Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Green children of Woolpit/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC) [1].

Green children of Woolpit

[edit]
Notified: Drmies, talk page notification 2020-04-15
Notifying the wikiprojects listed on the talk page for Q28: WikiProject Culture, WikiProject Middle Ages, WikiProject England, WikiProject Folklore, WikiProject Skepticism, WikiProject East Anglia. Welcome to FAR! (t · c) buidhe 22:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Q28 and/or buidhe, please also notify other major contributors. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe when you have to complete the nominations for another editor, you can add their name so it doesn't look your nomination thusly: {{subst:FARMessage|Green children of Woolpit|Q28}}. All parties have not yet been notified. ~~~~
Drmies is listed above as notified, but I see no notification on their talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm completely uninvolved, but I've been notified. Panini!🥪 17:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because I have some concers re close paraphrasing and over-reliance on certain sources. I gather from the FAC that no spotchecks were done, which I find a bit bewildering. Anyway, let's have a look:

  • Article: In a modern development of the tale the green children are associated with the Babes in the Wood, who were left by their wicked uncle to die; in this version the children's green colouration is explained by their having been poisoned with arsenic. Fleeing from the wood in which they were abandoned, possibly nearby Thetford Forest, the children fell into the pits at Woolpit where they were discovered.
  • Source: In what seems to have been a recent development of the story […] the children are identified with the familiar "Babes in the Wood" […] According to this version, their green coloration was due to arsenic administered by their wicked uncle; fleeing from the wood where they were abandoned (perhaps nearby Thetford Forest), they stumbled into the pits at Woolpit
  • Article: The second is that it is a garbled account of a real event
  • Source: Others accept it as a garbled account of an actual occurrence
  • Article: Ralph's account in his Chronicum Anglicanum, written some time during the 1220s, incorporates information from Sir Richard de Calne of Wykes, who reportedly gave the green children refuge in his manor, six miles (9.7 km) to the north of Woolpit.
  • Source: Ralph of Coggeshall's version, in his Chronicon Anglicanum (English Chronicle), was not finally written down until the 1220s; but it incorporated information from a certain Richard de Calne of Wykes, who had reportedly given the Green Children refuge in his manor.

I also think it's kinda weird that no pages are cited for journal articles (which can have rather long page ranges, like Clark 2006, Lawton 1931, Lunan 1996, Orne 1995, Walsh 2000, etc.). --Q28 (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Q28, not citing pages is not "weird"--it's pretty common practice, certainly for those who use only the regular citation templates and cite articles in notes and books in bibliographies. It would be nice if the "cite journal" template had a parameters for the pages of the article and the actual citation. To appease I made some tweaks to get the paraphrase further from the original. But that "no spotchecks were done"? It is more likely that the absence of evidence is no evidence of absence: the reviews were done by seasoned editors. AGF please. And remember that "close" in "close paraphrase" is a matter of opinion. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, Q28, this wasn't you, this "I"--it was User:Eisfbnore, who tagged me on the talk page over a year ago. I don't remember if I saw this; if I did, I must not have thought it of great concern. It's funny that you would pretend here to complain about close paraphrasing when of course the entire text is copied verbally from someone else; perhaps Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia is of use here. But beyond this particular case (Eisfbnore, please see my edits to the article), I have some questions about competence, given for instance this edit and the reply to this edit by User:SandyGeorgia--thank you, Sandy, for pinging me. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll put things more nicely; Q28, beginning FAR reviews based on other opinions is fine (like how multiple users will bicker about an article and someone else unrelated will join the discussion and WP:AFD it), but since this is direct pulling proper credit needs to be given. If you didn't know about this, that's perfectly fine, and I apologize for our stink-eyes. If you acknowledge and apologize, we can move on (and actually fix the article while we're at it). Panini!🥪 17:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refs, I don't know about all this above^^^ but I made a start on one of the citations to provide page numbers (as someone pointed out above, to avoid overly broad page ranges per V). As my editsum makes clear, I have indulged mightily in citebanditry as I know no other way. Although it's worth noting that the article already uses {{sfn}} for some sources anyway, so I fail to see why others have to be in a list of stuff. Or something. Anyway, as far as I can see, the sources with the page ranges are Lawton 1931, Briggs 1970, 2X Clark 2006, Lunan 1996 and Harder 1973, all of wot I got. SN54129 18:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone still has to address the close paraphrasing/copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Well, I'm still not sure about the above  :) but I rewrote and