Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dancing mania/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:32, 24 September 2010 [1].

Dancing mania[edit]

Dancing mania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Aiken (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... it's a bizarre topic and I feel it meets the relevant criteria. Aiken (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 13:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • images both OK, although might be an idea to add Breughel's dates to the second one Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would if I could Jim, but I don't have the information. Aiken (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral leaning oppose. This really needs a ruthless going-over by someone like Tony, as to me it has too many rough edges. Striking the "leaning oppose". I do think this could do with a thorough wash-and-scrub from an MOS hardliner, but I won't oppose over stylistic issues. – iridescent 15:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a note.
  • The lead says "One of the first major outbreaks was in Aachen, Germany, on 24 June 1374, believed to be at least partly a result of ergot poisoning", but nowhere in the text does it mention the ergot theory in relation to this particular outbreak;
  • Removed this.
  • "One of the most prominent theories is that victims suffered from ergot poisoning" needs to be meticulously sourced, ideally to more than one source; ergotism can cause convulsions, but since it also shuts off the flow of blood to the limbs, it certainly couldn't cause any kind of prolonged activity. Additionally, it was an extremely common disorder and it's extremely unlikely that witnesses wouldn't have recognised the very distinctive symptoms;
  • Added more sources.
  • "St Vitus Dance" or "St Vitus's Dance"?
  • Changed all to St Vitus' Dance.
  • Lots of weasel words ("some believe ", "it is believed", "scientists have described"…) all of which appear to be sourced to the single source of Bartholomew;
  • Trimmed these down, though with a topic like this, it is difficult to be certain about things.
  • Try to get rid of the Fortean Times reference. There's nothing from it that's necessary to the article, and FT is generally an unreliable source unless the particular author is recognised as an authority. The philosophy of Forteanism ("all views are equally valid") is fundamentally opposite to that of Wikipedia, and while FT does carry some respectable articles, it also carries a great deal of extremely dubious amateur original research;
  • That's not exactly true. None of the available sources discuss the similarities to the Pied Piper other than that one, for example.
  • I think you've missed my point completely here. The reason no other source other than Fortean Times has discussed it isn't because FT is a superior journal willing to go the extra mile when it comes to research, and has stumbled on a hitherto unknown fact; it's because FT (and its sister magazine Bizarre) are mainly written by enthusiastic amateurs and have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking considerably worse even than Wikipedia's. FT has a "one measures a circle beginning anywhere" policy of treating all research as equally valid, regardless of who's doing it, and thus carries all kind of speculative nonsense. (Every issue of the magazine carries the disclaimer 'From the viewpoint of the mainstream, [FT's] function is [to] lure us into a region of the spirit where the writ of law does not run […] FT is a forum for the discussion of observations and ideas, however absurd or unpopular'.) – iridescent 15:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you have a point. I really do like the connection to the Pied Piper though. I'll see if a more reliable source discusses it. Aiken (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found one and have removed all references to the Fortean Times. Aiken (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to avoid "Black Death" as a term if you can help it. The term is a modern invention, and not what people in this period would have called it;
  • This is an article written today, for people of today. I don't see why I can't use the most commonly used term for it.
  • "Bartholomew considers raving, an activity which became popular in the latter half of the 20th century, as sharing some features of dancing mania" is such a bizarre statement that it probably warrants an explanatory footnote detailing exactly what he believes. An organised concert or party has nothing in common with the outbreaks of mass hysteria described in the article, other than "some of the people involved may have been dancing in both cases". By all means leave it in, but it needs some kind of explanation;
  • I disagree. The article describes how many of the dances could well have been organised, and participants were often drunk (see the point about wine). Sure they aren't identical, but I've not said that they are. You're right that this could be expanded upon though. Bartholomew describes how the modern-day hallucinations are gained through use of drugs (probably referring to LSD), and these happen at raves. He also describes how participants are often part of a subculture, and act in ways that onlookers may consider odd or bizarre (I personally don't understand the impulse to party all night long). Furthermore, like with the religious cults, raves were sometimes illegal (depending on where they were I guess, I'm not really that knowledgable about them). All these show things in common with dancing mania.
