Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Great Stink/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Great Stink[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A rather small, seemingly insignificant event in the life of London, but one that some of us still feel the benefits of over 150 years later. The Great Stink showed the right man in the right place at the right time, with Joseph Bazalgette stepping forward to build the sewer system to end all sewer systems, providing London with an effluent-free river. And he did it while sporting a magnificent set of whiskers to boot! Any and all comments welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I left my only minor quibbles with it during the PR. Certainly looks to be an excellent account of the ordeal and meets FA criteria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for your PR work, Doc: much appreciated - and for your time here too. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Publication names like The Examiner should be italicized in in-text attribution
  • Long quotes like "We can colonise..." should be blockquoted
  • No citations to Dobraszczyk 2008
  • Location for Cherry?
  • Ryan: do you possibly mean Boca Raton, Florida? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All tweaked and sorted now. Many thanks, as always NM! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Another peer reviewer clocking in. My queries there were few and small, all dealt with, and I have found nothing else to quibble at on rereading. The text meets all the FA criteria, in my view. A most interesting, and slightly unnerving, article, which I much look forward to seeing enlivening the front page. Tim riley talk 20:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another debt of thanks for your work on this – much appreciated! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment: I couldn't help but notice how awkwardly the following sentence reads: "The smell, and people's fears of its possible effects, prompted the local and national administrators to action who had been looking at possible solutions for the problem." The difficulty lies with the "to action" and "who had been looking at possible solutions for the problem" parts. Flipping the order of those two elements doesn't fix the awkward reading, so a more comprehensive rearrangement is needed. AmericanLemming (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Having "action" right after "prompted" makes the sentence read much nicer. AmericanLemming (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

