Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guy Fawkes Night/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 Karanacs 03:31, 9 June 2011 [1].

Guy Fawkes Night

[edit]

Guy Fawkes Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 09:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Fawkes Night was, or is (depending on how you look at it), one of England's most enduring and unique spectacles, celebrated annually on or around 5 November. Initially it commemorated the deliverance of a Stuart king, but it wasn't long before it became embroiled in the religious turmoil between England's Protestant and Catholic religions, the latter banned for several centuries. Lately the day has become overshadowed by imported Halloween celebrations, but its origins are and always have been firmly rooted in English religious history, which is what this article places most of its emphasis on. Parrot of Doom 09:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen on the talk page of this article (Talk:Guy Fawkes Night, a number of editors do not think that this article places enough emphasis on 21st century events, and these issues shoudl be resolved before this article is considered for Featured article status. -- PBS (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please cease canvassing against this nomination.[2][3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

- spotchecks not done

  • No footnotes to Gardiner 2009, Haynes 2005
    • I've moved the former to further reading and deleted the latter.
  • Library of Congress website is currently being updated, so that link is (temporarily) dead
  • FN 25: can we put the subscription notice later, probably after the title? Also, The Times should be italicized, and the article title should be in quotation marks and not italicized
    • That's the way the template formats these things. You'll have to ask on the citation template's talk page if you want that changing.
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first in footnotes
    • I fixed the Eggleston citation.
  • Use a consistent formatting for archived websites
    • Done.
  • FN 62: formatting, page number needed for the "see also"
  • FN 64: formatting
    • Done.
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations, and if you do what info is provided (for example, where in Massachusetts is Harvard UP?)
    • I don't even know where Massachusetts is. I just take the location from the first few pages of the book. If that's what's written there, that's what I use.
  • ISBNs for Further reading books? Page numbers for Paz? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Images are unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page of the article there is disagreement on what should be the first image. -- PBS (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever - I just looked at technical aspects like licensing, that's a layout issue (and a subjective one IMO, but YMMV). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you will not object if I exchange the historical picture for contemporary image at the start of the article? -- PBS (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will. You asked this question weeks ago and found yourself holding a minority viewpoint. Parrot of Doom 15:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks - I looked at the sources during my review. Everything is fine. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First warning

[edit]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Lack of contemporary information. Parrot of Doom is the principal author of the page in its current form, and his introduction to this FA candidate page underlines one major problem with the article: "Guy Fawkes Night was, or is (depending on how you look at it), one of England's most enduring and unique spectacles..." Looking beyond the concept of something being "most unique", the current article evades the question of whether Guy Fawkes Night is or was as described, simply dealing with it primarily as a historical subject, in effect as a sub-page of Gunpowder Plot, with only cursory information on the subject as a contemporary event. In my view, this is the wrong approach, and the event should be treated primarily as a living and developing subject. Failing that, much fuller 21st century coverage is needed. Moonraker (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Fawkes night is not a contemporary event. The contemporary event is Bonfire Night, mostly nothing to do with Fawkes at all. Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, your comment (which even Parrot of Doom disagrees with, see on this page above) confirms that there is a problem. Guy Fawkes Night plainly is a contemporary event, and for the scope of the non-specific page Bonfire Night, essentially a disambiguation page pointing to several different traditions, please see Talk:Bonfire Night. Moonraker (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bonfire Night is the contemporary event, which has very little if anything to do with Guy Fawkes Night. In much the same way that Christmas has very little to do with Saturnalia. Malleus Fatuorum 02:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, your angle is absurd, as Bonfire Night is a variety of contemporary events. Indeed, the Bonfire Night page was a disambiguation page until Nikkimaria (see above) reformatted it, but that is still its character. Bonfire Night does indeed have very little, if anything, to do with Guy Fawkes Night in most parts of the world, we can all agree on that. The notion that the contemporary reality of Guy Fawkes Night should be diverted onto a disambiguation page to assist the pretense that Guy Fawkes Night is no more than a historical subject is so contorted that it hardly needs a reply here. Moonraker (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of our angles is certainly absurd. Let's see what others think. Malleus Fatuorum 03:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When writing articles I tend to weight the subject in the same manner as the sources used. The two main sources for this article, Cressy and Sharpe, pay very little attention to the modern celebration. They do that because today, the day is little more than an opportunity to watch fireworks and a bonfire. Most people have little or no inkling of the history of Gunpowder Treason Day.
My point is, if authoritative sources treat the subject mostly as being historical in nature, then I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same here. Besides which, beyond mention of places like Lewes, already in the article, there really isn't anything noteworthy about the modern celebration, which is fast being replaced by Halloween. If failing to add trivia in the style of "in popular culture" means this article fails to be promoted, then so be it. Parrot of Doom 07:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing at FAC will not be tolerated. I have capped the above commentary from a canvassed editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended commentary moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Guy Fawkes Night/archive1#PBS commentary, moved from main page. Do not continue to disrupt this FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghmyrtle

[edit]

