Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edward Low

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 16:20, 5 November 2007.

Edward Low edit

This article, about one of the lesser-known but most brutal pirates of the Golden Age of Piracy has recently been labelled as a good article. However, my intent has always been to take it on to FA. Given the length of the article, the fact it (to my eyes) meets all the featured article criteria, and has been through some pretty extensive checking, I would like to submit it to be a featured article. It's well written, particularly now it's been rigorously copyedited by User:Malleus Fatuarum and User:Maralia. It's fully referenced. All pictures are legit to the best of my knowledge. It's comprehensive without going "overboard" (pirate pun there), bearing in mind Low's piratical career only lasted 3 years tops. Peer review (which didn't provide any human advice) can be found here. Let me know what you think! Neil ム 09:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
    • An images caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.  Done - now consistent
    • There is incorrect dash usage in the infobox and footnotes.  Done, I think - if it's still not correct, please do tell me what is incorrect
    • All web references need the author, publisher and publishing date, if known.  Done
    • Full dates in the footnotes need linking.  Done - they were all linked already (I can't see one that isn't, unless you mean the American Weekly Mercury one, which is a date range (6 - 13 June 1723) and should not be wikilinked)
    • Non-breaking spaces should be places between numbers and units.  Done
    • Imperial measurements should be accompanied by the metric equivalent in brackets, and vice versa.  Done
    • Text should not be sandwiched between two adjacent images, as in the Influence section.  Done
    • "The Victoria's Portuguese captain allowed a bag containing approximately 11,000 gold moidores (worth at the time around £15,000)" - is that £15,000 in today's money?  Done - it says "at the time" - I am unsure how to say it in any clearer a manner
    • "an 80-ton schooner" - is that a long ton or short ton?  Done - references say "ton", as opposed to "tonne", and given the period and usage, it's long ton - first use wikilinked to inform reader
    • A bit more copyediting needed, for example:
      • "Following the death of his wife during childbirth in late 1719, he became a pirate two years later" - either "following" or "two years later" is redundant.  Done
      • "operating off the coasts of New England, the Azores, and in the Caribbean" - I think an "and" is needed between "New England" and "the Azores".  Done
      • "a reputation for violently torturing his victims" - all torture is violent  Done - no it isn't!
      • "Low led the twelve man gang – which included Francis Farrington Spriggs – in taking over a small sloop off the coast of Rhode Island, killing one man, and officially turned pirate determined "to go in her, make a black Flag and declare War against all the World."" - difficult to follow. And is it possible for someone to officially turn pirate?  Done - split into two sentences. It's not needed so removed, but technically you would officially becomes a pirate in the eyes of the law once an act of piracy has been committed.
      • "a bounty was placed on his head, and Low headed for the Azores" - repetition of "head"  Done
      • "are still being combed by treasure hunters looking for treasure in the ships he sank." - repetition  Done

Epbr123 19:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions! Dones / not dones added. Neil ム 21:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some more:
    • "In a later trial on 10 July 1723 for a number of Low's crew" - "later" is redundant, "during" might be better than "in"  Done
    • "Harris returned to the UK, and was hanged at Wapping." - the UK didn't exist at the time  Done (doh)
    • "intending them to starve to death slowly" - I think the "slowly" is redundant  Done
    • "his crew refused to carry out his orders to torture the fisherman" - it should either be "a fisherman" or "the fishermen"  Done, typo fixed
    • "newly-captured ship" - -ly words don't usually need to be hyphenated as it's clear which two words belong together  Done
    • "he attacked thirteen New England fishing vessels" - 13  Done
      • Elsewhere states, "mounting 14 guns on her" - the decision whether to use numerals or words should be consistent. Epbr123 09:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Johnson – considered to be Daniel Defoe" - maybe best to include the "Charles"  Done
    • "silk", "theft", burglary", "cannon", "postage stamp", "torture", "17th century", "seaweed" and "barnacles" don't need linking  Done - I've delinked a few of these, but some really should be linked.
      • None of those words adds context. A link to "theft" will not help readers understand this article better. Epbr123 09:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • A pipelink to "theft" will help readers understand what the archaic term "thievery" means (Word usage that may be confusing to a non-native speaker). Ditto "burglary", which is not a widely-used word in many English speaking countries. Barnacles and seaweed ought to be linked - the link you give says "Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully". Plus the article has a reasonable "link density" at present. Neil ム 10:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check that linked words are linked at their first occurence, eg. "Edward Teach", "cutlass"  Done
    • Some ship names need italicising  Done - one use missed and fixed
    • The Arthur Conan Doyle part of the lead should be mentioned in the body of the article.  Done - why?
      • The lead should be a summary of the body of the article, therefore, there shouldn't be anything in the lead which isn't in the body. Epbr123 09:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does Articles belong as a subsection of Flags?  Done - nope
    • Some ref titles and the External links section have improper dash usage.  Done - it might be better if you just fix this yourself, as it looks fine to me. If the title of a document or website doesn't use an em or en dash, I wouldn't use one when stating the title.
      • The dashes do need fixing. Wikipedia's formatting style has to be used, rather than the other website's. For the same reason, the upper case text needs to also be removed from some refs. Epbr123 09:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Done. Neil ム 09:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epbr123 00:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Responded. Neil ム 08:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgot to say: Support as nominator. Neil ム 11:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Epbr123 12:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Very interesting article, comprehensive and well-written. Karanacs 17:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Karanacs

Here are a few things that need to be fixed

    • Lead prose issues -- a) "in around" -> pick one, please; b)"Following the death of his wife during childbirth in late 1719 he became a pirate two years later" doesn't flow well at all  Done - first fixed (but not below, see your 4th point). Second one flows if you reinstate the comma you omitted. Neil ☎ 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need a citation directly after quote in second sentence (I assume the following sentence's citation covers that, but it needs to be duplicated for quotations)  Done Neil ☎ 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The two paragraphs in first section are both very short and could be combined into one  Done - no, they're fine. One paragraph looked ugly, and was too long. Neil ☎ 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are five sentences total in those 2 paragraphs. I think if you take the first 2 sentences of the 1st paragraph, then add the second paragraph, and put the sentence about his brother last, you would have a solid single paragraph. Karanacs 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The paragraph would be too long. Those are long sentences. Neil ☎ 22:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I very much disagree with you - it would be about the same as the last paragraph in Life in Bost section. Karanacs 13:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think I just realised when you said "first section", you meant the "early life" section - I assumed you meant the introduction.  Done Neil ☎ 17:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in around" is not proper grammar, and is used within the body of the article as well as in the lead. Please fix with an alternate phrase.  Done Neil ☎ 10:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article says "Boston" 3 times in one and a half sentences in first paragraph of Life in Boston section; I would rewrite the second sentence to say "On August 12, 1714, he married Eliza Marble at the First Church of Boston."  Done Maralia 19:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather than "labour" I would say childbirth; it is a more common phrase  Done Maralia 19:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need a nonbreaking space between numbers and their qualifiers (three years, twelve men); use {{nowrap}} or & nbsp;  Done - that's only for digit numbers and units of measurement (eg 6 cm) according to the MOS. Neil ☎ 21:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to the MOS for dates and numbers, the non-breaking space applies to "compound items in which numerical and non-numerical elements are separated by a space" Although the examples use kg/yds/etc, nowhere does it say that it applies only to units. Karanacs 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Numerical" means e.g. "12", not "twelve". Neil ☎ 22:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "came back aboard hungry" doesn't sound quite right; how about "he reboarded the ship searching for food?"  Done, but not "searching for food", which the reference doesn't say he did, it says he was hungry. Neil ☎ 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • month and date combinations should be wikilinked (10 July and 12 July)  Done No they should not - see WP:MOS and Epr123's point above. Neil ☎ 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to the MOS for Wikilinks, you should always wikilink a month/day combination so that the user's preferences will dictate how it is displayed (as 10 October or October 10, for example). Karanacs 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know, but the above guy insisted it wasn't the case. Anyway,  Done Neil ☎ 22:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it necessary to mention in this article that Charles Johnson might be Daniel Defoe?  Done - why should it not be? Neil ☎ 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my opinion, it didn't add anything to the text, and was a little distracting. The article is not about DeFoe or Charles Johnson, and therefore I wouldn't include the detail about them. Karanacs 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it adds context and interest to the prose, and belongs there. Neil ☎ 22:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boston News-Letter should be italicized as it is a newspaper {{done}} Maralia 19:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not include articles in the See also section that have been wikilinked in the article; that would remove the first two; I also don't think you need the History of Boston in the list  Done - Privateer removed, but see Epr123's comments above. The Piracy in the Caribbean link in the text is piped. Neil ☎ 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not all of your citations have publishers listed  Done Neil ☎ 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not done. See, for example, 13, 19, 27 and 29 Karanacs 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs 17:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • 13, 19 and 29, the publisher is the author (those are websites). 27 the publisher is Project Gutenberg as stated. Please actually check the references. Neil ☎ 22:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You still need to have the publisher specified. For example, in reference 13, the publisher would either be Rob Ossian's Pirate Cove or thepirateking.com (and how reliable a source is that, anyway?). Karanacs 13:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Done Okay, I'll fix that now. Ossian is reliable, he's been cited all over the place and used by the History Channel among others as a pirate expert (see [1]). Neil ☎ 17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • There was one more citation that needed a publisher. It was one of the last ones, called "Pirates Site", and then I think you'll be done with that nitpicky task ;) Karanacs 17:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Avast, ye pernicious harridan ;) Done. Neil ☎ 17:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I see there've been many comments and alterations since I read this article, so feel free to ignore objections that have been met in the mean time.
    • In biographies the birth and death dates are usually put in brackets behind the name instead of in the lead's prose.  Done
    • "A thief and a scoundrel from a young age, he was born into poverty in Westminster, London around 1690 and moved" This is one of those inverted compound sentences that doesn't work. The clause before the comma is no bearing on his birth and so they shouldn't be linked together. Besides, it's probably better to use that description after you've described his birth so you don't label him as a scum baby.  Done (although he may have been a scum baby!)
    • Why is his birthdate in the 'Early life' section less specific than the one in the lead?  Done
    • "A brother was hanged at Tyburn for "thievery"." Was that one of his brothers or a monk/priest? What is the relevence to his criminal exploits? Sentence seems a bit disjointed from the rest of the text.  Done, sort of - clarified it was a brother as in relative. I think there's relevance in that it suggests his family were all impoverished criminals.
    • What was the birthdate of his deceased son?  Done - don't know, it is not in any of my resources.
    • "The loss of his wife had a profound affect on Low" That should be effect. (affect is verb, effect is noun)  Done
    • You might want to briefly mention why Francis Farrington Spriggs is worth mentioning by name when the rest of the gang wasn't.  Done - it's because he subsequently became a famous pirate in his own right
    • "Acquiring a taste for cruelty, Low taught Spriggs a torture technique which involved tying a victim's hands with rope between their fingers and setting them alight, burning their flesh down to the bones." When you teach somebody that, you aren't just acquiring a taste for cruelty, you already have it. Probably needs rephrasing.  Done
    • "no quarter would be given if any resisted"? Quarter as in shelter or money. To who, the captives or the pirates?  Done - neither money nor shelter - "no quarter" means no mercy (it's a fairly standard phrase). I have amended to "mercy", which is probably less evocative, but fine.
    • "Remaining off the coast of North America, a fishing boat was taken off Block Island." Who was remaining off the coast of NA? The fishing boat or Low? If it was Low, you should include a grammatical subject.  Done reworded
    • How can Low be both never heard from again and be hanged in Martinique?  Done - the section explains that there are conflicting accounts of Low's demise.

