Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nicolo Giraud/archive1

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 20:40, 25 August 2009 [1].

Nicolo Giraud[edit]

Nominators: User:Haiduc and User:Ottava Rima
Toolbox

I am cautious about nominating this article because it has a long and delicate consensus to determine the language. Originally, the page went through an AfD and I started fixing it to improve it. There was also a dispute between two users on weight issues, and the page, as a compromised, gained a long detail of the complex dispute about the actual relationship between Byron and Giraud. The wording was carefully chosen as not to be biased. Although, as admitted, Haiduc would like it to be more towards his care, I think he is willing to accept what is currently there. Now, I do not think the language is -perfect-, and there may be copyediting concerns. However, I would like people to understand that there was a lot of examina\tion and discussion over just about every line over months and months. I will welcome -all- concerns and comments, and I will thoroughly discuss matters with Haiduc in order to ensure that changes would not disrupt the balance. I would also prefer to keep the balance over anything else. However, I do feel that the page is extremely thorough and well put together, as it represents just about -everything- on Giraud. So, I now present to you our dear Nicolo Giraud, the boy/young man who almost absolutely nothing is really known, for your consideration. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: is there any reason why this article lacks an infobox? Thanks, Majorly talk 17:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infoboxes are not required, and many editors dislike them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did I at any point say they were required? I was simply asking, SandyGeorgia. Majorly talk 18:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few reasons - I don't like them (see Sandy's statement above). However, there is also almost no information. It would seem aesthetically inappropriate to have a box where the only bit of information known is a probable birth year but not even one. All information is already contained in the lead, so it is unnecessary. The page is also devoted to the "character" Giraud, who appears in Byron's letters and is the subject of speculation by various critics. This "character" was later turned into an actual character in a poem that had similar effects as Byron's letters and adds a further interpretation to the possible relationship. It is possible that Giraud never actually existed because we have very little data on him. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see, thanks for the information. I agree, having read the article, a box would be pretty useless. Majorly talk 18:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I figured such would come up. Because of the delicate nature of it, could someone who is a third party come up with suggestions? I'd rather not get it horribly wrong and screw something up. I've seen some discussions on alt and a lot of people tend to make mistakes (and knowing me, I would definitely be one of those people). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text is not supposed to be that hard. Perhaps you could use the alt text from The Lucy poems as a model? Also please see WP:ALT #What to specify paragraph 3, which gives general advice about alt text for portraits. Eubulides (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My attempt. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very nicely done. (Now I can cite this article as a model!) Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no information on when he died? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no information on when he was born, where he was born, where he lived, etc. The only information on Giraud is from Byron's letters. Giraud taught him Italian. Giraud lived with him. He sent Giraud to a monastery. The put a very large sum of money in his will for Giraud. There are a few letters from Giraud to Byron expressing how he missed Byron. Besides that, it is all speculation. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there is: it gives an approx year of birth, and place of birth. The problem is, it's presented as a biography, so the fact that his fate is unknown needs to be made a little clearer I think. Majorly talk 21:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Added "unknown" as a death date. The end of the first paragraph also makes it clear that "Little is known of Giraud other than his involvement with Byron". Ottava Rima (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some things I am confused by:

  • "the name by which he is most commonly known, Nicolo, was apparently given to him by Byron" - why is this apparent? I dunno, it seems there should be some amount of certainty in what is being said. Maybe say "According to... this happened". It just sound better.
  • What's a major-domo?
  • What's "boyish"? Why not young male?
  • Should rumor not be rumour? Surely British spelling would be more appropriate in this article?
  • There's a lot of quotes used, maybe try and cut them down somewhat. I think it would be more appropriate to analyse and use quotes rather than copy them.

Majorly talk 16:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed apparently. I wikilinked majordomo - it is hard to explain what the term means, but it was the word used by Byron in his letters. I don't know about young male, because young male is very vague (it could mean someone up to 30, for instance). Boyish covers male teens, as teen would also imply female which would skew it to the wrong way. Fixed rumor. The quotes are also important to keep as a summary could be twisted any way and the words used by the critics are highly sensitive. There has also been problems with summaries of quotes as "misleading" or other complaints lodged. For instance, it would be difficult to really summarize Christensen claiming "was ever so vulgar as to set an exact market value on his sexual arrangements in Greece". Ottava Rima (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with this article becoming featured, though I'll keep watch on here in case anything else is brought up. Majorly talk 18:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support featured status - article seems fine and dandy. Ironholds (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning to support.

