "the book is too fragmented, does not give a state-of-the-art overview, is anecdotal over large parts, and does not introduce or define key concepts and research methodologies".
Pinging @ Mathglot: here, who I believe has also been looking into this, and @ SuzieMillen: who is the author and main contributor to this article. I believe the best course of action will be to nominate this article for deletion. Sunjaifriþas ( talk) 19:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello @ SuzieMillen:, cc @ Mathglot:. I am jumping into this dicussion because I have flagged the Revivalistics article as WP:PROMOTION. The article is written in a promotional, non-neutral tone. I also consider the article to fall short of the Wikipedia:Notability criteria. I appreciate that SuzieMillen has clarified her potential WP:COI issue. I also note that she has been reading and enjoying the book. However, the Revivalistics article in my view should be nominated for deletion. I intend to do this. Thanks for your attention, Sunjaifriþas ( talk) 23:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello again, Sunjaifriþas. I've moved the discussion here, as it's a more appropriate venue. Regarding your most recent question, absolutely rewriting it would be fine, as a WP:BOLD edit; see also WP:TNT. Given the amount of effort made by one user, it would be worth considering her prior work, especially with respect to keeping any sources that are worthwhile, and keeping any reasonable content based on them, but it's not a requirement, it's more hewing to the theme of collaboration here.
Anything based on an individual editor's interpretation by reading the primary source itself, can and should be discarded (and you shouldn't do any of that, either!). Of course, a few direct quotations from the primary source are fine, and ought to be included as illustrative examples of his key themes, but they should be illustrative also of points that authors of WP:SECONDARY sources are making *about* his book. It's important to avoid any whiff of WP:Original research, even if you are the author of the definitive critique of Zuckerman's work. (I should say, * especially if*, rather than "even if".) The place to start is with a bunch of sources, and if you're thinking of doing a TNT/rewrite, you can either do it piecemeal on the current page if you wish, unless that would make a neither-fish-nor-fowl crazy quilt during the transition, and in that case, you can, if you wish, just start fresh at Draft:Revivalistics, which will give you a blank slate upon which to begin. Click the red link if you wish to go that route. HTH, Mathglot ( talk) 00:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)