Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nostradamus

Nostradamus
"Nostradamus" is a lively, well written, well-sourced article that captures both the factuarl and "mysterious" nature of Nostradamus and his prophesies. This article is a must read for those wishing to understand Nostradamus beyond the scope of the usual hyperbolic reports of Nostradamus' life and writings. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 02:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose :
 * Lead needs extension (see WP:LEAD)
 * Footnotes and sources needs to be properly combined (see WP:CITE)
 * Notes would be clearer if identical sources were combined with  (see WP:FOOTNOTE)
 * The "see also" section is ideally for articles that were not actually linked in the article.
 * Please standardize your footnotes positioning: either before or after the punctuation marks.
 * No space before notes, or between them. At worse, make a specific footnotes combining all three sources.
 * You do not need to give the full citation in the footnotes for books that you cite in "references"
 * "The role of interpretation" section has no citations
 * The centered images? Ugly and inappropriate.
 * Please give a rationale of any sort to the image that is dumped at the very end of the article, then, for example. I also see no point in presenting image for text as in the previous case when it could/should be "This last is presumably why he entitled his bookLes Prophécie de M. Michel Nostradamus" with the image on the side.
 * Comment, quite simply because to the editors it looks better. There is no proscription on the placement of an image in the center, so since no policy appears to be violated, this is really more a matter of aesthetics than of applicability of content. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  16:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Supporting comment: the first of them is, in effect, part of the text, and so should not be hived off to one side, let alone repeated to satisfy some fictional usage. --PL 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Circeus 02:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Lead extended
 * Re footnotes etc: "The system of presenting references in a Wikipedia article may change over time; it is more important to have clarity and consistency in an article than to adhere to any particular system." However, all footnotes are after punctuation now
 * I do not believe that is an excuse for not combining footnotes. Needlessly repeating the same footnote over and over is confusing Circeus 16:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's been resolved &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I sounded rude or anything. As I wrote below, I didn't realize at the time that the article used the template system. Circeus 19:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * requested cite from User:PL for Role of interpretation. Two should dop nicely.

Supplied. --PL 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The centered images are directly from early publications of the Prophesies, and thus are quite appropriate. Centering has a purpose in context of article (additionally, everything being right-justified gets really dull).  As for "ugliness", I guess we could berate Nostradamus' publisher.  ;)  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  12:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Links added to "The role of interpretation" &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  16:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentI believe the only see also linked was "Nostradamus in popular culture"; that had been removed. If there was another, please let me know.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  16:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Circeus's minor problems are all I can find wrong with it. The only one that seems serious is the lack of sources in the role of interpretation section.


 * That is now being dealt with. --PL 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree with him on the centered image, but that is largely a stylistic issue.

It might be nice if it had one or two more pictures, possibly pictures of open pages of early or original editions of his books. JoshuaZ 12:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Could be arranged. Any support for this idea? We have rather a lot of pix as it is, and they'd need to be large enough to read (at least half a page)! --PL 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose - I have a few issues with this article. One is the paragraph that starts with:


 * Meanwhile, if Nostradamus' many competitors – and he had many – never accused him of copying from it, it was because copying and/or paraphrasing, far from being regarded (as it is today) as mere plagiarism, was regarded at the time as what all good, educated people should do anyway. The whole Renaissance was based on the idea.


 * I'm not really sury about that statement, or where it's coming from. Second, the section on interpretation is entirely unsourced. Lastly, I can't support this while there's a tag at the top of the notes section which says "footnotes still in progress, and a few mistakes need to be rectified". The Disco King 13:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment See footnote 29, "↑ Compare Rabelais's recommendation of critical, rather than rote learning in Gargantua I.23 (1534) and Pantagruel II.8 (1532), with all its implications for actually digesting, rather than merely regurgitating, what has been learned." -- thus the statement is sourced.
 * I removed the tag, which was left over from a month ago. Thanks for noticing, as I completely forgot to remove it.
 * Re the sourcing, as noted above, I requested sourcing from User:PL.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;
 * Comment -- Links added to "The role of interpretation"
 * Change to Support - Looking good, best of luck! The Disco King 15:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Extra issue I had forgotten to list: Lots of external links within article body. Circeus 16:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -- and this is bad, why? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  16:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If an external link is a citation, then it should be formatted as such (ideally with cite web). If it is not a citation, then it ought to be in the external links section