A few days ago (well before receiving this message from PBS, with whom I have had no other direct communication), I posted this message here. I then withdrew it a few minutes later - firstly because it did seem to me that PoD had made some efforts to improve his (sic) article by including a little more information on current celebrations, but also - and more importantly - because I felt (and feel) that, frankly, life's too short to get into these sort of arguments with editors who - whatever their technical skills at article preparation might be - are offensively arrogant and uncivil. Clearly, there are past "issues" between PBS and PoD (and presumably Malleus) which have boiled over into this article - I know nothing about those and have no interest in them. But, so far as this article is concerned, I endorse the points made by PBS, Moonraker2 and others, that it is over-reliant on historical analyses (unsurprisingly as PoD, by his own account, has leaned heavily on academic historical studies) and, to readers who know nothing of the GFN celebrations, the article fails to explain adequately, or summarise, the relationship and overlaps between GFN and "Bonfire Night" as those events are currently celebrated. If the article were titled "History of Guy Fawkes Night", or if the introduction were tweaked to give a better balance, I would have no problem in it being given FA status. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave this commentary here because you entered a comment before the canvassing, but in the future, please confine your statements to the article, its sources, and WIAFA, and avoid personalizing conflicts with commentary about editors-- any more of same will be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth is WIAFA? My fundamental point is that the article, as it stands, should fail FA as it is not comprehensive or balanced (see article talk page). Its apparent "stability" results from the fact that some editors, in response to the attitude of others, have simply given up on the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Umm ... WP:WIAFA (What Is A Featured Article) is why we're here. Please confine your commentary to it, and avoid commenting on editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK (the question is, why "WIAFA", which doesn't seem to be an acronym of anything, but never mind...) Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that an FA needs to be based on the best sources, and that PoD has done a good job of summarising those sources in this article. The problem is that those sources are principally academic histories of the GFN celebrations, rather than descriptions and interpretations of current celebrations. Any summary of the best sources will therefore inevitably show a bias towards historical analysis, rather than presenting a more rounded appraisal of the nature of the current celebrations. The article's author acknowledges that point in this edit. Imagine a high school student in, say, India, who has heard of GFN and turns to WP to find out what it is (not "what its history is", but "what it is"). They would come away from the article very well informed about religious disputes in 17th century England, but much less well informed about what goes on at most GFN celebrations now - fireworks, funfairs, etc., with no sectarian or religious element whatsoever. So, the article summarises the best sources, but does not present a full explanation of Guy Fawkes Night. There seem to me to be two ways forward. One would be to rename the article as "History of Guy Fawkes Night", which would make clear to readers the perspective being offered. The other would be to expand the article (and also improve the balance in the lede) by using less academically robust - but still reliable - sources, including those from popular culture sources, which describe and (if possible) explain the current form of celebrations in different parts of the world and, in particular, the relationship between GFN and "Bonfire Night". Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are new to FAC; if you want other reviewers and delegates to consider your comment, please provide sources you believe should be included for consideration. FAC reviewers are interested in WIAFA, not off-topic tangents and long discussions that may occur on talk. Show us the sources, and please keep it brief. I suspect the concerns could be addressed if the opposers would be begin to supply sources-- that is true at FAC as well as on discussions of text for any article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I am "new to FAC", and frankly doubt if I'll be back. However, I am not merely pointing out shortcomings or writing "off-topic tangents" - I am trying to make positive suggestions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was not my intent to say *you* were engaging in off-topic tangents, rather to explain how FAC works-- I'll expand further on talk, since this page should have been focused on WIAFA and has instead been overtaken by unactionable commentary and opinion. See talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker

[edit]

Imbalanced coverage in the "In other countries" section: Almost all of this section is about North America, and indeed its focus is on New England, where Guy Fawkes Night all but disappeared in the 18th century. The parts of the world beyond the British Isles where the event has actually persisted, and where in some places it is still marked, are reduced to three lines at the end of the section. To me this shows a complete lack of balance, especially as a year ago there was much better information in the article. Moonraker (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is another example of commentary unbacked by any high-quality reliable sources as required by WIAFA-- hence, unactionable. I'm seeing this throughout-- please stay focused on WIAFA and provide examples of problems or high-quality sources to explain issues that should be corrected. Opinion without sources and actionable commentary isn't helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of contemporary information: In the closed section above, Parrot of Doom says "if authoritative sources treat the subject mostly as being historical in nature, then I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same here", but this is a circular argument. The "authoritative sources" referred to focus on the historical aspects of the event but make no claim that it is a dead subject. It is easy to assert that "there really isn't anything noteworthy about the modern celebration", but where is the evidence for that? The claim that Guy Fawkes Night is "fast being replaced by Halloween" may or may not have some grain of truth in it, but the two events co-exist and take place on different days, so the suggestion of replacement is beside the point. I find the reference to "trivia in the style of... popular culture", which clearly means coverage of the contemporary event, very odd indeed. Why should the history of a subject be deemed non-trivial and the present-day reality of it trivial? I have no idea where this presumption is drawn from. It is all very odd.
All here please note, although my attention was drawn to this page in a neutral way by PBS, I was intending to make some contributions to the FA discussion in any event but simply had not been aware that it had started. As a contributor to the article and its talk page, I do not agree with any hint that my input is prejudiced by the note I received from PBS. Moonraker (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No high-quality sources backing this commentary, little actionable commentary here, lots of opinion. Please focus on WIAFA, which requires high quality sources. Your concerns, at FAC or any article, cannot be addressed unless you provide sources to support your proposed text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A FA does not require high quality sources it require reliable sources. Those can easily be provided but there is little point in trying to provide them until there is agreement on the talk page on the direction this article should take. This article is called "Guy Fawkes Night" not the "History of Guy Fawkes Night" it needs a comprehensive coverage of 21 century practices not just the history of the commemorations. This is a discussion for the talk page of the article and to date there is no consensus that this article has comprehensive coverage. -- PBS (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the FA criteria: "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources" (my emphasis). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be an idea for some of those commenting here to actually take the trouble to read the FA criteria, instead of all this "I don't like it" guff. Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, it is interesting that you pick up on a minor detail and do not comment on the substance (quality of sources is not a metric that is measured in Wikipedia policies so it is a matter of opinion what qualifies as a high quality source). This article only has two sentences on contemporary events outside the UK, that is far too little for a Featured Article about a annual current event, which occurs in a number of countries.-- PBS (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting to rectify your misunderstanding of the FA criteria. Though the rest of your argument has been previously raised, I would suggest finding high-quality reliable sources to support your points. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those can easily be provided but there is little point in trying to provide them until there is agreement on the talk page on the direction this article should take. No, that is completely backwards-- there is no point in trying to determine what direction an article should take without first examining what is supported by sources. As of now, there are no talk page archives, but I find no evidence anywhere that anyone objecting to the article has done it based on sources. Anything short of that has no place here at FAC; please keep disruption out of the FAC and focus on sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PBS

[edit]

SandyGeorgia please do not remove my comments from this page. There is absolutely nothing in the WP:WIAFA that say that the conversation about FA needs to be restricted to those points under what procedure did you move my comments to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Guy Fawkes Night/archive1#PBS commentary, moved from main page?

