Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2003

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 promoted 01:51, 21 January 2008.

Hi everyone! I bring you with great joy the former featured article (Old nom - here) vampire, which I've been working on with Casliber since September (The first article in our series of upcoming collaborations). Here's what we had to work with ([1]) and over 1000 edits, a RFC, a few months and nearly 200 citations later, we're finally here! :) I'll let the article do the talking, but I definitely think that this article is FA worthy: It's basically 100% cited, comprehensive, well-written, well illustrated, complies with MOS and is very interesting. If you're worried about size (Which could be the only issue here) let me assure you we pondered this issue for a long time. We split off as much as we could to some of the already existing sub-articles, but we weren't fond of the idea of splitting our hard FA-level work off into a "dump" article where anybody could put any trivial piece of information they wanted - hardly worth the effort and I'm sure you wouldn't want to do that either. So enough of my talking, please go ahead and read the article. We put months into it and I hope you enjoy it enough to support it at this FAC. Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 01:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - As nominator! :) Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 04:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as contributor of over 500 edits. It has had a look over by several folk experienced in copyediting, and is fully sourced with published book refs. All images were published over 75 years ago (and hence copyright expired). There is a well-organized hierarchy of headings/subheadings. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I haven't checked the text yet, but there is a problem with Image:Ernst6-thumb.gif. The tag on the image says it is a Fair Use image. The article on Une Semaine de Bonté says the image comes from a Victorian-era book. It seems that this image is copyright-expired (since it's from long before 1932), but the tag needs to be changed to conform to this, or a Fair Use rationale needs to be provided for this illustration. There are other illustrations on this page which aren't in the public domain, but they all have correct licensing. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice catch Firs, I hadn't noticed that. The article's copyright has obviously expired, so I should just replace the current image tags with a free use license riight? Oh, and which other images aren't in the public domain - I thought we had all free use ones? And if we don't, should we just replace them with free use images instead? (I'm not extremely well-versed in detailed licensing sorry) *Gulp* :) Spawn Man (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the other image tags look fine: they've got proper licenses and tags. It seems like a no-brainer that Image:Ernst6-thumb.gif is in the public domain (since it's an image from the Victorian era), so I think you should replace it with a public domain tag. If you don't want to do that, your other option is to provide a Fair Use rationale for the image. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grrr! I can't find the correct tag - The author only died in the 1970s, hardly 75 years ago. Can someone with knowledge of licensing please fix this? I tried fixing the tag, but it changed when I placed it down, so I can't find the right one... Spawn Man (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks a bunch Firs! :) I swear I pasted that tag and it just wasn't it! Spawn Man (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) You were using {{PD-old}} instead of {{PD-US}}. I don't think you'll have any objections over this image, but I'm willing to investigate if you do. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support impressive work. igordebraga ≠ 13:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This was great fun to read! Bravo to all involved. I have some questions, observations, starting with Etymology:
  • The Slavic word might, like its possible cognate that means "bat" (Czech netopýr, Slovak netopier, Polish nietoperz, Russian нетопырь / netopyr' - a species of bat), contain a Proto-Indo-European root for "to fly". I had to read this sentence twice to understand what it was saying.
    • (I combined the split clause - though it's a toss-up as to which bit you could put first. Does that help)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first recorded use of the Old Russian form Упирь (Upir') is commonly believed to be in a document dated 6555 (1047 AD)." In which calendar is 6555 the same as 1047 AD?
  • Moravian vampires only attacked victims while naked Naked vampires or naked victims?
    • I removed 'victim' to clear the confusion - Spawn Man (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• In Decription
  • This tradition persisted in regard to modern Greek folklore... I'm not sure what "in regard to" means here. Does it just mean "in Greek folklore"?
    • (well-spotted - redundant words gawne)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In similar Chinese narratives... this is a theme encountered Is the "theme" in this case, the need to count every grain? Perhaps "motif" is a better fit?
  • I infer from the link to Mara (folklore) that and pressing on people in their sleep. means "causing nightmares". I would have expected this to mean something more akin to Incubus (demon). Maybe just add "causing nightmares" at the end of the sentence? The Mara article doesn't have the explanation in the lead, and some readers won't think to click on "Pressing".
    • I thought mara was more closely connected to Night terrors where the victim would experience both pressing and nightmares at the same time. Cas is more referenced in the psychological side of vampires, so hopefully he'll be able to answer that genre of questions here. - Spawn Man (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apotropaics, that is, mundane or sacred items able to ward off revenants, such as garlic,[39] or holy water... As worded, this could be saying that garlic and holy water are revenants. Perhaps dashes or parentheses to make the appositive clearer?
    • Fixed - might want to check that it still doesn't make sense. - Spawn Man (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The items vary from region to region; a branch of wild rose and hawthorn plant are said to harm vampires; in Europe... I think given the structure that it's a bit confusing not to mention the region of the wild rose and hawthorn belief.
