Talk:Sacred Cod

Good Article reassessment

Sacred Cod

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Kept. The case for delisting rested mainly on the extensive use of quotes and the light tone of the article. There was a rough consensus that some (quoted) humor is acceptable for a topic like this. Opinions were divided on the overall writing style used, but only a minority of participants believed the style was below GA standards. Two examples of sourcing issues were given. While these issues have not been resolved, they did not sway the discussion towards delisting. Finally, I discarded the argument of dead links, as the GA criteria explicitly allow those (WP:GA?) and note that WP:SANDWICH is not part of the GA criteria either. Femke (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

This article should be re-evaluated for Good Article status. Despite a long history of edits, it does not meet GA Criteria: 1a, 1b, 4, and 6b. 1a: there are too many in-line quotes, block quotes, image quotes, external media, and other collections of non-prose items, distracting from the main focus of an article - encyclopedic text. 1b: the Manual of Style is not followed with image sizes, sandwiching media, editorializing, weasel words, and other elements. 4: there is strong editorial bias in the text and quotes given. It is clear that the editor(s) are reflecting the silliness of the topic in the article prose, which is improper. 6b: there are several poor, repetitive, or barely relevant images illustrating the article. The article also suffers from innumerous dead links and run-on sentences. A full source check may be necessary to see if it complies with GA criteria, e.g. sourcing Lovecraft's opinion directly to one of his works of fiction is a nonstarter. ɱ (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• I've suggested before that you look up the term run-on sentence so you won't keep embarrassing yourself by showing you don't know what it means.
• There is no reference to Lovecraft's "opinion", rather the article simply states that amusing is the term Lovecraft employed, which is true. That he put it in the mouth of his narrator is irrelevant.
• What's an "image quote"?
• What "image size" problems are you talking about?
• You say there are "innumerous" dead links. I checked all the cites and found one dead link. Are you unable to count to 1?

EEng 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

No answer. Huh. EEng 02:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Looks fine to me, I must say. There is one silly cn for the direction the cod faces, which is clear from the illustrations. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

  It has clear MOS violations and a "tedious" and "tongue-in-cheek" (improper) writing style, as admitted by one of the article's editors on its talk page. ɱ (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

  as admitted by one of the article's editors on its talk page – I did not "admit", or even say, that the article has a "tedious" or "tongue-in-cheek" style. What I said is that The sources are tongue-in-cheek, and the article, by quoting those sources, simply reflects that for the reader [1]. Tell us now whether you can see the difference between those, because if you can't then you're not competent to participate in these discussions. EEng 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  No answer. Huh. EEng 02:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  That's your opinion, evidently a strong one. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, page seems fine. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
• I've got to say, the crazy amounts of "quotes" and what can only be attributed to inside jokes aren't really encyclopaedic. The lede is particularly bad, as it uses so many tounge-in-cheek puns to explain what the article is about. We aren't an April fools joke - this should be re-written from a neutral tone without the puns. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

What puns in the lead? So many? One, maybe, 'Cod-napping', and that is discussed and well sourced later in the text. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Simply because William F. Galvin refers to it under the pun "codnapping" on a single subpage of his gov't website (actually a digitized version of his weasel-word-filled tourist-oriented guide to the building) does not warrant us to use it throughout an encyclopedia that aims to be neutral and serious. The fact that this article attributes it to "State House officials" is misleading. ɱ (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth seems official enough. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

He wrote that solely for a tourist guide. If I were to quote everything from official tour guides of the tours I've been on, Wikipedia would be a hot mess. ɱ (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

And if everybody went to the same restaurant on the same evening and ordered blintzes, there'd be chaos, but they don't [2]. EEng 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Delist: I can't make sense of the "it's fine" comments that don't address the points raised in the GAR nomination and don't make any case for why this article is "fine" despite the obvious violations of the MOS and the GA criteria. The caption on the Infobox image seems to be an original creation and quite inappropriate. The second sentence on the "Sacred Cod nickname" sentence makes the claim "[w]ithin a few years authors, journalists, and advertisers‍—‌even those far from New England‍—‌were using the term routinely", but this is only cited to primary sources from the era; that seems to be at least skirting WP:SNYTH if not an outright violation. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
• Keep I don't agree with the most specific claims at the top; I'm fine with the "in-line quotes, block quotes, image quotes" also the images. I don't see any "weasel words" (WP's most miscited policy). User:Ɱ obviously has a beef with the article, but I don't share it. Johnbod (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Just because you are fine with it does not make it in-line with Wikipedia guidelines and norms, nor does this April-fools joke fit in-line with the GA status, which represents some of the very best work Wikipedia has to offer. Perhaps reevaluate your standards to align with Wikipedia's, as Wikipedia will not spontaneously align with yours. ɱ (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, which of us has 14 FAs? GA status does not "represent some of the very best work Wikipedia has to offer" - that's FA. There's a huge range of quality in GAs. Also, WP:NPA. You seem rather intemperate over this; perhaps you should go off & calm down. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