I fixed the link to license on File:Crossness Pumping Station, Belvedere, Kent - geograph-2280114-by-Christine-Matthews.jpg at commons, since it was linked to a different image (see edit history). The map has a PD tag saying it was published prior to 1923, but the date on the map File:London County Council Main Intercepting, Storm Relief and Outfall Sewers November 1930, showing Bazalgette.jpg is 1930. Also, how do you know the creator is dead? Other images are either PD old (and appear validly so) or Creative COmmons with clear source and licensing. Please have another editor confirm my review, since I'm too new at this to stand alone. --Gaff (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for the tweak to the Crossness image. I've altered the map licence. Under UK copyright law it doesn't matter about the author, as work done on behalf of an employer or institution ends up with the rights being held by the organisation, not the individual, so as this is now 85 years old, we're clear to use it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double check.
File:The silent highwayman.jpg - Where's this digitization from?
File:Monster Soup commonly called Thames Water. Wellcome V0011218.jpg - This is technically PD-100, with a CC-BY-4.0 license applicable for reusers in countries recognizing Sweat of the brow doctrine. Might want to update that.
File:A Drop of Thames Water, by Punch, 1850.jpg - Reference that this was published in 1850? Source link goes directly to the image, so it doesn't help. Also, I'd love to have more information on which edition of Punch this was published in. The bibliographic information is somewhat lacking.
File:Dirty father Thames.jpg - How can you claim PD-70 on an image where the artist isn't listed? Also, PD-70 is not enough for the US (where the servers are located, and which we must thus consider as well). I'd also prefer a link to where the digitization comes from.
  • Unsure on the digitised version - it was uploaded in 2008 by a now-retired editor. Any thoughts? (I can find plenty of sources where it could have come from, but... - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I agree. That looks like a Google scan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Caricature; Faraday giving his card to Father Thames. Wellcome M0012507.jpg - Original publication? (Punch... what?). Also, my note above applies here too.
File:JosephBazalgettePortrait.jpg - US Tag? Also, and again, how can you claim PD-70 without knowing which of the two people listed took the image?
File:How Dirty Old Father Thames was Whitewashed.JPG - Again, PD-70 doesn't apply if there is no individual author. Also, you need PD-1923 for the US
File:Father Thames introducing his offspring to the fair city of London.jpg - Fine
File:Crossness Pumping Station, Belvedere, Kent - geograph-2280114-by-Christine-Matthews.jpg - Fine. BTW, I asked Diliff to have a looksie here if he has time. Trust me, you'd love the results (have I shown you his cathedral pix?).
  • Ive seen a couple of his cathedral ones, and it would be superb if he could do the same for one of the 'Cathedrals of Sewage'! – SchroCat (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:The Prince of Wales opening the Metropolitan Main-drainage works at Crossness, ILN, 1865.JPG - Digitization is from...?
File:London County Council Main Intercepting, Storm Relief and Outfall Sewers November 1930, showing Bazalgette.jpg - Again, PD-70 with no author (and you are, hopefully, not 70 years in the grave, so your contributions are definitely not described by this template). Also, not sure this is PD in the US, what with the URAA. Also, what references did you use when adding the sewers?
  • Any thoughts on the tags for the source map - which is way out of copyright in the UK? - SchroCat (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We'd need to make sure the map is PD in the US. If this were Crown Copyright, its expiry would apply worldwide, but otherwise the URAA comes into play. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that local government work is covered by crown copyright. Difficult to check with the LCC as they were dissolved in 1965. Is the best course to upload as a local copy to get round the ridiculous URAA nonsense? (Bearing in mind I'll still come round asking for exactly which tags to stick on that copy too!) - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently Commons is ambiguous on the matter of the URAA (COM:URAA is not as explicitly anti-URAA as it once was), and I'm not sure we've ever tested the waters at FAC for images that are PD in their source country but not the US because of the URAA. The English Wikipedia just considers US copyright law (because the servers are here) and thus the URAA would still come into play. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco 1492, I meant upload here as a non free. It's probably the most crucial image on the page, so there is more than enough of a rationale to have it (even if "non-free" for an 85-year-old, out-of-copyright image from a body that was dissolved 50 years ago just shows how ridiculous legislators can really be!) - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current template is okay, but to be fair use it needs a fair use rationale, proper license for the US, and to be downsized — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, a version too small to be of any use whatsoever has now been uploaded (seriously, it's nearly pointless having the image at all if it has to be this small: it tells us sweet Fanny Adam because the detail of the map is lost and readers can't see the actual pathwways of the sewers! I know you're only following the guidelines as they have to be followed, but it is the most unencyclopaedic of policies that we have to comply with: how does the image this small actually help anyone? How can anyone tell what the routes actually are, or through which parts of the city they passed?) Rant now over, and if you suggest which tags should be usedto satisfy the gods of image compliance I'll drop them in there (the rationale is already present). Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there is an alternative... it depends if anyone at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop is active. You could send them a copy of the large file, and they could create a free version using an open-access map of London... long term, I guess, but useful. Surprised I forgot about that option. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that - I've added a request there for something suitable.As it may take some time, we will have to go with the too small version at the moment: what US tag should I add to cover the US? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Installation of the sewerage system of the Metropolis Wellcome M0010346.jpg - I personally think the above notes about Wellcome apply here too, but no year for this engraving
File:Embankment Construction of the Thames Embankment ILN 1865.jpg - Author? Source of digitization? More bibliographic information?
File:Portrait of Sir Joseph William Bazalgette (1819-1891) Wellcome M0016460.jpg - Comment above about Wellcome probably applies here.
  • These are my comments... a lot of them are more nitpicky than anything else (the Wellcome double licensing, though most correct, is probably not necessary). The licensing issues and sourcing issues, however, need work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Crisco – and I'm certainly not going to hate you for doing your review properly! (Especially as many of the uploads are mine, which means it's my fault in the first place!) I'll work through these (slowly, as I'm largely dense on these things) and send you strings of emails asking the most basic questions about tagging. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are okay; once that free map is done, it will be better, but I know that Schro will make sure it gets done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose; I had my say at PR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Crisco - both for your thoughts on the prose aspect, and for your patience on the ever-vexed question of images. Cheers! - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brief comment – I'll be back with a considered view shortly, but I'd like to refer just now to a point made at the peer review: where did the soubriquet "Great Stink" come from? You couldn't pin this down from the sources. I thought that the name probably came from the press, and this is confirmed by the following, from Halliday's book: " In the months that followed the hot, dry summer reduced the Thames to a condition which the press named the Great Stink". [2] Halliday, p. 71. I think it would be a good idea to incorporate this. Back soon. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Brian: I'm not sure which press he's been looking at, but obviously different ones to to the ones I vainly scoured to find it! I'll add now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Yes, nicely fitted in. I have nothing further to add to what I said at the peer review and am happy to support, on the basis that I am sure you will resolve any remaining image concerns. Please continue to research these fascinating and disgusting topics with your usual diligence. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Brian: your sterling efforts at PR had their usual impact of tightening the article immeasurably; my thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was reading the article with great interest, it is generally well written and sourced. However, I am confused by whether MWB or MBW refer to the same entity Metropolitan Board of Works, the former appearing five times and at one paragraph, both terms were used. The Metropolitan Water Board (London) was not created till 1903, so either I am missing something here or something is missing in the article. Did the cited source use both terms interchangeably? - Mailer Diablo 07:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Mailer diablo, You have missed nothing: the error is all mine! (Or, equally likely, the fault of predictive text on my iPad). The body on question is the MBW, which is now the one referred to throughout, following my tweak. Many thanks for picking it up. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries. You have my support for this FAC. - Mailer Diablo 21:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's wonderful: many thanks indeed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and MOS. I made a few copyediting tweaks in the week since the article arrived at FAC, but they were all minor: this is well-written and an interesting read. Nicely done! Maralia (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks, Maralia: your thoughts and edits are much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support What an interesting article! It's sometimes surprising to learn how much science Victorian-era people got right or almost right, since we usually picture them walking around drinking mercury cocktails and chewing on lead rods for health. It's also surprising that naming a sewage pump after someone was apparently considered an honor. I have a few minor comments:

  • I would suggest spelling out "Member of Parliament" in full before the first us of "MP."
  • Local government: " The Building Act 1844 had ensured..." Is there supposed to be an "of" in there, or is that the correct name for the Act?
  • Northern drainage system: "Like the Crossness Pumping Station, Abbey Mills was a joint design by Bazalgette and Driver. Above the centre of the engine-house was an ornate dome that gives the building a "superficial resemblance ... to a Byzantine church"." This quote should give the source in-text.
  • Legacy: " The drainage network is, as of 2015, managed by Thames Water..." Is "as of 2015" necessary? It should be implied, since you're referring to the present-day.

That's all from me. The article looks quite nice overall, and I especially enjoyed the period cartoons to illustrate public perception. Very well done.-RHM22 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Last point falls under the purview of Wikipedia:As of; it may change, and if it changes when Schro or someone else is not around to update, without "as of" it may stay incorrect for a while. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but is it likely to change? That template, in my experience, has always been used for transitory things. Otherwise, we'd be adding it to everything.-RHM22 (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I doubt even the government can predict what the government will do. On a more serious note, when I wrote Streatham portrait barely a year ago, the image was located in a different place than it is now. Yes, where paintings hang change, but one would think that they wouldn't be moved all that often... same here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's only been with Thame's Water plc since 2001, and it was with its predecessor since 1989, so I think that we're probably best to leave it in place. - SchroCat (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's good enough for me. I'm not going to raise a... wait for it... great stink.-RHM22 (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks RHM22, your thoughts are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good! All of my concerns are addressed.-RHM22 (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2015 (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/Great_Stink/archive1&oldid=1138461886"