Wikipedia:Peer review/Rongorongo/archive1

Rongorongo

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I nominated it for a FA a month ago, after Jacques Guy and I greatly expanded and improved it, but retracted the nomination after a few comments suggested it was not ready. Those concerns have been addressed, and the article has been further expanded and improved. However, this is my first FA nomination, and I don't yet know the ropes.

Thanks, kwami (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

cjll wright's comments

A couple of initial comments, after a quick read-through:

• a lot of the comments in the prior FAC nom are addressed, but there could be some more tweaking to do to satisfy pernicky folks. For example:
  • re 'consistency in citation/referencing', at the moment there's a mixture of Harvard-style intext cites (Smith 1990:123) and embedded cites/ext links, like so: [1]. The latter are "not particularly recommended as a method of best practice" according to that guide. I suggest the webpages they refer to are converted into expanded entries in the references section, and replace their appearance in the text with a Harvard-style inline cite, or maybe a footnote.
  • For the references section, I think it's probably best that each entry contains the same amount of identifying info. So where books are listed and you provide data such as publisher and location, then all listed books should have this data. Same for journals, etc. ISBNs, OCLCs, and DOIs and ISSNs where appropriate could also be usefully supplied.
  • When referencing pages, for consistency either prepend all with p. or pp., or leave unardorned.
  • You might consider imposing consistent formatting by using the family of citation templates ({{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, etc) for each entry on the references section, so the punctuation, field order, spacing &c. is the same. If for some reason you prefer the refs formatted and structured slightly differently (eg no brackets around the year), then need to manually check and format each entry the same way.

Should be good now. Please let me know if I messed anything up. I've left in a few inline links which are more about connecting to an illustration than referencing.

• Some other misc. comments:

• Most of the individuals and scholars mentioned in the running text would be unknown to the general readership. Perhaps the first time they're mentioned, they could be briefly introduced eg "Russian liguist and eipgrapher Yuri Knorozov..."

Done, pretty much, except for Harrison - I don't know who he is.

• In the notes for the last line in the table of texts, does "A worn fragment. Fischer numbers it with tourist pieces" mean to imply Fischer considered it a forgery? Could be expressed more clearly.

Yes, a forgery carved over an authentic tablet.

• "In 1995 Steven Fischer announced that he had cracked the rongorongo code. In the decade since, this has not been accepted by other researchers..." I know that some of the objections are given later on, but perhaps there could some cites provided here for the assessment. Does it need to be qualified, the linked National Geographic article (tho' noting that NG certainly has its limitations as an accurate source) seems to give Fischer a pretty big rap, and claims support at the time such as noting "At a recent conference at Leiden in the Netherlands, Fischer's decipherment of the texts was given unanimous and enthusiastic approval by experts on Austronesian linguistics", and "Barthel..has given Fischer's discovery...his unlimited endorsement", etc.

I'm trying to check in on this. It looks like New Scientist took Fischer rather uncritically at his word, and it seems that he's misrepresented other scholars, but I don't really know. I only know the opinions of about ten people who are working on RR, including Mayanists and computational linguists, and none of them accept Fischer (though they say he's a nice guy!)

From what I've been able to find on Bahn, it seems he's a colleague of Fischer's, not an independent reviewer. Can't find anyone who knows if Bahn attended this conference, or if he went with Fischer's own often inflated description. (Fischer says he got a "standing ovation".) Notice that the conference is not even named, let alone referenced. — kwami (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Did Knorozov try out his early computer-assisted decipherment techniques on rongorongo, or was that only the Indus Valley script - I forget. If so, might be worth mentioning, tho' I guess nothing came of it.

I don't know.

• 'Modern manuscripts' section: I find this whole paragraph a bit confusing, it's hard to tell without looking up elsewhere just what these MSS. are, who's trying to match up the calendars, &c.

Yes, needs to be rewritten, but this is something I know almost nothing about. I'd almost rather leave it out altogether, but then people say that these are the key to deciphering RR.

