Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dorset Ooser/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2016 [1].

Dorset Ooser

[edit]
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an intriguing and unique artefact from English folk culture; a horned mask (perhaps representing the Devil?) that was brought out for instances of mob justice in the Dorset village of Melbury Osmond during the 19th century. The artefact has attracted the attention of both folklorists and historians although sadly went missing at some point in the late 19th century. The article is currently rated as a GA and it would be great if it could be brought up to FA status; it is a fairly short article so if you have the time and interest then please give it a read and let us know what you think. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just some quick comments:

  • "of Guisard or Guiser, an old term for a Mummer" There are two terms?
  • "term for a Mummer.[4] Hutton instead suggested that the term might be a derivation of Wooset, a term" Repetition
  • An interesting review points towards the possibility of more material; have you had a look at the book? There's a copy in my university's library, if you don't have easy access.
    • I haven't had a look at the book, although I can do so without too much problem. However, from a Google search I can't seem to find any reference to the Ooser inside the book, and of course the book's remit is the medieval rather than the nineteenth century. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've no doubt I'll be supporting... Very well-written. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Josh! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Another small issue: How attached are you to the external links? At the very least, they could be a bit better formatted. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Josh; I have gone ahead and reformatted the external links so that they are standardised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I've had some problems here. While the photograph itself is late nineteenth-century, I can't find any sources in which it was published at the time. Rather, it seems that the photograph might have just been sitting in a museum archive somewhere prior to its appearance on various websites. Conversely, there is a second image, taken at the same time, which was then published during the nineteenth century. I have uploaded this second image as File:The Ooser 2.jpg and hopefully that can be used without any problems, Nikkimaria? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Watch for WP:Overlinking. It is permissible to repeat a link at the first occurrence after the lead if it is considered helpful so you could perhaps justify Margaret Murray, St George's Day and May Day but not Dorchester (linked in the lead, twice in usage and origins, and once in contemporary usage) nor Mummers Play (lead, etymology, usage and origins). There may be others, I don't think the Devil needs linking twice for example.--Ykraps (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the excessive overlinking; no link now appears more than once in the main body of the article. However, I have left the body link to the Devil because – while the concept may be familiar to most readers in those Western nations that have a clear Christian heritage – the idea may not be so familiar to readers from other parts of the world, such as India, which have very different mythological traditions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I often repeat links from the lead in the main body because I believe not everyone reads both so if you think it helps with understanding then I guess that's okay.--Ykraps (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the sentence, "...permitting it to be carried on the shoulders and worn as a mask", unless it's possible to do both at the same time, it ought to read, "...or worn as a mask.--Ykraps (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was in fact used as both at the same time. Given the head's weight and the fact that it was hollow, it was necessary to have it wresting on the shoulder's while a person's head was inside it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah okay, then perhaps it ought to say, "...permitting it to be worn as a mask whilst being supported on the shoulders"? Just trying to remove the ambiguity.--Ykraps (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the sentence, "Dewar also recorded the villagers' claims that the Ooser was brought to the door of a tallet in order to scare the local children...". Tallet is linked to an article about a piece of clothing and clothes don't possess doors.--Ykraps (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Although I'm not entirely convinced about the legitimacy of the main image, I don't know enough to argue the toss. just to say though, that as I understand it, UK copyright law differs from US copyright law, in that a reproduction of a 2D image has rights of its own (See National Portrait Gallery v Wikimedia Foundation for a high profile case on this subject). None of this seems to worry anyone else however so I guess it's okay.--Ykraps (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for your comments, Ykraps! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would read better if it didn't jump straight into Description but at least mentioned origins of some sort....just thinking out loud about this as I don't have a set idea at this point. never mind - not sure it can be done.
  • The article comes over as a little on the 'belief' side with (maybe) a lack of skeptical commentary, but I concede that nothing like that is coming up on Google Scholar so I guess we're pretty comprehensive.

Overall a neat little article and nice read. I support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This FAC has now been open for a month and there are three expressions of support and none of opposition. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a source review that I'm missing? If not, please request one at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests. --Laser brain (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting of refs looks consistent
  • Anon 2006 used 3 times - material faithful to source
  • Anon 2009 used twice - material faithful to source
  • Earwigs' copyvio - clear (some quotes bump up the % but ok)
  • Brown 1952 used once - material faithful to source (also collaborates word origins etc.)

Happy with what I have seen. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you not used: The Dorset Ooser, by Daniel Patrick Quinn. Sure, it's self-published, but hosted by the Morris Men website you're citing. Singora Singora (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I looked at that particular source, but concluded that there wasn't a chance in Hell that it would be classed as a Reliable Source. If Mr Quinn had chosen to publish it elsewhere, such as in the form of a journal article, then it would have been permissible; as it is it is simply a self-published word document found online. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of credibility, how does it differ from "About the Wessex Morris Men" on the website Wessex Morris Men. I mean, if the site is linking to (and hosting) Quinn's PDF, do you think it might be the source for their own content? Singora (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While both sources can be traced to the same website, they are in fact quite distinct in what they are trying to achieve, and accordingly only one would be considered a Reliable Source on Wikipedia. The "About the Wessex Morris Men" page on the Wessex Morris Men website is being used (merely twice) in this Wikipedia article in order to support statements being made about the Wessex Morris Men themselves and the actions of one of their prominent members. This is perfectly okay for us to use, because, according to according to our policy on the issue, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves". Basically it's fine for us to use the Wessex Morris Men website as a source to discuss the Wessex Morris Men. Conversely, Quinn's PDF article, although hosted on the Wessex Morris Men site, is doing something quite different; it goes into detail describing much more about the head, providing an overview of his own historical investigations into the Ooser. This simply doesn't come under the remit of our Reliable Sources policy. I hope that that clears things up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Almost two months have gone by since this article was nominated at FAC, and it currently has three expressions of support, none of opposition, and has successfully passed its image and source reviews. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Dorset_Ooser/archive1&oldid=1079646051"