  • (1a) judgement on whether the text is "well-written" is subjective, that there have been repeated changes to the text over the last two months is a fact that indicates that not everyone agrees that it is.
  • (1b) as has been repeatedly raised on the talk page and in edits trying to reinsert deleted text, the article is not comprehensive as it largely ignores contemporary events.
  • (1c) it is not well researched because it is not a comprehensive coverage of the subject.
  • (1d) it is not neutral, as conversations on the talk page indicate, because the current wording is slanted towards the history of the event.
  • (1e)It is not stable, the nominator has been breaching 3RR to keep his preferred version of the text in place. That other editors are not willing to breach 3RR in response does not mean that the article is stable, or that there is a consensus for the current version.
  • (2a)The lead summarizes the article but as the article does adequately cover the subject of "Guy Fawkes Night" the lead does not summarize the topic.
  • (2aa) The appendix section was altered from one close to the structure that recommended by the guidelines to one preferred by the nominator. Changes to the appendix sections to put them back to the standard layout have been repeatedly reverted.
  • (2b)It does not have an appropriate structure as the subject is not covered adequately. Recently repeated attempts to add sections to the article have been reverted by the nominator with little or no attempt to justify those reverts.
  • (2c) No problems whit the citations.
  • (3)There is a ongoing dispute about which is the most appropriate picture to use in the lead.
  • (4)Length. The article does not focus on the main topic. Instead it focus on the history of the main topic. There is more on the history of "Pope Day" (a defunct celebration in the USA) than there is on the national commemorations that take place in New Zealand. Attempts to add sections to encourage more details on contemporary commemorations have been repeatedly deleted by the nominator. -- PBS (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To try to keep this FAC on track and avoid further disruption, I'll remind again that any commentary that involves canvassing or discussing other editors' motives rather than items specifically actionable per WP:WIAFA will be removed to talk. If you, PBS, question my ability to do that, then please take it off the FAC and to the proper forum, so as not to further disrupt this FAC. I see a lot of opinion unsupported by sources in the commentary above-- that is, a good portion of the comment above is not actionable and doesn't help improve the article. Please keep your comments here actionable and focused on WIAFA, by including specific examples of problems you see (for example, 1a, so they can be fixed) and assertions backed by high quality reliable sources that are required for an FA (for example, on 1b, 1c and 1d). Without specifics, the commentary is unhelpful and unactionable. Instability introduced by the FAC process, trolls, vandals, etc is not held against the article; our aim here is to improve the article, and attacking other editors or their motives won't get us there. Specific examples of prose to be improved, sources that have been omitted, etc are the way FACs proceed, and I'm in no mind to tolerate further disruption. I equally expect the nominators to correct any issues that are raised and explained in good faith, once this disruption ceases and reviewers explain their concerns within the bounds of collaborative behavior and civility and the norms of FAC. In other words, all of you, knock if off-- I'm not closing a FAC because of disruption, nor will I promote a FAC where issues aren't addressed. Leave your grudges at the door and move forward-- the behaviors evidenced so far aren't going to produce the desired result for any participant here, but will waste a lot of time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not possible to fix the text when people revet fixes without explaining their reverts on the talk page of the article. If you wish me to I can list dozens of examples, but instead why not look through the history of the article over the last two months? The point is that this FA candidature is premature as there is no consensus as to what focus of the article should have. -- PBS (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, may I ask what the comment "Leave your grudges at the door" is based on? I have observed PBS's input on this article for some months and it is all very calm and rational, with no sign of "grudges". I do not find such an accusation helpful or balanced. If you are going to "take sides" in that way, then may I suggest it would be better for you not to involve yourself? Moonraker (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've posted multiple times attempting to stop the disruption of this FAC, opposers have posted in response several times with opinion and have yet to provide a single source to support their objections. Of course, I'll be glad to remain silent, but I feel it more helpful to let you know that your comments will be ignored until/unless you make them actionable, based on sources, and conforming with WIAFA, and present them in a way that will advance the article rather than personal disputes. If this doesn't happen soon, I will reserve the right to begin removing commentary not backed by sources to the talk page-- the FAC is being disrupted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with some of that, but there is no reply to my question about what "Leave your grudges at the door" was based on. Your comment "attempting to stop the disruption of this FAC" also seems very barbed. I see no one trying to disrupt the FAC, and if that claim is intended to refer to me then I should be grateful if you would withdraw it. Like PBS, I have made criticisms which are intended to be constructive. If mine do not conform with WIAFA, then I am sorry about that, but I have no previous FAC experience and I have commented in good faith. I do not see how deleting reasoned criticisms would help the FAC process. Moonraker (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Truthkeeper88

[edit]

Support Comment and suggestion To keep this FAC easy to follow and not to force reviewers to have to follow changes in the page history, it would be better for editors to post specific issues here and and allow the nominator to respond. I read half the page and intended to finish today and post a review, but it's not worthwhile to read one version of the page only to come back to find a reviewer made changes. Just a suggestion here. Anyway, I hope to get to it today, but it's very hard to follow the additions. Normally in a FAC, suggestions are posted here for everyone to read and the page is left as static as possible so the nominator/s can work. That doesn't seem the be happening and is making is hard for the rest of us to review. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried as much as I'm able to keep this article intact, but it seems that others are intent on creating havoc, and forcing the premature end of this FAC. I expect I'll be blocked soon enough. Parrot of Doom 14:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime will start adding comments - slowly (and I may not get done, sorry):

