Historical Events Database - Coordination

[Palinurus]

I've still got a few reviews to do...
- zadiussky: 5 events
- zadig: 4 events
- palinurus: 2 events

Ok, I've just passed all reviewing entries, except one from zadig and one from palinurus -- I've left one comment feedback with questions and am waiting for an answer. I'm ready to receive 1 event from all other editors.

Data, I need you to unlock my entry Event#1482 (Zealot Temple Siege) as it still is in Reviewing mode in stead of in Review failed status. Cannot edit it now.

 

[Mikey]

Info for all editors: Let's focus on the period up to 500AD first, no events later than that for reviewing. This date marks roughly the end of the decline of the Roman empire.

Infos for Zadig:

1. In Event #880 you included a Text where its Source, according to your own feedback, doesn't mention a date, explicitly or implicitly. We won't include such Texts, not even when an event is part of a continuous narrative and could be dated by scholarly inferring. See Laura's answer to SeekinTruth from 1 year ago:

In the Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, I came across the first instance of any kind of calamity, and wanted to ask if it should be included in the database. It's hard to date and is just a mention in passing:

No, if you don't have a date, it's useless. Even if the date is fake, as we suspect with much of what we are looking at, at least somebody was trying to create a historical timeline.

If you feel like it, you still can enter such 'undated' Events into the database, but if you do so, set the date to the special year 9999. This way, we can have a category for 'undated events'. It still would be useful to have for future purposes I guess, but don't spend time on this now.

2. If you quote from a Source which is other then English, include the original text verbatim in a footnote and add "Translated from {Latin|French} by the editor". I've done this for your Event #2383. See here how it should display: http://hed.quantumfuturegroup.org/events/2383-zbsjhpj

3. For the purposes of our database (which has a strong notion of raw data), we don't want editorial comments which 'connect the dots' or 'infer' or 'date' or 'correct'. At a future point we may do this, but for now let's do raw data entry only. Which means for example: HistorianA says solar eclipse happened in 1000AD, and Historian B says solar eclipse happened in 1002AD, but today we know both of them were wrong and it really was in 1001AD, you still have to create two events with the given dates.

 

[Dirgni]

Info for all editors: Let's focus on the period up to 500AD first, no events later than that for reviewing. This date marks roughly the end of the decline of the Roman empire.

I have got only 2 events before 500AD. I still have to check if I can find an original source for both of them. I used a source from 1904, which cited from Ammianus Marcellinus. I will try to do them next time.

Most of my quite a lot other events are from after 500AD. I will do them from the earliest to the latest. I hope you accept them for reviewing Data.

 

[Zadig]

Infos for Zadig:

If you want.

 

[Mikey]

Infos for Zadig:

If you want.

Yes, and please:

For the next weeks I'd like to ask all editors to only submit 1 Event for review at a time (before we said it can be a bundle of 5, but I can't handle so much right now).

Thanks!

 

[shijing]

Hi Data,

I just submitted a new entry and tried to correct the one failed review that was still pending. The only problem I'm having is that I can't access the 'Derived from' field to enter new data -- it appears as a drop-down list with a fixed number of sources (I mentioned it in my comments also). Let me know if I'm overlooking or misunderstanding something about it.

 

[Palinurus]

Data, I put up for reviewing the reworked Event #1482 and the newly edited Event #1483.

As requested, I'll delay posting anything else until these two are fully vetted into publication stage.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Hi Data,

I just submitted a new entry and tried to correct the one failed review that was still pending. The only problem I'm having is that I can't access the 'Derived from' field to enter new data -- it appears as a drop-down list with a fixed number of sources (I mentioned it in my comments also). Let me know if I'm overlooking or misunderstanding something about it.

Pretty sure you have to add a new source to the source list. Then you can select it from the 'derived from' menu.

 

[shijing]

Pretty sure you have to add a new source to the source list. Then you can select it from the 'derived from' menu.

OK, thanks AI -- I think I see what you mean. I'll take a look at it next time I'm in, after Data has a chance to review and pass back what I submitted today.

