Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

(Redirected from Wikipedia:FAC)

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.

Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC):

Featured article review (FAR):

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating

edit
How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.

Commenting, etc

edit
Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
  • For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.


Nominations

edit
Nominator(s): Kawnhr, 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"LEEEEONNNN HELP! HELP ME LEON!" - Ashley Graham

This article is about a character from the Resident Evil game and film series. Outside of the Resident Evil series, this character is recognizable by most video gamers (appearing in Guinness World Records's list). It has been peer reviewed extensively by Aoba47. I would appreciate as much feedback as possible. Regards, 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In January 2023 I took the second of the twin battles which ended the Second English Civil War, battle of Winwick, to FAC; a classic example of Gog doing things the wrong way round. I have finally got round to working on the article about first of these battles and offer it to you here. Royalists supporting Charles I lost the First English Civil War in 1646. In spring 1648 an uncoordinated series of risings and mutinies broke out in England and Wales. The faction in control of the Scottish government opportunistically raised an army and sent it south in support of Charles. A day late and a dollar short this army crossed into England on 8 July and moved sluggishly south. Meanwhile Oliver Cromwell had concentrated what forces he could and although outnumbered more than two to one and having no clear idea of the Scottish dispositions threw his army at the Scottish flank. Historians have described this as "an enormous gamble" and "hardly credible". For what happened next, read on ...

This has recently gone through GAN where Hog Farm, bless them, effectively PRed it. I hope that is now in a fit state for your perusal. I suspect you will let me know if it is not. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from VW

edit

Lead

Background

  • Charles was not successful... Could "unsuccessful" be used here?

War

  • This had been split into garrisons across the country; its commander, Sir Thomas Fairfax, based in London, put down the revolt in Kent on 1 June, then moved into Essex and began an eleven-week siege of Colchester.

Could "Kent" and "Essex" be linked here? Initial suggestions above. Velworth (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): 750h+ and OSX 13:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before I say much i'd like to give a large thanks to OSX (unfortunately inactive since 2016 due to a Commons dispute), who brought this article to featured status in 2007, from which it was demoted in 2020. This article is about the VE Commodore—the first generation of the fourth generation of the Holden Commodore, which is one of the most, if not the most influential automobile produced in Australia. The VE was called Holden's "billion dollar baby" as the company spent over A$1.03 billion developing it.

I recently brought this article to GA status four years after it became a FFA, thanks to a review by Averageuntitleduser for which I am very grateful. The article recently received a copyedit from Dhtwiki, which I am also very grateful. If successful this will be my eighth FA. I was a bit hesitant to bring this article here, but, all and any reviews are appreciated. Enjoy! 750h+ 13:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from VW

edit

Lead

  • Could the references 1 and 2 be moved to the article body?
    • Quotes should be referenced in the lead.
  • Holden introduced the VE body styles in stages, beginning with the sedan in July 2006. Before this, Holden stated they would manufacture two parallel generations of Commodores until the launch of the station wagon and utility. Variants by Holden's performance vehicle partner, Holden Special Vehicles, were released soon after the sedan's debut alongside the long-wheelbase WM Statesman/Caprice models.

Mentioning "Holden" in consecutive sentences throughout the article can be avoided.

    • Fixed.
  • Denny Mooney was appointed chairman of Holden in January 2004. "Chairman" could be delinked here as per MOS:OL.
    • Done.
  • The development of the VE prompted Holden to redesign its facility in Elizabeth, South Australia, which would facilitate the assembly of entire sections of the car off the foremost production line.

Elizabeth, South Australia has already been linked in the same section above. Hence it should be delinked here as per WP:DUPLINK.

    • Done.
  • Why not link the Holden Elizabeth Plant in the first sentence of the same section: Official manufacture of the VE sedan began at Holden's production facility in Elizabeth, South Australia, on 13 July 2006.
    • Done.
  • The method was first used by GM and won the SAE Australasia's 2006 "Automotive Engineering Excellence Award". Can an alternate reference be used to cite this sentence (rather than the PDF cited)?
    • Done
  • Unveiled at the 2007 Australian International Motor Show in Melbourne,... You could de-link "Melbourne" here.
    • Done.
  • The design of the tailgate is compact enough to open in just 268 millimetres (10.6 in) of space, a feature publicised in Sportwagon television commercials. "Television commercials" could be delinked here.
    • Done.