-- Mgm|(talk) 08:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. Neil ☎ 10:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how my first objection was addressed... Also, I think I what the problem is with the death section. Some sentences that are attributed to particular sources are written in such a way they appear to be statements of fact. - Mgm|(talk) 10:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Argh, I just realised what happened - I had two identical editing windows open and put the years bit in the wrong one. I've now put the years of birth and death in brackets behind the name. I'll have a play with the death section. Neil ☎ 10:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is it now? Neil ☎ 10:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've done a final tweak on the death paragraphs. - Mgm|(talk) 16:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. - Mgm|(talk) 16:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No & Oppose Pass & support

  • On the new basis that there really isn't much anyone can do with it, unless they are the subject matter themselves, and that creative writing can be considered fancy. Learnedo 04:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the basis it does not fulfill #1d NPOV, regardless that having extensive biases makes for an interesting read. Learnedo 07:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What biases? - Mgm|(talk) 10:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will edit it later on today. In the meantime, please review the following in its entirely as you apparently do not understand it.
Leranedo/Learnedo, without a sample of why you consider the article POV, your "vote" can be considered invalid. Raul, the nominator, and all of us need to see your reasoning. The nominator can't address it if there is no example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like a story of a person who went from poverty to infamous fame, and as if we should feel pity for him, at least near the beginning. It wasn't encyclopedic. If someone who reads this cannot tell, I would be astounded. Some source are unreliable and apparently wrote for entertainment purposes and not for neutrality so the article can't really be balanced out. I would classify this as fiction for that is what it might as well be. Why are there "conflicting reports"? Because these are completely unreliable sources and I know I would want no knowledge than crap, false knowledge.
I had made minor editing, and will change to support when it's adequate enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leranedo (talk • contribs) 04:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had to revert a couple of the changes, because you mutilated the grammar. And I mean really badly. Or should I say "you were said to have been described as having changed the grammar in an ill-mannered way"? Ah, I'm just joking - thank you for the edits. Neil ☎ 15:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you're being silly. Two minor errors doesn't constitute mutilation, though I should have read it again however. Leranedo 21:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leranedo, commenting at FAC without providing examples makes it very hard to evaluate your concerns. Please provide at least an example of unreliable sources. You can't just ask other editors to read your mind or take your word for it; we need something to work with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comments. I left some notes and sample edits on minor WP:DASH issues, and you have some text terribly squeezed (on my browser) between an image and a quote in the "Early 1723" section. Can you pls doublecheck your sources on this?
  • Costa Garda isn't grammatical in Spanish and it doesn't mean Coast Guard; maybe those pirates didn't have correct grammatical Spanish, though. Google coughs up the term a lot wrt piracy (first on Wiki though), but it does not translate to Coast Guard as we think of it in English, so I'm wondering about your translation and whether it's original research or a source actually says that's the translation (if so, pls doublecheck other sources). First, garda isn't even a Spanish word; second, Coast Guard in Spanish is guardacostas or guardia de la costa or guardia de costas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC) PS, if you can't figure that one out, the PR Project might have someone who speaks Spanish piracy. Maybe it's a Portuguese permutation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dashes  Done Someone else can fix the dashes. Three different people have now told me to do three different things with them so they would support the FAC, citing different parts of the MOS. I am sick of messing about with dashes. If you want them fixed in a "just so" way, fix them yourself - I don't own the article. They look fine to me. Neil ☎ 15:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I read through the comments above and didn't find any incorrect dash advice; at any rate, I'll run through the article and fix any stragglers myself. If you have questions in the future, don't hesitate to ask me to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Resolution  Done - what resolution are you at? I've checked it at everything, 1600x1200, 1440x900, 1200x760 down to 800x600 - it looks fine, although a little tight at 800x600, there are FAs that looks heaps worse at such a low resolution. It looked horrible at 640x480, but surely nobody runs their computer at that any more?