 

[Mikey]

I just submitted a new entry and tried to correct the one failed review that was still pending. The only problem I'm having is that I can't access the 'Derived from' field to enter new data -- it appears as a drop-down list with a fixed number of sources (I mentioned it in my comments also). Let me know if I'm overlooking or misunderstanding something about it.

"Derived from" and "Witness" was always supposed to be a single Person. I've extended the HED with a Person model, and only Persons can be selected from that drop-down now. What you want to enter is free text from the original source. Simply add that under the text you're copy and pasting, e.g. "Sources: blah et. al. p. 999" I've fixed that for your reviewing entries.

I have got only 2 events before 500AD. I still have to check if I can find an original source for both of them. I used a source from 1904, which cited from Ammianus Marcellinus. I will try to do them next time.

Most of my quite a lot other events are from after 500AD. I will do them from the earliest to the latest. I hope you accept them for reviewing Data.

Yes, do them from earliest to latest.

Data, I put up for reviewing the reworked Event #1482 and the newly edited Event #1483.

As requested, I'll delay posting anything else until these two are fully vetted into publication stage.

Thanks, I've fixed footnote formatting and passed them. Please look again at the way footnotes should be done.

Zadig:

Event http://hed.quantumfuturegroup.org/events/4168-yfepavt

1. You set the date to 333 AD, which is correct, but the text you pasted into the HED did not mention that date. It is only after I looked for and found the footnote in the original source, and searching on Wikipedia that I could trace your steps and reasoning. It took me more than 15 minutes to review this event and add the required information. That's not very effective. You're only helping when I can do reviews quickly and all the information is there.

2. You titled this event as "Aurorae when Constans elevated to the rank of Caesar", but the text only says "the face of heaven blazed with continuous fire". Why did you choose Aurorae?

Also, you submitted 2 more Events, both of them I had to fail because
a) one Source did not have PDF, nor URL, nor a Note about a local hardcopy,
b) one Text did not have a Source attached

I've mentioned before that I would fail such Events, why did you submit them for review then?

From now on, please submit only 1 event at a time, and wait with submitting more until I've passed or failed the submitted event.

 

[Zadig]

1. You set the date to 333 AD, which is correct, but the text you pasted into the HED did not mention that date. It is only after I looked for and found the footnote in the original source, and searching on Wikipedia that I could trace your steps and reasoning. It took me more than 15 minutes to review this event and add the required information. That's not very effective. You're only helping when I can do reviews quickly and all the information is there.

Because I have deleted all comments.

2. You titled this event as "Aurorae when Constans elevated to the rank of Caesar", but the text only says "the face of heaven blazed with continuous fire". Why did you choose Aurorae?

I have forgotten to delete the title.

Also, you submitted 2 more Events, both of them I had to fail because
a) one Source did not have PDF, nor URL, nor a Note about a local hardcopy,

I have forgotten.

b) one Text did not have a Source attached

It's a reconstruction of a lost text; it doesn’t matter, I have deleted the comment.

 

[shijing]

"Derived from" and "Witness" was always supposed to be a single Person. I've extended the HED with a Person model, and only Persons can be selected from that drop-down now. What you want to enter is free text from the original source. Simply add that under the text you're copy and pasting, e.g. "Sources: blah et. al. p. 999" I've fixed that for your reviewing entries.

Thanks Data, and understood -- I'll continue to do this in subsequent entries.

 

[Zadius Sky]

Info for all editors: Let's focus on the period up to 500AD first, no events later than that for reviewing. This date marks roughly the end of the decline of the Roman empire.

The only thing left on my list that is up to AD 500 is the Earthquake of 365. You suggested that Zadig could take this entry, but he haven't responded to your question.

Should I go ahead and do later events or wait until you give a go-ahead on that?

 

[Mikey]

Should I go ahead and do later events or wait until you give a go-ahead on that?

Go ahead and do the later events.

The only thing left on my list that is up to AD 500 is the Earthquake of 365. You suggested that Zadig could take this entry, but he haven't responded to your question.

Ignore this event for now, we'll do it later.

 

[shijing]

Hi Data,

I just finished Event #479, but forgot to save it all before submitting it for reviewing. Go ahead and fail it, and I'll redo it and send it back.