Talk:Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 18:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

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

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

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

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

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

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

4. Is it neutral?

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

   Truly a strength of this article.

5. Is it stable?

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

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

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Reviewer Comments

I am looking forward to diving into this article as on first read through I think it has a good chance upon completion of the process of passing. This is only my 3rd GA Review so please bear with me through the process and know I might bring in some more experienced reviewers to help. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments as I do a detailed read through the article:

Lead

• I might be missing it but there doesn't seem to be supporting corroboration in the Origins section for the 1100 date.

It's sort of there, in the final paragraph where I describe Ker's dating of the rhyme to the decades after the Norman Conquest in 1066. But I should not have given a particular year and I've changed it to "late 1000s".

• Consider flipping the first two pictures so that the lyrics to the nursery rhyme are available for people only looking at the lead. Think this will also make the formatting look nicer in the next section.

The image was cropped deliberately to avoid having the lyrics in the Lead. But upon reflection, I can't think of any good reason why I thought this was necessary. So, I've replaced the cropped image with the full one. If you still think the first two images should be exchanged, I'll be happy to do that, as well.

That works too. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Change "The historians" to "Historians" or "These historians"

"These" was the intended meaning and I've made that change.

• I will just say that this whole article is pretty densely written. This is obviously not a problem and in fact speaks to its quality in many instances. However, I am of the belief that WP:Lead should be as accessible as possible. In particular I think the second paragraph could be made more accessible in its sentence structure and vocabulary.

How about this?

Historians of nursery rhymes disagree as to whether the lyrics of "Hark Hark" were inspired by a particular episode in English history, as opposed to simply reflecting a general and timeless concern about strangers. Those who link the rhyme to a specific episode identify either the Dissolution of the Monasteries during the 1530s, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 or the Jacobite rising of 1715. Those who date it to the Tudor period of English history (i.e., the 1500s) sometimes look to the rhyme's use of the word jag, which was a Tudor-period word for a fashionable style of clothing. But other historians ascribe no particular relevance to the use of that word.

Looks good. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll get to the next section of comments later today. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Lyrics

• Footnote 2 appears to reference the prior sentence.

Perhaps you misidentified the footnote number. The second footnote (i.e., the one after the sentence ending "... silken, not velvet" is definitely sourcing the use of "silken".

I did indeed miss it the first two times I looked thanks for making me really look carefully. Still confused though as the entry in the Glossary of Northamptonshire says Shreds & tatters not velvet. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

If you scroll down (at the linked source) a little further, you'll see that the entry uses "Hark Hark" as an example of the use of the phrase rags and jags. And that example is what's being sourced here -- it describes the gown as silken and not, as for most of the other cited sources, as velvet.

Looks good. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• How is early publications defined?

I guess I got ahead of myself there, because the section on "Publication History" comes after, not before, that statement. I've changed it to say "early 19th-century publications".

*Clarify what is referring to jags/rags or tags in paragraph 3

I'm not sure I understand the comment. The previous paragraph notes the varying ordering of rags and jags and the occasional substitution of tags for jags. The third paragraph is merely continuing that discussion by addressing the frequency with which this was done. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding the comment.

Nope this was fine. I'm striking it as irrelevant.Barkeep49 (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Are the two lines listed the entire second verse? If not it seems like the entire verse should be included either up top with note or here.

I regret that I must give some "push back" here. "Hark Hark" does not have a second verse. The paragraph is alerting the reader to the fact that a very few publications have augmented the lyrics of "Hark Hark" to include a portion of the lyrics from a different rhyme, "The Lion and the Unicorn". My quoting of "white bread/brown" is intended only to identify the incongruous addition. Those incongruous additions are not part of "Hark Hark" and I fear that providing the full verse would work at cross-purposes to telling the reader that they are not part of the actual rhyme. In any event, the full lyrics of "The Lion and the Unicorn" appear in each of the two references cited at the end of the paragraph.

I suppose my questions should have been are the two lines the putative second verse - the article is clear that these lines aren't truly part of Hark Hark. Suggest rewording to "Some modern-day references give the rhyme a second verse, two lines are..." Is that still accurate?Barkeep49 (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's accurate. But in fairness to myself, the language already reads "..., whose first two lines are ...". By the way, when I described the references as "modern-day", I only had the single website as a source. When I later added the 19th-century source, I should have removed the "modern-day" description. I've now corrected that.

Works for me in its current version. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your work today. I look forward to additional comments. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Publication History

• This feels like less a true publication history and more a tracking of "first publication." Given this should it just be merged with the next section or at least renamed?

Quite right. I've changed the heading to "Initial publications" (though please feel free to suggest a better heading).

I can't think of anything better nor do I see a standard in looking at other nursery rhymes so I say let's stick with that. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Origins

• Suggest "One modern history, by Jack, offers two theories of the rhyme's origin..." I think this is what you meant.

Yes, it was what I meant. I deliberately chose the odd format to avoid having the main part of the fifth sentence start with a surname that looked like a first name (and a nickname at that). But that's not a compelling reason and I've adopted your suggestion.

• Does ""beggar" might have been seen as a play on the name "Beghard", a Dutch mendicant order widespread in Western Europe in the 13th century." relate to the OED sourcing note (which shows as source 12 for me) or is it properly attributed to Pop Goes the Weasel (10)? If it is cited correctly can you explain how the explanation in the sourcing for 12 proves the sentence it's linked to, "In neither history, however, does the author offer any scholarly evidence supporting the theories"?

This is a tough one. Both Jack and Dolby mention the possibility that "beggar" was intended as a nickname for the Dutch. And so, that footnote is intended to apply to both authors. I chose the end of the paragraph as a better location for the reference, as compared to duplicating the material in each of the author-specific references. But, as you correctly point out, this does cause a reader to wonder whether I might be referencing only the final sentence. I'm open to suggestions.

This is where my being new to this realm of evaluation is going to show through. However, I think that this is one such example of possible synthesis/analysis which isn't strictly permitted in a Wikipedia article but would instead be far more at home in a scholarly article where the interplay between sources can be properly interrogated. Pending the second opinion that I hope will happen early in the week I would suggest deleting the sentence, which I understand might not be your favorite idea. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Does Nursery Rhymes and Nursery Tales of England ascribe any meaning to being a relic vs historical?

Not in the sense of explicitly defining the scope of each section of the book. But the "Historical" section is restricted to rhymes that either contain explicit reference to known historical personages, or for which the author has added a discussion of the rhyme's historical context. I've added an annotation to the footnote to make that clear.

Thanks. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• So my summary of this section is "we just don't know". It feels like some version of this belongs at the start of the section before launching into what is here.

That's not a good idea -- it's a great idea! I wish I had thought of it myself.

I like the way you've incorporated this suggestion and thank you for the kind words. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• I personally found this section really interesting. However, it seems to be really straddling the line of WP:OR and WP:Weight. Are the fully scholarly exploration here necessary to understand its origins? I personally think it falls on the OK side of the link, but I think I'll likely see if, upon finishing my read, I can get a second reviewer to give thoughts on this specific area. This is especially true given that some of the footnotes also straddle the WP:OR line but I think are more clearly on the OK side.

Are the explanations necessary? In a word -- yes. It would be one thing if historians were able to give an unequivocal time and place for the rhyme's origin. In that case, it would be possible to describe and source that consensus, and perhaps then give a quick synopsis of the earlier theories. But that's not what we have here. Instead, we have no certainty as to the rhyme's origin and I took it as my task to present the readers with the full breadth of scholarly opinion on the question, along with enough context for readers to make their own decisions as to which of them makes the most sense.

Popular Usage

• Continuing in the vain of the previous comment I'm guessing there is support for the opening sentence of this section in a source. Just want to confirm this because it's not specifically in-line cited (and per WS:CITE doesn't need to be).

No, it's not sourced, because it is intended only to be a self-evident summary of what follows in the section. As such, it serves exactly the same purpose as the opening sentence that I've just added to the Origins section.

Good point. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Adaptations=

• As a note epigraphs is linked again in its second usage.

That was deliberate, because the first linking occurred in an earlier section and I don't expect all readers to consume the article from start to finish. If you feel strongly about it, I'll un-link. But it doesn't strike me as a case of over-linking.

I'm pretty sure per MOS:DUPLINK that this would not qualify as an exception for a second link. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• The bullet points at the end feel like they could just be incorporated into the above paragraphs rather than being their own lists. So including the poetry sources after Hibiscus and Salvia Flowers and Sword & Stone somewhere perhaps with the 13 clocks paragraph?