removed the close paraphrasing noted above (except for the second one: "garbled account" is in quotes in the article and so not a CP). No others jumped out at me. SN54129 17:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe, Drmies, Ealdgyth, and Serial Number 54129: I have standardized the citation format. Could someone specify explicitly what is missing? If I must, I will get the sources myself; it's time to get this FAR wrapped up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry—got distracted—can get involved with sources tomorrow morning UTC—apologies also to Drmies for ignoring you—and apologies for fecking up your references. SN54129 20:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, User talk:Serial Number 54129, I'm not complaining at all--I appreciate your help! Drmies (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was just me, being unnecessarily grouchy. If I can't wake up to find Putin gone, at least I can hope for some FARs to move along! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some months ago, I attempted to standardize the citation style after Drmies made considerable edits (see discussion above). Drmies had used the citation template, rather than cite templates, which do not use trailing punctuation, so I removed trailing punctuation from the short notes. Subsequent edits have re-introduced cite templates, short notes with trailing punctuation, and a mixed citation style. Which style is wanted? My preference would be to remove the citation templates originally used and go with cite templates, so we don't need the silly |ps= none on every short note. At any rate, one style needs to be decided on and implemented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Buidhe's comprehensiveness concerns have been addressed, Sandy (although she may not know that yet!), and I agree that the |ps=none is wholly unnecessary, and just adds to to the cite bloat. SN54129 12:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless someone disagrees, I will convert all to cite template and remove ps= none and citation templates when I am home (in a few days). @Drmies and Ealdgyth: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • SandyGeorgia, thanks for the ping--I had forgotten this was still a thing. I'm sorry I don't really follow the technicalities (I don't really know what "trailing punctuation" is). But I appreciate what you're doing--thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • SandyGeorgiaYou may have noticed I'd tried tidying up the mixture of trailing punctuation and no punctuation a few days ago, using |ps=none because I didn't know there was a better way to do it! Unfortunately I was immediately reverted by Serial Number 54129 on the grounds of 'consistency'. I certainly agree we don't need the fullstop/period at the end of every short note, and if SandyGeorgia can make the appropriate changes, yes! I promise not to add any more references in the meantime! I'm afraid I don't understand the technicalities. Must admit I'd never dared edit a Featured Article before. But I've long had my eye on Green Children, and when I saw it was to be reviewed - and then saw Serial Number 54129's extensive (and worthwhile) additions - I thought I'd try some changes of my own. What I've been doing is largely checking back on the references and making sure they are accurate, and that the text actually says what the original contributor says - and tidying up typos and inconsistencies. I hope they are generally acceptable? There are still some paragraphs I find a bit muddled and incomprehensible - for example if anyone actually knows what Jeffrey Jerome Cohen is on about, perhaps they can explain it better. I hesitate to delete anything, but I think there are some superfluous references to Madej. Some of the sources (Hill, Varner) are suspect. There is also a new paper just out: James Plumtree, 'Placing the Green Children of Woolpit', in Strangers at the Gate! Multidisciplinary Explorations of Communities, Borders, and Othering in Medieval Western Europe, ed. Simon C. Thomson, Explorations in Medieval Culture 21 (Leiden: Brill, 2022), pp. 202-224. At first sight nothing that would change the Wikipedia article - unlike Cohen, Clarke, Otter, or Partner, refreshingly Plumtree doesn't use the story to push their own historical agenda.John O'London (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Yes, I saw the message at Serial number's talk page and had quite a time figuring out what you two were talking about. The problem is not now only the ps=none, rather the mixture of citation and cite templates. That is two different citation styles; the ps=none was only making the short notes agree with one of those citation styles. I will fix all when I am home tomorrow by a) removing all citation templates and b) replacing them with cite templates (which end in a trailing period), and c) removing the ps=none from short notes, since everything will then have trailing periods. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't aware of the difference! I think I made two additions to the Sources list myself, and looking back, one of them was using Cite book, and the other used Citation because I copied and changed another publication by the same person which used Citation. Please do all you can to standardise it. John O'London (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging John O'London as they've been working on the article lately. Hog Farm Talk 14:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some of the page ranges are too broad; specific page nos. needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the correct pages here? Is it one page (13) or a page range with a typo?