  • "After Byron took Giraud to visit Charles Meryon, an English doctor (who recounts the visit in his memoirs, noting Byron's vivid interest in the boy), rumours were spread..." This reads as though we should expect a citation of Meryon's memoirs. Rather, there is no cite at all at the end of this (I would have said remarkable) sentence, and when we get to one, it is of a contemporary biographer. I think the key to this expectation is the present-tense, and direct, expression "who recounts..." Can an editor look at this? The same problem arises in a following sentence: "Accounts from Michael Bruce and Howe Browne, both witnesses..." Is there no scope to cite these various sources?
  • Under "relationship with Byron" we have a sentence introducing a quote, but the quote begins at the start of a sentence. I suggest the quote should begin "...one of those extraordinary friendships".
  • The Grebanier quote is grammatically problematic - it doesn't make sense. It isn't a fault of the WP editors, Grebanier is at fault. I wonder though whether this might mean it could be better paraphrased?
  • I made a few copyedits that editors may wish to check.

Excellent prose otherwise, and extremely thorough with its treatment of biographical sources (apart from the one issue noted above). hamiltonstone (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the first point - if you can hunt down the original manuscripts and find someone willing to allow you to look at it, then I think we could add excerpts. However, the information is only available through second hand, and I doubt that even many of the critics discussing it have actually ever seen the diaries, let alone know what they actually say. Google books has none. There is a published memoir by his son (of the same name), but not by the doctor. The other accounts are provided second hand by Thomas Moore, so they were not written down. The only quotes that can be drawn from Moore is "a miserable looking creature". p. 1123–1124 - "In speaking of Nicolo Gerard [...] corroborated the latter's account of the bad suspicions attached to the connexion they had both had as representation to B. on the subject, in consequence of which kindness he dismissed the boy with a large present of money & parted with him—This boy, a miserable looking creature was the son of the woman in whose house Lusieri lived"
  • The interpretation of what Moore presents is from Fiona MacCarthy's biography, which is currently seen as the definitive biography. Also, I could not find the Grebanier quote that you are referring to. By the way, it is better to rely on quotes instead of paraphrasing for these excerpts since the matter is highly controversial and paraphrasing is never exact. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote: "If, the poem says, our hero's affections were fastened upon Nicolo Giraud, the affair, after all, took place in a Turkish world; he was but following the custom of the country. Once he had seen a beautiful Ganymede of fifteen attending the Turkish Governor, a Grecian youth, publicly known as the Governor's 'catamite.' Was it criminal to do what the Governor was doing?" - the quote occurs in the second last para of the WP entry. I am all in favour of relying on quotes, but not when their grammar is crap. But i will leave that to you and other reviewers. If MacCarthy's bio is the source for all the early stuff, then I'd tweak the start of the para to bring this to the reader's attention. Before the first sentence ("After Byron took Giraud to visit Charles Meryon..."), insert a sentence along these lines: "Fiona MacCarthy assembled early accounts of Byron's relationship with Giraud for her 2002 biography, Byron: Life and Legend. She reports that after Byron... (etc)" hamiltonstone (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the quote in the book - grammar and all. By the way, over 7 biographers are used for the first section, so it is not just MacCarthy. I don't really understand why there is a problem with stating that he made a mention in his memoirs. Nor do I think I can say that MacCarthy assembled earlier accounts. She could have made stuff up, or she could have drawn from many sources. What is cited to her is uncontroversial and in most of the biographies on Byron and presented in the same way. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that is the quote. As i said in the first place, the fault lies in the original. My point is we shouldn't reproduce poor prose in a WP article that aims for FAC. Paraphrase it, use ellipsis and square bracket text - there are options. But don't retain bad prose just because it is someone else's. As for the MacCarthy thing: likewise, there isn't a problem with the WP text you've written; I thought there was an issue with the referencing of it. But per WP:POINT, I'm going to drop it. If no-one else complains, I certainly won't. :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Giraud was said to be the brother-in-law of Giovanni Battista Lusier ...". By whom was he said to be?
  2. "In January 1809, Byron met the 15-year-old Giraud in Athens during his travels, and the two were friends until Byron resumed his travels in March." This implies that the two stopped being friends once Byron resumed his travels, which does not seem consistent with the later story.
  3. "The two spent their days studying, swimming, and taking in the landscape". I'm not sure what "taking in the landscape" means, doesn't seem idiomatic.
  4. "After Byron took Giraud to visit Charles Meryon, an English doctor (who recounts the visit in his memoirs, noting Byron's vivid interest in the boy), rumours were spread by a servant ...". A servant of who's? Byron or the doctor?
  5. "Accounts from Michael Bruce and Howe Browne, both witnesses of Byron's interactions with Giraud, provided confirmation of the relationship to Byron's early biographer Thomas Moore, although in disparaging terms." This seems unclear. The confirmation was in disparaging terms?
  6. "By November they were joined by Lusieri, a French Consul, and a group of German academics." Was Lusieri a French Consul, or was the French Consul someone else? Why is "Consul" capitalised?

