Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jean de Carrouges/1

Jean de Carrouges

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Jean_de_Carrouges/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • GAN review not found
 * Result: Lack of improvement of issues with GA criterion 2 below. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

GA from 2007. I want someone to take a look at this considering many section are tagged for either relying mostly on one source or possible factual inaccuracies in the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't have an opinion about factual accuracy yet. I don't love that article relies heavily on a popular book rather than a scholarly one (no real peer review), plus original medieval sources (risky business to cite too credulously). But, I wasn't able to find anything else that I liked much better. We could try this diss on duels? Maybe this article?
 * Reading this interivew with the book's author offers useful context, I think, for how to interpret his book as a source: it likely represents some of the best research into the events in question, while remaining fundamentally an exercise in storytelling. His examples of 'imaginative' additions are things like 'there was a burst of cold air when the door opened,' which he says is a guess based on the fact that it was January. I don't think the book is inaccurate (or getting undue weight in the article) but I do think as a source it encourages lurid levels of detail. Although there are tags for inaccuracy, almost everything is cited; at most what might be needed is to foreground the specific sources more clearly (e.g., what comes from court records vs what comes from Froissart.)
 * So, I actually think the main problem with this article has to do with criteria 3b, rather than criteria-2 sourcing problems: that exhaustive blow-by-blow of the duel itself feels like "unnecessary detail" to me. Or maybe it feels off because of neutrality (criteria 4) problems. I think everything related to the duel should be cut down into one section, which takes a more encyclopedic approach of indicating key events (and their sources) more simply. To address all the main areas of its subject (3a) it might also be appropriate to have a set-apart section that describes the "reception" of the duel, aka, the way it was a go-to story of a miscarriage of justice, how it's been relitigated by historians, etc. Setting that section apart would also make it easier for the events of the duel itself to be more matter-of-fact, since the interpretation itself would happen elsewhere.
 * Overall, I slightly lean toward delisting in its current state, though I also think chopping the article down to something more encyclopedic would not be too onerous an undertaking. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)