Production

  • In November 2006, Toyota released their key Aurion model to the Australian market.[234] In late 2005 the front-wheel drive Mitsubishi 380 was launched to indirectly compete with the Commodore, but was discontinued with the 2008 closure of the Mitsubishi Motors Australia plant in Tonsley Park, South Australia. Shouldn't 2005 launch by Mitsubishi precede the 2006 launch by Toyota?
    • Done.

A good initial read. Suggestions above. Velworth (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc: all done unless responded to. Thanks, 750h+ 14:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Models
  • Replacing both the Commodore Executive and Acclaim, the Omega was the entry-level option, with basic standard equipment. The second comma could be dropped from this sentence.
Velworth (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MSincccc: done. 750h+ 00:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+ A fine article, indeed. I have no further improvements to suggest to the prose. Velworth (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Alexeyevitch(talk) 23:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of New Zealand's most threatened and rarest trees. Metrosideros bartlettii is known for its unique papery-like bark and small white-coloured flowers. It was discovered in 1975 near Cape Reinga, by New Zealander, John Bartlett. I have fixed almost all of the issues brought up in the GA and PR, one of the most difficult tasks in my opinion was making the ecology section "well-organized"... I asked for help from PrinceTortoise and I'm very satisfied with the comments I've gotten and the end result. I've learned a lot while editing this article... New Zealand plant articles typically have poor coverage on Wikipedia and it has been an honor making a difference here.

I would like to acknowledge the many people who contributed or reviewed the article, including: Cloventt, DoctorWhoFan91, Podzemnik, PrinceTortoise and RoySmith. This is my first FAC, I'm nervous but also excited to seeing how this process works, I look forward to your comments! :-) Alexeyevitch(talk) 23:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

edit

Ooh, botany and New Zealand, how fun! Mark me down for a review in the coming days. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:00, 15 February 2025 (UTC) Some brief initial thoughts:[reply]

  • It might be good to note its NZTCS status - the NZTCS report also makes an estimate for the number of mature individuals.
  • The titles for Pillon et al. (2015), Strongman (2017) and part of Segedin (1994) are in title case, while all other sources are in sentence case - this should be standardized
  • If you use ISSNs, make sure every entry has the ISSN listed. Right now there's some sources where they aren't given
    • This is very nitpicky but newspapers also have ISSNs
  • From what I understand, most of these journals should be indexed by PMC/PMID, right? Since those are a bit difficult to find if its not listed right there, it might be best to just remove the PMC/PMID links so as to standardize the formatting. Ditto with the stray S2CID
  • Inconsistent whether genus names are italicized in the citation titles or not (for instance you italicize on "Fungi on Pohutukawa and other Metrosideros species in New Zealand", but not on "An Expanded Metrosideros (Myrtaceae) to Include Carpolepis and Tepualia Based on Nuclear Genes")
  • Footnote B is uncited.
Done. Alexeyevitch(talk) 05:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support  Comments  from Noleander

