Talk:Sophocles/GA1

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

Notified:,, , , , , WikiProject Theatre, WikiProject Greece, WikiProject Biography, and WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome
 * This discussion was closed as a Keep at GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As part of the GA Sweeps, I am placing this article on hold. It is a very high quality article that does not meet the current standard of citation.  It often has entire paragraphs without any citation and at times even entire sections have no references.  This is inexcusable for a WP:GA.  I hope this can be corrected in a week or so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nearly all the unreferenced paragraphs concern plot summaries. Do we really need to reference those? There is some other material concerning the dating and relationship of the Theban plays, and I agree we need references for that.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, plot summaries should be something that could be attributed to experts on classical literature. Why not find such references.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That seems bizarre to me. Why do we need to attribute a plot summary of Oedipus Tyrannos to anyone but Sophocles? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not my area of expertise, but it seems to me that if I wanted to reference a summary of a book, I would reference an expert who summarized it. Isn't there some leading summary of classical mythology. Didn't Edith Hamilton summarize most of this stuff.  That name still sticks out from classes at Princeton 25 years ago.  If I wanted to summarize Romeo and Juliet, I would quote my Complete Signet Classic Shakespeare, not the original.  The Signet has a two or three page summary of the play that the reader could verify the WP summary.  We want to point the reader to a source that makes the point made in this article.  We don't want them to have to read the whole work to verify the point.  This is what WP:V is all about.  Is it a problem to find someone like Hamilton, who might synopsize a play in a few pages.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sophocles isn't myth. It's drama. So we don't want Edith Hamilton, that's for sure. I find the idea that WP readers need a citation to a secondary source to verify details of the plot summary rather odd, and I doubt that there is any requirement that we have citations for plot summaries. For instance, see Summary and the comments at Wikipedia_talk:How_to_write_a_plot_summary. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then use a primary source as necessary. P.S. sorry I mixed up my classes. It was 25 years ago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * recent efforts have neglected even primary source citations. My concerns have largely gone unaddressed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't care whether this article is listed as a good article or not. I think the GA process is ridiculous, and this review indicates one of its chief failings: the article is being evaluated on things like density of citation, rather than whether it adequately covers what an article on Sophocles ought to. Any article on Sophocles ought to at least have a short discussion of the Philoctetes and Electra, for instance.

However, if we are to address Tony's concerns, we need some information about what they actually are. Right now, they seem to amount to "there aren't enough citations", which is no help in determining what information needs citing. Some specifics would help. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am very much a generalist when it comes to Sweeps. As you can tell from my confusion about greek mythology and greek tragedy, this is not my area of expertise and not something I have even studied in the last 25 years or so. I don't think it is my place to run through the article and put fact tags on every thing I think the reader should be able to attribute to a source.  What I am saying, is that I can do a quick scan and see that there are a lot of claims that are unsourced.  I just tagged a short paragraph in the "The Theban plays" section for you.  Each sentence in that paragraph pretty much needs a source.  Of course, it would be likely that they would have a common source because its coverage of a related topic.  I would expect the reader to be able to look at all of those interesting facts and say yes WP told me a WP:RS where I can WP:V them.  This is my basic problem.  If you don't care about GA status as it sounds then I will just delist it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Given you inability to guide us and articulate exactly what citations are missing, then surely listing at WP:GAR and seeking consensus there and possible input from someone better able to explain what needs doing will be a better step than delisting. We've shown willingness to look at issues and some changes to the article have happened already. I can tell you now that I'll be going to GAR if you simply delist having given us so inadequate guidance.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony has posted a comment on my talk page asking me to comment here. I have little interest in the GA process, but I am interested in improving the article and I am willing to participate here on that basis. I've taken a look at Tony's citation requests, and although I find some of these a bit silly, I've tried to address them with this edit. I say a bit silly, since the paragraph in question operates as a kind of introduction to the section, and so like the lede of an article, sources for many of the assertions there can be found farther down in the same section. So it seems a bit overboard to repetively cite the same sources. I will not object if another editor thinks some of these ought to be removed.
 * I have never heard of the mid text lead structure. I do not now if it is acceptable.  Usually, facts are cited on their first instance in the text or in the main body of the text.  This paragraph is in the main body.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm here, I also feel compelled to comment on a different matter. Tony, I don't think that threats of the sort If you don't care about GA status as it sounds then I will just delist it are helpful. They make you seem petty and spiteful. Obviously, that Akhilleus seems not to care about GA status, has no bearing on whether this is a good article or not.