FAs that are a decade+ old goes to show you might not understand how things have changed in the last few years. Especially for the FAC process. ɱ (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Where I still regularly participate. Yeah, right. Sadly one thing that hasn't changed much is the uneven quality of GAs. Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

My "fine" was also maligned. The article gives due weight to acknowledging the seemingly lighthearted official policy of the state in its honest honoring of a 'sacred cod' while, at the same time, it adequately encyclopedically covers the importance placed on this rare 238-year old wooden sculpture (the third in an established lineage). In assessing this page about an American-formation era artifact, doubters of its quality should reread the beautifully-put opening caption while keeping the existence of that level of local respect for tradition and symbolism in mind. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This is almost as humorous as the puns in the article, and undoubtedly just as serious. ɱ (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Seriously? Meant every word. It is a 238-year old beloved American artifact and that sense is captured throughout the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. The central issue here seems to be It is clear that the editor(s) are reflecting the silliness of the topic in the article prose, which is improper. It is not improper. There is no rule, in GA or elsewhere, that Wikipedia articles must be dry and humorless, and even less is there such a rule for topics that are notable for being silly (such as this one). The rule is not that humor is outlawed, but rather that the humor should not interfere with being accurate or informative; here I don't think it does. Indeed, I rather suspect that readers of this topic are likely to come to it as a way of seeking out humorous anecdotes about it, and are likely to leave disappointed and uninformed if the humor is excised. This desire to avoid silliness has led the nominator to overreach elsewhere; for instance it also appears to be untrue that the images are poor, repetitive, or barely relevant; they all look relevant and distinct to me. It is also not true that the dead links are innumerous, too many to be counted: I count zero {{deadlink}} tags in the article, a number that is easily small enough for most people to count. I don't think a GA reassessment with such a flawed basis is likely to lead anywhere productive, except as a referendum on Wikipedia:Humor, for which the talk page of that essay might be a more appropriate venue. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: That is not the central issue, I equally listed many. Editorial bias is clear based on the overly generous way the editor(s) portray it and its story. Your analysis is not correct either - we do not need an image of a real codfish, we do not need block quotes or similar obtrusive media in every section, and the images of the exterior of the state houses are completely irrelevant, and do not supply the reader with anything relevant to this "artwork". It is clear that this comment follows a cursory scan of the article. "Deadlink tags" are not necessary to make links work, have you even clicked on the reference links? ɱ (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Well for that matter, an article on the Sacred Cod isn't something we "need", nor is Wikipedia, nor (for that matter) is the entire human race. This isn't about what we "need" but rather what best serves the reader's understanding of, and appreciation for, the subject. You're not speaking to that, just complaining that this article doesn't look like lots of other articles. Vive la différence! EEng 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Delist, as nominator, this article has extensive problems with specific GA criteria. Keep votes have largely thus far not analyzed the criteria or problems discussed in the nomination, and have simply agreed with the unusual writing style. The use of sources, with many unreliable or improperly used to support information, and with many nonfunctioning links, needs to be addressed and fixed. The use of irrelevant images, news clippings, external photographs, etc. needs to be addressed. The issue of unclear prose, cluttered in with first-party narratives in quotes, needs to be addressed. As well, the article violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch more than most any I've read. ɱ (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Just in the lede itself, fitting MOS:WTW: "to the life" - euphemism, "important" - state significance instead, "historic" - simply state years, "creature of tradition" - poetry, "natural habitat" - editorializing, euphemism --ɱ (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

As I say so often in such situations: It was tedious to write, so it should be tedious to read.

Let's see...