    Hartley-Kroeger, F. (2019). "Review of The Green Children of Woolpit, by J. Anderson Coats". Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books. 73: 13–13. OCLC 760196674. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't help with Bulletin of Center for Children's Books - but what are the specific other ones with page ranges 'too broad'? [Sorry - just spotted Simpson/Roud, Harder and Duckworth!] (Thanks for all your hard work!) John O'London (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I tagged them in the article; you can ctrl-f search for "page needed". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks - sorry, I didn't spot the tags: Simpson/Roud and Mills are both Oxford online reference works with no pagination - you have to search the entries alphabetically - if we were to change both these to the hard-copy printed works I could supply page nos - Simpson & Roud 2000, pp 153-4, and Mills 2003, p 509. I notice Simpson/Roud is the only sfn in the lead - we've got the same phrase in a different translation "very wanton and impudent" in the main text under 'Story' - perhaps we could reword the first occurrence to match the second, and get rid of the Simpson/Roud reference entirely! I've done Harder. I can check Lunan, I've got a photocopy somewhere. But can't help with the others. John O'London (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Please feel free to remove any page needed I added if there is no pagination on the source (I thought I had checked, but who knows ... still catching up). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Is there some way of including the equivalent of a 'sv' in the reference - ie 'Green Children, The' and 'Woolpit' meaning look under this heading? John O'London (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Not understanding the question ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If I was faced with a book that had headings in alphabetical order, like a dictionary or encyclopedia, I might indicate the reference as 's.v. 'Green Children, The' - (s.v. = sub verbo). How does Wikipedia handle such cases? There must be cases when one wants to direct people to an article in an encyclopedia, and the article title may be more convenient than page numbers. I see there's a 'cite encyclopedia' template. Should that be used in this case? John O'London (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I've done a few more now - including Lunan. (It does seem to be unfair to Lunan's extraordinary eccentric theories that Wikipedia cites his first brief note in Analog rather than his 2012 book, where they were set out in detail.) It's now down to Duckworth, if I can get to the library, and the two Oxford online dictionary references. John O'London (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Does anyone have immediate access to the Duckworth reference (Australian Literary Studies 26.3-4) to check the page number? I can't access the 2011 volume online, and at the British Library you need to order it up two days in advance - and I'm not planning to go there again soon. Thanks to DrKay for sorting out the Oxford dictionary refs! John O'London (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAR discussion - I came late to this - the Green Children article was on my watchlist, but I wasn't aware of the move to FAR until after User:Serial Number 54129 added a considerable amount of text to the article on 30 March - in fact expanding the article by 50%. The questions surely became, were the extensions of the same FA quality as the original, were they properly integrated with the original, and does the expanded edition warrant FA status. Much of the discussion took place before that expansion. User:drmies and User:SandyGeorgia had already begun making improvements. I've done quite a bit of work on the expanded version since, checking and adding refs, occasionally tweaking the language to make it (I think) clearer. But I've avoided any major rewrites, even when I think the text as-is might be misleading. To declare an interest, in real life it's a subject I've done a lot of work on - I know too much about it, and have my own opinions about the subject; I also regard some of the sources cited as unreliable, not worth citing, or just plain wrong (all three are true of Varner 2006, for example!). So I shouldn't be editing it at all! Could some disinterested party read through it? - for example, does it now meet the first of the FA criteria? Is it really "well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard"? Does it now have "appropriate structure"? Is it all clear and understandable? John O'London (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and with apologies, I should obviously have restricted