Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Battle of Torvioll/1

Battle of Torvioll edit

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: In breach of the reliable sources guideline, specifically WP:AGEMATTERS, and thus violating GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2011. Has been tagged for refimprove since 2020. But its main problem is the numerous non-primary source tags on the article. Would like someone to look and see if the primary sources are an issue. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read the introduction of the linked Moore 1850. It seems to be largely a reworking of a 1596 translation of a prior (to 1596) book by Jacques Lavarin (in French). Lavarin's book relies heavily, according to Moore, on a history by Marinus Barletius but is itself constructed from a list of twelve sources. If not largely a mirror of Barletius – a direct comparison with a modern translation of Barletius may be needed to establish whether that is the case – I would think it obsolete. Ifly6 (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the tags were added by Phso2 in Special:Diff/813213605. Tagging for possible explanation or context. Ifly6 (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moore says his "business has been to concentrate Lavardin's history" (i.e. to concentrate the 1596 English translation of Lavardin's 1576 book); Lavardin says his book is "drawned for the most part" from Barleti. As noted by Ifly6, if the result of this Latin->French->Bad English->Good English successive translations may not be a mirror of Barletius, I doubt it can be qualified as a reliable source. That doesn't mean that academic modern history differs from this account (perhaps not, since Barleti is perhaps the only primary source - I don't know), but the sourcing is questionable at least.--Phso2 (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Even if modern academic history does not differ from Moore's account, it should the main thing cited regardless; people use Wikipedia's references as a starting place for research. We shouldn't lead them into 19th century dead ends. Ifly6 (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.