Talk:Thomas Johnes/GA1
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This GA review is based on Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles.
My initial review has found three problems:
- A) The lead section needs to be greatly expanded to conform to Good article criteria.
- B) The three images at the bottom should be distributed throughout the article and not in an image gallery. Moreover, they don't seem to be directly related to the article's subject.
- C) There is a problem with the inline citations. Just looking at the two paragraphs under 'Early life and career', the first paragraph has only one citation on the last sentence of the paragraph. The second paragraph seems to have every other word cited. As both paragraphs are about the same size, something is not right here. The entire article seems to have this problem of dense citations in some paragraphs and none in others. For example, the lengthy second paragraph under 'Mansion' seems to have no inline citations at all.
The flow of the article could be rearranged. Why is 'Early life and career' separated by nearly the whole article from 'Personal life’?
Details and minutiae are unbalanced. For example, "At three o'clock in the morning on 13 March 1807, a fire broke out..." is very detailed in the description of the time of the fire. This is followed by "The mansion was completely rebuilt” without any statement of the time when the mansion was rebuilt. In general, an encyclopedia article presents an overview of a subject but should be appropriately detailed. In the case of the fire, the calendar date of the fire and the year of the rebuilt mansion being reopened is more than enough detail for an article whose subject is the life of a person and not a mansion.
The article as it stands needs some re-arranging and re-writing. Most importantly, it needs to be cited (referenced) appropriately.
Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I've just re-read the Oxford DNB article on Thomas Johnes. Following the Good article criteria, where a good article must be "Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail," I'm afraid I can't pass this article. The problem is that it drifts too much from the life of Thomas Johnes. There is far too much on the estate while missing a great deal of importance in his life. For example, the article makes no mention of an amusing - and telling - fact that, although Johnes was elected eight!!! times to parliament, he never spoke in the House of Commons. The article glosses over his literary contribution without explanation. Sir Walter Scott called his writing ‘over-genteel’...that is worthy of comment. To quote the Oxford DNB, " remains the only man to have undertaken the formidable task of translating Froissart's Chronicles in their entirety, and the appearance of subsequent editions until 1906 testifies to their worth." In other words, Johnes was more than his estate.
I also have a problem with this sentence:"After completing studies at the University of Edinburgh, Mr. Johnes matriculated at Jesus College, Oxford, where he obtained the degree of M.A. on July 8, 1783." The sentence has no inline citation. It also does not jibe with the Oxford DNB. Too me, it is also strange. First, at the time, an Oxford MA was granted to anyone who had a Oxford undergrad degree and made an application, after five or seven years. In other words, it isn't too exciting. But, there is no mention in the Oxford DNB that he went up to Oxford. On the other hand, the undergrad degree, then and now, at Edinburgh is the MA (how confusing is that?). So, I am suspicious of conflation. Anyway, the sentence needs a good reliable source.
All in all, the article is a good effort but I had a more profitable time reading the Oxford DNB than I did the Wikipedia article, sorry to put it so crudely, to understand and to know a bit about the man. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)