  • Most glaringly (to me); you've completely ignored the two leading books on the topic, The Dancing Plague and A Time to Dance, A Time to Die. We don't expect article writers to cover everything about a topic, but (rightly or not) this has a whiff of "only looked at what we could find on Google". There may be good reasons for not using Waller, but since you quote from his magazine articles presumably you're not opposed to him per se. – iridescent 14:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't ignored them. I decided not to use the latter book because that's specific to the 1518 outbreak. I'm certainly not opposed to using him as a source but I don't have access to his book. There are so many other sources out there I don't think it's that big of a deal. The first book I have mentioned, but haven't used because pretty much all of the other sources draw their information from it, but at the same time add other information and updated ideas (as it was written in the 19th century). For example, Bartholomew discusses some of Hecker's commentary, which I've noted. I could have chosen to use it, but I chose to use the other sources, which are all as reliable and comprehensive.

Aiken (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A very interesting article; when I saw the title of the nomination I was worried it might be a computer game but was happily surprised.
  • "one particularly notable outbreak of many occurred in Strasburg in 1518.": I know it's difficult to strike a balance between covering the main points and not going into too much detail in the lead, but it's not clear why the 1518 event is singled out.
  • Well, the 1518 outbreak is the only one with an article, and Waller considers it (and the 1374 outbreak) to be the best recorded examples. Aiken (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Dancing mania" comes from the Greek choros (dance) and mania (madness)": do you mean ""Choreomania" comes from the Greek choros (dance) and mania (madness)"? Otherwise the derivation makes little sense as saying that dancing mania literally means dancing madness is a bit pointless.
  • "The earliest known incident occurred in Bernburg, where 18 peasants began singing and dancing around a church, disturbing a Christmas Eve church service in the 1020s": I think the "church" of church service could probably be dropped as it's implied and a bit repetitious as it currently stands. Also, it seems odd to put the date at the end of the sentence when you open with "The earliest known incident...".
  • "at the nearby St. Vitus chapel": should it be "at the nearby St. Vitus' chapel"?
  • Does Bartholomew explain why it's unlikely that it was usually women who were effected? At the moment this is just left hanging.
  • When you mention Bartholomew in the prose, it would be useful to mention why his opinion is worth mentioning. This can be done by simply saying "Historian Robert Bartholomew..." or "Author Robert Bartholomew in his study of mass psychogenic illness and social delusion...". The same goes for Hetherington, Marks, Martino, and Midelfort. You got it right for Justus Hecker.
  • The second item in the further reading section need publication dates.
  • A matter of personal preference, but do the columns of the reference section need to be so narrow?
  • Someone else changed that; I've restored to three columns. Aiken (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a few edits you'll want to heck over to make sure I haven't changed the meaning of anything. Considering the trickiness of the source material, it's a good effort – I image it's something similar to working on the blood rain article, although this seems to have gained more academic attention. While I am concerned by iridescent's points about two books on the subject being more or less excluded, the article does appear to cover the main points. Nev1 (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for your edits and comments. I'll respond to them momentarily, but I did wonder about this change. Was that intentional? Aiken (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sort of, I thought that "to which they responded to" was repetitious and convoluted, so tried to simplify it but missed a word. Feel free to undo it though if you don't think the change works. Nev1 (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The change is fine, I just couldn't figure out the missing word. Aiken (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nev1, do you have any further comments for this article? Aiken (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: In the bibliography, publishers' details should not be abbreviated (as in "American Psychiatric Pub", which sounds like a crazy drinking club) Disappointingly, this should be spelt out. Otherwise, all sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was what Google books called it. However, I changed it to press instead. Aiken (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "notable outbreak of many occurred" - many what?
  • Strasburg or Strasbourg? In France, Austria, or Germany?
  • Strasbourg. Don't know what you mean otherwise; it occurred in all those places. Aiken (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a Strasb(o)urg in all those places - which one does this refer to? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was "dancing mania" coined by Paracelsus, or was it "choreomania"?
