Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sacred Cod of Massachusetts/archive1


 * 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 not promoted by User:Ian Rose 00:30, 17 February 2013‎.

Sacred Cod of Massachusetts

 * Nominator(s): Found5dollar (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have been working on Sacred Cod since 2009,have gotten it thought GA, and I feel as though it is of FA quality. This is my first FAC I have attempted by myself, and I think it could make a great TFA for April 1.--Found5dollar (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Good luck with your first FAC. I hope it's successful and the first of many. On the substance, I was very surprised that I couldn't find any mention in the article of why it's called "Sacred". This seems to be a major oversight (unless it's just my error!) and needs to be addressed, even if it's just a sourced comment that says we don't know why it's called that. --Dweller (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right. that is a topic I never even looked into and that is a blatant mistake. I will add some information on the term "sacred" later today.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a few paragraphs about the etymology in the "background" section.--Found5dollar (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The title is in italics. Should the term Sacred Cod be in italics throughout the article? If not, the title should be unitalicized. Designate (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is in italics because of the infobox. I used infobox:artwork ans i think it does that to article titles. I do not believe that is should be in italics as no source italicizes the name and it is more of a ceremonial name than an official one (see the section about the etymology i recently added). I do not know how to fix the italicization of the title.--Found5dollar (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As a piece of sculpture, yes, the title should be in italics. See WP:ITALICTITLE which says, "Use italics when italics would be used in running text; for example, taxonomic names, the names of ships, the titles of books, films, and other creative works, and foreign phrases are italicized both in ordinary text and in article titles." (emphasis mine)  Imzadi 1979   →   07:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I suggest removing the infobox because not only it causes that italication problem, it serves no real porpose as we can find that information aleady in the lead.--Tomcat (7) 22:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * good point. I have removed the info box but left the image.--Found5dollar (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Infobox artifact could have been used to avoid the italics, but Tomcat's point about "serv[ing] no real purpose as we can find that information aleady in the lead" is not a valid reason to remove the infobox. Infoboxes are designed to be a quick summary of key points, even more so than the lead. Have only 30 seconds to scan the article for the gist of the subject? Read the infobox. Have a bit more than 30 seconds, read the lead. Have enough time to read the whole article, then... well, you get the point. See the talk page of this FAC for a sample infobox that would have retained all of the information and avoided the italics, however, as a sculpture, the article should be italicizing the name throughout.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So your suggestion is to re-add the infobox and italicize Sacred Cod throughout the article? I am just a little hesitant because the term "Sacred Cod of Massachusetts" is not it's official title, as it has none, and is almost more of a description people use to identify what is being talked about, than an artistic work's title.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources and images - spotchecks not done
 * File:Atlantic-cod-1.jpg: source link returns 404 error
 * I am working on find a different image who's source link is not broken.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * switched the image to one with better sourcing.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in whether shortened citations include comma between author and date
 * Fixed.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * FN42: can I borrow your time machine? ;-)
 * Hahahaha. you sure can. Fixed the future.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * FN11 returns 404 error. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that is a google book as it works on my end. I tried using a different link.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Not ready for FA
This article falls well short of being Wikipedia's "very best work".


 * The writing is far from being "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" e.g.
 * fisherman devised a story that cod was the fish multiplied by Jesus during the miracle of the loaves and fishes. This false claim helped distinguish the two fishes' markings
 * Wood was incredibly scarce during the occupation
 * the theft plan continued without a hitch
 * While the Sacred Cod was dusted for fingerprints, and threats of the responsible parties being charged with "criminal trespass" and "attempted larceny", no one was ever charged for the actions of that weekend.
 * The Massachusetts State Police were called in to assist with the search for the cod. They went so far as to dredge the Charles River, in hopes of recovering the Sacred Cod. The authorities also found out that a member of the Lampoon staff was on board a plane heading to Newark, New Jersey. They searched Boston Airport and wired the authorities in Newark to search the plane the student was on when it arrived, but the cod was still not recovered (How about The State Police even dredged the Charles River and, learning that a Lampoon editor had flown to New Jersey, had the plane searched on landing.)
 * On April 27, the Crimson gave the staff of the Lampoon an ultimatum; if they would not give the Sacred Cod, by midnight, to them so the Crimson could take credit for its return, the Crimson would go public with its findings. After not receiving a reply from the Lampoon, the details of theft were printed in the next morning's edition of the Crimson.


