# Talk:Matteo I Visconti

I have reverted the image of the Visconti coat of arms to File:Coat of arms of the House of Visconti (1277).svg on Bernabò Visconti‎, Galeazzo I Visconti‎, Galeazzo II Visconti‎, Luchino Visconti (died 1349), Matteo I Visconti, Ottone Visconti‎. This is because of the erroneous use of the File:CoA Visconti.svg image that is historically inaccurate for the biographies of these pre-1395 Rulers of Milan.  Gian Galeazzo Visconti added the crown to the Visconti coat of arms in 1395 after he bought the title of Duke of Milan from Wenceslaus, King of the Romans. Peaceray (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 
References 2 & 7 have erroneous tags Aris de Methymna (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Henry Smith Williams was not an academic historian. Therefore, he is not, by Wikipedia standards, a reliable source.
As for http://genealogy.euweb.cz/ ran by Miroslav Marek. I have found nothing that would indicate that Miroslav Marek is a reliable source. IF this is the same Miroslav, he is a chemical engineer, not an historian.
Compared to the source that was removed,

"The Heretic Saint: Guglielma of Bohemia, Milan, and Brunate", Barbara Newman, Church History, (Cambridge University Press, 2005), Vol. 74, No. 1 Mar.
Barbara Newman is a medievalist, literary critic, religious historian, and author. She is Professor of English and Religion, and John Evans Professor of Latin, at Northwestern University. AND, published in a journal published by Cambridge University. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I would ask that you add the Barbara Newman source back in. However, what I could find on WP:HISTRS is an essay & not policy. I ask that you only replace the sources that you previously removed only when you find a better source or if you can prove them demonstrably unreliable. The cause of history and science is full of examples of people who advanced it as hobbyists, & the word amateur, although now used pejoratively, originally meant "a lover of something".
IMHO, I believe an source deemed imperfect because someone lacks a pedigree is nonetheless better than nothing, as long as it appears to be consistent with what we know.
BTW, I have seen at least one academic works that have totally botched early Visconti genealogy. I am definitely in the trust but verify mode. If you find better sources, then fine remove Marek & Williams. Otherwise leave them be as the best that we have. Feel free to mark them with {{better source needed}} if you must.
Peaceray (talk) 06:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
So it is imperative that Miroslav the chemical engineer's opinion of Visconti genealogy should stay.
"Teobaldo himself was the son of Obizzo Visconti, a brother of Ottone, Azzone, and Gaspare Visconti."
This sentence lends nothing to the article, simply a further genealogy.
"A month later, Matteo died at the age of 71."
Already sourced, so Miroslav's opinion is unnecessary.
"They had ten children together."
Already sourced, and seriously, do we need a source to tell the reader how to count the number of children? Miroslav is unneeded, unnecessary, and unreliable.
As for Williams source, why so adamant about history written by a medical doctor, when the rest of the article has no references to speak of?
"The cause of history and science is full of examples of people who advanced it as hobbyists, & the word amateur, although now used pejoratively, originally meant "a lover of something"."
These two sources are no better and no more reliable than something published by Lulu.com(ie. self-published source). Per Wikipedia:RS, "The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
The piece of work itself (the article, book)
The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

Therefore, Miroslav and Williams clearly are not reliable sources.  --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kansas Bear: To characterize the Willams work as unreliable by implying that he was an unvetted amateur & the sole creator, & that this work is thus uncitable is simply wrong. The Historians' History of the World is a 25 volume work that was published by two publishing houses, The Outlook Company in New York and The History Association of London. Williams was the editor rather than the author. Volume 9, The History of Italy lists 15 authors. The work is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. It has also been repeatedly digitized by the likes of HathiTrust Digital Library, HeinOnline, Internet Archive, & Google Books and is extensively cited & excerpted, as evident by the many results from Google scholar.
Here you can find a review of it in a contemporary academic journal:
"The Historians' History of the World. A Comprehensive Narrative of the Rise and Development of Nations as Recorded by over two thousand of the Great Writers of all Ages. Edited, with the assistance of a distinguished board of advisers and contributors, by Henry Smith Williams, LL.D (New York: The Outlook Company; London: The History Association. 1904. Twenty-five volumes". The American Historical Review. Oxford University Press (OUP). 1905. doi:10.1086/ahr/10.3.610. ISSN 1937-5239. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
It is truly an example of a reliable source.
Regarding the Miroslav, it has been labeled with the {{Self-published source}} & {{Better source}} templates since August 2012. No one has provided a better source, yet, & based on what I have read of other genealogical works, this one seems as accurate as any, and more concise, comprehensive, and plainly laid out than most. If you have a better source, then please add it. I oppose removing this one until it has been replaced. Imperfect sources are better than no sources, unless they are clearly wrong.
Regarding some of the copyedits you suggest, I will discuss those later. I believe nearly everything that you discuss is from my translation from the Italian article. Debating the merits is a good thing.
As I mentioned before, please add Barbara Newman source back in. My reversion was not intended to remove citations but rather to quickly reinstate the citations that I felt were injudiciously removed.
Peaceray (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Matteo I Visconti/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Lingzhi2 (talk · contribs) 12:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

You've been waiting a while. I'll review this... I think you need to follow the advice at User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck, however. I see 9 Harv errors and many others of other kinds (some are less important than others). ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I reverted the article back to the last edit by LouisAragon. It appears that edits by another editor caused the Harv errors. Please let me know if I have caught everything and what to do next.--Kansas Bear (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kansas Bear: Unfortunately I'm not sure that such a large reversion was the best way to address these problems. May I revert back and take a look at the issues? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Sure. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I have restored the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kansas Bear: Would you please describe what you meant by "the Harv errors"? I am looking at the 2019-05-17T23:23:11 version & I do not see the Mediawiki software flagging any of the references or Harvard citations as errors. I am typically using Chrome & Firefox on Windows 10 & Chrome on IOS.
Perhaps you were referring to my unconventional practice of including a URL as an external web link to page numbers that I did with this edit, in which case we are discussing a difference in style.
Peaceray (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
From Lingzhi2's first paragraph, "I think you need to follow the advice at User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck." --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh! Cool, I’ll add that to my .js & .css pages when I get home this evening. That will be particularly useful since I have been converting a bunch of articles to Harv referencing this year. Peaceray (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
(←)  Excellent. This went smoothly. Good work. If you have questions about any errors etc., ping me. I'll look at this again somtime sonn anyhow too, ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I took care of the Harv warnings thanks to User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck. Peaceray (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
My sincerest thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey I've been doing some spot-checks and... well, yeah, I didn't see paraphrase that was close enough to alarm me...  I'm Leaning Pass but see seven Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? warnings. You can usually get these by copy/pasting the title of the chapter (not the book) into Google Scholar and clicking on the little blue double quotes that are beside a little blue star just below the descriptive text. Just make sure the year, publisher etc are the same as the edition in your bibliography... I did the first one for you. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Did I catch all the book chapter errors, Lingzhi2? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe this article meets the requirements of WP:WIAGA. Pass GAN. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)