Talk:Emerald Tablet/GA1
Add topicLatest comment: 10 months ago by Bari' bin Farangi in topic GA review
GA review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Bari' bin Farangi (talk · contribs) 13:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: A. Parrot (talk · contribs) 03:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
I feel like I should review this article because I have access to several of the Hermeticism-related sources, which I suppose makes me better qualified than most Wikipedians. I'm working my way through the article and writing up notes; I intend to post my initial comments within a couple of days. A. Parrot (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Mostly good, but see my comments on 3b below.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- My only concern here is the text of the tablet in the lead section. It's not usual to include such a lengthy quotation in a lead section, and given how many translations of the text are quoted in the body—including another copy of Newton's version—it feels redundant.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Sourcing seems very thorough and formatting generally excellent. However, Calvet 1998, Davis 1926, Nau 1907, Plessner 1927, and Ruska 1925 appear in the source list but are not cited.
- Removed unused Calvet 1998. I think Davis 1926, Nau 1907, Ruska 1925 and especially Plessner 1927 are on-topic and notable enough to remain in a section called 'bibliography' (rather than 'sourced used' or similar). Classifying them as 'further reading' would likely appear arbitrary to readers. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- If a source is relevant to the topic but not used in the article, it goes in the further reading. I don't see what's arbitrary about that. A. Parrot (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- It likely would not be clear to readers (as opposed to MOS-knowledgeable WP editors) on what basis these sources were set apart in a different section. They are also pretty specialized and therefore not actually good further reading (as are the current entries Kahn 1994, Ruska 1926, and Quispel 2000). Plessner 1927 for example is an essential source for researchers to be aware of, but should only be read after Ruska 1926, and is much too detailed for the general public. In any case, most important in my view is that they should remain present in the article in some way. If that's in the further reading section, I won't object. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Bari' bin Farangi: How do you want to handle these? A. Parrot (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- I fundamentally agree with Apaugasma's assessment but in a pontifical (in the most literal sense) and mos-compliant spirit I'd just very diplomatically use them as additional citations different simple things to keep them in the article and out of the further reading section. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- I feel like we can move the cutlery to twenty past four or is there anything else we're missing? Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- There are still a few unused sources: Latz, Mandosio 2004a, and the two Trevisan sources. (If you're not aware, there is a script you can get to detect these. A. Parrot (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- No, I wasn't! Thanks :) Latz is a minor figure of German esotericism and his mention was totally superfluous but carried over from the French article—same for Trevisan which were terrible citations (quasi-primary sources) to support modern analyses, so they're gone. Mandosio 2004a can be cited for the Santella translation. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- There are still a few unused sources: Latz, Mandosio 2004a, and the two Trevisan sources. (If you're not aware, there is a script you can get to detect these. A. Parrot (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- I feel like we can move the cutlery to twenty past four or is there anything else we're missing? Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- I fundamentally agree with Apaugasma's assessment but in a pontifical (in the most literal sense) and mos-compliant spirit I'd just very diplomatically use them as additional citations different simple things to keep them in the article and out of the further reading section. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Bari' bin Farangi: How do you want to handle these? A. Parrot (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- It likely would not be clear to readers (as opposed to MOS-knowledgeable WP editors) on what basis these sources were set apart in a different section. They are also pretty specialized and therefore not actually good further reading (as are the current entries Kahn 1994, Ruska 1926, and Quispel 2000). Plessner 1927 for example is an essential source for researchers to be aware of, but should only be read after Ruska 1926, and is much too detailed for the general public. In any case, most important in my view is that they should remain present in the article in some way. If that's in the further reading section, I won't object. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- If a source is relevant to the topic but not used in the article, it goes in the further reading. I don't see what's arbitrary about that. A. Parrot (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Removed unused Calvet 1998. I think Davis 1926, Nau 1907, Ruska 1925 and especially Plessner 1927 are on-topic and notable enough to remain in a section called 'bibliography' (rather than 'sourced used' or similar). Classifying them as 'further reading' would likely appear arbitrary to readers. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Sourcing seems very thorough and formatting generally excellent. However, Calvet 1998, Davis 1926, Nau 1907, Plessner 1927, and Ruska 1925 appear in the source list but are not cited.
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- I'm not able to check the sources on the alchemical side as much as I would like, and I'm not as knowledgeable about that side as I probably should be. But the citations that I can check (e.g., Bull 2018, Ebeling 2007, Faivre 2005, Stolzenberg 2013, Van Bladel 2009) all pass verification. I do think the current Citation 15 isn't ideal, as 1–22 is a very broad page range that makes it inconvenient for people tracking down the source. I think pages 13–17 are sufficient.
- C. It contains no original research:
- The only sign of OR that I can detect is that Nguyen 2017 doesn't specifically identify the tattoo as the Khunrath illustration, but that's clearly what it is, so this is a sky-is-blue situation.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Earwig's tool turns up some close similarities in wording with some webpages, but they're all false positives caused by shared quotations of the text of the tablet. None of the sources I can access seem to be too closely paraphrased in the article text.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- For the most part the article stays focused on the tablet and its impact, but the paragraph about Breton feels like it wanders a little off-topic, and is also harder to understand than most of the article. E.g., the relationship between Surrealism and Hegelianism really isn't relevant to the Emerald Tablet (even if it might be relevant to Hermeticism more broadly), and I didn't know what "collapse depth and surface" meant until I read the sentence that follows. The key points seem to be that Surrealists drew on ideas from the Hermeticists of their time, and Breton specifically used "as above, so below" to, as you put it, "bind dichotomous forces into a seamless whole".
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It seems to be entirely in line with the scholarship, based on my (admittedly pretty general) understanding of it.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- On hold for now, but the problems are minor and should easily be cleared up.
- Pass or Fail:
Pass. Congratulations!