Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sacred Cod/1

Sacred Cod

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Sacred_Cod/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • GAN review not found
 * Result: Kept. The case for delisting rested mainly on the extensive use of quotes and the light tone of the article. There was a rough consensus that some (quoted) humor is acceptable for a topic like this. Opinions were divided on the overall writing style used, but only a minority of participants believed the style was below GA standards. Two examples of sourcing issues were given. While these issues have not been resolved, they did not sway the discussion towards delisting. Finally, I discarded the argument of dead links, as the GA criteria explicitly allow those (WP:GA?) and note that WP:SANDWICH is not part of the GA criteria either. Femke (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

This article should be re-evaluated for Good Article status. Despite a long history of edits, it does not meet GA Criteria: 1a, 1b, 4, and 6b. 1a: there are too many in-line quotes, block quotes, image quotes, external media, and other collections of non-prose items, distracting from the main focus of an article - encyclopedic text. 1b: the Manual of Style is not followed with image sizes, sandwiching media, editorializing, weasel words, and other elements. 4: there is strong editorial bias in the text and quotes given. It is clear that the editor(s) are reflecting the silliness of the topic in the article prose, which is improper. 6b: there are several poor, repetitive, or barely relevant images illustrating the article. The article also suffers from innumerous dead links and run-on sentences. A full source check may be necessary to see if it complies with GA criteria, e.g. sourcing Lovecraft's opinion directly to one of his works of fiction is a nonstarter. ɱ (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've suggested before that you look up the term run-on sentence so you won't keep embarrassing yourself by showing you don't know what it means.
 * There is no reference to Lovecraft's "opinion", rather the article simply states that amusing is the term Lovecraft employed, which is true. That he put it in the mouth of his narrator is irrelevant.
 * What's an "image quote"?
 * What "image size" problems are you talking about?
 * You say there are "innumerous" dead links. I checked all the cites and found one dead link. Are you unable to count to 1?
 * EEng 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No answer. Huh. EEng 02:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me, I must say. There is one silly cn for the direction the cod faces, which is clear from the illustrations. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It has clear MOS violations and a "tedious" and "tongue-in-cheek" (improper) writing style, as admitted by one of the article's editors on its talk page. ɱ  (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * as admitted by one of the article's editors on its talk page – I did not "admit", or even say, that the article has a "tedious" or "tongue-in-cheek" style. What I said is that The sources are tongue-in-cheek, and the article, by quoting those sources, simply reflects that for the reader . Tell us now whether you can see the difference between those, because if you can't then you're not competent to participate in these discussions. EEng 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No answer. Huh. EEng 02:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, evidently a strong one. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, page seems fine. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've got to say, the crazy amounts of "quotes" and what can only be attributed to inside jokes aren't really encyclopaedic. The lede is particularly bad, as it uses so many tounge-in-cheek puns to explain what the article is about. We aren't an April fools joke - this should be re-written from a neutral tone without the puns. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What puns in the lead? So many? One, maybe, 'Cod-napping', and that is discussed and well sourced later in the text. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Simply because William F. Galvin refers to it under the pun "codnapping" on a single subpage of his gov't website (actually a digitized version of his weasel-word-filled tourist-oriented guide to the building) does not warrant us to use it throughout an encyclopedia that aims to be neutral and serious. The fact that this article attributes it to "State House officials" is misleading. ɱ  (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth seems official enough. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * He wrote that solely for a tourist guide. If I were to quote everything from official tour guides of the tours I've been on, Wikipedia would be a hot mess. ɱ  (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And if everybody went to the same restaurant on the same evening and ordered blintzes, there'd be chaos, but they don't . <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delist: I can't make sense of the "it's fine" comments that don't address the points raised in the GAR nomination and don't make any case for why this article is "fine" despite the obvious violations of the MOS and the GA criteria. The caption on the Infobox image seems to be an original creation and quite inappropriate. The second sentence on the "Sacred Cod nickname" sentence makes the claim "[w]ithin a few years authors, journalists, and advertisers‍—‌even those far from New England‍—‌were using the term routinely", but this is only cited to primary sources from the era; that seems to be at least skirting WP:SNYTH if not an outright violation. regards, TryKid&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 17:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't