my tinkering to the extra 50% text added by Serial Number 54129, rather than the original FA text. But he had inadvertently introduced some errors in the original text, like changing the date of the Duckworth ref from 2011 to 2006, and I didn't always distinguish between what was original FA and his additions. It was the extent of his additions, which seem to have been accepted without query in the middle of an FAR, that encouraged me to think what I wanted to do would be acceptable.John O'London (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments alone would warrant delisting, if you provide more detail on issues of sourcing and accuracy. My earlier "Move to FARC" declaration stands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I may answer at length later - but here's a pretty typical example of what happened when I started editing it. Serial Number 54129 had introduced a new section heading 'Music' - under it they included (taking the text from the original FA article) Glyn Maxwell's play Wolfpit - which is a verse play without music. So I simply moved it to the previous section, which contained various other literature. But then I read what the original FA article said about it "In 2002 English poet Glyn Maxwell wrote a verse play based on the story of the green children, Wolfpit (the earlier name for Woolpit), which was performed once in New York City." No, Maxwell wrote and published his play in 1996, and it was performed at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe that year. So I found a source to cite for the 1996 performance, and changed the date - but also left the ref to the NYT review in the original FA for the later NYC performance (there've been more than one in NYC - and no doubt others elsewhere). This is what I meant about whether the additions were properly integrated and the need to consider the whole of the new version. John O'London (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP post on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the people who edit this "encyclopedia" presumably have access to the back issues of folklore journals and other online resources which are free if you can log on as a member of the relevant university, but cost everybody else so much it isn't worth it, perhaps a little research in that area would be useful? I mean proper research, not the wikipedia version of research that autistically lumps together everything that references the subject of the article in any context and gives it all equal weight, whether it's an academic treatise or a passing mention on The Simpsons.

In this instance, we have an extremely improbable tale derived from only two sources, both secondary at best and written long after the alleged events. The earlier of the two makes the only mention anywhere of a named primary witness, Sir Richard de Calne of Wykes, whoever he was. Thus if Sir Richard was for any reason not telling the truth, it's just a tall story that he told, Ralph of Coggeshall believed, and William of Newburgh also believed when he heard about it in some other way a few decades later. And unless we assume these bizarre events to be literally true in every detail, Sir Richard, who claimed to have known the Green Children quite well, either told his own story very inaccurately or was very badly misquoted.

So if we treat the tale as history, we have a straight choice between believing that a lost tribe of green people live in mysterious subterranean villages beneath England from which they sometimes emerge through caves no-one can ever find afterwards, or that the story is possibly to some degree true, but every extant version of it leaves out important facts and inserts impossible ones, so basically the number of reliable sources is zero.

On the other hand, from a folkloric perspective, almost every detail fits an extremely generic narrative about fairies which somehow made the transition from pure fiction to a rumour which people came to believe was true. I said "almost" every detail. The two points which don't fit are that fairies aren't mentioned at all, the place from which the children came being called "Saint Martin's Land", a mysterious realm which as far as I know is unique to this story, and that there's a reference to this strange land having Christian churches. Which makes perfect sense if you assume that whoever invented the tale - possibly Sir Richard de Calne of Wykes, to wind up a gullible monk - simply retold a traditional fairy story as fact, but left out all mention of fairies and inserted a couple of Christian references because otherwise it would have been a direct accusation that the villagers of Woolpit consorted with pagan creatures that according to official Christian doctrine were literally devils.