Paul August &#9742; 13:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the claim that [Oedipus the King, Antigone, and Oedipus at Colonus] concern the fate of Thebes during and after the reign of King Oedipus requires a source is a misunderstanding of our citation policies. The source (and in essence the only source) for such a sentence is the plays themselves, and they do not need to be repeated in a footnote. Primary sources can and should be used for points, like one-sentence plot summaries, which are obvious to inspection. (I might recast the sentence slightly, but it is not wrong, nor does it require annotation, as it stands.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Back to the main matter, I forgot to say above that, Tony, if you can please specify which other statements you think need sources, I will try to address those. Thanks Paul August &#9742; 13:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you merge your citations with the structure so it does not look like you are sending the reader to a whole bunch of different sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We could do that, however sending the reader to same source over and over again seems more problematic to me. Is that really what you think is best for the article? Paul August &#9742; 16:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It also prevents the notes serving (as they should) as commentary. The ref-name structure exists for articles which cite exactly the same page in exactly the same way repeatedly. That's fine for (for example) articles on a game which have as a major source the publisher's web page; it's make-work here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The editors of this article are being silly, IMO. The request is very simple. Each paragraph has at least a main topic and possibly several interesting facts. The reader needs to be able to verify these facts in reliable sources. Look at each paragraph from the perspective of a reader who may have a need to confirm the facts and topics. Suppose for example a parent is attemtping to review his/her children's homework. (Some parents do this sort of thing). Let's say the parent has not studied this stuff for 25 years. Provide that reader with a way to WP:ATT all the claims and topics. I should not have to go through each line of the article and tag it for you to understand this concept. It is a request of needless work by me who is less familiar with the topic than the numerous active editors. You should be able to see from the example I gave what I hope for.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this edit is silly, and I find your manner in the comment above insulting. Leaving aside the personal stuff, do you really think it helps the article to have eight successive sentences all cited to the same source? Because that's essentially what you're asking for.
 * It is not at all what I am asking for. I have pointed out content in need of citation. Obviously, if successive sentences are source to the same citation the proper thing to do is to place the citation at the end of that body of content.  It is standard procedure.  I do not know what your sources will be so I pointed out all the claims in need of citation.  Please use common sense if successive points are source to the same reference.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As for those of us who are familiar with the subject, perhaps we realize that statements such as "The Theban plays consist of three plays: Antigone, Oedipus the King (also called Oedipus Tyrannus or Oedipus Rex), and Oedipus at Colonus" fall into the domain of common knowledge, and would not have to be cited in a college research paper. (For more on this point, see the following pages at Duke University and Princeton University. Those are just the ones that popped up in the first few Google results.)
 * I think you are confusing common knowledge among subject experts with common knowledge. What percent of wikipedia readers know the fact that you claim is common knowledge.  The point is not to prepare an article that is useful to the subject matter experts, but rather for the common WP reader.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, I don't care whether this article carries the GA decal or not, because I think the GA process doesn't have anything to do with whether the article is actually good. In fact, I think that the article has become worse because of this process: it now carries a bunch of unnecessary and unhelpful citations. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What is unnecessary to the subject matter expert is not unnecessary to the common reader.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony the problem I have with your unwillingness to state explicitly what needs sourcing, is that the article seems fairly well sourced to me, as it is. I know of no assertion of fact in the article which cannot be found in the sources cited. Of course there may be some things I've overlooked, but unless you are willing to point them out, there's not much more I can do. So I think the article already provides for the verifiability you desire &mdash; you disagree. Ok, then name names. Unless you are willing to talk in specifics I don't think we are going to get anywhere.

For example let's consider the plot summaries discussed above. You seem to think they need citations. I would ask why? Wouldn't it be clear to the reader that these can be verified by consulting the plays (for which a source is already given)? Do you really think it would benefit the article to, say in the case of the Theban plays, include yet more citations to Sophocles I: Oedipus the King, Oedipus at Colonus, Antigone. 2nd ed. Grene, David and Lattimore, Richard, eds. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1991? Do you really think this will make it easier for the parent helping with homework?

Note: I've removed a couple of consecutive identical cites from the paragraph that Tony "fact" tagged.

