Talk:William Melmoth/Archive 1

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 Wikipedia, they will will only distract and irritate one. The best defense of any Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. --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)
 * Actually, be honest. What you know is what is said in comparatively short article. That is all. The article could certainly bear to have content regarding the major work, which it does not. I have tagged the article as being completely reliant on one source, when more than one are requested whenever possible. And, to quote you, "Don't argue to argue, and don't try to win. It's unbecoming, and it ruins your credibility." Your credibility with anyone else in this issue is, frankly, becoming nonexistent. And please read one of our official policies, with which you are seemingly not acquainted: WP:PAPER. You appear to have taken the absolutist position that, based on the single source you have used, you are now in a position to know everything about the subject, including any information which might not have been in that source. That is basically universally counted as laughable, particular when the one source contained only a few pages. You can't know if any relevant information wasn't included in that source, but still insist that not only that one source, but also your own condensation of the content in that one source, based only on that one source, now has to be counted as "expert". In a word, no. That does not happen. We can't know if the information in that one source was all the relevant material, so we can't know whether your condensation of it includes all the relevant information. More than one source are generally required for a B. Trust me. John Horden is one example of a good Start based on only one source. Please do not try to pass off your reading only a single source, and a comparatively short one at that, as making you an expert on the subject. It is basically laughable, and costs you what credibility you might otherwise have. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, John, you wrote John Horden. Are you asking Geogre to write in your style? Do you want everyone to write in your style? The issue of single (or few) source subjects is tricky. There is a need to identify these articles and bring them out of the start class, otherwise people who later review start-class articles, as you claim this one is, will waste their time trying to find other sources that don't exist. As a rule of thumb, when an assessment class is disputed, the time should be spent trying to find new sources and trying to improve the article. If you can't do that, then you might not have the expertise necessary to give an accurate rating to the article. Size and number of sources does not equate to quality. The real reviews and time arguing should be spent at A-class, GA-class and FA-class. Arguing over start and B-class is usually a waste of time. Carcharoth (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, I wrote Horden and assessed it as a start as well. And, no, I'm not asking him to write in my style. However, he did indicate that the source he used contained quite a bit more material than is included, but that he, based on having read that single short source, is now competent to not only write the article, but also to determine what content is relevant to the article. Unfortunately, this article was based on a tertiary source, which almost always means that there are other secondary or primary sources which are relevant. None have even been indicated, let alone apparently consulted. The article is going to be added to the todo list for the Anglicanism project, and probably for the doubtless much larger Christianity project todo list as well, based on fact of the single source. Exactly where in each list, I dunno yet; that'll probably be dependent on relative importance as well, but the lists are still very much in the early stages. The purpose of the assessments is to determine which would merit more attention. This one would, at least additional sources. John Carter (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Come back and assess it later?
I've made this edit. Could I ask those arguing over the assessment to go work on some articles (maybe even this one) and do this assessment later? Carcharoth (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Assessment
I very much suggest that the editor who wrote this article read WP:OWN, which his removal of assessment ratings for projects which, to the best of my knowledge, he does not belong to, very likely violates. John Carter (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I very much suggest that the people who believe that, without training or education, they must assess articles, read their own guidelines and not stamp "start" on things that are fully written. Do not try to OWN an article with assessment, either.  No one needs an assessment drive, nor the projects.  They do not serve any purpose when it comes to articles already written.  Now, go get photos of 18th century theologians, infoboxes, and weblinks with footnotes and continue to please yourself.  Geogre (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, your most recent edit is again a reflection of your bizarre thinking that Wikipedia should reiterate other sources. That is abhorrent.  You added in virtually every sentence of the DNB article, and, whether you put citations in or not, that makes you a plagiarist.  What you have added in amounts to irrelevancies and cross links that go absolutely nowhere.  Please show maturity, judgment, and awareness before you steal from printed and copyrighted sources.  Geogre (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "assessment" per Carcharoth above. More in my edit summary. --Irpen 22:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I assessed it the way I did because the article is significantly incomplete, and thus not worthy of B class. 18th century England was a time and place of significant religious disputes - yet the article barely addresses how he fit into that dispute and discusses reaction to his major work solely in terms of sales figures and without reference to the critical reception. Some religious writings of that day are still important today - such as Matthew Henry's commentary or The Pilgrim's Progress - while others such as Pensées are known and read but not nearly as significant, and others are almost completely unread. (Using here only examples that I own and have read in whole or in part.) The article gives the reader no clue as to how long his main work was significant. His law career, including his chancery council work are also brushed lightly over. What were the anonymous pamphlets? Were they solely railing against the theaters, or were they political? As a reader, I am left saying that the article needs more content, and conclude that too much content is lacking for B to be a reasonable assessment, but that it is also not a mere stub - hence start is the right assessment. GRBerry 02:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The chancery work is brushed over because it holds no significance. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to provide all significant information.  If you were doing an bio of Mario Andretti, you wouldn't be talking about every commercial endorsement, because that was what he did for money; if there were some that were significant to the effect on history, you would include it.  In the case of someone who lives a life of anonymity in the chancery (not a major player, just a guy), you pass over it.  As for the pamphlet wars, if you are actually interested in that, then you will know additionally that this is ephemera (in a bibliographic sense).  Ephemera is difficult to catalog.  The Short Title Catalog has been decades with the Eighteenth Century Short Title Catalog because of this.  If these works have not been reprinted (and they haven't), then there is no access point.  Further, if they had no effect on the general debate (and they didn't, as Augustan drama was shaped by political matters, and the ancient arguments about licentiousness were generally marginalized; these are not the days of Jeremy Collier), then going into each of the dashed out pamphlets is, again, not significant.