    • Not sure what you mean - Spawn Man (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In which region is wild rose and hawthorn thought to harm them. It says region to region, but doesn't list a region for this first set of beliefs. --JayHenry (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • slavic is sometimes l.c. Is this correct?
    • Not sure what you mean - could you give an example? - Spawn Man (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In Vampire#Protection for example it says "commonly cited method, particularly in southern slavic cultures." I thought Slavic was always capitalized. I noticed it somewhere else too. --JayHenry (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, okay (Wasn't sure what l.c. was). Fixed all lower case slavic mentions. - Spawn Man (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ancient Babylonia had tales of the mythical , such as the Lilitu,[60] synonymous with Lilith and her daughters the Lilu from Hebrew demonology who were derived from their Babylonian counterparts. Is something missing here?
    • I think something mustn't carried over when you moved the text from the description section Cas - Spawn Man (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed - content was lost during a text copyedit. - Spawn Man (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Graves were often opened five or seven years after burial to check for vampirism, before being washed and reburied. It's corpses that were washed, not graves, right? Maybe "corpses were often exhumed"?
    • Fixed - check just in case - Spawn Man (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears to me that vampire antecedents in India are discussed twice. Both in Vampire#India and Vampire#Asia.
    • I'm not sure of what you mean here. The topic is different and the first indian section relates to ancient india, while the second relates to modern india - Spawn Man (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh okay, I see this now. --JayHenry (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed section title to Ancient India just to make extra clear. :) - Spawn Man (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a non-bylined "Ananova" story a reliable enough source for the rather remarkable claim that vampire hunters raided the tomb of Milosevic?
    • I did a search and may have come up with more credible sources (search results), but I'm not familiar with any of them, so maybe someone can suggest one and I'll replace the Ananova citation with a new one. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The innate sexuality of bloodsucking can be seen in its intrinsic connection with cannibalism and folkloric one with incubus-like behaviour. Is something missing from this sentence?
  • Although the vampire bat's bit is usually not harmful to a person It's bit? You mean it's ecological niche?
    • Meant to be bite - fixed. - Spawn Man (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • initial flying shapeshifted form was originally described is confusing to me.
    • (I removed 'initial as there was only one literary dracula, but the gist is the flying form what he changed into - I could make it less ambiguous but it would use alot more letters. Do you think we still need to do it?) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had the impression that vampires were immortal. Is that just an Anne Rice-ism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JayHenry (talk • contribs) 20:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Geesh! Are you saying we forgot to put that vampire are immortal in there? I swear I did - will check article and try and include. *Sheepishly shuffles feet* Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. I love your edit summary "...some responses to the spawn". :) Spawn Man (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Well spotted Jay - it is never explicitly discussed in folklore but a prominent feature of fiction. Rather than discussing it twice I have placed in fiction section) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Is this article about hematophagy or vampires? Just because a certain mythological being was said to drink blood does not make it relevant to an article about vampires. For example, I fail to see what the Ancient Egyptian goddess Sekhmet has to do with vampires, besides the fact that she drank blood (which is certainly not exclusive to vampires). Unless you have a good source explicitly connecting Sekhmet to vampire legends, I would suggest reducing the section about Sekhmet from 2 paragraphs to 1 sentence explaining that Sekhmet is an example of an ancient mythological being that drank blood and thus maybe, possibly, (though quite unlikely) could have been a precursor to later vampire legends. In fact, the entire section on Ancient beliefs should probably be reduced to one or two paragraphs, as the relevance of these ancient myths to later vampire legends is speculative at best (and not especially interesting). Kaldari (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments. Yes, now that you mention it, the Sekmhet legend does seem a bit un-needed in the long run - I'll put it into the main Sekmhet article and remove it altogether from this article. However, I am not thankful for comments such as "...speculative at best (and not especially interesting)...". I, and many others, have spent many many hours working on this article since September and saying something as cruel as that is not very nice. Comment but do not critisize please. I think we can all take constructive critisism, but that's just being mean. We've put long hours into this article and it is very unthoughtful for you to come and say that. Now, I agree the Sekmhet paragraph can go (And probably some parts of india), but I'm afraid that vampire mythology did indeed begin with demons and the like in ancient greece, mesopotamia and the like and I'm not prepared to compromise that because it would be effectively cutting out half of the vampire's history. It is not reasonable to cut the whole thing down to just two paragraphs when there's so much actually relevant material there. Have you actually read the article? I'll try and fix what I can, but I would like if you could see that side of the coin too. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Object because of size. Notwithstanding your assurances to the contrary, I find excessive size to be a major problem for many FACs/FAs. Readers who are looking for a general introduction to vampires (which is the point of an encyclopedia article on vampires) will be overwhelmed by this >10,000-word article. Using Dr pda's prose size tool, the prose here is twice the recommended maximum of 32k. It is not as though vampires are so important or complicated compared to other encyclopedia articles that they need this much space. WP:SS would be a great benefit to this article. And a sidenote: subarticles are not just "dumps" - they are useful to highlight what information is the most important in the main article, and also have the potential to become featured topics if well-developed. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, but vampires are pretty complex. I didn't realise their history went back so far when we began and to bring a fully complete article, not just "Vampires suck blood and can't go in sunlight" (Which is not the case in many cultures), it is necessary to write all of that down. As I said above, I'll try and see what we can cut down. I'll get back to you. :) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Updating - the folklore section went in by far the greatest detail and total page size is down to 83 kb. This computer I am typing on does not have anything by which I can estimate word count - if someone could keep us updated it'd be very helpful. CJ you're right about subarticles as I reckon with some rearranging the vampire folklore could be a goer soon too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 03:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uneducated support. I haven't gone through the article thoroughly by any means, but my length concerns have been resolved and from my brief overview it looks good. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Due to us trying to fix the article for the opposers above, it's in a bit of a bad shape at the moment, so please refrain from making any judgements - good or bad - until this period of unstability is over. Regards, Spawn Man (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: query at WT:FAC. Article is presently 7675 words or 46k of readable prose, which is within the 10000 word and 50k guideline from WP:SIZE. Gimmetrow 06:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gimmetrow; the article's size is in compliance with WP:SIZE. Mike Christie (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Regarding the size issue; I propose the most important points from Mesopotamia & Ancient Greece section to be incorporated as a second paragraph to the Ancient beliefs section with the removed content transfered to Vampire folklore. The same regarding the Non-European beliefs section; summarized in 2-3 paragraphs. I know cutting down is hard but with all the information going to a different article it should be easier on you guys. I also oppose the name Vampire folklore and highly recommend it renamed to Vampire folklore by region. "Vampire folklore" is essentially 80% of what this article discusses so having a second article named that blurs the difference between the 2 articles. If Vampire folklore was to remain named that way I would expect to see sections 2.1 and Etymology in there as well because to me that information is part of Vampire folklore as well. I feel if organized correctly Vampire folklore would be a second FA regarding this topic for you guys. Thanks. 76.10.141.221 (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:::Thanks for that, I was thinking along those lines too. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Update - the page size is now 73kb. The Ancient Beliefs Section has been summarised, and theoretical origins trimmed a bit and more esoteric material removed. The beings listed in World Beliefs are listed in vampire encyclopedias etc. so are more central to the article than the anceint beliefs and I think keeping them is good in keeping a world-view on the subject - I didn't want it to become too listy either. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note also that the readable prose is only 43k (excluding all cite templates, images, etc). That is not excessive. Karanacs (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: It might be a bit wordy, but most things on Wikipedia are a bit wordy. But I support wholeheartedly because I was reading through the article and thought "this should be a featured article," I went to the discussion page, and voila! Good job, those who've contributed. Lawofone (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Current word count, without references and images, according to microsoft word 2007: 6,893 words spread out over 72 paragraphs and 545 lines --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 21:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• support an excellent well-written article. I liked it slightly better before it got just cut down but its still very FA worthy. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great article that has obviously seen a lot of attention from SpawnMan and Casliber, among others. Well-written, good use of images, and comprehensive almost to a fault, it is most definately among Wikipedia's finest work. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Overall this is an excellent article. I think some of the prose could be tightened—it is overly verbose in some areas. I did a little copyediting and I saw that User:Awadawit is in the process of doing a little more. You might read over it one more time with an eye for tightening the individual sentences. Once sentence gave me pause: The items vary from region to region; a branch of wild rose and hawthorn plant are said to harm vampires; when I read this I wanted to know which region wil rose and hawthorn were said to harm vampires. Some of the content in the Ancient Beliefs section also made me wonder whether it was really necessary. I'd almost rather a See Also section with links to some of those beings that aren't really vampires than have a whole section about them, but as I'm not that familiar with the topic that could be a really dumb thing to do. Karanacs (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning towards support This article has improved markedly since I last read it. I think that the cuts, while painful for the editors, are to the benefit of the article. It is now much easier to read all of the way through the article without stopping. We want readers to receive a thorough education - we don't just want them to skip to the end or stop in the middle!