  • It was choreomania, which translates to dancing madness (or mania). Aiken (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is chorea discussed under Definition and not Explanations?
  • Because it was believed chorea showed similar symptoms. Aiken (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes...sorry, maybe I'm being dense, but I don't really understand that explanation. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Victims of dancing mania often ended their processions at places dedicated to that saint" - Vitus or John?
  • St. Vitus, which is already mentioned in the previous sentence. Aiken (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though the previous sentence calls it St. Vitus' Dance, the sentence before that refers to both saints. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't link the same term multiple times, especially not in close proximity
  • Don't repeat the word "many" so much, and certainly not more than once per sentence
  • "for which there is abundant evidence, both contemporary and modern-day" - how can you have modern-day evidence of a historic event? Please clarify
  • "it remains unclear whether it was a real illness or a social phenomenon" - if so, then why do you identify it in the very first sentence as a "social phenomenon"?
  • It is difficult to describe it as anything other than a phenomenon, and most sources agree that it was one rather than an illness. That nobody is completely certain is detailed further on. Aiken (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the appearance of strange behaviour was down to its unfamiliarity" - what does this mean?
  • What it says. It was strange because it was unfamiliar. Aiken (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. The phrasing doesn't make that clear - can you revise? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "restored to full health" - source only says "many" were restored, not all survivors
  • "until as late as 1959" - the source mentions a more recent occurrence
  • As I don't have the source to hand, I can't really do anything about this. Aiken (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes you do - you include a Google Books link that provides the necessary pages! You no longer need paper to read a book ;-) Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "not all outbreaks involved foreigners" - source?
  • This specific statement needs a source? The outbreaks described already generally make no mentions of foreigners. Aiken (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the biggest outbreaks began in Aix-la-Chapelle" - source identifies this as the first major outbreak, not one of the biggest
  • Major and big are used synonymously here. Aiken (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Title in Hecker link does not match the one that appears here. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I hate to do this, because I just love these whacky topics, but this just isn't ready. Iridescent is quite right in saying that it needs a ruthless going over by a good copyeditor, but there are also basic inconsistencies as pointed out above. For instance, the lead describes dancing mania as a social phenomenon, but later we're told that it's "unclear whether it was a real illness or a social phenomenon". Which is it? There's lots of awkwardness in the prose as well, such as "In Italy, a similar phenomenon to dancing mania was tarantism", and "The earliest known outbreak of dancing mania occurred in the 7th century, and it reappeared many times across Europe until about the 17th century". So the 7th-century outbreak reappeared many times? Why so coy with the "about the 17th century"? Later we're told that dancing mania died out by the mid-17th century, not "about the 17th century", whatever that's supposed to mean. Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a stark contrast to what you said here "In general though I really enjoyed it, and I don't see any reason why you couldn't get this through FAC.". Why give me false hope? You're not exactly inexperienced with this process, which is exactly why I came to you - experience and knowledge. Not that I'm blaming you of course, but this has been a big waste of everybody's time when it could have been better at GA instead. Aiken (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're being a little selective. What I also said to you was "I think you were probably a bit too quick out of the blocks with this FAC, but I suppose that faint heart never won fair lady. With a bit of hard graft you ought to be able to make it, so good luck." In my opinion that "hard graft" hasn't been done. Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a bit late to say that after I posted, but I don't blame you for my being hasty. Aiken (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone close this? Apologies for wasting your time. I'll take it to GA instead. Aiken (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No apologies necessary; good luck next time through! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aiken, my sincere apologies-- until I archived this FAC, I had not read the article, and only now do I see it's not a dance article, rather a medical article on a topic in which I have some knowledge. I'm afraid that, unless the article conforms to WP:MEDRS on secondary peer-reviewed sources, it will have a hard time at either GAN or FAC. I'm concerned also that I don't see the word Tourette syndrome anywhere on the page, in terms of differential diagnosis. I suggest a peer review, rather than a GAN, and a post to WT:MED to get the docs to look in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Dancing_mania/archive1&oldid=1138458458"