 * The first external link is to a map of Provence, which would take the whole width of the page to be legible, and thus disrupt the article. One of the others is to prevent two pix coming too close together in the text. --PL 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Extra comment about note combination: I was not aware that the template system had been converted to use arrows instead of carets, which, I admit, makes note combination a nightmare (which is exactly why I love the Cite.php extension). If you want, I can make a conversion to that system myself. Circeus 16:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The new system is actually kind of ugly, but I did get it converted. There are still 5  external links, but I'm not sure how they'd work out as footnotes.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Everything seems to have been adressed. Will probably soo how to best fix the centered image issue myself later. Circeus 20:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Should you x-out the oppose above?  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think it's good overall, but with the following comments:
 * Childhood - section seems a little clumsy in terms of wording "claimed birthplace" (surely there's a better way of saying this); the whole section seems like it was translated into English - it feels as if it isn't quite idiomatic English.


 * Well, 'claimed birthplace' what it is! Nobody can be absolutely sure (any more than they can with Shakespeare)! The claim is a little stronger than 'alleged', but not as strong as 'definite'... --PL 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Also the whole Marranos section seems seems a bit out of place here - it's too long for something that isn't actually about his childhood. Guettarda 20:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Marriage_and_healing_work - is there some reason why the second sentance includes the word "but" (married a woman whose name is in dispute...but who bore him two children)?
 * Beats me, it maskes no sdense. It's gone.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The seer - "For technical reasons ... the last fifty-eight quatrains ... have not survived into any extant edition." - I am not entirely certain what the "technical reasons" cited here are.
 * Technical is probably the wrong word. It has to due with pages being lost or misplaced or misnumbered.  User:PL will answer this.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's the real annswer: Because the prophesies were published by three different publishers in three installments of unequal size, and because the last publisher wished not to start in the middle of a "Century", the last fifty-eight quatrains of the seventh Century have not survived into any extant edition. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Substitute text already in train. Watch this (or rather that) space!--PL


 * Support - Guettarda 11:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Question Is there a reason why "them" is italicized in the phrase "expected them to provide..." in the section The seer? JoshuaZ 20:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Answer Because he expected his clients to provide the birth charts which was contrary to how things were done.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You may want to make it explicit in the article that that was different from the norm. JoshuaZ 20:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Done &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've expanded your wording slightly, let me know what you think. JoshuaZ 21:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure that that's necessary. It's a matter of astonishment to most people that an alleged 'astrologer' should actually ask them for their birthchart instead of preparing it himself. --PL 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the external links and centered pics: Circeus 16:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If a link is in "external links" it doesn't need to be in the article's body,these were removed.
 * Links to editions were turned into notes or referred to external links
 * Removed a research link. I'm sure the user can do an internet search themselves.
 * Removed the Savonarola link, not sure what that was intended to do.

Circeus, you have made a complete mess of it!

1.You have managed to delete four of the illustrations entirely, in three cases leaving only blank frames. Please restore them at once (unless, of course, this is merely a Wiki software problem, in which case apologies).
 * I only moved 2 illustrations. I believe this is because the images simply failed to load. Circeus 13:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

2.In your efforts to insist on removing centered pix, you have misquoted the title and inserted 'This translate in French' where what is given is in fact the two possible alternative meanings in English. Please do not insert illiteracies.
 * My bad for the typo in copying the title, but then, you obviously couls have corrected yourself. The "translate in French" bit was maybe not the most appropriate wording, I aknowledge, but the factremains that both meaning are possible both in French and when translating in English.

