Talk:Paul Michaux/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. In the next day or two, I'll do a close readthrough of the prose, noting any initial issues I see, and then begin the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough
Here's just a few starting comments--sorry I didn't make it very far in yet, but Mrs. and Little Miss Khazar just got home, so will continue later/tomorrow. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've completed my first readthrough of the article. There's the start of good article here, but the prose is difficult at times, I think in part due to close fidelity to the French original. (I read some, but not fluent French, so I've been flipping back and forth.) Some suggestions for sentences to clarify are below. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "including becoming a Knight of the National Order of the Legion of Honour." -- this award is mentioned twice in two consecutive sentences; one should be removed
 * ✅ Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "As a member of the parish patronage" -- I'm not clear on how one can be a member of a "patronage". Would "parish patronage committee" be a more logical phrase here?
 * ✅ Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "an organisation which took prompt steps to support team sports (including football and basketball) as well as choral music." --is it the Fédération gymnastique et sportive des patronages de France or the Fédération sportive et culturelle de France that took these actions?
 * ❌; I already clarify that it is both.
 * I understand that one organization became the other, but I'm not sure what "prompt steps" means in this context. Do you mean that the Fédération gymnastique promptly supported these sports from 1898 on, and the Federation sportive promptly supported them after the name change as well? Right now it's unclear whether "an organization which" applies to the first organization, its later formulation, or both. Perhaps this issue would be clarified by rewriting the sentence as "the foundation of the Fédération gymnastique et sportive des patronages de France in 1898 (later the Fédération sportive et culturelle de France), an organisation which took prompt steps to support team sports (including football and basketball) as well as choral music."


 * "In 1911, he received the" -- it might make this section read more smoothly to give dates for all the awards, or none of them, unless this one is particularly notable.
 * ✅ Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "where he was appreciated by his peers" -- this is a rather vague--is it possible to give more detail?
 * I know of no more detail other than "his peers". Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What's the original language of the source? Is it possible to distinguish whether this means his fellow students, friends ... ?


 * "The group supported Michaux's thesis on cancer" -- supported financially, or supported his conclusions?
 * ✅ Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "it is also in service that are developed the metal clips sutures" -- I'm not sure what's being said here.
 * ✅ Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * " he was one of the first people to use autoclaves in 1893" -- repeats previous sentence


 * "where there was no unanimity" -- what does it mean for gymnastics to be or not be unanimous? I'm not sure I follow.
 * "a year after the creation of the Union des Sociétés Françaises de Sports Athlétiques (USFSA)" -- did he create this? I'm not sure why this group is being mentioned here.
 * "Union des Sociétés Françaises de Sports Athlétiques" -- up until now, the article followed the French convention of not capitalizing the title after the first word; here it follows the English convention. I don't have a preference, but it should probably be consistent.
 * "the success of this 24 July 1898 competition meant that Michaux's intentions were fulfilled" -- it would be good to attribute this judgement and make it clearer who considered this competition a success, or to be specific about the ways in which it was a success.
 * "advocate the duty to examine athletes' medical condition" -- for whom did it advocate this duty--doctors, officials, other athletes?
 * "other sports, such as football and basketball also competed" --technically, the sports didn't compete with each other, but athletes compete in the sports.
 * "allowed for physical education in France" -- this is a bit unclear, too. Was the church considering not allowing physical education? Or would it be better to say "encouraged physical education"? ... Okay, I looked this up in one of the sources and now I understand better that the church at first discouraged physical education. However, it could be clearer here that the church was initially opposed, and that Pope Pius X set a new general precedent by encouraging exercise, as this source discusses.
 * "Criticized even within the church" -- why was he criticized? These two paragraphs suggest there was some sort of controversy over Michaux's sports programs, but it's unclear what it was.
 * " Michaux was affected by anticlerical measures" -- in what way?
 * "Fédération gymnastique et sportive des patronages de France became the mainstay of the proposed Olympic Oath" -- I'm not clear what this means. Did they write part of the oath? All of the Oath? Or were they the main people to say the oath? Or to support the creation of an oath?
 * "In the next competition" -- in the next football competition? The next after what?
 * "On 21 and 22 July 1923" -- is it correct that this parade lasted for two days? Seems unusual.
 * "his long-time friend" -- is the "his" Michaux's? The last male referred to in the text was the archbishop, which slightly confuses the issue. You might just add "michaux's".
 * This list repeats information given in prose in the article and in the infobox:
 * Paul Michaux was honoured with the following awards:
 * Grand Cross of the Order of St. Sylvester November 14, 1911[19]
 * Knight of the Legion of Honor March 20, 1921[34]
 * Commander of the Order of St. Gregory the Great[35]

I'd suggest just removing it as repetition.
 * " Honor federal vermeil is the highest distinction Federal attributed, following a decision of the Steering Committee for more than 35 years as a volunteer in the ranks of the FSCF." -- Another sentence that loses me. I don't understand the phrase "is the highest distinction Federal attributed", and "following a decision of the Steering Committee for more than 35 years as a volunteer in the ranks of the FSCF" seems like it has words or phrases out of order. Would it be correct to rewrite this sentence as "The Federal honor (vermeil) is the highest distinction, awarded by the Steering Committee to FSCF volunteers who serve for more than 35 years."?