 * Irrelevant material is included for no apparent purpose e.g.
 * A fire in 1747 destroyed the Sacred Cod as well as state owned records, books and paintings, and large amounts of wines and other liquors belonging to private business who used the cellars of the building as storage. The entire interior of the building was destroyed, but the brick walls were left intact and used when the building was rebuilt. (Told the entire interior of the State House was destroyed, most readers' native shrewdness will tell them that records, books and paintings would have been lost. And what do the liquor and reuse of the walls have to do with anything?)
 * the Atlantic cod's conservation status was changed to Vulnerable species in 1996 and it is in danger of becoming commercially extinct.


 * Inapproriate use of sources:
 * Stating flatly that, "To help determine the difference between cod and haddock, fisherman devised a story..." simply because a popular magazine recited this folkway is not appropriate. Anyway, the source doesn't even say that fishermen devised the story; it says the story about the origin of the markings is "part of New England mystique" and, separately, that fishermen distinguish cod from haddock via the markings.
 * The Museum of Hoaxes website, which is cited extensively, cannot (I believe) be considered a reliable source -- it appears to be just someone's fun website. Note that it asserts something ("Traditionally, the head of the cod points at whichever party is currently in power") which the article explicitly denies.
 * Celebrate Boston also appears to be simply a commercial website without obvious editorial oversight
 * Since the Crimson itself participated in the incident, its own report is essentially a primary (not secondary) source and can be used as a fact source only with great caution, especially since it clearly speaks with tongue partially in cheek.


 * There's far too much "Background". All that's needed is one or two reliable sources establishing that the reason the cod hangs in the State House is its traditional importance in the area, or whatever, plus a few examples of the cod's use as a symbol in seals etc., and maybe something like the Morison quote. This isn't an article about the fishing industry -- all this detail about the number of boats and so on is irrelevant.


 * The photos of the Crimson building and UMass are deadweight far disconnected from the article subject. "This is the building that housed the newspaper that had an editor who was kidnapped by the jokesters that stole the cod that hung in the chambers that were in the House the Bulfinch built." Exterior photos of the Old and modern State Houses would be more appropriate.
 * Useful and enlivening sources are not incorporated e.g. (some of these might be in the article already, and probably most are not fruitful -- but some absolutely belong):
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * (use on license plates)
 * 
 * 
 * (Lampoon)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * (amusing OCR error)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * (suggests there was debate as to whether cod should be moved to new State House)
 * 
 * 
 * There is far too much detail about the thefts -- exact time of recovery; order in which various parts of the State House were searched; what was worn by men jumping out of the car; that a chair, then a ladder, then wire cutters, were used; etc. -- about 1/3 of the article. Each incident should be covered in a paragraph or two at most. For example,
 * Three days after the theft, a search of the State House began when another phone call was received, this time by a man described as "the father of one of the students reported to have taken the cod." He explained that the students never removed the carving from the State House and they had stashed it somewhere in the cellar of the building. Capitol police searched the cellar, found nothing, then continued their search on the upper levels of the building. At 5:30 p.m. on November 17, 1968, the Sacred Cod was found standing on its tail just outside the House Chamber behind a door in a hallway used only while the House is in session. Apparently after the thieves had taken the 80 pounds (36 kg) fish down from its hanging place, they had brought it down a private staircase and left it in this hallway undamaged.
 * Do we really need to know it was standing on its tail? That the police searched the cellar first? The exact date and time they found it? Why not
 * Three days after the theft the police, acting on a tip, found the Sacred Cod in a State House hallway used only when the House is in session.
 * (The 80 lbs, if included at all, should be part of the object's description.)


 * What source supports Representation of a codfish as any kind of official name?

EEng (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As it says on my user page, time on the internet is currently at a premium for me, as I do not have it at my house right now. I will begin working on these notes as soon as possible, but I have also noticed you are extensively editing the article as well. When looking at a few of your suggestions here, it seems you have already fixed them yourself. Could you please note when you do that? Also much of the "detail about the thefts" and the information in the background section you do not agree with was requested to be included in previous peer reviews. The same goes for the section about the theft you moved to notes. It was explicitly requested to be in the article in a peer review. Later today or tomorrow, when I have time to edit, and have internet available, I will begin working on your notes. Found5dollar (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments -- Given this has been open over a month with no support for promotion as yet, I'll be archiving it shortly. Found5dollar, I realise it must be a bit frustrating trying to satisfy contradicting suggestions for improvement but try not to be discouraged. I think EEng is right that there is a little too much forensic detail but one should take care not to remove interesting points as well. For instance in Three days after the theft example above, I'd suggest that there's a compromise between the detail of the original passage and the brevity of new suggestion. For one thing, I'd have thought it worth retaining that the tip came from the father of a student reported to have taken the cod. Anyway, finetuning the detail, adding missing citations, etc, should be undertaken at your own pace outside the FAC process. When that's done you can renominate, as long as it's a minimum of two weeks after this nom is archived (probably not a factor if web time is a premium). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.