Wikipedia:Featured article review/Crushing by elephant/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 18:38, 10 March 2008.

Review commentary

 * User:ChrisO notified; WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia notified —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrittyLobo441 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, the section "Asian powers" relies on quotations more than what is acceptable for a professionally written encyclopedic entry. The first two paragraphs under the section "Cultural aspects" contain specific information that is not cited properly or at all. The section "Geographical scope" also contains very specific information yet is devoid of inline citations.

Furthermore, the content itself is not generally written to a standard I expect from a featured article.
 * "Cultural aspects": The first sentence makes the claim, "The use of elephants as executioners was inextricably bound up with the use of the animals as symbols of royal power." This has nothing to do with the sentence that directly follows it, which states, "The intelligence, domestication and versatility of elephants gave them considerable advantages over the wild animals such as lions and bears often used by the Romans as executioners." It would seem that this discussion as to why elephants are preferable over other animals for carrying out executions ties in with the next paragraph which goes on to explain why horses tend not to trample people. These thoughts are tied together and should not be separated by a paragraph break. As for the first sentence, "The use of...," I don't see where this fits in with the discussion comparing elephants to other animals vis-à-vis execution.
 * "Asian powers": This section relies entirely too much on quotations and doesn't focus on the meanings behind the quotations in a manner befitting an encyclopedic entry.

Finally, given the amount of information, more images would be ideal.

I do believe this article can easily be a good article with these suggested improvements and other similar revisions. However, I don't think it's of the quality of the majority of featured articles on Wikipedia. —GrittyLobo441 (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll add what I said during the FAC—this article covers more than just crushing. It should either be renamed to Death by elephant, Execution by elephant, etc. or edited to focus on crushing specifically. See my comments at Featured article candidates/Crushing by elephant for details.  Pagra shtak  06:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that the "Asian powers" section has too many quotations; what does Gritty Lobo suggest, that these rather vivid quotes are replaced by a turgid precis? More analysis and context would be good certainly. The lack of citations in places is more of an issue.  The title is ok in my view. Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're ok with the title, how do you feel about this quote from the article, which does not cover crushing by elephant? Should we remove this part of the article? "The King makes use of them for Executioners; they will run their Teeth [tusks] through the body, and then taer [sic] it in pieces, and throw it limb from limb. They have sharp Iron with a socket with three edges, which they put on their Teeth at such times..."  Pagra shtak  16:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think crushing is sufficiently established as the main method to take the title. The others should be, and are, redirects. Is this your only issue with the article? Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Crushing might be the main method, but if this article is to cover all manner of executions by elephant, the title needs to reflect that. I think the comment about the amount of quotations also bears some consideration, but I don't have any major problems with the article, no.  Pagra shtak  17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But it's explained in the very first sentence that all these techniques have been known, for centuries, as literally "casting beneath an elephant's feet" or "crushing by elephant". In my opinion, to change the name of the article away from a centuries old title would be a form of hypercorrection, somewhat akin to requesting a rename of the coconut article because it's technically a fruit, not a nut. --JayHenry (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A section whose content consists of 41% (+/- 2%) quotations should not be in an article that is supposed to have "engaging, brilliant" prose, especially when that section comprises 58% (+/- 3%) of the entire article. The question is whether this article meets all featured article criteria or if it has the kind of noticeable flaws that Pagrashtak and I have pointed out. Quotations typically represent a point of view. Whether they are "vivid" is usually irrelevant unless they, though delivered in a dynamic manner, don't detract from the neutrality, propriety, correctness, and professionalism of the article and its subject matter. Considering that real encyclopedia entries typically don't have, much less rely on, quotations, I don't think this particular article, while informative, is representative of the best that Wikipedia has to offer. —GrittyLobo441 (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Some sweeping generalizations there, imho! I don't think it would be impossible to find similar sections in historical articles in other encyclopedias. Sources may have a POV but in history they are often all there is. Johnbod (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), prose quality (1a), and focus (4). Marskell (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is a keep. The uncited claims are not, in my opinion, controversial.  That Hannibal used war elephants is common knowledge as is the extensive use of elephants in cultural ceremonies in Asia.  If someone genuinely doubts these claims, I'm confident I can find a source.  The article makes use of five long quotations.  I simply can't agree that less than half a dozen is still too many for an encyclopedia article, especially since they are mostly quotations of historical documents.  The claim that five quotations is too many is surprising to me, and perhaps it's the quote boxes themselves rather than the quotes that are the problem?  We could reformat this several ways, such as using the less obtrusive blockquote instead, or using a right floating quote box.  Perhaps that would be a satisfactory compromise?  In short, while this article is quirky, I don't think a rigid homogeneity is the goal in our featured content, and this satisfies WP:WIAFA by my reading. --JayHenry (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove. I stand by my previous sentiments, as no substantial changes have been made to the article. The lack of citations where proper does contribute to a sense of informality by which most articles on Wikipedia are plagued. Common knowledge is a myth. It's presumptuous and dangerous to assume that there exist facts people should know out of hand, and this is certainly no excuse for the lack of proper citation. Furthermore, considering the length of the article, five long quotations is stepping way over the line. The quick succession of these quotations disregards the style requirement for a featured article. Reformatting them, in my opinion, doesn't take away from the fact that the quotations, though they address the subject matter, contribute only in the sense that they are taken word-for-word from a cited source, as opposed to being integrated into a format befitting an encyclopedic entry as would normally be expected. For these reasons, while the article in question is certainly good, it is not among the very best Wikipedia has to offer.—GrittyLobo441 (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with JayHenry that this is within WP:WIAFA. I don't see an issue with the title, nor do I see the number of quotations as a problem. They are unusually vivid, and give a strong indication on how this practice was viewed different times. Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hold on now. Lead is insufficient, and a couple of refs lack info. It would be nice if the book sources could be given their own section (Notes followed by References, as on others). I tend to agree that its mistitled—this is Execution by elephant (and what a horrible way to be executed it is!). It is rather quote heavy, but I don't see that as a remove basis. Marskell (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Still needs work&mdash;lead is a little short, and the reference section needs tweaking per Marskell. A copy-edit would also be nice; there are a few missing commas and the occasional redundant word. I think it's pretty close though. &mdash; Deckiller 19:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is a nice article and I find the highlighted concerns to be largely nitpicky. --Blacksun (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There really isn't any justifiable reason not to. DrKiernan (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the general keep sentiment, I'll try to give this a go over myself. This isn't in remove territory, but it's still not quite a keep. Marskell (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to help with this as well, but it'll be a little more than a week before I'll have any time as I'm traveling at the moment. --JayHenry (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think I'm just going to keep it. Reading it more closely, I think the quotes give it a rich flavour and it's hard to call that a remove basis. It's been gone over by DrK and Ceoil, and I just expanded the lead. Marskell (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I thought I already had !voted. Per others. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.