agree with the most specific claims at the top; I'm fine with the "in-line quotes, block quotes, image quotes" also the images. I don't see any "weasel words" (WP's most miscited policy). User:Ɱ obviously has a beef with the article, but I don't share it. Johnbod (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because you are fine with it does not make it in-line with Wikipedia guidelines and norms, nor does this April-fools joke fit in-line with the GA status, which represents some of the very best work Wikipedia has to offer. Perhaps reevaluate your standards to align with Wikipedia's, as Wikipedia will not spontaneously align with yours. ɱ  (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, which of us has 14 FAs? GA status does not "represent some of the very best work Wikipedia has to offer" - that's FA. There's a huge range of quality in GAs. Also, WP:NPA. You seem rather intemperate over this; perhaps you should go off & calm down. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * FAs that are a decade+ old goes to show you might not understand how things have changed in the last few years. Especially for the FAC process. ɱ  (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Where I still regularly participate. Yeah, right. Sadly one thing that hasn't changed much is the uneven quality of GAs. Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My "fine" was also maligned. The article gives due weight to acknowledging the seemingly lighthearted official policy of the state in its honest honoring of a 'sacred cod' while, at the same time, it adequately encyclopedically covers the importance placed on this rare 238-year old wooden sculpture (the third in an established lineage). In assessing this page about an American-formation era artifact, doubters of its quality should reread the beautifully-put opening caption while keeping the existence of that level of local respect for tradition and symbolism in mind. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is almost as humorous as the puns in the article, and undoubtedly just as serious. ɱ  (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Meant every word. It is a 238-year old beloved American artifact and that sense is captured throughout the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. The central issue here seems to be It is clear that the editor(s) are reflecting the silliness of the topic in the article prose, which is improper. It is not improper. There is no rule, in GA or elsewhere, that Wikipedia articles must be dry and humorless, and even less is there such a rule for topics that are notable for being silly (such as this one). The rule is not that humor is outlawed, but rather that the humor should not interfere with being accurate or informative; here I don't think it does. Indeed, I rather suspect that readers of this topic are likely to come to it as a way of seeking out humorous anecdotes about it, and are likely to leave disappointed and uninformed if the humor is excised. This desire to avoid silliness has led the nominator to overreach elsewhere; for instance it also appears to be untrue that the images are poor, repetitive, or barely relevant; they all look relevant and distinct to me. It is also not true that the dead links are innumerous, too many to be counted: I count zero deadlink tags in the article, a number that is easily small enough for most people to count. I don't think a GA reassessment with such a flawed basis is likely to lead anywhere productive, except as a referendum on Humor, for which the talk page of that essay might be a more appropriate venue. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not the central issue, I equally listed many. Editorial bias is clear based on the overly generous way the editor(s) portray it and its story. Your analysis is not correct either - we do not need an image of a real codfish, we do not need block quotes or similar obtrusive media in every section, and the images of the exterior of the state houses are completely irrelevant, and do not supply the reader with anything relevant to this "artwork". It is clear that this comment follows a cursory scan of the article. "Deadlink tags" are not necessary to make links work, have you even clicked on the reference links? ɱ  (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well for that matter, an article on the Sacred Cod isn't something we "need", nor is Wikipedia, nor (for that matter) is the entire human race. This isn't about what we "need" but rather what best serves the reader's understanding of, and appreciation for, the subject. You're not speaking to that, just complaining that this article doesn't look like lots of other articles. Vive la différence! <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delist, as nominator, this article has extensive problems with specific GA criteria. Keep votes have largely thus far not analyzed the criteria or problems discussed in the nomination, and have simply agreed with the unusual writing style. The use of sources, with many unreliable or improperly used to support information, and with many nonfunctioning links, needs to be addressed and fixed. The use of irrelevant images, news clippings, external photographs, etc. needs to be addressed. The issue of unclear prose, cluttered in with first-party narratives in quotes, needs to be addressed. As well, the article violates Manual of Style/Words to watch more than most any I've read. ɱ  (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just in the lede itself, fitting MOS:WTW: "to the life" - euphemism, "important" - state significance instead, "historic" - simply state years, "creature of tradition" - poetry, "natural habitat" - editorializing, euphemism -- ɱ (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Let's see...
 * "to the life" - euphemism – Better look up euphemism in a dictionary, or ask your teacher.
