Talk:James Harvey Insole

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notes on recent edits[edit]

Next on my list :) RLO1729 (talk)
  • "Staith" is a new word to me, so I glossed it with a link to wharf.
In this context a staith is "an elevated staging upon a wharf for discharging coal, etc." rather than just the wharf. I will link to Wiktionary instead. RLO1729 (talk)
  • Why not use the regular spelling of Rhonnda?
Rhondda is correct. RLO1729 (talk)
  • Review MOS:ALT as the "alt" text should not duplicate the caption.
Will do, thanks. RLO1729 (talk)
  • "sank the Upper Cymmer Colliery" sounds like "sinking" or bankrupting a business. I figure that's a mining term, but could that be reworded?
Yes, it's a mining term but will think about a suitable rewording. RLO1729 (talk)
  • "Insole was dismissed" isn't clear at first reading. It sounds like he was dismissed from a job.
The source (Lewis, 1976) uses the same word. I think qualifying it with "from the enquiry" makes it clear. RLO1729 (talk)
  • Is "city village" right?
Yes, both words apply (and using both will hopefully satisfy those who know Llandaff well). Wikipedia:Llandaff has "Historically, Llandaff was informally known as a 'city', because of its status as the seat of the Bishop of Llandaff." but also "Seen as a clean and green up-market countrified village location close to the fast developing city, many of the better-off coal merchants and business people chose to live in Llandaff". RLO1729 (talk)
Thanks, will revise. RLO1729 (talk)
  • At "..."the example set by the", should it be ""... the example set by the"? (Confusing because the quote mark is part of the quote.)
The punctuation follows the source. RLO1729 (talk)

I hope that helps. SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, very helpful as always! RLO1729 (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SchreiberBike: Many thanks again for picking up so many copy edit details - great work! Just a few further thoughts:
  • Links in "HM Inspector of Mines" (prev) vs "HM Inspector of Mines" (cur): the first link explains the meaning of HM whereas the second doesn't. Revert to first version?
I like the link to Government of the United Kingdom, which includes the phrase "Her Majesty's Government" in bold, but if you prefer the other, that's fine. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 
  • Quotebox change to show "HM Inspector of Mines" as Quotebox source: the box includes two quotes with only the second by HM Inspector of Mines, so I wanted to indicate that by keeping the "HM Inspector of Mines" with just the second quote.
I missed that it was two separate quotations. In that case, I'd think it should be two separate quote boxes. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 
  • "INSOLES wagons" (prev) vs "Insoles wagons" (cur): the wagons in the image are labelled "INSOLES" but "Insoles wagons" feels as if it needs an apostrophe if it is just text in the sentence. What about " 'Insoles' wagons" or "wagons labelled 'Insoles' "?
MOS:ALLCAPS leaves almost no room for all caps. "Wagons labelled 'Insoles'" looks good. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 
  • 'Death and legacy' section linking of Insole Court - unnecessary as previously linked in lead section?
Yes, it's not necessary, but it's far enough away from the first link, and I think it's likely that a person reading that section would welcome the link there. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 
:) RLO1729 (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pleasure working with you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise! RLO1729 (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C-class assessment[edit]

I assessed this as C-class to get the ball rolling, as it was previously Unassessed even though a candidate for Good Article status. May I suggest someone uses the B-class criteria to check if it could be promoted to B as the next step? It certainly seems to be a worthy article, but I am not experienced in detailed assessments. I have also added the article to WP:Cardiff welsh (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:James Harvey Insole/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 20:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello again (Talk:George Insole/GA1),

I am looking forward to reviewing this article, too. I hope you don't mind, I will go ahead and make any minor tweaks, like commas and links, and give you the diff to look at so that you can ensure that you agree.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and please do.  ~ RLO1729💬 03:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intro and infobox[edit]

Thanks.  ~ RLO1729💬
  • It would be nice to have a sentence or two about his philanthropy and other activities (politician, consul to Spain (diplomat), etc.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.  ~ RLO1729💬 04:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great job on the intro!!!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early life[edit]

Thanks, though I would like to revisit some of the additional commas in light of my reply in the George Insole review please.  ~ RLO1729💬 04:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, go ahead.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This section is  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coal producer[edit]

  • I added commas, simplified a piped link, and combined single sentences into a paragraph here. The paragraph seems to work just fine without the orphan sentences.
Thanks, I felt the separate paragraphs each covered slightly different topics but the single paragraph is OK.
Also, as there seems to be a range of opinions on the ellipsis I would prefer to keep the space before (as in Oxford Style Guide here).  ~ RLO1729💬
  • Should "were" replace "was" in "However, the apparent contradiction in Insole's evidence given at the inquest and the later assizes was criticised." — since the evidence at the inquest and the assizes were criticized? Or, do you see it as one thing?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the subject of the sentence to be "evidence" (modified by the surrounding words) so I'd say the verb should be in the singular.  ~ RLO1729💬 04:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok to both. This section is done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gentrification[edit]

  • Commas and cite order fixes are here.
  • What do you think about starting a new section called "Philanthropy and personal life" with "His and his company's names were to be found in published lists of subscribers to good causes.[40][41]"? Just a thought.
Good idea. I've made Philanthropy a subsection of Gentrification as it was all connected but moved the personal info to the renamed Remarriage, death, and legacy section. Let me know if this works for you.  ~ RLO1729💬 05:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! This section is done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other activities[edit]

Thanks.  ~ RLO1729💬 05:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death and legacy[edit]

  • There are cite order changes here.
Thanks.  ~ RLO1729💬
  • I would recommend adding the authors and/or newspapers for the quotes in the quote box for context.
I have added them in but find they distract from the flow of the narrative presented in the quotebox when one quote just follows another. Is there a way around this?  ~ RLO1729💬
I added dashes and I think it looks better now. See what you think. This is absolutely not something that affects passing GA, but I think it's helpful for the readers.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a gazillion citations regarding the obituaries. Are any of those duplicate wording, or are they all unique obituaries?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are all unique and focus on different aspects of his life.  ~ RLO1729💬 05:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This section is done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selected histories[edit]

GA criteria[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

Comments[edit]

There are just some minor items stated above, plus the suggestion to add a few sentences information about his philanthropy and about some of the key roles in "Other activities".–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your very helpful review.  ~ RLO1729💬 05:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this article has passed as a GA article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • Reviewed: 6th DYK nomination, 1 reviewed (Kuiil)

Improved to Good Article status by RLO1729 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article reached GA-status in due time. It is long enough, and cites sources inline. The pretty high rated text similarty reported by "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" comes from quotes. The hook is well-formatted and interesting. Its length is within limit. Hokk fact is cited inline. Attention: QPQ was used twice, second time for George Insole. Good to go. CeeGee 10:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, thanks. (QPQ not being claimed twice, only for this one. Just pointing out in the George Insole DYK nomination, which was made before this one, that it was still within the five DYKs allowed initially as well as having one review in hand at that stage.)  ~ RLO1729💬 10:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Many thanks for your copy edits 84.64.237.205, excellent work!  ~ RLO1729💬 02:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Harvey_Insole&oldid=1207720620"