I actually tried something like that in my early drafts. I had the two poetic adaptations appearing in a single paragraph immediately following the paragraph on prose adaptations. But that left the film standing alone as a single-sentence paragraph, which just didn't look right. Nor did a sentence about a film look right sitting inside a paragraph that was otherwise devoted to poetic adaptations. And so, I saw the three-item list as possessing the virtue of not being as awkward-looking as the other two choices. (By the way, I also considered a five-item list that started with the two prose adaptations, but that didn't look right to me either.)

My reading of MOS:PROSE suggests that the awkward case is what fits the MOS. Happy to hear a different interpretation. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Musical Recordings

• Is there a source that suggests the Lewis Black recording is first or it's the first you found?

No source for "first". Indeed, given that many of the earliest cylinder recordings have not survived, I doubt that anyone will ever know when the rhyme was first recorded. The Black recording is just the earliest that I could find. But the article acknowledges the uncertainty by using the phrase "the earliest known recording appears to be ...". I trust in the collaborative nature of Wikipedia and if anyone is aware of an earlier recording, I'll be quite happy to see them add that information in place of the Black recording.

• It appears that some of these recordings might be in the public domain and thus could be embedded? If so having one would be a great add (though not strictly required).

I didn't check for public domain recordings (other than the spoken-word one at the British Library). I've no objection to adding one if I find it, but I can't guarantee that I can find one anytime soon (or, at all).

Again just an option suggestion.

A general comment is that many aspects of this strike me as closer to a FA than GA which is obviously a credit to the work that's been done here.

Thank you for the kind words. I look forward to your response. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Other elements

All images are appropriately sourced and captioned. I can find no copyright or plagiarism issues having checked all available online sources and several print sources.

Remaining discussion points

I've taken the liberty of copying the discussion points that appear to remain open. If I've failed to include any, please add them in. Each of the copied points has my new comments. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Origins

• Does ""beggar" might have been seen as a play on the name "Beghard", a Dutch mendicant order widespread in Western Europe in the 13th century." relate to the OED sourcing note (which shows as source 12 for me) or is it properly attributed to Pop Goes the Weasel (10)? If it is cited correctly can you explain how the explanation in the sourcing for 12 proves the sentence it's linked to, "In neither history, however, does the author offer any scholarly evidence supporting the theories"?

This is a tough one. Both Jack and Dolby mention the possibility that "beggar" was intended as a nickname for the Dutch. And so, that footnote is intended to apply to both authors. I chose the end of the paragraph as a better location for the reference, as compared to duplicating the material in each of the author-specific references. But, as you correctly point out, this does cause a reader to wonder whether I might be referencing only the final sentence. I'm open to suggestions.

This is where my being new to this realm of evaluation is going to show through. However, I think that this is one such example of possible synthesis/analysis which isn't strictly permitted in a Wikipedia article but would instead be far more at home in a scholarly article where the interplay between sources can be properly interrogated. Pending the second opinion that I hope will happen early in the week I would suggest deleting the sentence, which I understand might not be your favorite idea. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm unsure which sentence you are proposing to delete. If it's the one that describes Jack's theory that the word "beggar" came from "Beghard", that isn't original research at all -- he explicitly makes that statement. Nor is it synthesis to let the reader know that Jack's theory is corroborated by one authoritative etymology, but contradicted by another. The situation isn't so clear with the Dolby text. Here, she too states that the word "beggar" was used as a nickname for the Dutch, but doesn't trace that usage back to the Beghards (she just describes it as an "old nickname"). And perhaps this is a good resolution of the original problem. I've taken the footnote that used to be No. 12 (the one with the OED sourcing) and merged it into footnote No. 10 (i.e., the sourcing for the Jack text). I think that solves two problems at once -- I'm no longer linking the etymological footnote to the Dolby text and I'm no longer confusing anyone into thinking that it might have applied to that final sentence.

• I personally found this section really interesting. However, it seems to be really straddling the line of WP:OR and WP:Weight. Are the fully scholarly exploration here necessary to understand its origins? I personally think it falls on the OK side of the link, but I think I'll likely see if, upon finishing my read, I can get a second reviewer to give thoughts on this specific area. This is especially true given that some of the footnotes also straddle the WP:OR line but I think are more clearly on the OK side.

