Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daniel Lambert/archive1

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 19:30, 7 August 2010 [1].

Daniel Lambert edit

Featured article candidates/Daniel Lambert/archive1

Nominator(s): – iride scent 20:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before the invention of pay-per-view movies and online gaming, people had a different standard when it came to what constituted good entertainment. In the early 19th century, a popular pastime among the English elite (including the King!) was paying for the privilege of the company of an obese unemployed former gaol-keeper* and dog-breeder from the East Midlands. For more than a century after his death, "Daniel Lambert" remained in the English language as a synonym for "fat bloke", and he's still something of a local hero in Leicester. (He's second only to, er, Engelbert Humperdinck on Leicester Council's List of famous people from Leicester.) I think this says everything that ought reasonably to be said on the man, without any obvious gaps nor too much detail. Special mention to Parrot of Doom in particular for a lot of fiddling and tweaking. – iride scent 20:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*"Gaol" is the correct spelling in this context; the institution was the County Gaol and "gaol" rather than "jail" is still today the correct official spelling in British English. A gaol-keeper isn't equivalent to a warder, but was the guy who actually owned and operated the building. – iride scent 20:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, but a few problems with the externals. The link to The Companion to British History should be marked "subscription required". The link to http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/712/329/118142162w16/purl=rc1_TTDA_0_CS16919170&dyn=9!xrn_2_0_CS16919170&hst_1?sw_aep=mclib, which doesn't actually display in the article since you are using it in the non-existent |url= parameter of {{Cite newspaper The Times}}, should also be marked "subscription required". Ucucha 20:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Taken the Times link out; I think PoD added it without realising that {{Cite newspaper The Times}} couldn't handle URLs. It wouldn't have worked for 99.9% of readers in any case; as you can see from the "mclib" in the url, that's the url for logging on via Manchester City Libraries. The Companion to British History is via WP:CREDO; does anyone know what the protocols are for citing them (if, indeed, we have one)? – iridescent 21:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I actually just added support for this to the template. (Not for "subscription required", though.) I think "subscription required" would work fine for CREDO; it's true as far as I can see. Ucucha 21:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Added "Subscription required" for the Credo one. Regarding the Times one, I think it's better leaving the link out; the URL for the archive varies depending on how one's accessing it (via public library, via subscription etc). The whole point of {{Cite newspaper The Times}} is to show the exact location on the page, so anyone who wants to find the originals will be able to. – iridescent 21:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think the link is so useless as you suggest; I was able to access it, even though I'm nowhere near Manchester. Ucucha 21:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Does it actually work for you? I just get a "please enter your library card number" message. If it's working outside of Manchester, by all means put it back. – iride scent 21:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I had to manipulate the URL so I can go there via a university proxy server, but otherwise it does work. I re-added the URL with "subscription required". The template now produces the slightly ugly "(subscription required) (Classified advertising)" (Daniel_Lambert#cite_note-1806_Times_ad-28), but I can't think of a better way to format this. On another minor point, the article appears to be inconsistent in the date formatting of the references (some are ISO, some are not). Ucucha 21:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Think I've fixed all the dates. Because Reftools fills that field out automatically, I always forget to standardize it. Do you think I should link the other Times references? (How about putting the "subscription required" at the end?) – iride scent 21:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I found one more. As for the Times, I do think more links would be useful. Putting it at the end is a possibility; the problem is that the "subscription required" specifically refers to the link, and thus should logically come directly behind it. Ucucha 21:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Done all of them—no guarantee that they'll work for others, though. (It occurs to me that since, notoriously, all Times content is behind a paywall, we could just make "subscription required" the default for the template.) – iride scent 22:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Without looking into the wiki technicalities of sourcing, citing and image licensing I found the article very interesting and well written. I noticed two things that seemed slightly odd to me, the words 'autopsy' and 'quarter mile', as he was an Englishman perhaps 'post-mortem' and 'quarter of a mile' would be more correct. They both sound American although I think 'autopsy' is used sometimes in the UK. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Autopsy" is definitely the correct British English term. "Quarter of a mile" was removed by PoD; both are correct British English usage so I won't replace it unless anyone has a strong opinion. – iride scent 21:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. And weighing in on the "gaol" "jail" issue, definitely "gaol" is fine, it is the correct British English term and any confusion is covered by the footnote. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This is a comprehensive, verifiable, neutral, stable article of appropriate length, focus and structure. I have some suggestions for improvement listed below. DrKiernan (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Is the use of "gaol keeper" a deliberate ploy so that readers initially read it as "goal keeper", as I did? I thought the same as User:Captainsiberia at Talk:Daniel Lambert#A Gaol Keeper, Not a Goal Keeper, but additionally wonder whether this was your intention all along as part of an April's Fool type jest. If not, then constructions such as "keeper of Leicester gaol" would be easier to read than "gaol keeper".

