Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Composite bow/1

Composite bow

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: Delisted due to sourcing issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A 2011 promotion that doesn't meet the modern criteria. Significant uncited text that isn't to the level of WP:BLUE, and some of the sources aren't really all that great. For instance, the Karpowitz source appears to be self-published, and several of the other web sources are dodgy. One footnote commits original research, as " Tutankhamun: Anatomy of an Excavation. (The notes were made in the 1920s and describe composite bows as "compound"; the modern compound bow did not exist at this time.)" is sourced to a source that simply refers to things as compound bows. Will need some work to get back up to the modern standards. Hog Farm _Talk 03:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, there are various issues with citations. For example, one citation is used to cover three volumes of a work published over several years, which rather defeats the object of being able to verify the cited facts. Many others lack page numbers. Some areas are thin on citations - for example there are many definite statements in the modern usage section which ought to be independently cited. The popular culture section seems pointless. That said, if someone is willing to put in the work, the bones of a good article remain. Monstrelet (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for helpful comments. Before I dig in to the relevant books (in storage, behind twelve years of newer books), a minor point: Karpowicz (Karpowicz, Adam (2008). Ottoman Turkish bows, manufacture & design. ISBN 978-0-9811372-0-9. Archived from the original on 9 August 2017.) is indeed self-published, but he is an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, e.g. http://www.atarn.org/chinese/Yanghai/Scythian_bow_ATARN.pdf Archived 18 May 2011 at the Wayback Machine. SCYTHIAN BOW FROM XINJANG. Adam Karpowicz and Stephen Selby (first published in the Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, vol 53, 2010). Would you agree that it's reasonable to use his self-published work? Or not?

I wonder if Tutankhamun's bows being composite and not the modern definition of compound could legitimately be covered by WP:SKYBLUE, since the excavation reports say what they're made of and modern compound bows weren't invented until the 1960s? If so, what would be the appropriate way of saying so? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a degree of subject-specific knowledge required by an ordinary reader about the change in meaning of compound bow that moves this outside WP:SKYBLUE. Monstrelet (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, probably best to remove the entire comment then. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:19, 2 May 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.