 * There is no sense in which any of the information not included is important to the life of a man whose sole importance is in the Y-chromosome he passed on to another notable figure and a single book of morality he wrote. There could be more discussion of that book, if this were not a general discussion.  What is not included is not significant, and therefore there is no way that this should be "start."  There is room for adding, but not for improving with addition.  Geogre (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is significant to the life of the individual. It is also of at least some significance, as the subject was in fact responsible for the additions of several structures to Lincoln's Inn, possibly even those displayed in the photo of the Chancery Lane entrance. And, why, may I ask, is the idea of allowing a project to control its own assessments, based on its criteria, one which you are so completely opposed to that you have now reverted the assessments of three other editors? Why is it so important to you that this article be counted as a "B" that you have gone to the extremes that you have? John Carter (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, so now, for the architectural article on Lincolns Inn we have a fact. That seems important.  You should go put the information on Melmoth's donations and warden duties there, where it belongs.  Where it does not belong is in an article that explains the significance of the person to history, religious or literary or social.
 * May I ask why it is so important that this be "start?" Why is it so important that you get your way with this article?  You boast of your 40,000 articles.  I would think that would be enough for anyone.  You may not get 40,001 in this case, because you are assessing it incorrectly according to the description of "start class."  Since you refuse to allow "B," I prefer that this article remain free of any of the misapplied ignorance of the drive-by assessment.  The project can do as it wishes with itself.  No doubt, if you are characteristic, it feels mighty fine about its accomplishments already.  Surely I'm no threat to the grandeur and superior will of a project, being only a foolish little writer.
 * Oh, and you can make it "four" now. I am removing the incorrect assessment because it's incorrect.  You're the one wanting to own the article.  Look in your bag of 40,000 happy shiny baubles and play with them to your heart's content, but don't put the wrong rating here.  Geogre (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sir, I urge you to follow the rules of wikipedia, which, in your comments above, you did not do, specifically including WP:TALK, WP:CIVILITY and, possibly, WP:NPA. You are once again asserting, despite evidence existing to the contrary, that the article is "complete", without apparently having consulted the primary source. The article as it stands says that the subject wrote anonymously, based on being in the "public life". What exactly does that mean? There is nothing in the article to indicate it. Was he successful in the public life, or not, and to what degree? Did he have any particular achievements in public life? We have no indications of any? Did he get paid for the publications or not? If not, how did he acquire money, or even did he? All these are reasonable questions, and the fact that there is no answer to any of them in the article as it stands makes this, I believe, a far from "complete" article. I have on that basis reassessed the article as a "Start" for the Christianity project, because it is clearly incomplete, based on the data presented. It is also based on a single tertiary source, when the source upon which it is based is available. I am as I stated restoring the Start classification as per the Christianity project. Given that your conduct up until this time has been rather unilateral, I very strongly suggest that if you if you wish to see that assessment change, you go through the formal steps of requesting a reassessment, and provide the reasons why. Your recent actions once again call into question whether you have any reasons other than possibly ego and emotionalism for indicating that it is not a Start class article. John Carter (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "The primary source?" Oh, now that's funny.  You will be pleased to tell us all what that is.  After this, you will do very well to take a class in bibliography.  It'll do you some good.  Geogre (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I violate no policies. I've seen and read them all, and I'm fine.  On the other hand, you really are.  Please stop trying to WP:OWN articles, and please start writing some.  Your outlook is not encyclopedic, your boastfulness not fitting, and your "assessments" are not correct.  I do not know how one could conceivably prove to you that the article is complete, because you have decided that it is not.  I have decided that it is, because I have an editorial point of view in the construction of the account.  Yours seems to be to all but steal the DNB by reiterating it, while I think that Leslie Stephens's format is fitting for his work, and a general encyclopedia should serve a general audience.  The article is complete for its purpose.  You, though, wish something other than completeness: you want plagiarism.
 * This article should not follow the DNB in its irrelevancies, because the DNB author wouldn't have put that material in in the first place had he not been bound by a formal guideline. If you do some more reading of "general encyclopedias" like the Dictionary of National Biography (can't imagine why they call it a dictionary; you must go to Oxford and convince them that they're wrong), you will discover that each entry in that august and indispensable organ follows extremely precise sections.  In some cases, every bit is good.  Where they fail are with artists.
 * You're starting to go from bull headed to improper now, you know. Are you at 3RR now?  Are you obsessed?  Go find some 40,001 elsewhere, where you can stomp on the writers more effectively.  Geogre (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have asked several questions relevant to the article, all of which can be sourced. I have received in response what stike me as being at best insults, possibly personal attacks, and no direct responses of any kind. I thus believe the response above is a very clear violation of behavioral guidelines. I urge the editor to actually address the questions raised. And, if he didn't know, the primary source used by the DNB is the book by his son, which is available, as I stated. I am very curious if there is some reason he cannot or will not seek to obtain it. John Carter (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk about the article not the assessment?
Seriously? I mean, I am concerned that you might clash over what should be in the article (actually, I see you already have) but that at least is something worth arguing about. Arguing about an article assessment is the epitome of WP:LAME. Just like page move wars, it doesn't add anything to the actual content of the article. The last time this came up, I asked you both to consider working on this article or other articles, rather than assessments. Would you both consider that again? Carcharoth (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 16:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)