No, it's not a deliberate hoax. "Gaol keeper" was his job; aside from anything else, football with goals (and hence goalkeepers) wasn't invented until over 50 years after his death (what was called "football" before 1863 was mob football, the forerunner of Rugby, American and Australian football). I can't see any non-tortuous way to reword this, since it has to say (1) his job and (2) where he was from; "…animal breeder and keeper of a gaol, from Leicester" makes it sound like the gaol's from Leicester, while "…from Leicester, he was an animal breeder and keeper of a gaol" looks very garbled to me. I really don't want to say "Leicester Gaol", as most people will assume that refers to the current HMP Leicester – iride scent 20:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I find slightly irritating about this whole "Gaol Keeper" business (and this isn't a dig at the questioner here btw) is the automatic assumption that if a word on Wikipedia is somewhat old, or vague, and cannot be linked, that there's a problem that needs to be fixed. People are reading this on the internet, which surely is the world's biggest dictionary. My advice Iridescent would be to stick to Gaol Keeper wherever you can, and point anyone who objects in the direction of the OED. Parrot of Doom 20:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"by a Mr Benjamin Patrick", "a Mr J Drakard": is the "a" necessary or desired?

I prefer it that way—to me, the "a" is a stylistic convention to indicate that the identity of the person being named isn't significant to the narrative—but don't have strong opinions if anyone wants it removed. – iride scent 20:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What has the cock fight in Loughborough got to do with him being weighed? Was he weighed during the visit to Loughborough? If so, I think you need some sort of linking sentence between the two. Or change the paragraph to read:

...he hated being the object of public curiosity,[16] and refused to be weighed. Although the crowds that habitually gathered around him forced him to stop attending sporting events,[16] in about 1805 he was persuaded by friends to accompany them to a cock fight in Loughborough. Once he had squeezed his way into their carriage, the rest of the party drove it onto a large weighing machine and jumped out..."

Someone had edited that at some point, and the reword had lost the context. I've restored my original wording, which hopefully makes it clear what the sequence of events was. – iride scent 20:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition of the full names of Tom Thumb and his colleagues in brackets is slightly tedious. I would advise their removal.

Disagree there. The stage names are important (how many readers would recognise the name Charles Sherwood Stratton?), but when referring to someone, in my opinion it's a matter of basic human dignity to use their names, and not the freak-show names invented for them by Barnum. – iride scent 20:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

"It is possible that the poems are a hoax" is not sourced, but I have chosen to ignore it because I agree that it's very likely and do not believe that citations are required for the self-evident.

I can't find any source which actually says the poems are a hoax, although I'm certain they are. I worded that carefully so as not to need a citation; it's impossible to challenge the possibility. Google Books have The English Annual archives online; I'll leave it to you to judge the credibility of this "Lady Catherine de Burgh after a little too much of the laudanum" wittering as a reliable account, or the likelihood that someone who is on record as never reading anything for recreation other than the sports pages (an account not challenged by anyone who knew him) not only wrote this doggerel but valued it so much that he took it with him when travelling. – iride scent 20:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

All images are appropriately labelled and comply with the image use policy. You may wish to consider including one of the contemporary cartoons of Lambert such as this one from Wellcome or these poorer quality ones comparing him to Napoleon: File:Bone and Flesh.jpg, File:Daniel Lambert Lamb Tiger.jpg. Also, Wybrants is mentioned in the article so this image might help illustrate that.

Images appropriate, correctly licensed. I've tweaked the captions (shouldn't normally include article title) If you are going to have alt text, make it Daniel Lambert (not fat man) after first one Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone that; nowhere in WP:Manual of Style (captions) does it say anything of the sort, and it patently makes the captions less informative not to specify what they depict. ("Grave in Stamford" could be anything.) I don't really want to overload it with images (certainly not of Wybrants, the article isn't about him). – iride scent 20:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Wikipedia never ceases to amaze me; a truly fascinating tale. Tom (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have a fair bit of involvement in this (only copyediting though, no content addition) but would like to add that this article is certainly one to pique the readers' interest - just look at the views it got while a DYK. Parrot of Doom 20:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is it worth mentioning in the "In popular memory" section that football team Stamford A.F.C. are nicknamed "The Daniels" after Lambert (source: [2])........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I flip-flopped about it—it's certainly true, but Stamford are such a minor team (never been above level 7 on the pyramid) that I'm not sure how much it will mean to most people, and it possibly opens a floodgate of "list of things named after Daniel Lambert" material, which I was hoping to avoid. If anyone wants it in I can certainly mention it. – iride scent 14:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, have added it. I think it illustrates well that Lambert is still a notable figure in the area. – iride scent 15:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.