Talk:Fiona/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: The Blue Rider (talk · contribs) 13:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 11:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm happy to take this on for review. I haven't reviewed any of these name articles before, so before I wrote my comments, I prepared by reading the good article on Femke and its respective review. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@The Blue Rider: Hey, it's been a week since I opened this. Are you still interested in seeing the review through? --Grnrchst (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, yes I am still interested. I will complete it next week. Thank you for your patience. The Blue Rider 22:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@The Blue Rider: Comments on the etymology section still need addressing. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The Internet Archive is down so I will wait until it is back up to address the remaining points. Thanks and sorry for my delay. The Blue Rider 01:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@The Blue Rider: No bother, the archive takedown is affecting many of us. By the way, you should know there is a discussion on lists of names at the GAN talk page; it may affect this review. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead section is very short. Try to expand it by a couple more sentences, so you're covering more of the article than just its etymology.
  •  Done, someone removed the majority of the lead and provided no reasoning. I have restored the previous version.

Etymology

• Spotcheck:[1][2] pp. 99-100 verify its derivation from fionn, pp. 348-349 verify Fíona. Consider moving the references more inline with the information they're verifying, rather than bundling at the end.

•  Done

• Hanks & Hardcastle 2006, pp. 348-349 says that the Scottish Fiona has no connection with the Irish Fíona. If we're going to mention the Irish name and how "Fiona" is used as an anglicisation, we should probably bring up explicitly that they have distinct origins.
• Consider providing a link to an online version of Hanks & Hardcastle's dictionary.[1]

•  Done

• "In ninth-century Welsh and Breton language Fion [...]" What does any of this have to do with the Gaelic name Fiona? Welsh and Breton come from a separate branch of the Celtic languages, so I would expect an explicit connection to be provided rather than just implying they're connected because they look similar.
• "It was used" If you are ending the last paragraph with a sentence about a different word, you need to be explicit that you're referring to the name "Fiona" rather than just "It". Replacing with "The name" would provide more clarity.
  •  Done
• Page number for entry in Creswell's dictionary? (p. 96)
• Nothing about its connection to the Celtic name "Fionnuala/Fenella"? (per Creswell, p. 96)
• Nothing about how "Catharina" became "Fiona"?
• Page number for entry in Room's dictionary? (p. 240)
• Page number for entry in Pickering's dictionary? (p. 121)
• I see the other contractions in Pickering's dictionary, but not "Fee".
• Is BehindtheName.com really a reliable source? Where has Mike Campbell (site creator) gotten the information about these name equivalencies from? Do we not have any other sources for the connection of the name Fiona with these Welsh and Breton names?
• Page number for entry in Mark's dictionary? (Can't verify the page number myself as I don't have access to this)
• Consider providing a link to an online version of Mark's dictionary.[2]

•  Done

Popularity

• Page number for Fergusson's dictionary? (p. 85)

   Done

• Why are we not discussing Sharp's use of the name here? He appears to be the one responsible for popularising the name in English, so it seems odd he's only mentioned in the etymology section.

  Because there are no sources linking Sharp's use of the name and its popularity.

• Inline citations need to be provided for the details about Macpherson (verified in Hanks & Harcastle 2006, pp. 99-100 and Pickering 2004, p. 121) and its popularity surge in the 1960s (verified in Room 2002, p. 240 and Pickering 2004, p. 121).

   Done

• As the name came from Scotland, it might be worth putting the information about its popularity in Scotland first, before Germany. It then frames it as rather interesting that it has become more popular in German-speaking countries than its country of origin.
  •  Done
• Spotcheck: [10] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [11] Verified.
• "most popular baby names" drop the s from names
  •  Done
• Spotcheck: [14] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [15] Verified.
• Link to The Courier (Dundee) in its citation wouldn't hurt.
  •  Done
• More details for the LVV citation would be nice, as it's currently unclear what this is pointing to (i.e. you're giving a statistic for 2022, but the archived version, which is the default link in the citation, is from 2013). LVV is the website, not the name of the source document, which appears to be something else.

   Done changed source for one that had information about 2023.

• You should properly credit the author Reto Fehr int he citation for the watson.ch article.

   Done

• You should properly credit the author Megan Watts in the citation for the NZ Herald article. A link to The New Zealand Herald wouldn't hurt either.

   Done

• We mention its peak popularity for New Zealand, but not for other countries. Also no mention of its placement in list of most popular names for New Zealand, while this is the default metric for other countries. It reads as odd to switch from one to the other and then back. It would be nice to see when it reached its peak popularity in other countries.

  Because there aren't sources describing the popularity throughout the years of the name Fiona, only for New Zealand. Would it be consider WP:OR if I went to look through the tables and describe how the name fluctuated throughout the years? @Grnrchst: The Blue Rider 19:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  I guess I have my answer: WP:ORMEDIA

• "it was the 287th most popular baby girl name, ranking in 287th" Redundant repetition of information. Also what year is this statistic from?

   Done

• Spotcheck: [17] Verified.
• "It has ranked among [...]" Clarify that you're still talking about the US here.
  •  Done
• How come the US gets three sentences of information while other countries only get one? Why is a single demographic in a single city given the same weight as whole countries? Isn't this undue?

  I found the article and thought I would add it; removed the sentence since it isn't that relevant, to be honest.

Notable people with the given name

• First entry is a hippopotamus, not a person... Already counted in the "Other" section, so uh, cut it here.
  •  Done
• These kinds of list function as disambiguations, so I don't think inline citations are required here.
  •  Done

Fictional characters

• This list is absurd. It is incredibly long, with 46 entries, only 3 of which are notable enough for their own articles. Some get sections in character lists, but many appear to be non-noteworthy side characters. This desperately needs a trim, as I really don't think it's helpful to list every Fiona one can think of in fiction. If we are keeping the people list down to the ones notable enough for their own articles, I don't see any reason why this list needs to be so long and full of non-notable fictional characters.
  •  Done, only maintained the notable ones.

Other

• No notes.

See also

• Consider adding a link to List of Scottish Gaelic given names.
  •  Done

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Judging by other GAs in this category, I think this article could get there as well, but it has issues that need to be sorted out before I can consider passing it. Give me a ping when you've seen to these comments and I'll give it another look. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Prose is mostly good, with only a couple grammatical errors that are easily fixed.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Lead needs to be longer. Two very short sentences aren't good enough.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   All references are properly laid out. But some citations are lacking important details, including author credits, website names and page numbers.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Two sentences lack inline citations. Sources for the information exist so I don't see what reason there is for not citing them.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Doesn't appear to be any original research, all the information comes from cited sources.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No copyright violations or plagiarism, as far as I could see from my own spotchecks. Earwig doesn't flag any sections.[3]

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   There's some details missing from both the etymology and popularity sections that I think could be important for a reader.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Fictional characters list is unnecessarily long. There's some additional detail in the etymology section as well that I think has only tenuous relevance to the subject, unless a better source can be provided.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Completely neutral.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   {{{1}}} Article no longer stable due to the actions of the nominator.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   No images.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   No images. Not sure if any would be more relevant that they would be undue (i.e. images of a specific Fiona).

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Unfortunately I'm going to have to mark this review as failed. For one, many of the comments in this review still haven't been addressed, even after two months of the review being opened, even as the nominator has continued in other areas of editing. But the main reason I'm marking this as failed is because it now fails to meet GA criteria 5 for stability. This isn't something I can overlook, as it is sadly the nominator's own doing. A couple days ago, while the review was still open, the nominator decided to remove entire sections of the article and boldly move the title of the article, without seeking any consensus. When these changes were reverted, they then proceeded to edit war over the issue, insulted the editors that opposed their changes and attempted to remove any talk page comments that didn't agree with them. This culminated with the nominator being blocked for sockpuppetry. This is a real shame, but I wouldn't feel right keeping this review open after all this. Once all of this has died down, re-nomination can be reconsidered. But as of today, this nomination clearly fails GA criteria. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.