Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:51, 25 April 2008

Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Christianity Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from William Melmoth appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 January 2008 (check views). A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2008/January.

Classing

Quote: "Start class" The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:

   * a particularly useful picture or graphic
   * multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
   * a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
   * multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article

A picture of William Melmoth? This is very unlikely, given his dates. There are probably engravings from frontispieces, but such a thing would hardly improve the article. What the author looked like is not germane. Elements should be added when needed, not when absent.

Links: I defy anyone to suggest, much less demonstrate, that the article is not properly linked.

Subheadings that treat an element of the topic: This is a biography of Melmoth gathered from the new DNB. The NDNB is 2004 and represents best scholarship. "Subheadings" should be employed when an article is long enough to need organization or when there are major topics introduced. In this case, there cannot be any such. Introducing more material on his work of religious reflection would not be germane to a biographical article and should be handled by an article on the work. Otherwise, there are no subtopics beyond paragraph level.

Subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article: This has no such coatracks.

It is manifest and obvious that this article is not "start class." If the person offering an assessment does not believe that it's B class, then it would be well for him or her to explain the exceptions from B class rather than to simply state that the article fits "start." This article does not use intralinear notation, per its author's preference. Other than that, it is fully referenced and has been edited by more than one person and has been reviewed. Whatever else, this is not "start class."

If nothing else, I should very, very much like to hear what I failed to discuss in the article that belongs to the biography and which is necessary for it. Geogre (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Geogre, remember the argument between Zeal-of-the-Land Busy and the puppet in Bartholomew Fair! Who are you defending the article to? If one pays even passing attention to any ratings of anything at Misplaced Pages, they will will only distract and irritate one. The best defense of any Misplaced Pages text is the tacit one of supportive references. This "vetting" process is only as useful as you find it to be. --Wetman (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I had done my usual, with these things, and simply changed the assessment. However, the original "start class" assessor came to my talk page and told me to review the policies and revert myself. He also told me that I should use the talk page of the article. Well, not being one to act all arrogant and everything, I figured I'd demonstrate that I knew the categories pretty well, and I would use the article talk, and I would not revert. People who do assessments need to answer for their actions. There is something inherently arrogant about even sallying forth on such a campaign. People who do so need to have figured out why they need to assess, how they can assess, and that they are qualified to assess on any subject. Otherwise, they need to be humbler. Geogre (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Start class Biography rating according to MILHIST standards, including:

• (1) - referencing and citation - only a single citation and a single reference
• (2) coverage and accuracy - unknown; however, at only four paragraphs, it is generally likely that there could be more in depth coverage of the subject, if any such data exists, and it almost certainly does for a subject included in the source cited
• (3) structure - no sections, which is a minus
• (4) Grammar - good
• (5) Supporting materials - only one reference cited

As someone who has used such encyclopedia-like sources myself, I know that such tertiary sources are generally considered less than the best. Clearly, there were other works which the source used referred to when compiling their entry, including possibly primary and secondary sources, both of which are generally preferred. Article alsmost certainly falls short of B class based only one a single source, if for no other reason than that it has not been established authoritatively that the single source cited is generally objective. Granted, in this case that is likely, but it cannot be established without multiple sources. John Carter (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So, he's a soldier now? He's a Christian soldier, but what you say is wrong anyway. A single reference is sufficient. "If any such data exists?" "Such data" confirms what is in the article. At only four paragraphs, it is more than complete for a man who produced one major work and who lived a life out of the public eye. The structure has no sections, but then you complain that it's only four paragraphs. Which is it -- too short to be good, or too long to not have subheads? Supporting materials are fine. I'm glad you use tertiary sources. This article uses the DNB, and I'm sure they do have a bibliography, and I'm sure that someone at Oxford could go to the special collections to look at the 18th century biographical dictionaries. I'm sure that someone now could find references to articles about Melmoth's genre or the importance of, but those would be about the book, not the person. It's clearly not "start class," and he's clearly not Milhist. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Being directed to make section headings for a five-paragraph article reminds one that there are many distracting ways to permit one's time to be wasted at Misplaced Pages. --Wetman (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Utgard Loki might benefit from comparing this article to almost any other article in the Category:B-Class biography articles to see how it compares. If he did, I think he would recognize that simply taking the text from one short encyclopedia entry covering no more than two pages generally falls well short of B-class, even though that is all that is here. The article doesn't even list all of the works the author wrote. I see a rather unfortunate tendency here for an author to demand that a rather minimally researched article be counted as "B". Clearly, if he wants to ensure that the article will get little attention, that is one way to do so. He could nominate it for peer review and see the comments there, but I rather doubt he will do so, or like the results if he did.

And the MILHIST ratings were used as the most explicitly phrased rating system out there, not because of the subject being military; Biography just hasn't incorporate the parameters into its template yet. However, given the rather, well, absolutist nature of the "proprietor" of the article, I think that, particularly given the subject's comparative importance, there's not much chance of it getting any improvement anyway. And, clearly, there are several ways to waste time here. One of them might well be trying to offer an informed opinion with a certain party here. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I know the author's biography. I know the author's effect on the world. If the classifications are about quality of article, rather than bytes, then this is B class. If you hold out "B" as a grading scheme, as the step below "A," meaning "above average," then the entire assessment drive needs to be deleted. No one is qualified to go around being... what's your word? "absolutist?" ... about articles without themselves doing the research and being informed. So, when an informed reviewer wants to say what's not here, then there will be an informed review. At present, I'm the closest thing, since I researched the fellow, and you're not anything like close.

A list of works? Oh really? That mentality is why we have fancruft cluttering up every random search. Significant and notable works should be not only listed, but discussed. In this case, such has been done. The rest (a pamphlet series) needs only summary. In fact, I do know them, as that was my actual entry point to the fellow: his polemical work. It was dull. However, the genuine interest the figure holds for historians is as a tick mark on the movement of devotional literature during this era, which is quite, quite different from the devotional literature earlier. I know about this, too.

Therefore, I can say that this article provides complete coverage for the biography of this figure as is needed in an encyclopedia. Oh, and "barely two pages" in the folio sized nDNB is no trivial matter. Don't argue to argue, and don't try to win. It's unbecoming, and it ruins your credibility and the credibility of the assessment drive-by. Geogre (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• Biography articles without infoboxes
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles