Talk:John Cantiloe Joy and William Joy/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: From Hill To Shore (talk · contribs) 21:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll start the review now. It may take a couple of days for me to finish as I only have a couple of hours free today. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Prose: "His patronage of the Joy brothers paralleled that of John Sell Cotman by Dawson Turner, who was both a friend of Manby and his financial supporter for almost fifty years." - I am reading this as saying Turner was a financial supporter of Manby for fifty years. Is that correct?

    Done That's right, I've tweaked the sentence to help make that clearer. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

   Prose: "Turner never seemed to have seriously considered buying the works of Norwich School of painters except those of John Crome, and is not known to have bought paintings from either Cotman or the Joys." - Would "Turner never seemed to have seriously considered buying the works of painters from the Norwich School except..." work better here? It removes an extra "of" and you don't have to use the full school title everytime.

    Done Amitchell125 (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

   Spelling: "but also urged them to study from Nature rather than copy old masters" - is there a reason that Nature is capitalised here?

    Sorted (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

   Prose: "John exhibited at the Royal Society of British Artists from 1826 to 1827, and William showed pictures at the Royal Society of British Artists and the British Institution from 1823 to 1845, and at the Royal Academy in 1824 and 1832." - that sentence contains far too many "and"s. I'd recommend splitting the sentence or rephrasing it. Two possible ways to handle this are to insert the exhibitions into the chronological flow of the earlier sections or create a new section to talk about the various exhibitions in their lifetimes. Some are currently embeded in the chronology.

    Sorted (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

   Clarity: "Their early pictures show their inexperience as artists, with the water in their paintings being too calm, and boats sitting too far up on top of the water." - this sentence immediately follows the note on exhibiting their work from 1824 to 1845. What constitutes "early picture" here? The implication from the previous sentence is that it includes works up to 1845.

    Done (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

   Spelling: "Examples of their works are held in the Norfolk Museums Collections at" - does museums require an apostrophe either before or after the "s"? It reads like the collections belong either to the Norfolk Museum or to a group of Norfolk Museums. If the lack of apostrophe is correct, I would recommend using {{sic}}, perhaps with {{sic|hide=y|Museum|s}}.

    Done The correct phrase is indeed Norfolk Museums Collections. I've attempted to clarify what I meant, please feel free to correct it if you still think there's an issue here. (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

   I'm happy with your edit there. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Lead: The lead uses the phrase "outstanding in the history of English art" but the word outstanding doesn't appear again in the article and is not sourced. This description either needs to be added to the article body, atributed and sourced or removed from the lead.

    Done, by amending both the lead and the main article. (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

   Lead: The description jumps from an exhibition in 1820 to William arriving in London in 1829. However, the article says they exhibited with major institutions in 1823, 1824, 1826 and 1827. Other exhibitions with their local society were held in 1823, 1824, 1825 and 1828. As this seems to be the peak period of exhibitions in their lifetimes (as currently reported in the article) it probably needs to be covered by the lead. I'd probably trim back on the Captain Manby text to make room; he is covered in the article body so only needs a passing mention here; "their talents were recognised by Captain George William Manby, who became their patron and mentor. He provided them with a studio, and trained them to become skilled marine artists."

    Done (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

   Lead: "Soon after William travelled to London in 1829 and was awarded commissions, John joined his brother." - this can be read as John joining his brother in 1829. I'd suggest, "William moved to London in 1829, where he was commissioned to produce new works; John joined him in London by the following year."

    Done (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

   Lead: "Following his brother's death in 1859, William Joy became a Tancred Pensioner at Whitley Hall, Yorkshire, remaining there until his death in 1865. Neither brothers married during their lives." - see the notes below on sources. I would rephrase this to align with whatever amendments are made to the article text.

   Lead: "Most of their publicly-owned paintings belong to the Norfolk Museums Collections," - see the note above on using an apostrophe or {{sic}} for Norfolk Museums Collections.

    Done Amitchell125 (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

   Words to watch: "In Chichester, they probably taught art" - according to whom? This either needs to be attributed in the article text or a footnote should be added to provide context on why "probably" is appropriate wording; are the sources in disagreement here or is it one source that is uncertain? If this is an editor's interpretation of the directory listing then it will probably conflict with WP:PRIMARY as original research. It may be better to remove the speculation and leave the factual statement that they were reported as being "professors and teachers" while they lived there. Our readers can draw their own conclusions from the factual statement.

    Done (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

   Layout: No issues identified.

   Fiction: Not applicable.

   Lists: Not applicable.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   A wide selection of sources and reading materials are identified. The layout complies with style guides.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   "In 1832 the Joys moved to Portsmouth... When in Portsmouth, they depicted the Lord High Admiral, the Duke of Clarence, visiting his son on board HMS Euryalus at Spithead..." This is not supported by the quoted source. The source says the picture was made after 1822 and does not specify a location. The Duke became King in 1830, so it is highly unlikely that it would have been created after their move to Portsmouth but still described as depicting the "Duke." Another point to note here is that the Duke's son Adolphus FitzClarence was a lieutenant serving on the Euryalus between April 1821 and May 1823, the same time period noted by the source. - a corrected version of this statement probably needs moving to the bottom of the Artistic training under Captain G.W. Manby section.

    Done, thanks for spotting my mistake. (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

   There is a general reliance on genealogy records throughout the article, implying that a substantial amount of original research may have been conducted. From personal experience with genealogy data, it is quite easy to mixup records of different individuals with the same name. I would flag this as an area of caution here; normally we would want a secondary source to have investigated the primary source material and come to a conclusion. Is there a secondary source available to support these claims? When using primary sources I try to pair them with a secondary source; the secondary source offers verification and the primary source adds a little detail and flavour. For example, if there is a secondary source that says John died in Lambeth in the late 50s, you can then add the primary source that pinpoints it to 9 August 1859.

   I've now reduced the reliance on primary sources to some extent, by removing information on Caroline Joy and the other siblings, also the baptism dates for William and John Cantiloe Joy are now gone. On reflection, none of this information is particularly relevant for the article. I want to avoid the impression of original research, but some of the primary sources used are important for the article, and can I think be retained. See Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources for where I am coming from, as I work through your other comments. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

   Yes, I'm happy in principle with including information supported by primary sources. However, my main concerns (noted elsewhere in the review) are around where you appear to have interpreted primary source information or used it to disagree with the opinions of a secondary source. The relevant policy line on this being, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Factual statements like "this primary source says X" are perfectly fine, unless a secondary source offers a conflicting statement.

   The key problem with genealogy data in particular is that it rarely gives a clear statement and you have to interpret the information by drawing the details from several genealogy records together. The room for error with genealogy data is significant. One way you may want to get around this is by saying something like, "There is some confusion among sources as to the dates of death of the two brothers. Redgrave gives John's date of death as 1857, while Walpole gives 1866. Parish records for Lambeth indicate that a man named John Cantiloe Joy died there in 1859, although this may not have been the same person." From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

    Sorted, your feedback would be welcome. (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

   While Miller 1977 has been published by a media outlet, this article also refers to an "unpublished" thesis by Miller in 1975. Has the 1975 text been peer reviewed? If not, it may need to be treated as a self-published source.

   ✓ I've checked Charlotte Miller's thesis and searched for it at iDiscover. The document gives no clues as to whether it was ever peer-reviewed, but there is a bibliography which may be useful. The online search found nothing by her and so I will be removing the source and the citations (and hopefully replacing them other ones). Amitchell125 (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

    Done (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   Footnote 1: This says that Clifford thought their father was the artist R B Joy but then a follow up sentence says this is incorrect based on parish records. Both claims are cited using Clifford. Did Clifford contradict himself in his own document or is the second claim unsourced? If the second claim is based on an editor's own interpretation of parish records, this would likely conflict with WP:PRIMARY.

    Sorted, not sure where that came from, so it's been removed. (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

   "Such commissions helped them to gain a reputation amongst nautical men for the way they accurately depicted the sails and rigging of a ship." The current placement of this statement implies an association with the Duke of Clarence claim mentioned in 2B above. However, the quoted source indicates it is a general statement of their work and doesn't tie it to a particular picture or date; in fact the source covers this point after talking about their deaths, so it is more in the way of a summary of their careers. I'd advise moving this statement to the Artistic output section and rephrasing it as a statement by Palmer.

    Done (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

   "In London, John Joy was involved with producing illustrations for a history of the Tower of London, drawings which never appear to have been used." - this statement appears to be supported by a single line in a library catalogue that says, "Apparently unpublished." That is very different from "drawings which never appear to have been used." The drawings may have been released as part of a separate document or have been used by the officials of the Tower without publication. As a side note, the url appears to be session based and is therefore broken (I can go to the website and run a new search but directly accessing the url produces a blank screen).

   ✓ Unsupported text removed. The website is not yet available, but when it is, I'll look at the accessing the url. (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

    Done (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

   Final years: This section gives some serious concerns. As noted under 2B, this section uses genealogy records to the exclusion of any secondary sources. However, footnote 6 then goes on to provide secondary source material that disagrees with the primary source information. This section needs to be flipped; the core text must follow the secondary source material contained in the footnote, which then may be followed by a statement about the primary source evidence (but not treating the primary source as any more credible than the secondary sources - just keep it to a statement of fact, for example, "However, parish records show that an individual called John Cantiloe Joy died on 9 August 1859 at his home on York Road, Lambeth.") If a future secondary source makes its own analysis of the primary source data then we can refer to their publication at that time.

    Done (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Copyright violations: The copy vio tool detects the highest match at 9.1% in the online sources, where a direct quotation is used. This is not a cause for concern. However, the majority of the article relies on offline sources, which I am unable to examine. This is an assumed pass.

   Plagiarism: As per the comment above, the majority of sources used are offline and not in my possession. A pass is assumed.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   There is a twenty year gap in their lives from the last mention at Chichester in 1834 to the death of the first brother in the late 1850s. However, a later note says that William was still exhibiting paintings until 1845. Is there any detail in the sources about this period? So long as we are reflecting source material, this won't be a block to GA.

   ✓ The Joys largely disappear from public view during the period you mention, but I'll check once again in case I've omitted anything accidentally. (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Background 2nd paragraph: This seems to be talking about the founding and operation of an artistic society but then concludes that neither artist was involved. Is this relevant to the article? Unless there is something extra to say that isn't coming through in the current wording, I'd remove the whole paragraph. - I note later in the article it says they exhibited with the society. I would advise that any text you want to retain is merged with the other part so the background and context are linked. For example, "The Norwich Society of Artists was associated with the Norwich School of painters. While neither of the Joys was a member of the society they both exhibited with them on several occasions..."

    Done (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

   Artistic training under Captain G.W. Manby: This section seems to be a little heavy on detail for Manby, who is not the subject of the article. As he has his own article, a lot of this information can be moved there. For example, the detail on Nelson has little relevance here and the information about his invention could be simplified to; "Captain Manby was the barrack-master at Yarmouth's Royal Barracks and an inventor. He trained the boys with the intention of gaining recognition for his invention, the Manby mortar."

    Done, your comments would be welcome. (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

   It looks fine, so far. Let me know if you would like my advice or assistance on specific points. Also, I'll be happy to discuss if you disagree with any of my comments. Keep up the good work. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   This seems to be a fairly balanced article and I have no reason to believe it isn't neutral.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No signs of edit warring in page history and page log shows no periods of protection.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images are in the public domain or have been uploaded under a suitable creative commons licence.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   While there are more than enough images to pass this element, I would recommend adding an image to the lead. While it may not be possible to find an image of either of the men, you could use one of their paintings as the lead image. Currently, the first image you encounter is by someone else, which is somewhat confusing.

    Done, images added. (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Generaly a well written article, however I am placing the review on hold as there are quite a few issues to resolve. None of the issues are insurmountable, so hopefully it can be promoted soon. I'll leave this open for 7 days but editors are welcome to ask for an extension if they are making progress. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

   Very good work so far. One final point though is that the following sentences are no longer supported by a citation (possibly due to moving other sentences around); "Its artists were connected by geographical location, the depiction of Norwich, maritime and rural Norfolk, and by close personal and professional relationships. The most important members of the group were John Crome, Joseph Stannard, George Vincent, Robert Ladbrooke, James Stark, John Thirtle and John Sell Cotman."

   Do you have a source to support that? My main area of concern is the claim "most important members," which is very subjective. If there isn't a source available that makes that claim, you may want to rephrase the second sentence to, "Prominent members of the group included John Crome, Joseph Stannard, George Vincent, Robert Ladbrooke, James Stark, John Thirtle and John Sell Cotman." From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

    Done Amitchell125 (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

   Thanks for that. I'm happy to mark this one as a GA. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

General comments

• This won't affect the review but is there a reason that the younger brother is named first in the article title? Is this based on a naming convention or just personal preference?

I listed them alphabetically. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Early years 1st paragraph; I note the final sentence is supported by 3 citations, where 2 citations per punctuation mark is the preferred guideline. I'd recommend moving the two sister citations to follow the comma at 1802.

 Done Amitchell125 (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Early years 2nd paragraph; I note that the first sentence is supported by 4 separate citations after the full stop. While I don't think there is a barrier to GA, it will probably block you from getting to FA. My understanding is that for FA, the rule of thumb is 2 citations after a punctuation mark or 3 citations in exceptional circumstances. I'd suggest either removing the two least relevant citations or perhaps moving two to follow the colon in the middle of the sentence (if they can support the first half).

 Done Amitchell125 (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• The article refers to "Norwich School of Painters," "Norwich School of Artists," and "Norwich Society of Artists." I can see an explanation for two of these bodies but the third is unclear. Is the third caused by a typographical error?

 Done, my error. Different authors have used different names: the Norwich School, Norwich School of painters and Norwich School of Artists all stand for the same thing. The Norwich Society of Artists was something else. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Wouldn't note 2 on the Royal Barracks/Royal Hospital sit better after "Captain Manby was the barrack-master at Yarmouth's Royal Barracks," rather than its later mention as a studio? I just spent a little time searching for detail on the barracks after the first mention, only to find it in the later footnote. I expect other readers will experience the same confusion.

 Done Amitchell125 (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• "In 1820 he exhibited their work at Yarmouth Barracks, an event designed to celebrate the King's birthday" - is there an indication on when during the year this was held? Speculation would be that it was sometime around the actual birthday though it could have been an early or late celebration. If it isn't covered by the sources then it would be safer just to leave it at the year.

 Done Amitchell125 (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• "the Joys also produced landscape sketches, some of which are now in the public domain." Does the "now" come from the 1965 source? As the last of the brothers died in around 1865, I would expect all of their works to be out of copyright now, unless there is some exceptional justification for certain items. You may want to use {{asof}} to clarify that the sourced statement is about 55 years old. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

 Sorted, apologies for the confusion caused by using 'public domain' and 'now' (which I've removed). Amitchell125 (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)