3.You have removed from the text external links essential to following and/or demonstrating the argument - which may satisfy Wiki-aesthetics, but helps nobody.
 * I replaced several links to different pages of a site in the "External links" by one to the front page. If these were so essential, they should have been in "references" or in footnotes, not "External links". I also replaced in-text links to fac-similes with appropriate footnotes. Circeus 13:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

4.You have removed the only Savonarola link demonstrating... the vital Savonarola link!
 * Sorry I didn't went through the entire page to realize this one link was actually a reference. All refs in an article should be consistent. That is, if you use footnotes as your main reference system, then inline external links should not be references too. Circeus 13:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If this is to be the standard of your interventions, I give up. In your attempt to make the article 'better', you have merely made it worse - much worse. Unless you're prepared at very least to restore the article to its previous state, you'd better take over the whole thing yourself. I, for one, have better things to do than to spend all day correcting your errors. --PL 09:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * CommentsGentlemen, no point in arguing over this. I've reverted the article to where is was when Circeus changed his vote to support.  In the meantime, I'll be going over Circeus' edits to see if any might be beneficial (and I think a few might be).
 * In other words, I'll handle this, and if I see any more fighting it'll be time to go out behind the woodshed. ;)
 * Seriously, massive changes of the type Circeus made, which were definitely made in good faith, are better made by someone familiar with the article. And now that Circeus has demonstrated the tools, I can fix what I feel needs to be fixed myself.
 * NOTE: In going over Featured articles I have noticed that the following all have external links embedded in the article: Medal of Honor (included centered pix), Antarctic krill, Asperger syndrome. Hydrochloric acid (includes centered pix), etc. These took me 5 minutes to locate at random, so it is obvious that external links within an article are not problematic -- the issue is whether they are needed for each specific article to assist the reader.  I'll decide on that today.  Additionally, I'd appreciate it if other editors refrained from editing until I have completed going through the article.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Further Comments' I moved the one pic from the center to the right -- it looks better, but the other I'm leaving at the bottom for aesthetic purposes. I made the "letter 41" and "Savonarola" links into easily reachable footnotes.  The other 4 links I felt were to important to move.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The medium is being allowed to obscure the message, apparently for the mere sake of 'winning gongs'. The statement:


 * 'This last is presumably why he entitled his book, Les Propheties de M. Michel Nostradamus, (which, in French, as easily means "The Prophecies, by M. Michel Nostradamus", which is precisely what they were; as "The Prophecies of M. Michel Nostradamus", which, except in a few cases, they were not, other than in the manner of their editing, expression and reapplication to the future.)'

simply isn't true: it would take the insertion, and then the re-uninsertion of a nonexistent comma into the title to make it so. The point at issue is not just the words, but their layout and fonts: if they are disregarded, this important argument is rendered null and void. The title-page image therefore needs to appear 'as is' in its proper place in the text.

Circeus's earlier point regarding how the title might be 'translated' is equally invalid. Believe it or not, the French actually manage to understand their language without feeling any need to translate it!!

I therefore propose to revert this para to its previous layout, whilst at the same time reducing the number of superflous 'which's.

If this is unacceptable, and the article has to be continually mauled about to fit supposed 'Wiki conventions' that people simply invent as they go along, then you can count me out. It's pedantry gone mad.

In which case, long live ignorance! --PL 09:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So fix it! Sheesh.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Done! --PL 10:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We did *not* add the comma in "The Prophecies, by M. Michel Nostradamus" (which you left, by the way), and the title DOES mean either one in french too. As a native French speaker, I feel qualified enough to speak on that. Circeus 10:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It would if there were a comma. But, as you can see from the image, there isn't. That's why it's important to include the image (rather than the run-on, lower-case version of the title) at the proper point in the text – because that, as a result of the way in which it is set out, can mean either (as you say), even without any comma. That is why the text says so. Meanwhile I left the comma in the explanation of what the title could mean... because there needed to be a comma in the explanation of what the title could mean. I don't see the problem. Please read what I wrote above more carefully.

Personally, despite your comment in your edit summary, I prefer Jim's use of the different colour for the text captions, to show that the caption isn't part of the text. That seems to me to be a good deal better reason than 'no reason whatsoever'.

Is that all the proposed alterations now? --PL 15:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I should say so. BTW, all three of us speak French (although I am no doubt the least accomplished), so I think we all know (and agree) on the double meaning.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case, Support – and thank you, Jim, for all your hard work to make this such an excellent article (unusually so, for the topic!). --PL 09:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)