Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Douglas (architect)/archive1
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 SandyGeorgia 23:01, 20 June 2009 [1].
John Douglas (English architect)[edit]
- Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because ... of the encouraging comments made at GA review. It has since had a copyedit and been peer reviewed, again with encouraging comments, so I am submitting it for its worthiness as a FA.
FA reviewers may perceive a potential problem because of the limited number of sources. This is because the sources are limited. The only detailed authoritative publication is the biography by Edward Hubbard. The references in the article in the ODNB are only to Hubbard's book and to some magazine articles or to foreign books to which I do not have access. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative support. Prose looks pretty good, although needs attention in "Styles and practice". Why is "Christian" linked? "Douglas' output was considerable, totalling about 500 buildings." --> "Douglas designed some 500 buildings." "Works not falling into these categories include ..." is a little clunky. So is "Being based in Chester, most of his works were situated in Cheshire and North Wales ...". The "being based" refers to a silent subject (Douglas); not good. "From the start of his career, and throughout it,"—just "Thoughout his career,..."? "Douglas was able to attract commissions from wealthy and important patrons"—"Douglas attracted"? Does BrEng dot "Mrs"? "First-known". "despite being located in the north of England,"—bit awkward: what about "despite its location in ...". See this (your feedback would be welcome). Vale Royal Abbey is stunning! "One of the characteristics of Douglas' work is his attention to detailing, both externally and internally"—is "detailing the word used in the field? (Maybe). I'd have written "A characteristic of Douglas' work is his attention to both external and internal detail." But I'm not an architect. "each other" rather than "one another" if more than two? (Fowler suggests this). Check past versus present tense throughout: "Many of the secular buildings in this period were smaller-scale structures. These include cottages ...". Caption: "St Werburgh Street, Chester, showing Douglas' range of buildings"—Do we see a range? Tony (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Tony, for the helpful advice. My own "professional" writing was limited to preparing medico-legal defences for tribunals, which did not lead to my developing an elegant style! I think that most of your comments have been dealt with by myself or another editor. Regarding Mrs. v. Mrs, the MoS accepts both. I have tightened the sentence about detail(ing) as you suggested but have maintained the use of the word "detailing"; it is the term used by Hubbard and I suspect it is the architects' favoured term in this context. The image of St Werburgh Street DOES show the range (row) of Douglas' buildings, but not very well (it would have been better for the sake of the article for the photo to have been taken a couple of metres to the left) but I have deleted "range of" from the caption. Re the stunning Vale Royal Abbey, the building is very much a hybrid of different styles; I "cherry-picked" Douglas' work when I took the photo, mainly for this article. There are many more stunning works by Douglas but I do not have my own or public domain images. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good overall. Must admit reservations over the first sentence (don't most biographical articles give what the person is most well-known for, and that wouldn't be being trained in Lancaster). With only one note, 'Notes' seems very arbitrary, I'd consider putting with references under 'Notes and references' or just ommiting the notes bit. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first paragraph has been re-written and tightened. I added the note because someone said that with the name "Sholto", it is not surprising that he took to drink! However I agree that the note does not add anything of value to the article. To include it in Notes and References would mess up the citation of the rest of the paragraph, so it has been deleted. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I reviewed this article at WP:GAN and was impressed by it's quality, which appeared to me to be near to WP:FAC than WP:GAN. For a wide-ranging WP:GAN, it was exceptionally easy to review. It has been further improved since I reviewed it as a result of exposure to WP:PR and the various comments made above. Having seen several recent articles progress from GA-level through to FA-level, I am very happy to support this one at WP:FAC.Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. My mild reservations to an excellent article have been addressed and I give my full support. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for fixing the ref. I used the source because I knew from my previous reading that it was accurate, it is well referenced and it is easily accessible to the reader. However I perceive that there is a potential problem as the author is also the publisher. I have therefore changed the ref to one from a book. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I thought when I peer-reviewed this article that it was already close to FA, and, as noted above by User:Pyrotec, it was easy to review. All my concerns have been addressed, and I am happy to support. Finetooth (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One image concern as follows:
- File:Douglas caricature.jpg: please move this to Wikipedia. Thomas Alfred Williams?[2] -> Thomas Alfred Williams (architect and surveyor), 1937... With a hearing trumpet, Douglas would be at an advanced age (late 1800s would be more like 1890s-1900s) Young Williams may not have died more than 70 years ago. The caricature is PD in US, but likely still copyrighted to Williams' estate in UK.
Other Images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear, you could be right! I had rather assumed that Williams would have died over 70 years ago, but that may be wrong. I have deleted the image from the article; it can be replaced if/when the copyright issue is sorted out and it's OK? (It adds colour but not content to the article). The drawing is in the possession of the Design Group Partnership, which is the continuation of Douglas' practice in Chester. They should have details of Williams' date of death, and I intend to contact them.
- I struggle to understand the legal and other issues relating to copyright and all help is appreciated. What would be the point of moving it to Wikipedia? If it's still copyrighted, should it not be deleted from Commons? And if it's OK, why move it? (The other problem is that I do not know how to move it, nor have I been able to find instructions.) Thanks for your advice. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, images stored on Commons have to be in public domain in both US and their country of origin (UK in this case). Images on Wikipedia need only to be public domain in the US. However, I had a misassumption: I thought the image was declared to have been published before 1923. If so, it would be public domain in US, and could be stored on Wikipedia (so only move to Wikipedia if you have its first publishing details, but no information about Williams). Please contact Design Group Partnership for details on Williams so that it is verifiably public domain in its country of origin. Jappalang (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have contacted Design Group Partnership and they have no info about the image or the author. So will the image will have to be deleted from Commons (a pity because it could be out of copyright)? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By right, yes. In practice... just like Wikipedia, sometimes things get done against policy or guideline just because... Regardless, for an FA, we would prefer every content to be verifiable. Jappalang (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By right, yes. In practice... just like Wikipedia, sometimes things get done against policy or guideline just because... Regardless, for an FA, we would prefer every content to be verifiable. Jappalang (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have contacted Design Group Partnership and they have no info about the image or the author. So will the image will have to be deleted from Commons (a pity because it could be out of copyright)? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, images stored on Commons have to be in public domain in both US and their country of origin (UK in this case). Images on Wikipedia need only to be public domain in the US. However, I had a misassumption: I thought the image was declared to have been published before 1923. If so, it would be public domain in US, and could be stored on Wikipedia (so only move to Wikipedia if you have its first publishing details, but no information about Williams). Please contact Design Group Partnership for details on Williams so that it is verifiably public domain in its country of origin. Jappalang (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.