• "to the life" - euphemism – Better look up euphemism in a dictionary, or ask your teacher.
• "important" - state significance instead and "historic" - simply state years – The article text reads "a memorial of the importance of the Cod-Fishery to the welfare of this Commonwealth" (i.e. Massachusetts, of which cod is officially the "historic and continuing symbol"). The importance is explained in its own section of the article, and aside from the fact that it's a quotation, how in the fuck are we supposed to "simply state years" instead? What are you even talking about? You seem to not understand what the subject of the article is.
• "prehistoric creature of tradition" - poetry – Again it's a quote, and one which perfectly transmits what's intended. You seem to consider lifelessness a sign of quality writing.
• "natural habitat" - editorializing, euphemism – For the nth time, PLEASE look up euphemism so you can learn what it means. And editorializing too while you're at it. I openly admit that "natural habitat" is meant to make the reader smile, and if you don't like that, tough. Don't smile if you don't want to.

Apparently you've been inhabiting a drab prison of grays and browns so long that you're forgotten there's a big, colorful world out there. Lock yourself in if you wish, but pardon the rest of us if we don't join you there. EEng 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep It's a matter of personal taste whether the verbatim quotes make for choppy reading or, alternatively, give the prose enough verve to be readable instead of impossibly dry. What I'm not seeing is a failure to be, well, encyclopedic. XOR'easter (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. Dunning-Kruger effect, WP:MISSSNODGRASS. Nominator throws around terms such as euphemism, run-on, bias, weasel word, and editorializing without knowing what they mean; seems to think WTW is a list of forbidden words; believes quality articles are written by filling in blanks on a form; etc etc. EEng 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

As stated by others who can see the light of day, this article reads like an April Fool's joke, as humorous as your attempts to insult me. ɱ (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Glad you're enjoying it. Will you be rebutting any of the points I've made, as I've rebutted yours, or will you just sulk off? Either way is fine. But remember to look up euphemism and so on. EEng 21:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

When you're unable to respond substantively I guess there's nothing like some good old-fashioned forum-shopping to keep a crusade alive:

• [3]
• [4]

Planning to recruit anywhere else? EEng 02:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Users are allowed and encouraged to post discussions to encourage a fair consensus. You may be pleased to know that these comments are disheartening, and the widespread endorsements of this absolute mess are holding me back from actively editing here right now. ɱ (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  What I'd be pleased to know, rather than that you're disheartened, is that you've taken on board what Tryptofish said below: One should not confound writing that is skillful and distinctive with writing that is unencyclopedic; this is the former. Most of the criticisms raised here are matters of The Rules^TM, rather than substantive ones about page quality. But you'll probably just ignore that and keep yelling "run-on" and "euphemism" and "bias" at random. EEng 23:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  "skillful and distinctive" is not evident here. It's clear that what amuses some editors in a positive way is seen by other editors as improperly amusing for a site that is meant to seriously introduce facts. We have a bad enough academic reputation as it is. ɱ (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  By "some editors" you mean numerous respected editors and admins -- half of them published (academic!) authors themselves -- with extensive experience shaping and applying Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and editing articles on a wide range of topics. By "other editors" you mean the kid with 5000 edits who rates himself en-2, the snooker editor, and the editor formerly known as Voiceless Labiodental Nasal Stop (whom I will allow others to characterize for themselves). EEng 02:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, forgot to add: Feel free to sputter on about how this is the end of Wikipedia, but until you point to a specific, intelligible issue I won't be responding further. EEng 03:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  Just for the record, although I might be a fish (and even a sacred snooker), I am also a retired university professor, and I think I understand academic writing and academic reputations. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  My point exactly. EEng 00:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep, and endorse EEng's logical explanations of the good faith nominator's points of concern. Being fair, Wikipedia would be enhanced if the page were featured. Every element works in tandem, and to answer just one concern, an image of the building seems topic-relevant as a further understanding of location and artifact importance. One strength are its all-too-Wikipedia-rare notes, which round the page out as a fully informative encyclopedic article. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'll wire the money to the usual numbered account. EEng 03:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe toss in an extra 10%, for the Big Guy. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Resolve facing The issue of which way the fish faces and whether this now reflects the ruling party needs resolution. There are multiple sources saying this but the article takes a different line and this appears to be OR. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not going to get involved in the dispute over the lighter tone, but a Good Article should be consistent on whether its name is properly italicized.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. As for silliness, anyone should feel free to slap me with a sacred trout. Oh wait, you can't, because I'm already a fish. But seriously, I went and looked through the page, and it seems to me to be well within what we expect for a GA, and is really quite well-written and complete. One should not confound writing that is skillful and distinctive with writing that is unencyclopedic; this is the former. Most of the criticisms raised here are matters of The Rules^TM, rather than substantive ones about page quality. Perhaps someone should go through it with a copyedit, though. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