  • The "Religious significance" section is difficult to get through for someone not at all familiar with that very complicated period of English history. I don't think the first sentence works. Somehow need to tie-in and / or explain / incorporate the new service from the CofE. Anyway, I do know that about that period, but need to come back and re-read it.
    • Another editor added the opening line about the new prayer, it's a useful addition but I hadn't noticed it. I've moved it up into the preceding section, along with the Act of Parliament, and shortened it slightly as the prayer's abolition is mentioned later in the article. Parrot of Doom 14:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking Lewes earlier - I think at the moment it's linked quite low down. Also, just out of curiosity - why Lewes? Was it tradition or something else that has made Guy Fawkes night celebrations there particularly spectacular? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lewes is wikilinked four times in the article, unless you meant another form of link? I'm not sure what your question is aimed at, do you mean "why focus on Lewes in this article" or "why are the modern celebrations in Lewes so prominent"? Parrot of Doom 14:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I was being unclear. I meant take out a link (which I've gone ahead and done) and why is are celebrations in Lewes so prominent? Is it a Kentish thing, or tradition, or what? I'm just curious - that's all.
  • Suggest adding a date, decade for the emergence of Halloween in England. Also maybe for Diwali too, and I'd mention that Diwali is a Hindu festival. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence is confusing: "Gunpowder Treason Day was exported by English and later British settlers to colonies around the world". The unfortunate truth is that most of on my side of the Atlantic don't know how to distinguish between English and British, so the "English and later British settlers" doesn't make sense. I'd try to recast the sentence. Also, I'd make that sentence the topic sentence for a smallish para at the beginning of the section and clarify to where exactly, according to the source, it was exported, ie. America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the West Indies and so on. I think the Boston section should stand alone. Boston is relevant because it was established as a religious colony (not all of them were) and if the source supports it, I'd clarify that. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, I'd love to. One of the reasons for some of the dispute summarised above is the lack of detail on how exactly British Commonwealth countries celebrate the day. This isn't through want of trying - believe me, I've looked long and hard to find more information, but if those sources are available, I've been unable to find them. IIRC Sharpe mentions something about young boys in the Caribbean who burnt bonfires on 5 November, but this seems anecdotal. I recall an author mentioning in one source that some religious communities, forced from Colonial America during the American Revolution, took the 5 November celebration with them. Unfortunately this is about as much as I've found. If though we can find some good sources on this point I don't believe it would warrant more than a short paragraph - compared with 400 years of religious turmoil, class-based violence and public spectacles, a few bonfires and fireworks being burnt in distant lands to celebrate an almost forgotten king's survival seems somehow trivial to me. Parrot of Doom 21:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The truth is I was never entirely happy with "English and later British", it wasn't a change I made, but I let it pass because of the problems hinted at in the commentary further up this page. I don't think we need to qualify the nationality of the settlers, it would hardly be French or Dutch settlers who exported what is primarily an English custom, so I'll remove it. Parrot of Doom 16:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok I've expanded the point you made on Boston, here Parrot of Doom 17:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Religious significance"
    • A lot going on in this sentence, might be better to split: "Some parishes made the day a festive occasion, with public drinking and solemn processions, but recognising the day's significance and concerned about James's pro-Spanish foreign policy, the decline of international Protestantism, and Catholicism in general, Protestant clergymen called for more dignified and profound thanksgivings each 5 November"
    • Confusing dates here: "What unity English Protestants had shared in 1606 began to fade; Puritans reacted to the marriage by issuing a new prayer to warn against rebellion and Catholicism, and on 5 November that year, effigies of the pope and the devil were burnt, the earliest such report of this practice and the beginning of centuries of tradition" > the sentence refers to the marriage in 1625 but as written seems as though it's in 1606. Maybe just dump the 1606 and put something vaguish like "What unity English Protestants had shared earlier"
    • Clarify here that you mean Catholics and Protestants: "During Charles's reign Gunpowder Treason Day became increasingly partisan"
      • That isn't quite correct, the divisions were between those who were thought to have Arminianist (a watered-down form of Puritanism) tendencies, and those who rejected the Catholic Church in all its forms (ie, Puritans). The following sentence explains this. Its incredibly difficult to condense England's religious turmoil and I'm a bit worried that in attempting to explain further, focus may be lost. Parrot of Doom 17:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're right, it's not correct and it is very difficult. Whenever I see Laud's name I want to cringe - somehow it all becomes too complicated. What if you moved the "increasingly partisan" sentence down after the explanation because I presume it was an effect of the Puritan schism (if that's the right word). Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd either clarify here or remove this sentence: "Puritans went on the defensive, some pressing for further reformation of the Church.[9]" (An aside - the Boston history is pertinent b/c the "newer" Puritans, under the dictates of Laud, considered the Pilgrims seditious. - just mentioning, not actionable)
    • "In 1677 elements of Queen Elizabeth's Accession Day celebration were incorporated into 5 November" > for those of us who are stupid sounds as though that was her accession day - needs a note or some clarification
  • That's it for now. I'll be back later to re-read and strike. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, found another rough spot. This sentence is problematic: "Under William of Orange, following the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the fifth of November was joined by the fourth of the month, William's birthday, the two days becoming an important double anniversary for the Whigs, those who had opposed the succession of the Roman Catholic James and promoted his replacement by Protestant monarchs.[25]" a.) it's a single sentence para & should be combined somehow; b.) it uses fifth and fourth instead of the numbering elsewhere on the page; c.) not necessary to link James here; d.) "promoted his replacement by Protestant monarchs" > I'm lost. Which Protestant monarch - William of Orange? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice job with this. I haven't checked sources or images, but otherwise it look fine to me. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero

[edit]

CommentSupport

SilkTork

[edit]

Comment. A detailed article with a lot of focus on the history of the event.

  • Challengable statements in the lead, such as "Within a few decades Gunpowder Treason Day became the predominant English state commemoration" and "Celebrating the fact that King James I had survived the attempt on his life, people lit bonfires around London" would be better cited per WP:LEADCITE. The lead says "Celebrating the fact that King James I had survived the attempt on his life, people lit bonfires around London", while the body says "James's Council decided to allow the public to celebrate the king's survival with bonfires", which are slightly different. (BTW is the "decided" needed? Would "James's Council allowed the public..." be clearer?) A source I've looked at - The making of the United Kingdom - says that Protestants lit bonfires throughout England. Does this source simply conflate later events? I think the article is appropriately careful with statements, and steers a good course through the Catholic/Protestant aspect, I'm just a bit uncertain about the truth of the bonfire celebration that occurred the same night as the arrest, especially as the second paragraph of the Origins and history in England (is "England" necessary? as the event took place in England) states twice that little is known.
    • There's no specific requirement to cite information in the lead (I tend to cite only quotes there), provided it's cited in the body. That's what I've done here. I agree, "decided" is rather spurious so I've removed that, but I don't think there's any real difference between the two versions of "lit bonfires in London" provided.
      • Sorry, I wasn't clear. My point is that the lead says that the public actually lit bonfires while the cited main body refers to documentation that gave permission to allow people to light fires if they wished to. There is a slight difference. Does the source - Fraser's The Gunpowder Plot - say that people did actually light bonfires, or is it logical inference from the documented permission mentioned in the source? WP:LEADCITE's guidance is subtle and gentle, and suggests that "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". SilkTork *Tea time 00:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, people lit bonfires as in "making 1605 the first year the plot's failure was celebrated". I never place citations in the lead unless there's a quote there. There's simply no need. Parrot of Doom 06:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no way that Protestants would have lit bonfires throughout England in 1605, remember the only quick means of getting around was by horse - Dick Turpin illustrates the problem point nicely (see Black Bess).
      • The source I looked at was poor quality; though when sources differ, there is more inclination for people to challenge. My feeling, though, was that the source was condensing events too quickly. SilkTork *Tea time 00:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've found very little information that expands on the celebration throughout Great Britain, or the British Isles. In my view it was almost certainly widely celebrated in Scotland (considering the religious makeup there) but as the sources don't really say anything about it, I can't really expand on that point. Same with Wales really. I very much doubt many in Ireland paid the day any attention. The sources used talk pretty much exclusively about England, so that's what that section focuses on. I wish I could find more, but I can't.
      • I understand now. Though I am still a little uneasy about the section title. The "origin" is the Gunpowder plot, while the "history" of the section title refers to the development of the celebration of Guy Fawkes Night. Might a section titled Gunpowder Plot, followed by a section dealing with the history and development of the celebrations, plus one on the effigy, and one on the religious significance, be easier for the reader to follow and understand? SilkTork *Tea time 00:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think so. I think the headings are fine as they are, if readers get past the lead and into the body they won't be reading headings. If the article had a large table of contents I think you'd have a point, but as it is it's quite short. Parrot of Doom 06:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I managed to find a login for JSTOR and have found a couple of interesting documents, one of which (although about 100 years old) says that the commemoration is confined to England (within Great Britain, I presume). I will see if I can add these in. Parrot of Doom 08:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Scratch the above, the author is out of date and completely incorrect. What I have been able to do, however, is add a line about commemorations in Northern Ireland, and I've also added a list of sources to the Further reading section with snippets here and there that might prove useful to anyone wishing to know more. Parrot of Doom 10:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Religious significance is very rich with detail and it might be helpful to the general reader to break it up slightly. There is material in that section on the burning of effigies, which for many readers would be of interest enough to justify a section of its own.
    • I've contemplated hiving off the effigies part into its own section but I feel it would break up the flow. In my view it isn't really possible to separate the burning of effigies from the hatred of Catholics and England's religious and political turmoil, or from the class-based violence of the 18th and 19th centuries.
  • The lead could be developed a bit further per WP:Lead. There is no mention of Samhain or similarities with other customs. Fireworks, bonfires and effigy burning could be usefully mentioned earlier in the lead as these are iconic of the event. Some more awareness of associated customs, such as "penny for the guy", would be useful in the lead, and a little more 20th century cultural history beyond "by the 20th century Guy Fawkes Day had become an enjoyable social commemoration, although missing some of its original meaning." The end of that sentence is also something of a tease as it doesn't specify much, but tempts the reader to look into the body for more information. What original meaning has been lost?
  • I'm unsure of the reason for the Guy Fawkes Day title of that section, especially as it appears to be dealing with history of the event from the 18th century to modern day.
    • That's about when the day became known as Guy Fawkes Day, and not Gunpowder Treason Day. It's an important distinction as until that time, Guy Fawkes was largely ignored, society instead preferring to burn religious figures.
  • I'm unclear what currently happens in other countries. Older versions of this article do have more information on this which it might be worth revisiting.
    • No expert source I've found expands on this point; they devote nearly all their prose to the day's history in England, some bemoaning its apparent lack of meaning in modern times. I take the view that this article should respect those structures. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is an erudite article on the topic, and provides some very useful history. I think, however, it could be made a little more user friendly and a little more comprehensive, especially given the popular nature of the topic. This topic attracts a lot of readers (especially around Guy Fawkes Night!). Awareness of the sorts of information that the general reader would be looking for is a little lacking. SilkTork *Tea time 10:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria

[edit]

Support with yet more comments and with the disclaimer that I've been somewhat involved in talk-page and related discussions about this article (although IIRC I've only made one or two edits to the article itself). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You include the term "Gunpowder Treason Day" without explanation in the second paragraph of the lead - it probably doesn't warrant bolding in the first sentence, but you might add an "as it was then called"-type caveat.
    • Fair point, done.
  • "enjoyable" is a bit subjective, as is "neutered"
    • Perhaps, but its a fairly simple way of pointing out that for many people, it wasn't always the case. Neutered is fine as that's exactly what happened.
  • "died out with the onset of the American Revolution" -> "died out with the American Revolution"?
    • The latter might suggest that the american revolution died out at some point, which I think some yanks might object to :)
  • Wikilink MP?
    • There's a minor issue here, in that there isn't really a decent article on Wikipedia which explains what an MP was, in 17th-century England. I've replaced the abbreviation for now but I think someone needs to write a good article on the history of MPs in England.
  • Second paragraph of Origin could use some prose tweaking
  • Was the sermon given or printed in 1612 (or both)?
    • IIRC both, but I can't remember right now. If you think its important I'll revisit that and clarify.
  • "As one of 49 official holidays, for the ruling class, 5 November became..." - depending on which meaning was intended, I would suggest removing one of the commas; in "the distinction there between the Fifth, and Halloween, is not always clear", should probably remove both
    • I'm happy with the amount of commas used. I use them sparingly but sometimes they're required, to clarify exactly what part of a sentence relates to another.
  • When did the constable in Guildford die?
    • From the top of my head I don't recall, I'll check again if you want me to.
  • In the "Similarities" section, are the two block quotes by different people? If so, can this be formatted differently to make that clear? The second quote is likely short enough to not need a blockquote
  • Newfoundland is a dab link

Ceranthor

[edit]
  • Support - Sorry to see this article was bogged down by controversy. It's clear to me that the prose is tight and the article seems comprehensive enough. ceranthor 19:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iridia

[edit]

Goodness only knows the British side of things is outrageously comprehensive. My one comment here was well before PoD began this FA-level rewrite.

I do feel that the international side should have a bit more beefing up; I poked around a bit on JSTOR:

  • This article on the effect of the Stamp Act 1765 in the WIndies has rioting specifically driven by the occurrence of Guy Fawkes. p. 215.
    • I don't think this is all that relevant. Certainly it demonstrates that 5 November was celebrated in the W. Indies at that time, but the article already says as much (if not naming the country specifically). That article is primarily about the Stamp Act, and quotes the use of 5 November to parade effigies of those involved merely as an example of the upset caused. I don't see how I could work this into the article's prose, without according it undue prominence.
  • in 1864 Toronto went rather crazy on Nov 5 (can't see past the first page on that one, so not sure if it's as useful)
    • It seems like an isolated incident to me. What would be needed is a source that puts it into the wider context of Guy Fawkes Night celebrations there, as is done with Pope Day.
  • Toronto apparently quite keen on celebrating a la the British up to at least 1900
    • A source dated from 1918 isn't particularly reliable, and in this instance, isn't really all that informative.

so at least this gets mention of outside-Britain up to hmm, 1900? Google Scholar got me further:

  • Bahamas tied the start of Junkanoo to Nov 5 until at least mid-20th century (p. 105)
    • No, it's an interview which makes no attempt to verify the claims of the interviewee.
  • the dreaded Google Books link to English: One Language, Different Cultures. Eddie Ronowicz, Colin Yallop. p 184-5 has a shallow overview of how it is celebrated in NZ.
  • this Master's thesis discusses (somewhere in it) the import of Guy Fawkes to NZ childhood. "Guy Fawkes Day has been celebrated from the very first days of New Zealand European settlement (Sutton-Smith, 1959). In the past children would make stuffed Guys and chant rhymes like the one above in order to entice money away from adults. The Guy would be burnt on a bonfire on Guy Fawkes evening and there would be other general public festivities and fireworks. The chant is not commonly recited today." I think it's interesting and sufficiently significant to note that the Nov 5 celebration has been retained in NZ, but has completely vanished in Australia. (Though goodness knows if these sources can support that).
    • That's more interesting, especially as it cites this book, which unfortunately I do not have access to.
      • I can get it at the National Library apparently...photocopy & scan pages for you perhaps? There are a number of mentions throughout the book (9 by Google), so it gets at least a solid 2 pages or more. Iridia (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That'd be very helpful if you could. The most important thing isn't to add examples here and there of foreign celebrations, but to establish the context in which they were held. Parrot of Doom 10:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Agree with you 100%: that's precisely what I'd like to see as well. I can probably get to the library sometime this weekend; scanning will be a day later. Iridia (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firework related injury in New Zealand, New Zealand Medical Journal, Volume 107, Issue 988, 26 October 1994, Pages 423-425: showed that the introduction of firework-selling restrictions didn't change the amount of injuries.
    • That's relevant to fireworks in New Zealand or some such article, but not to this.
      • I mentioned it because the article discusses "safety concerns in New Zealand have resulted in similar sales restrictions" but only cites newspaper reports.
  • On a 1(b) note, the bit of issue with UK-US bias remains, due to the minimal mention of celebrations in the Commonwealth. Possibly even just a general 2 sentences or so of (I'm handwaving text here) 'The night has been linked to civil riot in x, y and z, and was celebrated with the burning of a guy at least until mid-(date).' I think the main point to make is that it was exported, and (various) aspects of the custom were kept up - including the rioting.
    • Then to do that you'll have to find high-quality sources which put such things into context. All the sources I have pay very little attention to foreign celebrations, I believe they do that because they view them as trivial compared to the history of the day in GB. Parrot of Doom 10:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Carcharoth points out below, no mention of Australia? eg. nice photo from Australia showing that it was celebrated traditional-style in the period 1912-1955. Iridia (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • See above answer. Find a high-quality source that offers some context, and we can add it. I see people regularly suggesting that the article should cover more of any foreign observance, but nobody has yet presented a decent source in support. Parrot of Doom 10:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • We'll see how this book holds up, then - I'm hopeful! How do you view that photo as an illustration of foreign observance? It has distinctively Australian attire and landscape, which helps. Am happy to ping the National Library to see if they'd release it for this. Iridia (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think on its own it adds anything to the article. Without a caption I'd say its very difficult to guess what they're doing. It's probably of much more use at Culture of Australia or similar. If you look at the end of the article you'll see a Daily Mail link, the images in there are much better, but sadly, copyrighted. Parrot of Doom 19:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, the last paragraph of the lead needs some rearrangement: it jumps awkwardly. Suggest: "Claims that Guy Fawkes Night was a Protestant replacement for older customs like Samhain are disputed, although another old celebration, Halloween has lately increased in popularity and according to some writers may threaten the continued observance of 5 November. The present-day Guy Fawkes Night is usually celebrated at large organised events, centred around a bonfire and extravagant firework displays. (ie. joined & rearrange slightly in previous paragraph).

Settlers exported Guy Fawkes Night to overseas colonies. In North America, it was known as Pope Day; those festivities died out with the onset of the American Revolution. Celebrations continue in some Commonwealth nations." Iridia (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few commas but otherwise I think the structure of the lead is fine. Parrot of Doom 16:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That helps. The problem remaining is that the last sentence of the last para of the lead relates only to the British case, so it's misrepresenting the quote in body text to segue from Commonwealth observance to "Halloween...may threaten the continued observance of 5 November." Iridia (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt

[edit]
  • Support. I echo the above comment in support by Ceranthor (talk · contribs). This article is well-written, with excellent sourcing, and great structural organization. It is encyclopedic, informative, and holds quite good educational value for people of all ages. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth

[edit]

Following the earlier comments and discussion points below, am happy to support. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Note: as it was unclear, am happy to confirm here that I consider all the comments below resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments on a well-written and enjoyable article:

  • "In settlements such as Carlisle, Norwich and Nottingham, corporations provided music and artillery salutes." - is it possible to make clearer what these "corporations" were? I vaguely recall from some history reading somewhere that these are something similar but different to the modern meaning of the word 'corporation'.
  • "106 pounds of gunpowder and 14 pounds of match." - most people know what gunpowder is, but "match" is a bit more obscure. It spoils the flow somewhat. I know you like to encourage readers to go and look up words they don't understand, but is any sort of link possible here?
    • I'd thought of linking to Slow match but I was unsure, as the weight, and not length, is what the source uses. Slow match is probably the one to use but I'm not certain enough of my facts.
      • Just been Googling "pounds of match" and I see what you mean. Almost certainly that is the right link, but if you are not happy with it, then it is best to leave it out as you have done. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'citizens of Canterbury' sentence is followed by 'Even less is known of how the occasion was first commemorated by the general public' - is the contrast to general public meant to be to citizens or to the dignitaries and militia?
    • Reports will of course exist of how certain towns and cities first commemorated the occasion (by laying on big events for local dignitaries), but very little is known about what the wider public did, ie, those who didn't have a lot of money. Perhaps they all went to church, maybe they sang and danced in the local pub - not much is known.
  • "an anti-Catholic concentration" - is 'concentration' the right word here?
  • "Gunpowder Treason Day, as it was then known, became the predominant English state commemoration" - which source is this cited to, and what were the other state (or religious) commemorations that it became predominant over? I wouldn't know personally what other state commemorations existed at the time, but if something like St George's Day rivaled it at some point, is that not worth mentioning? You do later mention the "old system of religious feasts and State anniversaries" that didn't survive into the Interregnum, but some details of what these were would be nice if possible (presumably these are the state commemorations of which Guy Fawkes became the predominant one).
    • No. I'm sorry but I'm trying to condense 400 years of religious, political and social turmoil into one short article, I can't satisfy everyone by including or explaining everything that isn't immediately obvious. If I added information about other observances like All Saints Day, Accession Day Tilt, et al, then I'm sure people would want me to link those to articles like Halloween, and then other people would want to know more about things like Oak Apple Day, and why certain holidays were cancelled and 5 November wasn't...it never ends. I feel sometimes as though I'm being pulled by well-meaning folk in lots of different directions but the focus here is on 5 November. I'm sure there's an article about holidays in England, perhaps a category - maybe other people can work on expanding those, but I can't do everything for everybody. I hope that doesn't read as though I'm having a go at you, but I'm sure you'll realise if you take a brief glance at England's history throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, just how much there is to be said about such things, and just how easy it would be to lose focus.
      • OK, no problem. Maybe I would have been better phrasing this as a question like this: "Before Gunpowder Treason Day, what was the predominant English state commemoration, if there was one?". That seems like a reasonable question, but as you are dead set against it, I won't push here (thanks, though, for mentioning the other holidays). Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arminian Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud" - the link to 'Archbishop of Canterbury' is redundant as people can reach that article through the 'William Laud' link.
    • Removed.
  • Pedantic, but the preceding Charles mentioned before "Following Charles's execution in 1649" is Charles Herle (not Charles I). Confusion is unlikely, but possible, so I thought it worth pointing this out.
    • I've changed to "Following Charles I's"
  • In the 'Queen Elizabeth's Accession Day celebration' sentences, there are some quotes without citations, particularly the one from an "observer".
    • Unfortunately Wikipedia's demand for citations for everything sometimes conflicts with the scholarly tradition of citing only quotes and objectionable material. What I tend to do is measure the distance between a cite that would cover an entire section, and a cite that would cover a nearby quote. In this case, everything following that quote is covered by ref 23, I think adding extra cites in such instances makes the text less legible, especially as Wikipedia cites have square brackets and are relatively large compared to the text. Lately what I've started doing is using hidden notes, more as a guide for the editor, in case anyone demands a cite for a particular bit of prose. I wish Wikipedia would upgrade its software so users could 'hover' over a cite to see what relates to what.
      • I thought it might have been reference 23 covering those quotes. Hovering to show this would be excellent. Maybe one day. Even now, it should be possible to click on a citation and have not only the footnote be highlighted in light blue, but also the entire set of text covered by the citation (if suitable tagging was done. What I see done sometimes is text added to the footnote saying that it covers x, y and z. But that would be tiresome. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the anniversary was a chance to pit disorder against order, a pretext for violence and uncontrolled revelry" - this sounds familiar - I'm sure other traditional festivals had elements like this at times. Any excuse for a party!
    • Nothing quite so bad as 5 November though. People used to board up their homes and businesses in anticipation of being attacked, for no other reason than revellery. Serious injuries and death were not unknown.
      • Oh, I'm sure some other festivals rivalled it for disorder, though at other times. All those pagan festivals where you dismantle things to celebrate renewal, and then realise in the morning that things don't actually put themselves back together again... Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 'Guy Fawkes' section, the bit on the king's new birthday is confusing, as we've gone from William in the preceding section to reports in The Times of 1790 and 1802, and then all the way back to 1690 again. Can it be rewritten to avoid jumping around in time?
    • This happened because someone else inserted mention of William's birthday in there, and I had to tidy it up. When writing the article I'd already omitted this, as I didn't think it that important to mention.
  • "the pope's restoration in 1850 of the English Catholic hierarchy" - shouldn't Pope be capitalised here and possibly the Pope in question named and linked?
    • I tend not to capitalise titles unless the name is also included, but I see there were some inconsistencies there and I've corrected them all. I haven't named any popes in the article so I'm not really convinced that its necessary to name the 1850 pope above all others.
      • All the other mentions of popes are references to effigies. This is the only place in the article where you mention a specific act taken by a pope. As for capitalisation, you are also inconsistent in the note: "contemporary hate figures such as the pope, the Sultan of Turkey, the Tsar of Russia" - you capitalise the latter two, but not the former. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that Scotland, Wales, and Ireland get little to no mention. Presumably because the celebration is (or was) English. And the two main subheaders seem to confirm that (one mentioning 'England', the other mentioning 'other countries'). However, the lead sentence says it is observed "primarily in Great Britain" (rather than England). Some clarification might help here. Also, I am surprised that Australia gets no mention (India, I can understand, because of Diwali).
    • I can only go from the sources I have, and they make little to no mention of anywhere but England. I say "Great Britain" because I know that lately some Scottish towns and cities have observed Guy Fawkes Night, but I don't know for how long that has been going on. Australia, I haven't a clue because the expert sources I've used don't mention it, and I'm not willing to expand much upon topics they apparently deem irrelevant or trivial. Parrot of Doom 11:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I looked up some sources on Australia. It seems (from my very rough reading of things) that November is their summer and it turned out to be a bad idea to let off fireworks during the bushfire season. So the fireworks stuff got focused on their Empire Day (24 May, started in 1905), which became better known in Australia as 'Cracker Night' (as in firecrackers). There is an interesting introduction to this here. Not really enough for the GFN article, but I thought it might encourage you to look further. There are also sporadic mentions in these sources: [4], [5], [6], among others. My impression is that there is other material out there in reliable sources (I could look further than the sources I've provided here, but I'll only do that if you are willing to discuss those additional sources), but as you say, nothing in the sort of comprehensive history you are really after. Having said that, I want to say more on the characterisation of the coverage provided by your two main sources, but that should be done separately. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Found some more on this today (and I think these are different sources to what was used in earlier versions of the article), but will put the sources on the talk page as it is not clear whether the material should go here or in the Bonfire Night article. Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sentences would have benefited from more commas, but that is only a minor concern.

The pictures used are excellent. Happy to support pending responses to the above points. Carcharoth (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raising this point separately. PoD states above that two main sources he is using (Fraser (Sorry, that should have been Cressy. Carcharoth (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)) and Sharpe) "don't mention it [Australia and presumably other stuff outside of Britain], and [that he is] not willing to expand much upon topics they apparently deem irrelevant or trivial". My suspicion is that these sources never set out to provide a comprehensive history of GFN outside Britian (or even England), so it is more that their scope is limited, rather than these two sources dismissing the other material as trivial. Is there any indication in those two sources that they considered any of the history outside the UK to be in the scope of their works, or did they just cover it briefly as a matter of interest to the modern reader? If the latter, then I suspect that these sources would not be a good guide for the proper weighting to be done here. Having said that, if no-one else has covered the period and places in question, then we are stuck, so the end result may be the same. My point here is that I don't think it is right to presume that because a work does not cover a particular period, that the authors have dismissed that period as trivial. It is much simpler to assume they just decided not to cover everything and concentrated more on the history of the subject in the periods they are expert on. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When building this article's structure I have followed the best, most authoritative, expert sources I have been able to find. Regardless of their reasoning nobody has highlighted a quality source I've missed, one which fills in the requests for more information on foreign celebrations. Until they do, I won't be changing my view on this. Remember, this anniversary has persisted in England because it was intrinsically linked to England's religious problems—elsewhere it was mostly just an excuse to have a bit of a romp.
I really am getting very tired of repeating the last point (this isn't a reflection on you, it's just that you're the latest) and this will therefore be my last reply on the matter. We follow the sources on Wikipedia, and that's what I've done. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned. Parrot of Doom 18:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did provide some sources for Australia (see above - the bit you didn't reply to), but I will expand on that on the article talk page, rather than here. It might surprise you, though, to know that I support your stance that a large proportion of the article should be about the history in England (why you presumed I took the extreme view espoused by some editors on the talk page, I don't know). That this article should be predominately about the history in England should be obvious to any editor reading the article, and having read the talk page archives I sympathise with what you had to put up with there. Your rewrite to take the article away from what it was before was absolutely the right thing to do.

