Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jean de Carrouges/1

Jean de Carrouges[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 • GAN review not found

Result: Lack of improvement of issues with GA criterion 2 below. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. I want someone to take a look at this considering many section are tagged for either relying mostly on one source or possible factual inaccuracies in the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion about factual accuracy yet. I don't love that article relies heavily on a popular book rather than a scholarly one (no real peer review), plus original medieval sources (risky business to cite too credulously). But, I wasn't able to find anything else that I liked much better. We could try this diss on duels? Maybe this article?

Reading this interivew with the book's author offers useful context, I think, for how to interpret his book as a source: it likely represents some of the best research into the events in question, while remaining fundamentally an exercise in storytelling. His examples of 'imaginative' additions are things like 'there was a burst of cold air when the door opened,' which he says is a guess based on the fact that it was January. I don't think the book is inaccurate (or getting undue weight in the article) but I do think as a source it encourages lurid levels of detail. Although there are tags for inaccuracy, almost everything is cited; at most what might be needed is to foreground the specific sources more clearly (e.g., what comes from court records vs what comes from Froissart.)

So, I actually think the main problem with this article has to do with criteria 3b, rather than criteria-2 sourcing problems: that exhaustive blow-by-blow of the duel itself feels like "unnecessary detail" to me. Or maybe it feels off because of neutrality (criteria 4) problems. I think everything related to the duel should be cut down into one section, which takes a more encyclopedic approach of indicating key events (and their sources) more simply. To address all the main areas of its subject (3a) it might also be appropriate to have a set-apart section that describes the "reception" of the duel, aka, the way it was a go-to story of a miscarriage of justice, how it's been relitigated by historians, etc. Setting that section apart would also make it easier for the events of the duel itself to be more matter-of-fact, since the interpretation itself would happen elsewhere.

Overall, I slightly lean toward delisting in its current state, though I also think chopping the article down to something more encyclopedic would not be too onerous an undertaking. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:27, 15 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.