Wikipedia:Peer review/Kobold/archive1

Kobold

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've recently expanded this article greatly from it's stubby beginnings. I'm looking for any sort of feedback that would help the article make it through Featured Article Candidates. Also useful would be suggestions for more pictures (most of the ones used come from the same PD source). Thanks! — Dulcem (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add: I'm a bit unsure what to do about the "Media" section. Kobolds appear in all sorts of fantasy literature, video games, and role-playing games, but a long list of these seems unhelpful. I searched for some sort of third-party source analyzing how kobolds have been depicted in fiction, but I struck out. Any leads would be much appreciated. — Dulcem (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments:

A nice job so far and I think it is fairly close to FA, although there is some room for improvement. Make sure that any attributed statement is cited - for example here are two sentences from the end of the Origins and etymology section which need refs: German writer Heinrich Smidt believed that the sea kobolds, or Klabautermann, entered German folklore via German sailors who had learned about them in England. However, historians David Kirby and Merja-Liisa Hinkkanen dispute this, claiming no evidence of such a belief in Britain. Or the whole end of the Media section is uncited.
The images are nice, but I see that the three parchment colored ones are up for deletion on Commons. I would try to make the captions more consistent in length and tone - some are very short and could be expanded (the first one), others are very long (the Pompeii lares shrine).
Organizationally, there is a lot of repetition from section to section (I think Klabautermann is defined every time) and sometimes from one sentence to the next (example from Characteristics section: Local names for kobolds include Allerünken, Alraune, Galgenmännlein (in southern Germany), Glucksmännchen, Heinzelmännchen (in Cologne), Hütchen, and Oaraunle.[13][31][32] The Heinzelmännchen are a class of kobolds from Cologne,[32]...). I would print this out and go through it with a red pen.
The current sections are also fairly long and may benefit from being divided into subsections.
Following up on the last two points, I would also make sure that the sections were focused on their topic - by the time I got to Mine spirits and Water spirits I felt that I had already read much of the material. I do not know if it would make sense to have a brief characteristics section where the current one is and then have a specfic Characteristics subsection for each type (House, Mine, Water)? I would also try to get a better flow - some of the article seems choppy, just a collection of one story says they do this, another says they do that... sentences.
This needs a copy edit / proof reading - "Heinzelmännchen" is spelled "Heinzelmänchen" a few times and I noticed others - was reading for content and did not note specifics.
Could there be a Kobolds in popular culture subarticle? That would also be a place to put the inevitable "my favorite rock band has a song with a kobold in the lyrics" kruft.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks for the excellent review. I'll try to address your concerns in the next few days. A few comments/questions, though:

The reason that the paragraph about Heinrich Smidt and the Klabautermann does not cite every statement is because all of that information comes from the same page of the same source (Kirby and Hiinkkanen 48–9).

OK< I think you should still cite sentences within the same paragraph with direct quotes (assume you know the <ref name ="blah"> trick for repeated citations of the same source). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the parchment-colored images, I'm really at a loss for what to do. Someone nominated them for deletion on Commons, but they are most assuredly public domain in the United States. From what I've seen, Commons deletion debates can sometimes drag on for months. Would it be best to just upload them to Wikipedia and bypass Commons (the PD-US template must exist for a reason), or should I remove them from the article pending their being kept on Commons?

I would weigh in on the Commons debate if you feel OK with that, leave the images here. If there is a US source of the same images, you could upload them again if they are deleted (or that info may sway the debate) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on the choppiness. It's difficult with folklore to not do the "This story says they do this, while this one says they do this" thing, since there is so much variation. I'll try to massage it more.

I though the fire kobolds section was well organized / smooth - perhaps more organization by themes or geography? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The popular culture section is not fully cited because some of the material is simply saying "This character is a kobold" and "Grieg wrote a piece called The Kobold", where those things are so integral to what is under discussion that no citation is needed. For example, it's the same thing as not needing a citation that Lassie is a dog. That said, the pop culture section is definitely one where I've struck out on sources. The only solution to beef it up is to write about where kobolds appear in pop culture with no third-party analysis, which I was trying to avoid. I've seen other FAs do this, so maybe there's hope. Incidentally, there is a kobolds in gaming article that acts much like the cruft-sink you mentioned.

OK, sounds good to me if that is standard practice and is OK at FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! — Dulcem (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]