It's been attempted, and at others that EEng effectively holds ownership over. ɱ (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying there. If you cannot make progress at the article talkpage, you can try an RfC. That would probably be more productive than the reassessment here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I should clarify that when I referred to a copyedit, I was saying that in terms of what I would regard as minor edits reflecting feedback from the discussion here, and as a suggestion rather than as a major concern. I didn't mean that to imply that things need to be corrected in order to be kept as a GA. But let me also say that if an RfC leads to a consensus that is not, however, implemented, that would be something where I would support a delisting. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep I had never heard of this topic until I stumbled on it just now. What a good article! Thanks to those who wrote it. Here in California, we only have a state flag with a Grizzly bear, extinct in this state since either 1922 or 1924, depending on which source you think is best. That flag is emblazoned with "California Republic", a rag-tag entity that lasted for 25 days in 1846. There are humorous aspects to many state symbols. But I read this entire Cod article and found it fascinating, an informative insight into the lore of Massachusetts state government and one of its historically major industries, and quite well referenced. If anyone wants to actually work to improve the article, then maybe it will become a Featured article, alleviating all concerns raised here. Cullen328 (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I had attempted to, but WP:OWNership is strong in this article, and needs to be broken. Your endorsements of this violating editor are not helping. ɱ (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Is this about your dispute with another editor more so than this specific article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullen328 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I have had no dispute - I attempted to edit this article to fix obvious MOS issues. When rejected, I reanalyzed the article and it became clear that it fails multiple GA standards. Any attempt to gloss over the immensely glaring issues reads to me as a bad-faith assessment. ɱ (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Clearly, many other editors disagree with your assessment, and we work based on consensus here. Cullen328 (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote, and I don't think this GAR is shaping up to be a fair consensus over the article's quality. Many keep votes simply think the GA bar is lower than this article is. ɱ (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

And they are probably right, which is a perfectly valid reason to oppose here. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at Phineas Gage and Talk:Phineas Gage, another heavily edited by the main editor here. They deflect all edits attempting to improve the mess in the article, and then any attempts to work things out on the talk page are torn apart over walls of text. ɱ (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm strongly tempted to hat everything after Cullen's initial comment, along with potentially a whole lot of stuff higher above, but I won't take it on myself to do so. This is supposed to be a discussion about whether or not this one article is still of GA quality. I support keeping the GA ranking, but that does not mean that the nominator is a bad person for having made the nomination; they aren't. I've long been aware of the ownership concerns, but then again, there have always been multiple editors supporting the way the pages have been written, so there is also a consensus as opposed to the contrary view of a single person. There is blame to go around on both "sides" for how this has gotten sidetracked into personal disputes, and everyone needs to tone it down. Reassessment discussions, like deletion discussions, have a built-in adversarial structure, and it's understandable that editors can feel like this is something with sides, but enough is enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• (Note: I saw this discussion on the Discord, but the person who sent the message has not commented here.) Reluctant keep - I personally don't like the writing style, and EEng's ownership behavior is inane. I'd push back against Tryptofish's claim above that the writing style has consensus; I see no such consensus, on the talk page or even on this reassessment page. Indeed, this article would never pass FAC. But ultimately, it's not poorly sourced—at least after recent efforts—and doesn't have such pervasive grammar issues that would make it comprehensively fail criterion 1(a). Ovinus (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I take your point about consensus. More like local consensus, without a consensus to the contrary. And I'll push back against calling anyone's behavior inane. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Fair enough; struck that. Ovinus (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• Keep - with a sigh of relief as I first thought it was about a different topic. The style of writing is what we call engaging prose. We want our readers to actually read our articles, not use them to fall asleep. It passes all 6 GA criteria. I'm not seeing a valid reason to delist. Atsme 💬 📧 12:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

For those playing along at home ...

... His forum-shopping having failed, the OP is now taking out his frustrations by making WP:POINTy edits adding random inpopcult trivia to other articles [5]. EEng 19:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

(Someone seems to have accidentally deleted the above comment; I've now restored it.)