Are the explanations necessary? In a word -- yes. It would be one thing if historians were able to give an unequivocal time and place for the rhyme's origin. In that case, it would be possible to describe and source that consensus, and perhaps then give a quick synopsis of the earlier theories. But that's not what we have here. Instead, we have no certainty as to the rhyme's origin and I took it as my task to present the readers with the full breadth of scholarly opinion on the question, along with enough context for readers to make their own decisions as to which of them makes the most sense.

I'm unsure what to make of the lack of response. Is this still something we need to discuss?

Sorry I didn't make this clear. I've asked for a second opinion on criterion 2c and 3b from Argento Surfer who indicated they will do so sometime after they return to Wikipedia on Wednesday. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay fellas, work has been busier than I expected this week. After reviewing the article and the discussion, I think the origins section may fall a bit heavy on detail, but I believe it's within bounds for the subject. I don't think there's a synthesis issue at play, but I've never encountered commentary on references like that included in [23] and [24] - "She gives no evidence for this assertion". If you're using her as a reliable source, it seems counterproductive to hint that her statements may not be reliable. Unless a third party questions the assertions, I'd recommend removing these bits from the references. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Thanks for taking the time to look at this. My various statements about "no scholarly evidence" were added as part of my goal of providing full context for the reader. But I agree that the wording does look odd and, furthermore, that it will be self-evident to anyone checking the sources. So, I've removed them -- both from the footnotes that you identified as well as from the main text.

If there are any other points you wish to raise, I'll be happy to discuss. Thanks again. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm ready to approve as GA. Will hopefully get back to do so later this afternoon. Thanks to @Argento Surfer: for his second opinion. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Adaptations=

• As a note epigraphs is linked again in its second usage.

That was deliberate, because the first linking occurred in an earlier section and I don't expect all readers to consume the article from start to finish. If you feel strongly about it, I'll un-link. But it doesn't strike me as a case of over-linking.

I'm pretty sure per MOS:DUPLINK that this would not qualify as an exception for a second link. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all editors here on Wikipedia read MOS:DUPLINK as strictly as you seem to read it. Double-linking items that appear in distant parts of an article can be helpful to a reader, especially if they haven't been reading the article from top to bottom. But it's not something I care to make a stand on, so I've removed the second link.

• The bullet points at the end feel like they could just be incorporated into the above paragraphs rather than being their own lists. So including the poetry sources after Hibiscus and Salvia Flowers and Sword & Stone somewhere perhaps with the 13 clocks paragraph?

I actually tried something like that in my early drafts. I had the two poetic adaptations appearing in a single paragraph immediately following the paragraph on prose adaptations. But that left the film standing alone as a single-sentence paragraph, which just didn't look right. Nor did a sentence about a film look right sitting inside a paragraph that was otherwise devoted to poetic adaptations. And so, I saw the three-item list as possessing the virtue of not being as awkward-looking as the other two choices. (By the way, I also considered a five-item list that started with the two prose adaptations, but that didn't look right to me either.)

My reading of MOS:PROSE suggests that the awkward case is what fits the MOS. Happy to hear a different interpretation. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I suppose that I can cite the "fine print" at the top of WP:EMBED, where it allows for "occasional exceptions". But a more direct argument can be made by looking at the substance of WP:PROSE. In that sub-section, the main point is that we shouldn't be satisfied with a simple list of items, when a prose form of the list can be expanded to include additional context. But in my case here, the two sentences on each of the two poem adaptations already provide all the context that this article will probably ever provide. My use of bullet points is intended solely as a formatting device and not as a way to avoid saying anything more about those two poems. And I continue to think that one-sentence paragraphs are things to be avoided. But, as with the prior discussion point, this isn't something I care to make a stand on, so it's been changed.

Both points above are fair and appreciate your give and take. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Musical Recordings

• Is there a source that suggests the Lewis Black recording is first or it's the first you found?

No source for "first". Indeed, given that many of the earliest cylinder recordings have not survived, I doubt that anyone will ever know when the rhyme was first recorded. The Black recording is just the earliest that I could find. But the article acknowledges the uncertainty by using the phrase "the earliest known recording appears to be ...". I trust in the collaborative nature of Wikipedia and if anyone is aware of an earlier recording, I'll be quite happy to see them add that information in place of the Black recording.

I'm unsure what to make of the lack of response. Is this still something we need to discuss?

No.

Review Complete

Thanks to @NewYorkActuary: for his great work on this article. All criterion met to make this a GA.