Paul August &#9742; 17:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sept asked me to have a look here, and I'm not sure if he'll think much of my input, but here goes: even though in theory a home-brewed "plot summary" doesn't sound like original research to many people, it is considered OR more often than not, and since the words written about Sophocles have to exceed the words written by Sophocles by a factor of at least 10000, I'd argue that if any article should have citations on plot summaries in order to accurately represent what the world says about the subject, it would be this one. On the other hand, there's always the "textbook exception" to requests for inline citations: if most people taking a first or second college course on the subject would be likely to see the material in their basic textbook, and if frequent citation of basic, well-known facts is getting burdensome, then it's overkill to require cites for every paragraph; just make it clear that this is what's happening and cite the textbook once. - Dank (push to talk) 18:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I said this above, but it really belongs here: My argument that such a note is unnecessary is not that it is common knowledge (although it is). It's that the source of the passage (to wit, the plays) is included in the text of the passage; Tony's proposed footnote adds nothing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We clearly differ on what we believe the average person knows or feels he should know. The average person probably should know that the U.S. government has an executive, legislative and a judicial branch, or that the Holy Trinity is the father, the son and the holy ghost.  However, the average person does not know the three Theban plays.  If you stopped at your average bus stop with a half dozen people waiting for the bus and said $100 to the person who can tell me the three components of the Holy Trinity or the U.S. government, you would probably be out $100.  If you stopped at your average bus stop and asked the three Theban plays your money would probably not be at risk.   My bus stop is a bus stop for the University of Chicago students as well and I would even be fairly safe making the bet at my own local bus stop with some highly intelligent and educated people.
 * Now, the uncited text boils down to the majority of two sections of plot summaries: Sophocles and Sophocles. I clearly am dealing with a group of pretty dedicated editors who seem to be willing to consider the issues.  I would like to see some secondary source that summarizes each plot.  Yes the primary source has a plot.  Yes the reader could read the whole play and probably agree with what is currently on WP.  Yes most experts on the subject agree that these are in fact the summaries.  What I was hoping for was some scholarly summary where a modern day Dr. Joseph P. Expert says "Yada yada yada is the story of X".  WP is trying to move from the days where people write stuff and nobody knows if it is true.  The text is not contentious in the sense that experts disagree.  I would really like to see one citation per paragraph in these sections.  There are many subjects where facts that everyone knows to be true are more properly depicted on WP with a citation.  I could take a statement like "Barack Obama nominated Eric Holder to be Attorney General" or "Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to be Supreme Court Justice" or a statement like "Eli Manning was Super Bowl XLII MVP" and say they don't need citations because everyone knows that they are true. However, a well-crafted 2009 WP:GA would cite each of those statements to a WP:RS regardless of how obvious they are.  I think each plot summary should have at least one citation for this reason.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we differ on whether the average person is capable of reading. Tony insists that if Wikipedia contains a passage which says that Oedipus Rex says X, we must have a footnote directing them to the play. I object; anybody who is incapable of following the text will not be helped by the footnote either. I do believe the "common knowledge" exception applies; but I have been careful not to appeal to it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that Tony is in fact asking for even more than that. He seems to be asking for us to cite a secondary source which says that Oedipus Rex says X. Although he had seemed to concede the point earlier with his Well then use a primary source as necessary. Am I understanding you correctly Tony?
 * Yes people who are interested in reading a whole play would likely concur with each play summary. Yes, I am vacillating on the need to cite secondary source. However, since there is objection to citing primary sources, I have gone back to requesting secondary sources.  In an article about an episode of a given TV series or about a fictional character from a television series, it is common to cite the primary source.  However, in this case, I do believe secondary sources abound on the subject.  Why not cite them.  Saying all readers of WP would know how to verify this unattributed claim of what the plot is seems to be a bit of a stretch in terms of adaquate sourcing.  Please find some source preferably secondary, but at worst primary so that each plot summary is sourced somehow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it is a waste of our readers' time; as this process is a waste of our time. Any reader who doubts that Oedipus Rex is set at Thebes should look at the play; all the translations I know of say that Thebes is the location in the first few words, Greek texts will say so in the argument. If this continues, I will propose Mediation. GA should not be used to harm the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is your misunderstanding. A citation is not a waste of readers time.  Let's say 80A% of the readers read a statement "Oedipus Rex is set at Thebes" as a given fact and 20% aren't sure if this is a correct.  The 80% will skip the citation and the 20% will be greatly aided.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Tony, but I don't understand you. No primary source needs to be found &mdash; the primary sources are the plays themselves! And they are already cited in the text. Are you saying you want to see in the article something like: "In Sophocles' Oedipus Rex, thus and so happens (source: Sophocles, Oedipus Rex)"? That makes no sense. Paul August &#9742; 21:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that often primary sources are acceptable when secondary sources are not available. In this case, I believe each of Sophocles' plays has significant scholarly commentary available for proper sourcing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you are now backing off your statement just above: "Please find some source preferably secondary, but at worst primary so that each plot summary is sourced somehow."? Paul August &#9742; 21:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Tony, but I feel that you are showing a basic misunderstanding of the GA criteria. Here is what is said about referencing.
 * "b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;"
 * How is it surprising that a play "Oedipus the King" about the mythical king of Thebes is set in Thebes? Is it a published opinion? Counter-intuitive or controversial? Maybe it's a statistic. Please go and read the criteria and then come back with requirements that are in line with them. Otherwise you are holding the GA process up to ridicule.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec, sorry) We have a general problem with overcitation. I've seen articles with many hundreds of citations, often of the most trivial and obvious matters.  The GA criteria actually get it right -- which surprised me, frankly, since a common trend I see is a demand for citation not just of "published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements" but of very basic facts, that can be established by simple observation.  Be careful, everyone:  a "fundamentalist" attitude on things like "no original research" can completely shut down one's ability to write good prose.  Creating a plot summary, or noting that Oedipus Tyrannus is indeed set in Thebes, needs no citation; part of "assuming good faith" is presuming that our editors aren't making this stuff up.  I am reminded of a now-departed editor who passionately insisted that stating that Beethoven's Fifth Symphony was in C minor was original research, since they key was not in the title, and determining it required looking at the score (or citing someone else who had, for example, put the key on a CD case).  Citation is fine -- but too much can be silly and can make an article hard to read. Antandrus  (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * O.K. that settles it for me. I will close this as a keep. I apologize for my misunderstanding.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I accept Tony's apology, and have quoted these last two comments, slightly trimmed, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps in case the misunderstanding is shared by others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)