Following up the above, editors are invited to comment on certain inpopcult items at Talk:Massachusetts State House#Inpopcult trivia. EEng 07:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

2023 reenactment

• [6] "This fish swims upstream: Sacred Cod is carried once again from Old State House to Beacon Hill", Brian MacQuarrie, Boston Globe, January 11, 2023. "To mark the 225th anniversary of the relocation of the so-called Sacred Cod, which hangs above the House of Representative chamber, a replica of the wooden fish was taken along the original route from the Old State House to Beacon Hill." EEng 22:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Samuel Gore

Sources:

• [7] EEng 22:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• [8] Old Landmarks and Historic Personages of Boston, Samuel Adams Drake, p.72

Good Article reassessment (2)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@GAR coordinators: Greetings all. I have strong concerns that this article may no longer meet the standards of a Good Article. I attempted to make these edits and was promptly reverted (and I think responded to in a fairly hostile manner when I sought out consensus on the talk page). These issues persist, and I've found that editors in favor of the current structure of the article are falling back on its Good Article status as a cudgel to push away critics. First and foremost is my concern that this constitutes a dramatic over-use of quotations, which breaks up the prose and in most cases only muddies its meaning. As we all know, MOS:QUOTE discourages excessive quotation use as "incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style" and encourages 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 don't know what this means and Google hasn't been able to help me. Doesn't seem very clarifying.
• "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 is attached to a broken citation, and said broken citation is from the Massachusetts legislature, which I would not consider a reliable source on whether its own traditions are "historic."
  • By the way, this part of the sentence also includes the clarification 'i.e. Massachusetts', which either would be unnecessary if the prior quote were clear, or IS necessary if the prior quote is ambiguous. If this the case, the quote shouldn't have been included in the first place because it doesn't particularly clarify things! We're using a lot of words here to include material that doesn't say all that much, and would be far clearer if paraphrased. And this is all quite literally in the first sentence.
• A "prehistoric creature of tradition", in the very next sentence, 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.
  • Furthermore, we all know from MOS:LEAD that the lead serves to introduce and summarize the article's contents. That is not happening here! The fire that destroyed the first cod is never mentioned again in the article, and I would argue it's simply too small a detail for the lead. The wording here is also a contradiction! "if it really existed" goes directly against the unequivocating statement "the first was lost in a 1747 fire." Again, a needlessly confusing run-on sentence that could be made shorter and clearer if we didn't have to dedicate space to introducing and including quotes.
• 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, later called the Cod-napping."

I'm going to stop with the examples for now, as this is only three paragraphs and the issues are various, but if anyone fails to see how said issues continue in the body, I'd be happy to point them out. I want to approve the article and bring it up to what I would consider GA standard, but it's not feasible when all proposed edits are so forcefully (and I would argue, hostilely) rejected with the justification that it wouldn't be on the list if there were flaws. Let me know your thoughts, Cpotisch (talk) 12:19, 20 July

• Hmmm. Where to start? Well...
  • "painted to the life" ... I don't know what this means and Google hasn't been able to help me. Doesn't seem very clarifying. – To the life is a common expression meaning "exactly like the real thing", which seems very clarifying. Please use a dictionary in the future to learn what things mean without requiring your fellow editors to educate you. Maybe improve your googling skills [9], but honestly, your native shrewdness should have allowed you to work the meaning out for yourself by using what your teacher probably calls "using context clues".
  • "historic and continuing symbol" ... This quote is attached to a broken citation – Here again your googling skills may be wanting. The new URL was easily found by googling General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Ch. 2 §13 [10] (the citation given). I've updated the link, but please in future make an effort fix things like that yourself before wasting your fellow editors' time by making a mountain out of a molehill.
  • said citation is from the Massachusetts legislature, which I would not consider a reliable source on whether its own traditions are "historic." – The cited statute reads, "The cod shall be the fish or fish emblem and the historic and continuing symbol of the commonwealth." So it's not a tradition, it's a fiat. (It immediate neighbors are "Section 12. The lady bug shall be the insect or insect emblem of the commonwealth" and "Section 14. The Boston terrier shall be the dog or dog emblem of the commonwealth.")
  • A "prehistoric creature of tradition", in the very next sentence, fitted with alleged attribution to "the authoritative source." What is said authoratative source? It's not cited in this paragraph – Most stuff in leads isn't supposed to carry citations; in any event the phrase "prehistoric creature of tradition" is repeated in the article body, where it is cited to "A History of the Emblem of the Codfish in the Hall of the House of Representatives", authored by the Committee on the History of the Emblem of the Codfish -- incontrovertibly the authoritative source. If you'd done a control-F for the word "creature", you would have discovered this instead of expecting your fellow editors to do the work for you.
  • The fire that destroyed the first cod is never mentioned again in the article – False. The article body recites that "the State House burned". When you say something "burned", you're saying it was destroyed by fire. I would have thought you'd have known that without having to be told.
  • The wording here is also a contradiction! "if it really existed" goes directly against the unequivocating statement "the first was lost in a 1747 fire." – First of all, presumably where you say unequivocating, you really mean unequivocal -- you might try looking those up in a dictionary (maybe while you're looking up "to the life"). Anyway, the passage in question is