 * "That did not stop some ecclesiastical circles to support sports associations over warlike connotations" -- this gets a bit tangled here. What does "that" refer to? Is the sense that ecclesiastics are supporting sports instead of warlike groups, or supporting sports groups that have military characteristics?
 * Sorry, I should have explained my confusion more clearly. "to support sports associations over warlike connotations" is confusing for a few reasons. First of all, "stop to support" in English usually means "stop what you're doing and take the time to support". Do you mean "stop from supporting?" (i.e., "prevent from supporting") instead? Second, what does it mean to support sports associations "over warlike connotations"? "Connotation" means "the secondary meaning of a word or expression". What does it mean to say that clerics supported sports groups instead of "warlike meanings"? Given how confused this discussion has gotten, it would be very helpful if you could give me the original passage from Groeninger here--would that be possible? -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have access currently. Therefore, removed as I can't make sense of it now. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have access currently. Therefore, removed as I can't make sense of it now. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Outside comment
As part of a DYK check today, an issue was found in the Early career section. The first paragraph's penultimate sentence, starting "This medical conference", is referring back to the Conférence Olivaint, which Michaux has just joined and will become its first president. The problem is that its Wikipedia article indicates that the Olivaint organization was not medical at all. Is that article wrong, or has there been an error in translation? (Michaux is certainly a doctor.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm marking this as on hold pending the conclusion of the DYK review; no sense doing both at once. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That was my error, and I have fixed it. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * DYK has been approved; the issues have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to let you know I haven't forgotten this one--I'm hoping to get back to it tonight or tomorrow. Sorry for the delay, and thanks for your patience! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ some and removed some. However, do not assume that the facts are incorrect (two-day parade). Thine Antique Pen (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between assuming and double-checking, but thanks for adding the italics to make sure I absolutely did not miss your rebuke; it was pretty much invisible otherwise. Anyway, I'll take a look at the changes later today--thanks for your work. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, prose is mostly cleared up save for one bewildering sentence, still marked above. But I am surprised that in response to my asking for clarity/more information, you've been deleting information rather than clarifying/expanding. Do you have access to the original sources? I just wanted to verify that you've doublechecked this information since translating it from the French wiki. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I had access to them. The thing is, some sources barely give any information. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Requesting second opinion
Sorry to not see this one through myself, but I'm interested in getting a second opinion on this unusual nomination. I was about to turn to other criteria when I ran into yet another sentence that gave me pause: "Several cities have adopted his name for streets including the St. Paul Michaux Metz". This street name doesn't make a lot of sense, and it looks from the original article that what was intended was "Rue Paul Michaux in Metz" (rue Paul Michaux à Metz). However, I notice that when I put this sentence into Google Translate, that "St. Paul Michaux Metz" is the nonsensical mistranslation that it spits out.

It seems pretty clear at this point that this nomination is a hasty tweaking of a Google translation of the original article at fr.wiki (your original upload: ; Fr.wiki: ), and that's why so much of the article's prose made so little sense to either you or me. While you say you had access to the books used as sources in the French original, there's not much evidence here that you used them for double-checking--or even double-checked this article's text against the French original, as the confusion over Google mistranslations like "Rue Paul Michaux" and "warlike connotations" makes clear. I'm not sure where that leaves the article, though. Fr.wiki is of course freely released content, so there's nothing wrong with cutting and pasting its sentences, though you should have identified in the edit summary that you did so. (See: Copying within Wikipedia). But I'm not sure it meets Good Article standards for verifiability without an editor at en.wiki also checking the sources, given the level of confusion that seems to be occurring.

Since I'm not in a position to do that (none of these books are available online or at my library), I'm passing the review on to somebody who hopefully can. Let me know if you have any questions. Sorry again that this didn't end in the clear pass we both hoped for, but I'll look forward to working with you again in the future. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Not ready for GA at this time
Actually, after thinking about this for another minute, I'm simply failing this one on attribution/licensing grounds for now, per Copying within Wikipedia, as well as for prose and accuracy concerns. It's clear that the article does contain errors, and you've unfortunately shown extreme reluctance in this review for any double-checking. My suggestion would be to carefully re-read and revise this article for grammatical and factual errors before resubmitting, and please be sure to properly attribute your use of other editors' work in the future. If you disagree with my decision, I won't be at all offended if you decide to appeal or resubmit. Despite my concerns, I appreciate your work here, and I wish you the best with this one in the future! Just slow down a little, double check your work, re-read those sources and clarify some of these things in your own words instead of Google Translate's--the article'll get there fast. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I double-checked the summary just now, and was horrified to see what an idiot I am. You attributed this to fr.wiki sufficiently, with not with the standard format, and I somehow overlooked it when checking this myself. I apologize profoundly.
 * My concerns about prose and accuracy remain, and I hope you'll address them before resubmitting this for review. But I bungled, badly, and I'm sorry for that; I don't know where my mind went wrong tonight. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)