Modern attempts to make the narrative fit whatever agenda the writer is obsessed with are all desperately contrived. At best we have to assume that the inhabitants of Woolpit somehow didn't know of the existence of another village within walking distance entirely populated by immigrants who didn't speak English, and they never, ever found out about it. At worst, we have to swallow the barking mad word-salad of professional eccentrics like Duncan Lunan and accept that it's perfectly plausible for Star Trek transporter beams to accidentally whisk people across the galaxy from strange medieval planets inhabited by little green men who live on beans.

If the article was rewritten so that the bulk of it treated the story as the folklore it obviously is, and compared it with other traditional tales of fairies, fairyland, intermarriage between humans and fairies, and so on, it might be more objective, and perhaps even encyclopedic. You could still have a little bit at the end listing the nonsense. And nonsense it is. Your own page on Duncan Lunan, which reads as though it was written by a very close friend of his, contains statements like "On his mother's side, he traces his ancestry back to Mitochondrial Eve", and cheerfully recounts his claim (since retracted) to have decoded radio messages from an alien probe in orbit around the Moon. I would be disinclined to take seriously any theory about anything proposed by this fellow, particularly if it was published in a magazine mainly devoted to science fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.52.224 (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include citations and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, nothing but confusion since the FAR was initiated, and no one addressing concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking for now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, very convoluted and byzantine FAR, yet issues remain. Nutez (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - FAR has gone on for months with basically no clarity; it's unclear where the article status is, but it doesn't seem to be FA right now given the comments in the FAR section. Hog Farm Talk 18:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist no edits to the article since June, and no one has said during the FARC that they are working on this. Progress seems to have stalled, and unless someone is going to step up and adopt this article, I think it should be delisted. Z1720 (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Delist struck, see below. Z1720 (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The FAR started with only two issues to consider - 'close paraphrasing' and 'citation'. These were dealt with. The matter of comprehensiveness was only raised during the FAR - this prompted a contributor to add an unexpected extra 50% of text, bringing with it its own citation and other problems, like poor formatting, referencing errors and lack of proper integration. The citation issues in the new text were then dealt with alongside the original, and I believe that the article is now up to standard in that respect, errors have been corrected and some tweaking has helped to integrate the new with the old - even if one could argue that the text is now too comprehensive, with irrelevancies and unnecessary citations that add nothing! More seriously, does the 'extra' material itself meet FA standards? Is it "well-written: its prose... engaging and of a professional standard"? Certainly the original met those criteria, but does the 'new' article as a whole have "appropriate structure"? Is it all clear and understandable? The FAR, disrupted by the late additions, never considered these issues since no-one had ever questioned them! So unless someone is willing to comment at this late stage on whether as a whole the article meets all the FA criteria, including those the FAR wasn't asked to consider, so that some kind soul can 'adopt' the article and try to meet the criticisms, I am going to be contrary and vote that the article should retain its FA status - at least until someone wishes to raise a new FAR with a proper list of the problems that need to be addressed! It makes nonsense of the FAR system if the goalposts are moved during the process. With a lot of hard work by a number of people, in my opinion the article now successfully meets the criticisms that the original referral was based on - citations and close paraphrasing - as well as the comprehensiveness issue that was raised later. So, please, Keep. John O'London (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    First, whether something is or isn't raised initially in the FAR is irrelevant. Any FAR should look at everything. Second, I am completely confused about your statements about the status of the article. I suggest you might want to send it back through FAC once you feel it's ready. Most here, like me, may be at this point unable to state the article is at FA standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In your Delist comment above you said "no one is addressing concerns". Could someone please list the concerns that have not been addressed? John O'London (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't list concerns for anyone else; my concern was that your posts implied there were still big problems in the article ... but was written in a way that I couldn't even decipher what those were. As one example, when you ask if anyone has access to certain sources, if