    The Sacred Cod has gone through as many as three incarnations over three centuries: the first (if it really existed‍—‌the authoritative source calling it a "prehistoric creature of tradition") was lost in a 1747 fire; the second disappeared during the American Revolution; and the third, installed in 1784, is the one seen in the House chamber today.

  There's no contradiction. If the first cod really existed, then it was lost in a fire; if not, then not. It's simple. A course on logic might help you.

  • The fire ... I would argue it's simply too small a detail for the lead. – You can argue that, but it's certainly appropriate to mention that there have been three incarnations of the cod, and having done that it's natural to also tell what happened to them.
  • run-on sentence – Please look that up in a dictionary (maybe while you're looking up "to the life" and "unequivocating/uneqiuvocal" and "run-on sentence") so you'll know what it means. There are no run-on sentences in the article.
  • I also don't think that we should use the pun "Cod-napped" in Wiki voice – It's not in Wiki-voice; it's in quotes, as appropriate.
  • say something like "The Sacred cod was briefly stolen by editors of the Harvard Lampoon, later called the Cod-napping. – Since you didn't mean to imply that the Harvard Lampoon was later called the Cod-napping, but you nonetheless did so, you may want to review 8th-grade English. Maybe WP:MISSSNODGRASS can help you.

Well, pointing out all the nonsensical critiques in your grammatically fractured list has indeed been fun, but now we must move on to the real question: exactly which of the GA criteria does the article not meet?

But before you answer that, please do us the favor of reviewing WP:What the Good article criteria are not. It will save us all a lot of time correcting your misapprehensions. I look forward to your answer. EEng 02:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You're being extremely antagonistic in your replies to everyone attempting to improve this article, so maybe you could assume some good faith instead. But I'm going to look past that. Point taken on "to the life" and the fire being included in the body. WP:GACN is an essay, not a guideline, so I'm ignoring that, and frankly you should know better than to reference it.

If you want to look at the actual GAC, you'd notice 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 is about 80% a 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 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.

I would definitely appreciate it if you could critique my ideas (since you clearly understand them) and not resort to sophomoric "wow a minor typo on a talk page!" retorts. Cpotisch (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

They're not minor typos; they're vocabulary and grammar boners that show you're not experienced in writing high-quality prose. And FFS learn how to indent your replied. Now, let's see again:

• WP:GACN is an essay, not a guideline, so I'm ignoring that, and frankly you should know better than to reference it. – Essays have an important purpose, which is to save editors the trouble of repeating common discussion points, for example pointing out common misconceptions about the GA requirements, such as the ones (see below) under which you labor.
• If you want to look at the actual GAC, you'd notice the following requirements ... "it complies with the manual of style" – No, MOS compliance is not a fucking GA requirement, and if you had read GACN like a much more experienced editor suggested you do, you'd know that. (BTW, I'm not saying the article doesn't comply with MOS, just that I don't need to waste time arguing with you about it while you're on your GA delist quest.) So let this be the last we hear of your high-school ideas about quotations.

As for you general writing complaints, I'll refer you to the prior GA review, above on this page. A particularly cogent comment: One should not confound writing that is skillful and distinctive with writing that is unencyclopedic; this is the former. Most of the criticisms raised here are matters of The RulesTM, rather than substantive ones about page quality. There's plenty of other stuff along those lines up there if you care to enlighten yourself about the nature of quality writing that does its job well and gives its readers pleasure. EEng 20:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you care to explain how profanity and talking about my "high-school ideas" and my "teacher", does not constitute a violation of WP:UNCIVIL? Argue the facts, not the editor. This is getting really frustrating as as far as I can tell everyone here (including past editors who you have been even more hostile with) are trying their best to improve the article. Cpotisch (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh sorry, you're not a high school student? You'll forgive my mistake. I am arguing the facts. Fact: you think MOS is a requirement for GA, even though that's twice been pointed out to you as false. Fact: you throw around terms like run-on without knowing what they mean. Fact: after to the life was explained to you, you then went on (over at the GAR) to criticize it as being presented "as fact", when it is indeed fact, as cited in the article body.