• I agree with Karanacs that one more go around with a copy editor to reduce wordiness would benefit the article enormously. I did just a little. I would suggest asking someone who has not worked on the article - who has spent hours staring at these sentences. :)

• The Oxford English Dictionary dates the first appearance of word vampire in English from 1734, in a travelogue entitled Travels of Three English Gentlemen which was published in the Harleian Miscellany in 1745.[3][4] Many mentions of the subject had been made in German literature. - There needs to be a transition between these two sentences.

• Several theories of the word's origin exist. - This sentence is sitting in the middle of the paragraph - it seems oddly placed. It is also not entirely clear whether it refers to the English word vampire or the word in all languages.

• (Note that many of these languages have also borrowed forms such as "vampir/wampir" subsequently from the West). - So how much less likely does this make the theory put forward that English derived its term from German which derived its from these languages, etc.?

• This apparently strange name has been cited as an example of surviving paganism and/or of the use of nicknames as personal names. - Is it "and" or "or"?

• However, in 1982, Swedish Slavicist Anders Sjöberg suggested that "Upir' likhyi" was in fact an Old Russian transcription and/or translation of the name of Öpir Ofeigr - Is it "and" or "or"?

• In most cases, vampires are revenants of evil beings, suicide victims, or witches, but they can also be created by a malevolent spirit possessing a corpse or by being bitten by a vampire itself. - This sentence just bugs me. I kept trying to find a way to word it better, but I couldn't. There must be one. All of the "be's" and "by's" are just no good.

• I wonder if something more interesting could be done with the captions, per WP:CAPTIONS. I have become a fan of interesting captions. (It is one place to put interesting details that had to be removed from the text.)

• As stories of vampires spread throughout the globe to the Americas and elsewhere, so did the varied and sometimes bizarre descriptions of them: Mexican vampires had a bare skull instead of a head,[26] Brazilian vampires had furry feet and vampires from the Rocky Mountains only sucked blood with their noses and from the victim's ears. - As the editors of this page are aware, I am against labeling one kind of vampire any more bizarre than another, particularly when that leads to a European/New World distinction. I think it has the appearance of POV. I will obviously not make this a condition of supporting the page, but I would encourage them to reconsider this wording.

• From these various legends, works of literature such as Bram Stoker's Dracula, and the influences of historical figures such as Gilles de Rais, Elizabeth Bathory, and Vlad Ţepeş, the vampire developed into the modern stereotype. - This is just the tiniest bit unclear - at this point in the article, the reader does not know who these historical figures are or what their influences might have been. That needs to be made clearer.

• During the 18th century, there was a frenzy of vampire sightings in Eastern Europe, with frequent stakings and grave diggings to identify and kill the potential revenants; even government officials were compelled into the hunting and staking of vampires. - Are we sure they were "compelled"? It is possible the government officials could have been the ringleaders. :) Instill fear in the populace and all of that.

• I am not sure what the purpose of the Voltaire quote is. I don't think it adds much to the article, unfortunately.

• I see we have switched from "World beliefs" to "Non-European beliefs" as a heading. I'm afraid that I don't think this is an improvement. As the "Asia" section is just as long as the Europe section, I'm not sure why we are setting up this polarization of West and non-West. What about establishing a section of "Vampire beliefs" and puting "Ancient", "Europe", "Africa", "The Americas", "Asia", and "Modern" under it, making less of a Western/non-Western distinction?

The editors have done phenomenal work on this article and I look forward to supporting it very soon. :} Awadewit | talk 23:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – It would be nice to see the image at right or something like this in the article. When I hear "vampire", that is what I think of. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.