Commented out entire section as not really relevant. — kwami (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Without an easy way for Hevesy to typeset rongorongo or identify the glyphs under discussion, it was not apparent that several of the rongorongo glyphs used in his comparisons were fabrications." Is the suggestion that Hevesy fabricated some of the glyphs (so they looked more like Harappan ones, I s'pose), but it went undetected since others didn't have ready access to examine faithful drawings of authentic ones? Or, was he misled/careless? The para goes on to in effect point out what should have been the implausibility of the rongorongo–Harappan connection while noting the idea had some currency in the 1930s. OK in retrospect, but was the antiquity of the Indus Valley civilization/script established in the 1930s?

Needs rewriting. It may have been self delusion rather than fraud; it just wasn't possible for people to check. I'll need to verify the date estimates of Harappa at the time.

I changed the word to 'spurious', which doesn't have the implications of fraud that 'fabrications' does. I can't verify which dates were estimated for Harappa when it was discovered, but it was clear from the archaeological context that it was old, whereas rongorongo was known to be contemporary. A matter of millennia regardless. — kwami (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• " Horley (2005) has carried out a statistical analysis." But nothing about any results...?

Reworded. His results were more parallel sequences among the texts, but it's still not possible to say with certainty what is allographic.

That's all for the moment. I'll be offline shortly for a week or so, but will look to attend/review any other items that occur to me. And congrats by the way to Kwami et al who've contributed- I think it's a pretty fine and most interesting article as it stands anyway, with a fighting chance of getting thru FAC.--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, cjll! — kwami (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That should do it. Please let me know if you feel I haven't addressed some of your points. — kwami (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, under 'fanciful decipherments', I added,

Perhaps a dozen decipherments have been claimed since then, none of which have been accepted by other rongorongo epigraphers.

I haven't referenced this, as that would required names, and two of the four contemporary decipherers (Fischer, Fedorova, Bettocchi, and Rjabchikov) have repeatedly added their accounts to this article, and I don't wish to antagonize them. — kwami (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ref'd, using the one scholar who is respected enough to trigger a rebuttal, Fedorova. — kwami (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi kwami, have now been able to re-review after your amendments noted above, thanks- those changes look pretty good to me.

As for Harrison, there's a bit about him and his contribs mentioned on pp.60–64 in Fischer (1997), where he's described as an "amateur epigrapher". He appears to have been a council member on the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and written a couple of other papers. There's a James Park Harrison (d.1907) who was an ecclesiastical architect with a connection to the Darwin-Wedgwood family, but dunno whether this is the same person. No matter.

Re Knorozov, I recall reading somewhere when researching for his article that he and a team at Novosibirsk (I think) pioneered the use of computer algorithms as an aide to epigraphic decipherment in the 60s/70s, but wasn't sure if they tried it with rongorongo. Anyways, it would just be of curio value if they did I guess.

The article looks most impressive, think it's just about there for FAC. Nice work, and cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Butinov and Knorozov did a statistical analysis and concluded that RR couldn't both be true writing and encode Rapanui. I mention that under some additions to Pozdniakov, where it's most relevant. But that was back in the 50's, and I don't know what else they may have done. — kwami (talk) 06:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

4u1e's comments

Random stuff:

• The lead is probably too short for FA. WP:LEAD suggests four paras for a long article like this. Candidate topics for brief summary in the lead might include the historical record, form and construction, and perhaps a little more on decipherment. The current lead is a good brief summary, it's just that we're allowed to be a little less brief for an article of this size!

Okay. That's been said by others. I'll try to get to it.

Done. — kwami (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• 'The full name of the script is said to have been' Can we be more specific about who says this? I assume it comes from interviews with indigenes?

I don't know. It's in Englert's dictionary, but I only have this part in English translation, which is why it wasn't included in the footnote.

• After a little thought, I can see that it's consistent and logical, but be prepared to defend what some will perceive as a 'mixed economy' of referencing styles. If I understand correctly, you've used Harvard-style citations to reference information, with footnotes to elaborate on various points? It's an unusual approach, so may generate some negative reaction.
• Suggest you link glyph at the first ocurrence, as likely not be known by many readers.

Linked in the lead. Needed in the body as well?

The lead and the main text can be viewed as semi-separate docs, so I'd recommend it.4u1e (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Done.

• 'contours of animate ... design' Meaning that they represent living things? Is there a more commonly understood way of putting this? (I've a masters degree (albeit in engineering!) and I consider myself fairly well-read. If I had to pause and think about it, it's likely others will.)

Done.