no one does, we can't state that this article is at standard. With none of the original writers active on this FAR, we've not much to go on, and your stance has been unclear. It's still murky enough that I suggest delisting and going back through FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When I stated my general concerns back on FAR you were the only one who responded, so it seemed that nobody agreed with my assessment - I didn't think it was worth taking further - but (scrolling back) you were already recommending moving it to FARC. Did you already have your own specific reservations, even after the hard work you'd put in to improving it? OK, I've spent a bit of time this morning on the article - mostly removing what I personally considered to be the superfluous and irrelevant, and some unreliable sources, and tidying up some bad writing. Beyond that I can't go. Now - quote "Is it "well-written: its prose... engaging and of a professional standard"? Certainly the original met those criteria, but does the 'new' article as a whole have "appropriate structure"? Is it all clear and understandable?" I've no idea what Wikipedia's standards are - which is why I want someone else to look at it as a whole. All I'd ask those who recommend Delist that they do so on the basis of the article as it is, not on the fact that the FAR was chaotic. If it is delisted I may continue tweaking it for accuracy but I don't intend to be involved in any future attempt to put it forward as a Featured Article candidate. John O'London (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@John O'London: A concern raised in this FAR was verifying the information. Where are we with that? Has everything currently in the article been checked? If not, and you are willing to do this, can you verify the information, or post here what you can't access? This will allow other editors to see if they have access to the source. Also, if you don't have access to a source, but find another one that verifies the info, we can replace the reference. Z1720 (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: You've got me worried! I did a random check this morning, noticed a date in the lead that puzzled me: "The story was praised as an ideal fantasy by the English anarchist poet and critic Herbert Read in his English Prose Style, published in 1931, and provided the inspiration for his only novel, The Green Child, written in 1934." Not sure when it was written but Read's novel was published in 1935, and surely publication date is what one expects here. The 1934 date is repeated under Publication and Legacy, with a citation of a 2010 article in the Guardian - which actually gives the correct publication date: 1935. The incorrect date 1934 has been in the article for a very long time - I think it was there in the original article when it received its FA status. In those days (2011), it cited a Leeds University Library catalogue record - I've checked the Leeds online catalogue, which says '1935?', but adds the information 'first published in 1935'. British Library says '1935', other catalogues say '[1935]'. (I think the problem is the date doesn't appear under the publisher's name on the title page but on the following page and says 'first published in 1935' without confirming that this is the first edition!) Other sources (including Clark 2006a, cited many times in the article for such basic information) agree on 1935. Even the reference to Read's earlier publication English Prose Style is problematic - there was an edition published in 1931 (and several later), but the first edition was in 1928 (Clark 2006a, 220)! The date 1931 does not appear in the reference cited (Harder 1973, 716) so I don't know where it came from.
I had previously assumed that material in the original FA - created by two of Wikipedia's most renowned and experienced contributors AND 'passed' as FA - was factually accurate (even if I disagreed with the emphasis given to certain sources) and never read it looking for that sort of error. During the FAR I concentrated on helping find the missing page numbers (a task which is complete as far as I know) and checking the bulky additions made in the midst of the FAR by Serial Number 54129 - and that kept me busy! John O'London (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@John O'London: Based on what you and Q28 found, I would suggest to "keep" this article as an FA unless every source and reference is spot-checked. Is this something you would be willing to do? If you don't have access to a source, post it below and others will see if they have access to it. I also suggest that you look up additional sources that might be used in the article (WP:LIBRARY and Google Scholar might find something). Once the spot-check is complete and additional sources are checked for, please ping me and I'll do a more thorough review of the article's prose. Z1720 (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I think I'll have to call it a day now as far as sources and references are concerned - see History for my recent changes. Although I have easy access to most of the sources (mostly on my own bookshelves) I see no point in checking every reference - most of the page numbers were checked during the FAR. I have spot-checked 'on suspicion' - where I thought there was something wrong with a reference or didn't think the quote/summary fairly represented what the source said. This threw up for example that 'Hill 2004' looks like a second-hand quotation via 'Bramwell 