Template:Did you know nominations/Fantasy cartography

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Fantasy cartography

(

)

~~... that only 34% of fantasy books have a fantasy map?~~ Source: Stefan Ekman's book, Here Be Dragons: Exploring Fantasy Maps and Settings. pp. 22–23.

5x expanded by Twomatters (talk). Self-nominated at 00:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC).

Reviewing FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
A really good effort with the expansion. But we need to cover a few points related to the article in general, and to the DYK requirements specifically. Please spend some time improving the references. This includes reducing primary sources and replacing with secondary sources (such as Wonderdraft[9] and Inkarnate.[10]). Make sure there are no unreferenced paragraphs (Fantasy cartography#Early history). If public domain content has been used then that could be mentioned using suitable templates (for example with reference to In 1516... This map inspired artistic cartographers...) The section on "Types" and "Cartographic software" could do with some more referencing. Please note that if you think you have adequately referenced something I've pointed out or overlooked please do comment below.
"Prevalence, features and characteristics" has some content in question answer format. At least the first question, on which the hook is based, "How common is it for fantasy novels to contain at least one map? Of the two-hundred surveyed books, sixty-seven (34%) contained at least one map" would be better in prose format. The tables have been copied as they are.
- Hi User:FacetsOfNonStickPans, thanks for the feedback. I think I have covered off everything you raised. That, and my suggestion of an alternate hook, I hope you can reassess my nomination. Thanks! Twomatters (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
The image is of visuals from a copyrighted book; irrespective of the image quality; is the image adequately licensed? Please confirm this. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- I believe because the image is a new creative work, using Tolkien's maps in a collage-type way is it considered a new work. The photographer has released the license for the image he took. I think this means its all good! Twomatters (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  - This is a derived work. The copyrighted maps (will be in copyright for another 20-odd years) are the main feature of the image, so there is no de minimis exception and the photographer does not have the right to release the maps under a free license. Images like this can be used on Wikipedia (compare Tolkien's maps) but only with a detailed non-free use ("fair use") rationale, and never on the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
    - Very interesting! Thanks for taking the time to explain that! Twomatters (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Another comment about the hook: the article says "34%" without giving a judgement whether that is surprisingly few or surprisingly many. The hook says "only 34%". Personally I'm surprised they are that common. I don't think "only 34%" is appropriate without sourcing and context. —Kusma (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah this is totally fair enough. I have since suggested an alternate hook below. Thanks User:Kusma Twomatters (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! I'm going to continue to work on the elements you have brought up. Also... I have come up with a better DYK hook. Should I comment that here or create a new nomination? Twomatters (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Please make a new hook here, the nomination here both assesses the article and any potential hooks. To distinguish between different suggestions, we use ALT1, ALT2 etc. I'll leave a template for you below. —Kusma (talk) 10:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that fantasy maps were used in wargames by U.S. Army code-breakers during the Cold War (example pictured)? Source: https://www.geographicus.com/P/AntiqueMap/ZendiaProblem-callimahos-1960

Part of Loreno, a declassified fantasy map used by U.S Army code-breakers in the Cold War

Twomatters (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

This one looks much better to me, but I'll leave it to FacetsOfNonStickPans to continue their review :) —Kusma (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

While the first hook could have been used, there are still issues with it which remain unaddressed. I am striking the first hook for clarity. Now that it is clear that the first image cannot be used with the DYK hook, the image has to be removed from the article as well for the same reason, that is it is derived work and not properly licensed.

Done! Twomatters (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

ALT1 is cited in the article and is interesting. The image is free of any known copyright restrictions, appears in the article, is relevant to the hook, and is clear enough. The caption needs a little tweaking, why is there a question mark? Maybe the caption could also be shortened. For example, instead of The Central Part of The Province of Loreno, you could simply write "Part of Loreno". Also try to limit the duplicity in links as far as possible (for example 'Cold War' doesn't need to be linked in both hook and caption); however there are no hard and fast rules about this. Check out the DYK archives for lots of examples.

Tweaked! Twomatters (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Since the word "declassified" is used in the hook caption, the corresponding sentence in the article should also have a citation- These fantasy maps have now been declassified....