• 'see petroglyphs below'. Possibly use an internal wikilink here? (Some people really don't like 'see below', by the way, but I think it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do.)

I tried, but can't get the link to work. Done.

• Should note 2 (Skjølsvold (1994), as cited in Orliac (2005) be inline Harvard rather than a footnote?

Done.

• 'and either face outward or to the right' This is mildly ambiguous; figures facing outwards could be facing the sides of the wooden tablets, rather than facing the reader as I imagine is intended. Perhaps say 'and either face the reader or to the right'?

Done.

• 'Easter Island had long been deforested of trees that size; analysis of charcoal indicates that the forest disappeared in the first half of the 17th century.' Being really picky, when had it long been deforested of trees of that size? Could this not just read: 'Analysis of charcoal indicates that Easter Island had been deforested of trees that size since the first half of the 17th century'?

It was relative to Orliac. Changed to 'has'.

• 'Also, if shark teeth are ever found that display wear from being used as writing instruments, they could give a more direct carbon date of the inscriptions.' While true, this reads as original research or speculation. It would be better if could be tied to a view expressed in one of the sources.

Need to track this down.

Moved to talk page for now. Hardly an essential point. — kwami (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• 'Designs include a concentration of chimeric bird-man figures etc.' Should the last two items in this list (roosters and canoes) be separated by semi-colons, as earlier items are?

Done.

• 'However, there is what appears to be a short string of rongorongo glyphs carved on the wall of a cave...' This is written as a contrast to the earlier part of the paragraph, but appears to be quite consistent with it ('Several of the anthropomorphic and animal-form petroglyphs have parallels in rongorongo...' Am I missing a contrast here?

Reworded.

• ' There are over 14,000 glyph elements total.' I would expect to see 'in total' here. Probably a UK/US difference, though.

Done.

• There's a certain amount of repetition about the Santiago staff, which seems to be introduced in full three? times. Check that it is only introduced once and it can simply referred to as I, the Santiago staff after this. Similarly for the snuff box.

That whole section introduction is redundant. Reworded.

• Are recto and verso widely enough understood, or do they need to be explained for Wikipedia's likely audience?

Linked.

• In the table of classic texts, some letters are bold and others are not. The difference seems to be in the quality of the artefact. Is this intended, and if so, should a note to that effect be added?

Yes, that was the reason, but it was subjective. Made all bold.

• 'inscriptions on sculls' Potential that some will believe it a typo for skull?
  • You mean it was a typo! I assumed you meant oars! 4u1e (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No wonder that passed unnoticed for so long! Actually, oars were also carved, but we only know the designs from early sketches of tatoos of oars on old people's backs - hardly enough to make a comparison. — kwami (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• 'The best published reference to the glyphs remains Barthel (1958), a fairly exhaustive and well organized list.' This appears to be the author's opinion, and so may raise hackles at WP:FAC.

Changed to 'only'.

Phew, that's a lot of comments, but it's all nit-picky stuff, nothing serious. Great article. I'll try and complete my comments later. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll be able to get to this later today. Meanwhile, what would you suggest instead of distinguishing references and footnotes? Is it normal to mix them all together? — kwami (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

From looking around, most people use very few footnotes (by which I mean notes that expand on or explain what is in the main text), but a lot of citations. Personally I cite things using footnotes(!), and occasionally include notes in the same mechanism (see Brabham BT19 for example) That sort of approach seems fairly normal round here, see John Knox and Slavery in ancient Greece, both featured on the front page this week. Now, that's really no more logical than your approach, so I'm not saying you should change. Just be ready to be challenged! 4u1e (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Made the quickest corrections; the others will have to wait. — kwami (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, easy enough to change if people insist. However, I hate notes like that, because you never know when you see the note mark whether it's merely a reference, or a substantial remark that's worth reading. — kwami (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - make yourself familiar with WP:CITE and WP:HARVARD before you go to FAC, people sometimes insist on things that aren't actually required. 4u1e (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I got this response at CITE:

I think this is fine. Many articles use different systems for explanatory footnotes and citation. Often, the cite.php system is used for citation and the ref/note template system for explanatory footnotes. For instance, see the FA Pericles. Your system is somewhat different, but serves a similar purpose of differentiating content footnotes from citations alone. This isn't to say that someone won't complain at FAC, but I think your method is well within accepted practice. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)