Meanwhile, your blatant canvassing [11] (including of the (few) editors who had negative things to say in the last misbegotten GAR) does you no honor, but no hard feelings, I'll just ping in all the other participants. And oh yes, it would have been nice had you made clear here in the thread that you'd actually opened WP:Good_article_reassessment/Sacred_Cod/2. EEng 01:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS is a requirement for the lead, so don’t be disingenuous. I also didn’t canvas in any way; I tagged you and the listed GA project coordinators.

I also only opened the GAR after realizing that the template here was insufficient; you were the only other active editor and you were tagged in it. Bring in whoever you want; doesn’t Change the fact that you continue to make hostile and presumptuous accusations instead of letting your (valid) points speak for themselves. Cpotisch (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS is a requirement for the lead, so don’t be disingenuous. – No, smartypants, the section of MOS relating to leads (WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section) is what's required. Or perhaps you're being disingenous? You've got a lot to learn, see, and the sooner you start talking less and listening more, the better. EEng 02:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose delisting The proposed alternative language The Sacred cod was briefly stolen by editors of the Harvard Lampoon, later called the Cod-napping. is so poorly written that it calls Cpotisch's editorial judgment into question. The notion that essays should be excluded or ignored is strange because widely accepted essays are commonly used in such conversations. For example, the essay Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is extremely influential across the project. I could go on and on, but I will leave that to EEng, and work on other things. Cullen328 (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  It was an example, not a formal proposal. Take whatever stance you want on my editorial judgment, but since it’s clearly a sticking point, how about “The Sacred cod was briefly stolen by editors of the Harvard Lampoon, an incident later termed “the Cod-napping””? Is this egregious?

  And correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that actual policy supersedes essays, even when the latter are of utility. Cpotisch (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  You're unbelievable. So now the Harvard Lampoon is an incident? And what do you mean by "Is this egregious?" Are you asking whether what you just wrote is egregious? (Yes it is, in fact.) Do you even know what that word means? EEng 04:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  First of all, WP:FACRWP:GACR isn't a policy. Second of all, sure, if an essay contradicts a guideline, then the guideline prevails. But if (as here) the essay acts to elucidate the finer points of a guideline, for the benefit of editors (such as yourself) who are otherwise misinterpreting it, then it's a fine and useful thing. This is (unless I've lost count) my third exhortation that you read it, so that you don't keep saying boners like "MOS is a requirement for the lead". 02:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I did read it, and I read the criteria itself. Unless I am catastrophically misreading, it makes extremely clear that the lead section should follow the manual of style. Care to explain how I’m wrong? Be specific as to how this constitutes a “boner”. Cpotisch (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Cpotisch, in the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the saints and apostles, do I need to draw you a picture? In the criteria, where the guideline says, b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation, CLICK THE GODDAM WORDS 'Lead sections' AND SEE WHERE YOU END UP. This, specifically, constitutes a boner in that it's very much like when you got an erection in class and everyone could see it and you were very embarrassed and ashamed, as you should be now. And BTW, criteria is plural -- criteria themselves -- Mr. Writing Expert. You're beginning to look like a WP:CIR case. EEng 04:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Looks like, instead of saying, "Wow, I guess I really was mixed up about the GA requirements and wasting everyone's time", you've decided to open an ANI thread. EEng 12:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah no. I’ve clearly been overruled on the editorial questions, and that’s fine, but you can’t just make a bizarre comment like this last one and expect me to ignore it. Cpotisch (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - While EEng's tone was particularly nasty here throughout and worthy of the block he's received, I have to disagree with both your edits and starting the BRD-cycle discussion in the form of a GA-reassessment. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Whitespace

Apologies @EEng for creating one whitespace issue while trying to fix another. I was hoping that forcing the first heading below the infobox would look ok. I'll just leave a screenshot here so more experienced layout twiddlers can decide if it's an issue worth fixing and/or fixable. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)