--Malleus Fatuorum 02:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. "By whom was he said to be?" - Everyone? There would be the same problem if the word was "thought to be". However, the sources don't really say who originated the claim - did he? Did Byron? Did some biographer? I don't even know if the kid actually existed. MacCarthy just takes him as the brother in law without any question. Others don't.
2. Changed.
3. "I'm not sure what "taking in the landscape" means, doesn't seem idiomatic." - Sitting around and looking? Maybe it is an American think (another use is "taking in the view") : )
4. Fixed - Byron's.
5. See above for the original presentation of Moore. MacCarthy (who the summary is from) says: "two witnesses later questioned by Tom Moore about Byron's relationship, gave disparaging accounts, both probably self-serving."
6. The consul was Louis-François-Sébastien Fauvel. He does not appear to have a Wiki page on en or on fr. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • "Giraud was said to be the brother-in-law of Giovanni Battista Lusieri, a Roman painter and broker for Lord Elgin. However, Demetrius Zograffo, Byron's guide in Greece, informed Byron that the 60-year-old Lusieri was unmarried, and was courting two women each of whom believed that Lusieri was to marry her. Lusieri certainly had a close relationship with Giraud, so it is possible that the two were related in another way, perhaps as father and son."
    • I'm confused here. Is it saying that Giraud was most likely the brother of one of the two women being courted? What does "was said" mean?
  • "In a letter from 23 August 1810 to John Hobhouse written at the Capuchin monastery of Mendele near Athens where he was residing,"
    • The letter was written or received on 23 August 1810?
  • "After Byron took Giraud to visit Charles Meryon, an English doctor (who recounts the visit in his memoirs, noting Byron's vivid interest in the boy), rumours were spread by Byron's servant that the consultation concerned an anal rupture."
    • Perhaps "...to visit the English doctor Charles Meryon—who recounted the visit in his memoirs after noting Byron's vivid interest in the boy—rumours ..." would be better? Also, any possible link for anal rupture?
  • Otherwise, I didn't see anything that caught my eye on my read-through. It looks like it is a very extensively researched article, and I commend all who have worked on it. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm currently using my public account (I'm at the library) - "was said" means that people claimed him as the child but there is no evidence of his birth or parentage. The information on "courting" implies that he was not married so could not be an "in law". I don't know how else to reword it that wouldn't cross into original research. The letter is dated that date. I made it more clear. I don't know about dashes being better than parentheses, but I have no concern either way. Coriolanus (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And ed, a link for anal rupture? lol. I don't even want to look. But seriously, the phrase was thrown about 200 years ago, so it was probably not a condition that would have an equivalent now or be something that would have much actual background besides what is invoked in the imagination when the two works are combined. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would "believed" work better? Otherwise, I see your point, so I'll drop mine.
  • :) well, you never know. It wasn't just dashes; I rearranged the sentence a wee bit. Either way, my thoughts were only very minor and subject to my opinion; it now has my full support. Cheers Ottava, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All my comments have been addressed. This is a very impressive work. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
George Colman the Younger is the Wikipedia page name. Regardless, the source and description were mixed up. I'm having a problem tracking down who made the Moore image - it was originally a painting by an individual I cannot find and then it was turned into an etching it seems. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This book has a similar image that could be used to replace the Moore image, with an attribution to the book. This shows a pencil sketch of the portrait. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the Moore image with one I could definitely establish a date and authorship for here. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All right, all images look good. NW (Talk) 16:29, 25 August 2009 (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_candidates/Nicolo_Giraud/archive1&oldid=1079393988"