Done! Twomatters (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

In general, please make sure that all paragraphs contain at least one citation to a reliable source. Note that under Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines D4 "Wikipedia... is not considered a reliable source." FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I've just added a whole bunch of citations. There's now very few section without citations. I will keep going if it's still insufficient. Twomatters (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The article is nearly in shape as per dyk rules. With regard to your comment above related to citations... I think I should mention the basis on which citations/references are being referred to here. There are five eligibility criteria under the DYK rules. The third criteria, "Within policy" mentions a couple of things such as "Articles for DYK must conform to the core policies of Verifiability" and "Nominations should be rejected if an inspection reveals that they are not based on reliable sources... or have problems with the close paraphrasing or copyright violations of images and/or text." Editors also take into consideration Wikipedia:Citation overkill as well.

Now coming back to this review, there is only one thing remaining which I had mentioned above "The tables have been copied as they are." That is to say this is a case of a copyright violation. Further the pages cited are 23, 25, 26 while you have only mentioned 22-23. Please address this. Since this aspect, how you present and paraphrase the content, is an editorial decision it is left to you. I am only making sure your editorial decisions follow DYK rules. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this FacetsOfNonStickPans. I have now fixed up the citations for the tables. Just so I'm crystal clear, are you saying that I need to remove or change the tables before the article and DYK nomination is approved? Happy to do this if that is what is required. Thanks again, Twomatters (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The tables have been copied as they are from the book; this would be a case of copyvio and this copyvio needs to be addressed.

Let me ask Kusma to confirm. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The use of the tables in the article appears to me to be copyright infringing (but there's no need to panic; I think we do not need to delete old revisions of the article, but we should not present it on the Main Page as it is). They are used as additional illustrative material and are not even subject to critical commentary. I would suggest to remove the tables and to summarise the main findings in two or three sentences of prose, which is better encyclopaedic style anyway. Given that we know little about the methodology how the books were selected, it is questionable to put so much weight on these findings anyway. Hope that helps. Ping FacetsOfNonStickPans, Twomatters. —Kusma (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Twomatters, gentle reminder. Thanks for the clarification Kusma. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies - have just been real busy lately irl. Copyright violating tables have now been removed and relevant data is now in prose form with citations to the research. Pinging FacetsOfNonStickPans, Kusma Twomatters (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It looks better to me (although it is still a bit overly detailed; I find it hard to care about the orientations found without some context why that is interesting. In a GA review I would make a fuss about it). Anyway, FacetsOfNonStickPans should probably make the final call to proceed with this nomination (or to call for another reviewer if they are unable to do so). —Kusma (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Hiding the first image for clarity. Adding "example pictured" as per hook format. ALT1 is good to go along with the accompanying image. The article is looking much better. Thanks everyone for the patience with this nom! FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Twomatters: excellent work! Can the two paragraphs in Fantasy cartography#Perspectival be cited first? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Thanks! I've added citations for the paragraphs you've identified. Twomatters (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Several subsections need to be referenced. SL93 (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm also iffy on the quality of some of the sourcing – there appear to be quite a few blogs, fan repository sites, and a wiki. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback @Theleekycauldron:. By my count, included in the references are:

- 12 academic journal articles - 10 books - 8 online magazine articles - 4 academic books - 3 blogs - 2 online reviews - 2 artist websites - 1 to oxford dictionary - 1 wiki

I'm unfamiliar with the acceptable ratio of academic to non-academic sources. Is there a wiki page on this? I appreciate you guys persisting with me and this article! Twomatters (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Twomatters: Coolio! Hmm, it's not so much about a ratio between academic and non-academic sources, as much as it is that we wanna make sure every source meets at least some standard of reliability. That doesn't mean "academic", but it probably means that you're going to want to cut out the wiki and the blogs. Whether the online reviews and the artist websites can stay depends on who's writing and what the editorial process is like. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: thanks for that. Makes sense. I'll add it to my list of to-dos.Twomatters (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Twomatters: are the sourcing issues resolved? Z1720 (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Given that nobody has mentioned this: the nominator is QPQ-exempt (no prior credits). Schwede 66 02:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Nominator's last edit was July 4, and there are still sections without citations. I am marking this for closure as abandoned unless anyone wants to adopt this. Z1720 (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)