 * "important" - state significance instead and "historic" - simply state years – The article text reads "a memorial of the importance of the Cod-Fishery to the welfare of this Commonwealth" (i.e. Massachusetts, of which cod is officially the "historic and continuing symbol"). The importance is explained in its own section of the article, and aside from the fact that it's a quotation, how in the fuck are we supposed to "simply state years" instead? What are you even talking about? You seem to not understand what the subject of the article is.
 * "prehistoric creature of tradition" - poetry – Again it's a quote, and one which perfectly transmits what's intended. You seem to consider lifelessness a sign of quality writing.
 * "natural habitat" - editorializing, euphemism – For the nth time, PLEASE look up euphemism so you can learn what it means. And editorializing too while you're at it. I openly admit that "natural habitat" is meant to make the reader smile, and if you don't like that, tough. Don't smile if you don't want to.
 * Apparently you've been inhabiting a drab prison of grays and browns so long that you're forgotten there's a big, colorful world out there. Lock yourself in if you wish, but pardon the rest of us if we don't join you there. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a matter of personal taste whether the verbatim quotes make for choppy reading or, alternatively, give the prose enough verve to be readable instead of impossibly dry. What I'm not seeing is a failure to be, well, encyclopedic. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. Dunning-Kruger effect, WP:MISSSNODGRASS. Nominator throws around terms such as euphemism, run-on, bias, weasel word, and editorializing without knowing what they mean; seems to think WTW is a list of forbidden words; believes quality articles are written by filling in blanks on a form; etc etc. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As stated by others who can see the light of day, this article reads like an April Fool's joke, as humorous as your attempts to insult me. ɱ  (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad you're enjoying it. Will you be rebutting any of the points I've made, as I've rebutted yours, or will you just sulk off? Either way is fine. But remember to look up euphemism and so on. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 21:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

When you're unable to respond substantively I guess there's nothing like some good old-fashioned forum-shopping to keep a crusade alive: Planning to recruit anywhere else? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 02:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * Users are allowed and encouraged to post discussions to encourage a fair consensus. You may be pleased to know that these comments are disheartening, and the widespread endorsements of this absolute mess are holding me back from actively editing here right now. ɱ  (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What I'd be pleased to know, rather than that you're disheartened, is that you've taken on board what Tryptofish said below: One should not confound writing that is skillful and distinctive with writing that is unencyclopedic; this is the former. Most of the criticisms raised here are matters of The RulesTM, rather than substantive ones about page quality. But you'll probably just ignore that and keep yelling "run-on" and "euphemism" and "bias" at random. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 23:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "skillful and distinctive" is not evident here. It's clear that what amuses some editors in a positive way is seen by other editors as improperly amusing for a site that is meant to seriously introduce facts. We have a bad enough academic reputation as it is. ɱ  (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * By "some editors" you mean numerous respected editors and admins -- half of them published (academic!) authors themselves -- with extensive experience shaping and applying Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and editing articles on a wide range of topics. By "other editors" you mean the kid with 5000 edits who rates himself en-2, the snooker editor, and the editor formerly known as Ɱ|Voiceless Labiodental Nasal Stop (whom I will allow others to characterize for themselves). <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 02:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot to add: Feel free to sputter on about how this is the end of Wikipedia, but until you point to a specific, intelligible issue I won't be responding further. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 03:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, although I might be a fish (and even a sacred snooker), I am also a retired university professor, and I think I understand academic writing and academic reputations. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 00:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, and endorse EEng's logical explanations of the good faith nominator's points of concern. Being fair, Wikipedia would be enhanced if the page were featured. Every element works in tandem, and to answer just one concern, an image of the building seems topic-relevant as a further understanding of location and artifact importance. One strength are its all-too-Wikipedia-rare notes, which round the page out as a fully informative encyclopedic article. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll wire the money to the usual numbered account. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 03:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe toss in an extra 10%, for the Big Guy. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Resolve facing The issue of which way the fish faces and whether this now reflects the ruling party needs resolution. There are multiple sources saying this but the article takes a different line and this appears to be OR. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get involved in the dispute over the lighter tone, but a Good Article should be consistent on whether its name is properly italicized.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. As for silliness, anyone should feel free to slap me with a sacred trout. Oh wait, you can't, because I'm already a fish. But seriously, I went and looked through the page, and it seems to me to be well within what we expect for a GA, and is really quite well-written and complete. One should not confound writing that is skillful and distinctive with writing that is unencyclopedic; this is the former. Most of the criticisms raised here are matters of The RulesTM, rather than substantive ones about page quality. Perhaps someone should go through it with a copyedit, though. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's been attempted, and at others that EEng effectively holds ownership over. ɱ  (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying there. If you cannot make progress at the article talkpage, you can try an RfC. That would probably be more productive than the reassessment here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I should clarify that when I referred to a copyedit, I was saying that in terms of what I would regard as minor edits reflecting feedback from the discussion here, and as a suggestion rather than as a major concern. I didn't mean that to imply that things need to be corrected in order to be kept as a GA. But let me also say that if an RfC leads to a consensus that is not, however, implemented, that would be something where I would support a delisting. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep I had never heard of this topic until I stumbled on it just now. What a good article! Thanks to those who wrote it. Here in California, we only have a state flag with a Grizzly bear, extinct in this state since either 1922 or 1924, depending on which source you think is best. That flag is emblazoned with "California Republic", a rag-tag entity that lasted for 25 days in 1846. There are humorous aspects to many state symbols. But I read this entire Cod article and found it fascinating, an informative insight into the lore of Massachusetts state government and one of its historically major industries, and quite well referenced. If anyone wants to actually work to improve the article, then maybe it will become a Featured article, alleviating all concerns raised here. Cullen328 (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I had attempted to, but WP:OWNership is strong in this article, and needs to be broken. Your endorsements of this violating editor are not helping. ɱ  (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. Is this about your dispute with another editor more so than this specific article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullen328 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have had no dispute - I attempted to edit this article to fix obvious MOS issues. When rejected, I reanalyzed the article and it became clear that it fails multiple GA standards. Any attempt to gloss over the immensely glaring issues reads to me as a bad-faith assessment. ɱ  (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Clearly, many other editors disagree with your assessment, and we work based on consensus here. Cullen328 (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not a vote, and I don't think this GAR is shaping up to be a fair consensus over the article's quality. Many keep votes simply think the GA bar is lower than this article is. ɱ  (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And they are probably right, which is a perfectly valid reason to oppose here. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Phineas Gage and Talk:Phineas Gage, another heavily edited by the main editor here. They deflect all edits attempting to improve the mess in the article, and then any attempts to work things out on the talk page are torn apart over walls of text. ɱ  (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm strongly tempted to hat everything after Cullen's initial comment, along with potentially a whole lot of stuff higher above, but I won't take it on myself to do so. This is supposed to be a discussion about whether or not this one article is still of GA quality. I support keeping the GA ranking, but that does not mean that the nominator is a bad person for having made the nomination; they aren't. I've long been aware of the ownership concerns, but then again, there have always been multiple editors supporting the way the pages have been written, so there is also a consensus as opposed to the contrary view of a single person. There is blame to go around on both "sides" for how this has gotten sidetracked into personal disputes, and everyone needs to tone it down. Reassessment discussions, like deletion discussions, have a built-in adversarial structure, and it's understandable that editors can feel like this is something with sides, but enough is enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * (Note: I saw this discussion on the Discord, but the person who sent the message has not commented here.) Reluctant keep - I personally don't like the writing style, and EEng's ownership behavior is inane . I'd push back against Tryptofish's claim above that the writing style has consensus; I see no such consensus, on the talk page or even on this reassessment page. Indeed, this article would never pass FAC. But ultimately, it's not poorly sourced—at least after recent efforts—and doesn't have such pervasive grammar issues that would make it comprehensively fail criterion 1(a). Ovinus (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I take your point about consensus. More like local consensus, without a consensus to the contrary. And I'll push back against calling anyone's behavior inane. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; struck that. Ovinus (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - with a sigh of relief as I first thought it was about a different topic. The style of writing is what we call engaging prose. We want our readers to actually read our articles, not use them to fall asleep. It passes all 6 GA criteria.  I'm not seeing a valid reason to delist. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 12:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

For those playing along at home ...
... His forum-shopping having failed, the OP is now taking out his frustrations by making WP:POINTy edits adding random inpopcult trivia to other articles. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 19:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * (Someone seems to have accidentally deleted the above comment; I've now restored it.)
 * Following up the above, editors are invited to comment on certain inpopcult items at Talk:Massachusetts State House. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 07:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)