      • Um, I use five computers :-) When I made the comment, I was on my old laptop, and I don't want to walk upstairs to check that now, but I'm sure it's not 640 x 480. I'll check several computers and fiddle; pls revert me if I change anything you don't like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm struggling as it looks fine on my compter - I've dropped the size of the image in the Early 1723 section, has that fixed it? You may need to play around with it yourself. Neil ☎ 18:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done subject to Sandy doing any rearranging as seen fit. Neil ☎ 21:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Costa garda"  Done - that should definitely be "Guarda". There are references for it being "Guarda del Costa" ([2], [3]). I think people may have got it mixed up because it tended to be simply referred to as the "Guarda". Fixed. Neil ☎ 15:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good; but not done. I was noticing that Spanish bastardization coming up at Google thanks to Wiki :-) Um, it cannot be Guarda del Costa either, because it's La Costa (feminine)—I'm fluent, but not a native speaker. You may still need to get the Puerto Rican Project involved to straighten this out and help you find a highly reliable source relating to the piracy days, or let us know if it was just an example of poor Spanish grammar back in those days. I see the Gutenberg source at one point says guarda del costa, but later uses the grammatically correct guarda de costa; these are the kinds of issues that come up with translations (note that we are talking about a difference made by one or two letters here). Maybe you can punt this one and just use guarda de costa, since both of your sources use that, but I'd still recommend checking with the Puerto Rico Project, as they will know piracy stories. Sorry, but I have a big pet peeve about subtly incorrect original translations on Wiki, as they do tend to spread via Google, and we must get it right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've put it to "Guarda de Costa", I think unless the PR guys say otherwise, we're probably okay. Neil ☎ 18:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a better fix; I'm going to strike my comment now, since I'm confident that you'll sort this out with the Puerto Rican group if they are able to shed any light. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Awesome. Neil ☎ 21:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment The correct Spanish word for Coast Guard is guardacostas. A guardacostas is a vessel used to protect against smuggling.[4] However, Old Spanish may have indeed used guarda de costa. Joelito (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a couple of image issues:
    • Image:Lowstamp.jpg—I believe it's Wikipedia convention that non-free postage stamps should not be used to depict the subject of the stamp. (Cf. "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)" from {{Non-free stamp}}.) I suggest removing. Image has been marked as orphaned.
    • Image:Ned Low at PTOC.jpg—A photograph of a work of art like this inherits the original copyright. That is, davelandweb.com does not own the copyright of this image—I would guess Disney does.
Pagrashtak 00:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Part done - I've removed the stamp image - it didn't add much to the article. The Disney artwork image - could you clarify? Do I need to update the copyright statement, remove the image, should it be fair use, what? Neil ☎ 09:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The copyright tag should be updated to indicate that the image is non-free. At that point, you'll need to either remove the image as replaceable, or, if you feel that only that particular image can serve its purpose, add rationale to the page stating why it can't be replaced by a free image. Pagrashtak 13:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay. (btw, I've deleted the Lowstamp.jpg image), and have updated the rationale of the Image:Ned Low at PTOC.jpg - is this satisfactory? If you still don't think it's fair use, let me know, or just remove it yourself - I tihnk it adds something and is discussed within the section, but am open to argument. Neil ☎ 13:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You'd probably get different opinions on the image, depending on the editor. I'm striking the comment, as the image page has the correct copyright information. Pagrashtak 14:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—Oh, this is excellent! Tony (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Edward_Low&oldid=1085529576"