However, I am not convinced yet that your sources are comprehensive. There clearly are sources related to the celebrations outside England in the 20th century, but from what I can see, rather than insist that those sources be used in Bonfire Night (with a pointer from this article to there), you have compromised and allowed that final paragraph to be included at the end of this article. That weakens the article in my opinion. You should either remove that material and place it in 'Bonfire Night', or keep it balanced by adding a brief mention of Australia. Personally, I would remove it, but it is up to you.

If you are not convinced, take a look at the 2-sentence paragraph in question and the sources used there. Those sources are of a lower standard than the scholarly ones used in the rest of the article. The first sentence covers Canada and South Africa, sourced to a Canadian government press release from 2005 and something called "Cape Town Magazine". The second sentence covers the Caribbean and New Zealand, and is sourced to a newspaper report from 2010 and a mix of news and one government source. It is particularly poor to use four references for the New Zealand bit - that is a clear case of over-referencing. It would be trivial to use sources of similar quality to add a sentence about Australia, but as I said, I would lose that whole last paragraph. Though that does leave the end of the article dangling somewhat (unless you are happy to end with an end-of-article hatnote saying "For the modern celebrations, see Bonfire Night").

If you do remove that paragraph, the two most natural end-points for the article are the 'we have heard that many times before' quote from Cressy and the Diwali quote from Rawlinson. One way to rejig the section order would be to rename "Origins and history in England" to "Origins and history" (the 'in England' bit is redundant), and to move 'Similarities with other customs' to slot in below 'In other countries' and make it a level-2 header.

Given your frustration with what you faced on the talk page, I don't expect you to enthusiastically embrace these suggestions, but I hope you will at least consider them, and at least look briefly at the sources related to Australia that I will be putting on the article talk page. It may also surprise you that I intend to support this nomination, because it clearly is a very well-done article. The thing that tipped the balance for me was taking a closer look at the 'further reading' section, which is exactly what I think should be standard in all articles, and has been done really well here. It is the perfect starting point for readers wanting to read more. Thank you for providing that. Carcharoth (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"However, I am not convinced yet that your sources are comprehensive" - then read them, as I have. Parrot of Doom 09:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied they are comprehensive in terms of the English history - the doubt I have is whether they cover the non-English history adequately (they certainly won't cover sources post-2005 - one of the sources I've provided on the article talk page is from 2006). To make sure we don't get editions mixed up, the library catalogue I'm looking at has the 2005 edition of Sharpe's work and both the 1996 and 2002 editions of Fraser's work (is the full title The Gunpowder Plot: Terror and Faith in 1605?). I couldn't find a 2005 edition of Fraser's work (the article references a 2005 edition of her work) and the ISBN I followed from the article brought me to an edition dated 2002 - so which one should I put in a request for? I could look at those next week, which will probably be after this FAC closes, and then let you know on the article talk page or your talk page if I still think the same way. I could also look up other things at the same time if that would help. This wouldn't be any problem, as I was already going to look up Bonfires and Bells for some further reading. Carcharoth (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. What you're missing is that your view of what is "adequate" isn't something we can rely on. Content should come from authoritative sources and not what you think should be in there. If there's an expert source that effectively says "hey, Sharpe and Cressy did a great job but they missed all this important stuff about Commonwealth nations", then please show it me. I'm sick of this argument and until people start backing it up with extra sources, I'll pay it no more attention. Parrot of Doom 12:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided sources (as I said above). See the article talk page. Quite why you seem to be refusing to discuss those sources, I'm not quite sure. Several of them post-date your main sources, so obviously your sources won't have been able to consider them. Having said that, I see I've been saying that you consider your two main sources to be Sharpe and Fraser, when it is Sharpe and Cressy - apologies for that, I will correct myself above on that point, though the fact that Cressy's work is from 1992 does leave room for new material to have been published since then.

Anyway, your basic thesis seems to be that a very high standard is needed for sources other than Cressy and Sharpe when looking at the Commonwealth history of this topic. I accept that (do I need to repeat that I accept that?), but then that leads me to question why you used the recent sources you do for the last two sentences of the article (the bit on New Zealand, South Africa, Caribbean and Canada). As I said, I think you need to either drop those last two sentences, or include something on Australia, using sources that are of a similar standard if nothing better can be found. That's not unreasonable, in my opinion, but why I have to say it twice I don't know. I said this above, and you just ignored it. I don't mind discussing this, but it is just as frustrating for me as it is for you when you don't engage with what I am saying. Carcharoth (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're providing sources only on single countries. You need to provide sources that show why its important to look at GFN celebrations across the Commonwealth and which compare their importance with the English commemoration, otherwise you're synthesising an entire section from what you can find about each country, based on what you think is interesting - and not what the most comprehensive sources I have think is worth mentioning.
As for those last two sentences, I don't want them there because they serve no purpose, but you may have noticed a huge argument on the article's talk page and frankly I'm sick of banging my head against a wall.
I very much doubt this is as frustrating for you as it is for me. Parrot of Doom 15:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying you think the last two sentences are synthesis and you are leaving them in because you can't face further discussion on the talk page because of the conduct of one of the editors there? It sounds like you have grudgingly allowed those two sentences as some form of compromise. I'll be honest here. If you really think those sentences are synthesis (and I'm not sure one way or the other about that yet), then you need to remove them. Otherwise it is a double standard to exclude similar material, but include that material. Anyway, I am going to leave this for now (my support stands) and hope that someone does remove those sentences as we both think should happen. I would remove them to the talk page for discussion, but don't want to do that right now as I'm out tonight and busy for most of the bank holiday weekend. I hope this gets sorted, as it is an excellent article regardless of our disagreement here. Thank-you for writing it. Carcharoth (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat related commentary moved to talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

[edit]

As if life wasn't short enough I've followed the article talk and the FAC as they both grew, and grew and grew. I Support on prose, images, refs and focus. Espically focus, being constitutionally alergic to the direction it was proposed it take. But even on its own merrits, its a fine achievement, and certainly FA worthy. Ceoil 16:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod

[edit]
  • Support Minor query resolved on the talk page. I would be fine with an article with the "other" focus, but this is at least as valid an approach. Meets the criteria, though a little short. Johnbod (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Guy Fawkes Night/archive1#Summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 29 May 2011 (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/Guy_Fawkes_Night/archive1&oldid=1142602831"