Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Battle of Torvioll/1

Battle of Torvioll

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Battle_of_Torvioll/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: In breach of the reliable sources guideline, specifically WP:AGEMATTERS, and thus violating GA criterion 2. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

GA from 2011. Has been tagged for refimprove since 2020. But its main problem is the numerous non-primary source tags on the article. Would like someone to look and see if the primary sources are an issue. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I read the introduction of the linked Moore 1850. It seems to be largely a reworking of a 1596 translation of a prior (to 1596) book by Jacques Lavarin (in French). Lavarin's book relies heavily, according to Moore, on a history by Marinus Barletius but is itself constructed from a list of twelve sources. If not largely a mirror of Barletius – a direct comparison with a modern translation of Barletius may be needed to establish whether that is the case – I would think it obsolete. Ifly6 (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Many of the tags were added by in Special:Diff/813213605. Tagging for possible explanation or context. Ifly6 (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Moore says his "business has been to concentrate Lavardin's history" (i.e. to concentrate the 1596 English translation of Lavardin's 1576 book); Lavardin says his book is "drawned for the most part" from Barleti. As noted by Ifly6, if the result of this Latin->French->Bad English->Good English successive translations may not be a mirror of Barletius, I doubt it can be qualified as a reliable source. That doesn't mean that academic modern history differs from this account (perhaps not, since Barleti is perhaps the only primary source - I don't know), but the sourcing is questionable at least.--Phso2 (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Even if modern academic history does not differ from Moore's account, it should the main thing cited regardless; people use Wikipedia's references as a starting place for research. We shouldn't lead them into 19th century dead ends. Ifly6 (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)