Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lazare Ponticelli/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 by Joelr31 15:33, 17 February 2009 [1].

Lazare Ponticelli[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: WP BIO, WP World's Oldest People, WP MILHIST, Bart Versieck, Editorofthewiki, Canadian Paul.

I'm unsure why this was promoted earlier in the year. IMO, it fails Criteria 1a (poor prose throughout) and 2 (MoS breaches, such as the range-hyphens in the infobox and the linked date at the opening, still not satisfactorily justified on the talk page), with a question mark over Criterion 1b (it's hard to believe that it's comprehensive—a person's whole life and, specifically, his role in the war and symbolic meaning as the last survivor). The repetition and density of the inline citations unnecessarily affects the appearance and readability of the text (cf. the requirement for a professional standard of formatting). Tony (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The repetition and density of the inline citations unnecessarily affects the appearance and readability of the text." Give me a break. I have cited everthing challengeable, as per WP:V. "Poor prose throughout" - You only provided one example of supposed poor prose on the talk page, which I didn't see was a problem but was fixed nonetheless. Please provide more examples to back this up. I have no clue about hyphens, so I'd like someone else to fix that. The linked date at the opening clearly passes WP:MOSNUM as there is a clear reason do do so, as explained on the talk page, and bringing this here because you don't like that may be a bit pointy. I will search for new sources, though last time I checked we covered about everything. I'm having technical difficulty on my computer over the last couple of days so I don't know if I can add much until it's fixed. Oh, and Ponticelli was not the last French veteran, just the last poilu. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 16:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no reason to demote the article, the citations don't seem to be a problem to me; I prefer multiple citations for contentious points, in fact. Support Retention as Featured Article Skinny87 (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Declarations of "Keep"/"Remove" (or other related comments) are not made at this stage. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - At the request of EOTW I will look through this article. I will try and c-e all points that are a little messy, but I don't think there are as many problems as needed to go to FAR. —Ceran»^« 20:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Certainly not "brilliant, engaging prose throughout", which would make it a 1a failure. Sorry. Some examples include:

  • "was the last official French veteran of the First World War and poilu, or foot soldier, of its trenches" I have difficulty making sense of this in its current form. Perhaps simply "was the last official French veteran of the First World War" and explain poilu later on in the article? It's difficult to try and work it into a compact sentence in the lead and, I would guess, it is not key to the topic.
    • Couldn't do much for this. I reworded it somewhat to "was the last official French veteran of the First World War and poilu, or foot soldier, of its trenches." I hope this satisfies your concern. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'Fraid not - still a very awkward sentence. I really do suggest dropping the attempt to explain poilu until the body of the article. 4u1e (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I fixed that into the notes. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, the footnote means that at least when someone is confused they can find out what is meant, but it really should be possible to create wording here that is clear in the first place. Can I start again with a simple question: why is it necessary to mention poilu in the lead? 4u1e (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the time of his death, Ponticelli was both the oldest living man born in Italy and the oldest man living in France" Bit tricky - there's got to be a neater way of putting it that doesn't involve the obvious contradiction of Ponticelli being the oldest living person at his death. Possibly, "Before his death in March 2008, Ponticelli was the oldest living man born in Italy and the oldest man living in France." (Specifying "both" is redundant.)
    • Basically done exactly as you said. Mentioning "March 2008" would be equally as redundant, since I already said that earlier in the lead. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine (but I would say that, wouldn't I? ;-)) 4u1e (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He described the event in an undated interview as "blood running through [his] eyes", but he "continued firing despite [his] wound."" This really doesn't make any sense. The quote is also inaccurately transcribed from its source. Looking at the reference, I suggest: "In an undated interview, he described being shot by Austrian troops: "Blood was running into my eyes ... I continued firing despite my wound."
  • These are examples only. In general I would say that the text is rather clunky, with the linkages between ideas not clearly drawn out. I suggest getting a really good copyeditor to go over it.
    • I contacted Dabomb87. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I left a couple of inline queries you may want to address. I'll try to go through the text more closely tomorrow. Anyway, we have plenty of time. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree and fixed most of them. However, I purposely used "first World War" and "World War I" for variety. If I just stuck to one or the other, the text IMO would be blander. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suggest that in this case it is better to be consistent with terminology. There is also the question of WP:ENGVAR. IIRC, World War I is mainly American usage and First World War mainly UK usage. The article seems to be written in American English, so I suggest standardising on World War I. 4u1e (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having read a couple of the sources, I am now also concerned about criterion 1c (factual accuracy). For example:

  • The article links the quote given above about being shot to Ponticelli's injury during an attack on an Austrian position. However, there is nothing in the two sources used to link these two events. In fact, they suggest they are separate events, since in the first case the Austrians surrendered, and in the second the attack was "futile". Article needs to be checked throughout for similar examples of WP:SYNTHESIS, and for accuracy of facts and quotes.
    • I don't see where you're coming from when you say the source doesn't link the events. Quote THe Times: "There he was serving as a machinegunner when he was seriously wounded by a shell burst during one of the many futile Italian assaults on welldefended Austrian mountain positions." ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's because the wording has been changed since I made the point. The version I reviewed explicitly linked the wounding and the quote: "Ponticelli was seriously wounded by a shell during an assault on an Austrian mountain position.[1] He described the event in an undated interview...[2]" The undated interview describes a different event. The current wording in this case is OK now, but you need to check for similar unwarranted synthesis throughout the article - this is just one example that leapt out at me after a glance at two of the refs. 4u1e (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a little worried about potential plagiarism, compare:

  • "With the entry of Italy into the First World War in 1915, Ponticelli was told he had to join the Italian Army and was discharged. At first refusing to leave, Ponticelli was escorted by two gendarmes to Torino, where he joined 3 Alpini Regiment for service against the Austrians" from the article with
  • "But in 1915, with the entry of Italy into the war on the Allied side he was told he must join the Italian Army and was discharged. Refusing at first to be parted from his French uniform, he was firmly escorted by two gendarmes to Turin, where he joined a regiment of Alpinieri for service on the Austrian front." from ref 2, the Times article.

That's a very close paraphrase - could other editors comment on whether this is a problem? I haven't checked for other examples. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • That doesn't seem terribly close to me, so it shouldn't be a problem. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really? The second first one seems clearly derived from the first second with only minimal changes. I doubt it would stand up to a legal challenge...but if no-one else agrees with me, I'll let it go. 4u1e (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would call it clear plagiarism as well. So a little rework should be necessary.--HJensen, talk 18:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think this is a problem, though I can rework it a bit if you wish. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries, I changed it to "With the entry of Italy into the First World War in 1915, Ponticelli was forced to join the Italian Army and was summararily discharged. At first refusing to leave, Ponticelli was led by two gendarmes to Torino to enlist in the 3 Alpini Regiment, where he served against the Austrian Army." ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's probably enough of a change to get away with it. You're still directly paraphrasing the original though: you introduce the same ideas in the same order with the same sentence structure. You need to check throughout the article for similar cases. Can I suggest that if in doing so you find other examples, you try and throw away the original text and write from scratch? I strongly suspect that in this case at least the original text was cut and pasted from the newspaper article (not necessarily by you, I hasten to add!) and then modified. When this is done, it's inevitable that the article ends up with the appearance of plagiarism. 4u1e (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's a common practise of mione: I copy text directly from the source and then reword it. Apparently in this case I didn't reword it enough, tough I never thought that the entire practice was inherantly wrong. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Like all things, it depends. In my opinion (which you are free to ignore!) it's a very bad habit, because it leads to the situation we have here in which the text has been only very lightly modified - which is plagiarism, or theft, if you're feeling righteous about it. A much better approach (imho) is to read all the relevant sources, write up the article, or chunks thereof, from memory or notes of key facts and then check what you have written against the sources. 4u1e (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I restored the word "escorted", because that is really the best word, if not the only word that conveys what happened. I also changed "Torino" to "Turin" as this is the English Wikipedia, and besides, the redirect is to Turin.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've got no problem with either of those points, but it takes the wording closer to the original again. Can the information be more fundamentally restructured? 4u1e (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I played with it considerably. See what you think.