2009' who quotes Hill - I doubt if the contributor who added it checked the original source - I've replaced it with a more reliable source for the same theory (ie the man who invented the 'atavistic harvest ritual' theory!). For consistency I've (reluctantly) changed the occasional reference to them as 'the Green Children' to 'the green children', as it appeared in the title and lead, and in the majority of instances - 'green children' is how it appeared in the original FA, and it was never queried, so I assume there is some esoteric Wikipedia reason for using lower case! I've also wikilinked some more author-names in the list of sources - can't see any more to link. It is now in my opinion pretty comprehensive and up-to-date (to 2020). I'd be very pleased if you would do a thorough review of the article's prose. John O'London (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@John O'London: the spot check is not just about page numbers, as the original comments outlined various areas with close paraphrasing. The sources need to be checked in comparison to the article and the paraphrasing eliminated. Has this happened already? Also, Otter, M. (1996) and Poole, W. (2009) are listed as sources but not used in the article. Do you have access to these sources, and should they be included in the article? I did a quick JSTOR and WP:LIBRARY search for more sources, but did not find any that I would consider high-quality or significant, but I will do another check later. If anyone has other sources (databases or books) that can be added, please mention below or add them directly to the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: sorry, my fault - Otter: I deleted a footnote that I considered irrelevant (it was about another of William of Newburgh's stories, not the Green Children) and I hadn't noticed it was the only place her book was cited as a source. Otter (like Partner) is discussing the methods of William of Newburgh, rather than the Green Children story. Poole 2009, his edition of the Francis Godwin's the Man in the Moone, doesn't really add much to what was in his 2005 article on Godwin's sources. The 2009, pp 20-21 ref (which appeared under 'Folklore') was to Poole's argument that Godwin's Man in the Moone was inspired by Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy, sufficiently covered in the previous para in the same section with its ref to Poole 2005, pp 200-202, and expanded on under 'Publication and Legacy'. Again I didn't realise this was the only reference to Poole 2009. Close paraphrasing - when it was raised in the FAR the original author rewrote some passages, tho' they pointed out that 'close paraphrasing' was a very subjective assessment. I'm afraid I am not sufficiently committed to Wikipedia or the FA status of this article to undertake a check of every single reference to see if it's a fair (but not too close!) reflection of the original. John O'London (talk) 11:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am hesitant to do a copyedit of the article if close paragraphsing concerns have not been resolved yet, which will involve checking all the sources, in my opinion. Fortunately, earwig doesn't catch anything major (I suspect the strong similarities are sites that have copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around.) Z1720 (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to reiterate my delist above: I don't think that a spot check has been done on the article yet, and no one has stepped up to conduct it. As this was a major concern in the FAR filing, I think that this needs to be completed before I can change my endorsement. Z1720 (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article appears to now meet WP:FACR criteria 1a, 1d, 1e, 2, 3, and 4. Concerns over 1b were addressed by expansion. On 1f, the initial concerns of close paraphrasing were in my opinion weak to start with and the article has since been expanded, copyedited, and run through earwig. On 1c, while there is some use of primary sources and the use of works by authors I personally would consider to be academically weak, this is a topic that attracts the weaker scholar and the 'relevant literature' includes these works. DrKay (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per DrKay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update; there are four keep and two delist declarations. One of the delists is very old from an editor who has not revisited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep—not really convinced by close paraphrasing issues, which don't seem to still be evident enough to warrant delisting. I have two suggestions: 1) perhaps the "Sources" section in the References should be renamed "Bibliography" since there is already a section entitled "Sources" earlier in the article. 2) The references listed are not consistent in including publishing locations, and these should probably be added. Aza24 (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I struck my delist above. My rationale was my concern about close paraphrasing. Since many experienced editors above do not have those concerns, I am going to withdraw my delist and defer to them. I'm not going to declare a keep at this time because I haven't taken a close look at the article recently, but please do not let this hold up consensus. Z1720 (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2022 (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_review/Green_children_of_Woolpit/archive1&oldid=1127925813"