Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert Hues/archive1

< 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:03, 2 May 2009 [1].

Robert Hues edit

Nominator(s): JackLee –talk–
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article status because I think the article is good enough to deserve that accolade. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tech. Review
  • Disambiguation links have been fixed. — JackLee, 08:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3

Crucial image issues have been resolved. Awadewit (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These issues should be easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed. I wasn't sure what you meant about linking to the HTML pages, so I converted the GIFs to JPEGs and uploaded the latter. — JackLee, 06:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is best to link image sources to the HTML page on which they are displayed rather than directly to the JPG file (see WP:IUP). Awadewit (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I see. OK, fixed. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The correct image is now displaying. Must have been a caching issue. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments This is looking good—I'm leaning toward supporing. I had some initial reservations about comprehensiveness, but after searching for a while I'm confident you have made the best use of the sources available. Could you humor me and look at the following issues?
    • "In 1594, Hues published his discoveries in the Latin work ..." This whole sentence in the lead is confusing. "that had been made and published" sound like they go together; however, I'm sure you mean the globes were made but the Latin work was published?
      • Comment: Hello! The articles I have read seem to use the term "published" in relation to globes as well (perhaps because globes are essentially maps mounted on spheres?). But if this is really jarring to you I don't have any problem changing it. — JackLee, 17:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, that makes more sense then. I've just never heard of globes being "published". --Laser brain (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "travelled on the Continent" is probably too colloquial, requiring a wikilink (in two places, and an easter-egg one at that) for reader comprehension.
      • Comment: I would have thought that "the Continent" was quite a well-known expression, particularly when used in relation to an Englishman (Hues). I added the wikilink (admittedly an Easter egg) out of an abundance of caution. Doesn't "travelled on Continental Europe" sound a bit stilted? — JackLee, 17:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This may just be a matter of opinion—I won't be upset if it's not changed. Although, I'm quite sure almost no one in North America is familiar with this phrase. Your second example does sound stilted. I would prefer "travelled through Europe" but that may be introducing ambiguity. I've talked myself out of it by now. --Laser brain (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This has been disputed for lack of evidence." Avoid using the ambiguous "this" to refer to a prior concept. Instead, restate the concept: "This <whatever> has been disputed"
      • Comment: Since this sentence comes immediately after the disputed fact, I would have thought there was no ambiguity whatsoever. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You'd be surprised. ESL readers are routinely confounded when "this" is used to refer back to something that isn't explicitly restated. --Laser brain (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: The relevant sentences are: "Wood stated that Harriot, Hues and Warner were Northumberland's 'constant companions, and were usually called the Earl of Northumberland's THREE. They had a table at the Earl's charge, and the Earl himself did constantly converse with them, and with Sir Walter Raleigh, then in the Tower'. This has been disputed for lack of evidence." Honestly, I don't know much clearer this can be. Wouldn't it be unnecessarily repetitive to change this to, say, "Wood stated that Harriot, Hues and Warner were Northumberland's 'constant companions['] ... The fact that they were Northumberland's companions has been disputed for lack of evidence"? — JackLee, 12:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Laser brain (talk) 20:40, 29 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Robert_Hues/archive1&oldid=1089083719"