  • I've had a go as well and produced a version I'm happy with (natch!). See below for another example, though. This really does need sorting out throughout. 4u1e (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another direct lift from one of the sources: Compare "His Italian Alpine regiment had once stopped firing for three weeks on the Austrians, whose language many of them spoke; they had swapped loaves of bread for tobacco and taken pictures of each other." (from The Economist) with "His regiment once stopped firing for three weeks on the Austrians, whose language many of them spoke, swapping loaves of bread for tobacco, with the opposing soldiers taking pictures of each other" in the article. Looks like a systematic problem. This needs rooting out throughout the article. 4u1e (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed to "Once, his regiment stopped fighting the Austrians for three weeks. The armies, who mostly spoke the same tongue, swapped loaves of bread for tobacco and photographed each other." ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a go at copy-editing the lead and found lots of issues. See inline queries. One instance where I'm unsure of my edit (see talk). Tony (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that I think about it, it is kinda odd to refer to the language of the Austrians, which was a rather polyglot empire ...--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fixed many of them, athough the last I was unable to resolve. The sources didn't say how he accepted the funeral, and anyway, that would be trivial. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to wonder about the comprehensiveness of this article. Did the man marry? We don't know, though he left a daughter, so odds are. Were there other children? I realize these things may not be in the newspaper articles, but I see in the biblio a French language book by Lazare, which probably has some details of his life (published in 2005). It may not be easy to obtain, and the translation may be an issue, isn't a Featured Article intended to comprehensively cover the subject matter? And if we can't say for sure the man married, or how many times if so, then is the article comprehensive? I'm just not sure, so having exhausted my own wisdom (matter of microseconds), I'm wondering what others think on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't have to give every detail to be comprehensive - if those details are not available. However, I skimmed through the French language news sources last night and was left with the impression that the article doesn't even cover everything from those. For example, according to l'Express.fr, Ponticelli re-discovered his brother Celeste by chance when he joined the Foreign Legion, and the recruiting sergeant noticed that there was another Ponticelli on the register ("«Ponticelli? Il y en a déjà un inscrit sur le registre», s'interroge le sergent recruteur. C'est ainsi que Lazare retrouve son frère aîné, Céleste..") Much more interesting than the bald statement that they were both in the same unit. The book may have more on Ponticelli, probably focussed more on the company, which might make an interesting addition. Does anyone on fr.wiki have access to it, I wonder? 4u1e (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Don't see it on Google books, is there a French equivalent of same? But by running a google books search, I see four French language books that mention him. A couple look fairly interesting, if I spoke French, which I don't.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See here. Not sure it's much help though. 4u1e (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I speak a wee bit of French, though I need a translator for the book. I guess I'll go through the French sources, though there is really nothing more I can find in english. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can read French pretty well still (just don't ask me to speak it!). If you have anything in the French sources you want to confirm your understanding of, or you want translated, let me know. 4u1e (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Probably your best shot is to find someone French who has access to the books (at fr.wiki?) - if you do that, there's a fair chance that they'll speak good enough English to work with you on this article. 4u1e (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be pretty hard to find anyone with the books except perhaps members of the Ponticelli family, and anyway, where would I look. The same problem arose at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1964 Gabon coup d'état - it seems impossible to find anyone who can help. Nonetheless, I'll try to obtain the books so perhaps you can help with problematic phrases. FYI I'm currently going through the Google News Archive for Ponticelli - I'm not really finding much new, just a bunch of repeated information. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 15:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, email the company and explain the situation and see if they can get you a copy?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not willing to pay money for a book I can barely read. I'll try to pick it up on interlibrary loan, though, so please don't start the FARC until then. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 15:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Well, I meant for free. After all, you are giving them and Their Founder good publicity, least they can do is help out with a copy from the boxes that are probably choking the dusty back room anyway! And if they say non, at least you tried.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to chime in here at the tail-end of the conversation. But, EoTW: the company may actually be willing to provide you with a copy of the book. Wehwalt makes a good point. Something to think about; plus, there is no cost outside of the postage necessary for the letter (or you could try emailing!) Lazulilasher (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need: I'm having it sent in from out of state, may take 10-12 days. Besides, I'm kind of uncomfortable with giving my address out to strangers, if you know what I mean... ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coming in March or April. It is clearly a book a scholar would have trouble finding, considering there are 0 copies in the U.S. of A. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose and comprehensiveness. Joelito (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, could we not start the FARC until I get the books? I admit it's taking time, although that's the fault of my stupid library. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(tl;dr on the above discussion, so sorry if this was already discussed) Is it possible to access the books through Google Books? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I felt that too much time without no activity had elapsed waiting for the books. I will allow extra time in FARC if necessary. Joelito (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Juliancolton: No, it is not possible to view on Google Books. I'm not even sure if it is on Google Books. In fact, I'm not even sure where I discovered its existance in the first place. But it exists, and I'm having it cone to my library via interlibrary loan. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The book is being shipped from Germany. It's going to take two months. I don't know how to proceed. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 19:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either hold or dismiss with permission for restarting in March. It's not clear to me whether there are any current prose issues anyway, so a restart would be helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked Tony to revisit to review the prose again. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot-check: first sentence I landed on was:
    • "Although he could not speak French, he found work as a chimney sweep in Nogent-sur-Marne and later as a paper boy in Paris." Um ... are these jobs that would require the incumbent to speak? Query the logic of "Although".
      • Well, I imagine that it would be pretty tough to find a job in a country whose language you do not speak. Nonetheless, I changed the sentence to "He could not speak French, though he found work as a chimney sweep in Nogent-sur-Marne and later as a paper boy in Paris." ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then:

Look, I haven't the energy to object further at the moment. It's certainly improved, given this process. But it's quirky to say the least, and not an FA we'd want to hold up as "our best work". I don't mind if it stays, I suppose. Tony (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The jobs are not unparallelled by any means, but it is noteworthy to be able to hold a job without a common language with the boss; there is no suggestion that the chimney-sweepers of Nogent are the Italian colony in France. Certainly there is an opposition here, which is all although requires. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Regarding the question of sources, I guess we should put this review on hold in some way until the potentially higher quality source is available. Can anyone advise on a process for doing so? Other than that, the writing is better by far than it was at the start of the this exercise. I wouldn't say it was brilliant prose, but it's serviceable. I've got a query at the reference desk on one of the translations and will pick that up when I get an answer. I'm still a little concerned about potentially rather casual use of sources - in my recent trawl through I found one case where the words in the article were not supported by the source. 4u1e (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the discussion above. The article is still phrased idiosyncratically, which makes it difficult to read in places. For example, "At the time of his death, Ponticelli was both the oldest man living born in Italy and the oldest man living in France." Well, no one is living at the time of their death. Of greater concern though, is that this sentence is not supported by the reference given [2]. The reference says he is the last surviving poilu, but does not say he is the oldest living man in France, or the oldest living man born in Italy. DrKiernan (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the first problem. I'll fix the second when my damn computer will stop being broken all the time. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 22:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the status on the book? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Lazare_Ponticelli/archive1&oldid=1210507608"