edit
  • A bit confusing because consecutive sentences are not in chronological order: In 2021, about 100 Bartlett's rātā individuals were returned to the traditional territories of Ngāti Kurī iwi. In 2020, the ...
  • Can you add some detail: The decline of Bartlett's rātā is attributed to land use changes following human settlement and the introduction of common brushtail possums... ... how are those animals impacting the tree? Do they eat it? I found this in the WP article on northern rata: "The greatest threat to northern rata is browsing by introduced possums (Trichosurus vulpecula), which cause severe damage by eating the leaves, buds, flowers and young shoots of the tree. In severe cases this can lead to the death of the tree within two years. " So if the same applies to Barlettii, that would be useful to have in the article.
  • Although Bartlett's rātā is uncommon in the wild, it is common in cultivation and is found in several private and botanic gardens throughout the country. I would think that there would be an effort to cultivate some outside the country to ensure survival in case of, say, a major forest fire in NZ. Are there any growing outsize NZ at all? Is there any effort in global botanical community to spread some backup copies around the world?
  • Unless immediate conservation measures are taken, Bartlett's rātā has a high chance of becoming extinct ... Should that be Unless immediate conservation measures are taken, Bartlett's rātā has a high chance of becoming extinct in the wild ... [emphasis added] because it is cultivated (according to previous paragraph)? Hmm, the more I read the article, I think what you are trying to say is Unless immediate conservation measures are taken, Bartlett's rātā has a high chance of becoming extinct, despite attempts at cultivating in gardens. In other words: cultivation in gardens may not work to keep the population alive, since a variety of individuals are required to generate offspring. In any case, it looks like additional words may help readers get the fuller picture, which seems dire.
  • Inconsistent pic caption punctuation: Some captions end in period, some do not.
  • I cannot parse this sentence: The leaves of Bartlett's rātā are of similar size and character to those of northern rātā and southern rātā (M. umbelata), respectively. "respectively" means I'm matching A,B,a,b. Does that mean "size" match is only for the northern, and "character" match is only for southern? If so, sentence should be re-worded e.g. The leaves of Bartlett's rātā have a size similar to northern rātā, and a character similar to southern rātā (M. umbelata).. Goal is to make it smooth & easy for readers to take-in information.
  • Infobox Pic caption seems spammy: Bartlett's rātā (centre) observed by botanist Peter de Lange. Honestly, it reads like the caption was written by Peter de Lange :-) Unless the picture was taken by James Cook, Abel Tasman, or the prime minister of New Zealand, I don't thnk the photographer should be named. As a compromise, I suppose the photographer could be identified in a footnote to the caption. As it stands, it is spam, in my opinion.
  • Unnecessarily wordy: Bartlett's rātā is a genetically distinct species and is most closely related to ... should be Bartlett's rātā is most closely related to.. The fact that the species was confused with other species when first discovered is already covered elsewhere; alluding to it here may confuse some readers.
  • The flowers of Bartlett's rātā are frequently observed to be visited by birds and insects... I presume you intend: The flowers of Bartlett's rātā are observed to be frequently visited by birds and insects ... [emphasis added]
  • I do not understand this: In 2021, about 100 Bartlett's rātā individuals were returned to the traditional territories of Ngāti Kurī iwi. First, the article says there are only about a dozen adult trees in the wild; so are these 100 just saplings or seedlings? If so, clarify. Second, what is the significance of "returned to .."? Were they removed from there at some point? Stolen? Did the trees originally grow at that location, and are no longer there? Why did they disappear? etc.
  • That's all I can find. Kind of a sad article, but I'm reminded of the Wollemi Pine in Australia, and the heroic fire-fighting work during a wildfire to protect the handful of remaining individuals. All it takes is a small group of concerned people to keep a species alive. Happy to support the article once the above issues are addressed/resolved. Note that some are optional suggestions. Noleander (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Greetings Noleander! Thank you for taking a look at the article. :-) It's looking better now. I will address your comments under this:
    1. Done
    2. Unfortunately wasn't able to find any other information on possums and their relation to Bartlett's rātā.
    3. Wasn't able to find any info about cultivation outside of NZ.
    4. Done
    5. Done - I added a period to the caption with a complete sentence.
    6. Done
    7. Done
    8. Done
    9. Done
    10. Removed. I was also somewhat confused about that. I assume they were seedlings though the source is a bit vague and doesn't provide more information. Alexeyevitch(talk) 22:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to "Support" (contingent upon Image & Source validation). Great article! Noleander (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Hi Alexeyevitch, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

All images are relevant to the text and placed in appropriate locations. They all have alt texts and captions.

  • The alt-text Bright green leafage and a few clusters of white-coloured flowers of of a cultivated Bartlett's rātā individual., has a duplicate "of".
  • For the caption Bartlett's rātā's white-coloured flowers are observed to be frequently visited by birds and insects., can we simplify this by removing "observed to be"?
  • For the caption The decline of Bartlett's rātā is attributed to the land use changes following human settlement, and the introduction of common brushtail possums., can we shorten it to focus only on the effect of common brushtail possums since this is the only factors depicted?

As a sidenote: the passage Bartlett's rātā's is one of New Zealand's most threatened and rarest trees.[45][46] Its conservation status was assessed by the IUCN Red List in 2013 as "Critically Endangered", and its population trend was assessed as "Decreasing".[1] Its assessment in the New Zealand Threat Classification System was assessed in 2023 as "Nationally Critical".[47] keeps repeating the word "assess". It would sound better with a more varied word choice. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have updated the alt text and captions. I also added the word "evaluated". :-) Alexeyevitch(talk) 10:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the changes. Concerning the historical decline caption, do we need to indicate that this is not the only cause? For example, we could write "The introduction of common brushtail possums is one cause of the historical decline of Bartlett's rātā". Regarding the flower image, my point was not about the expression "frequently" but about the expression "observed to be". Could we write "Bartlett's rātā's white-coloured flowers are frequently visited by birds and insects" or is it important to keep the qualifier "observed to be"? This is a minor point so feel free to keep the formulation as it is. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your suggestions and have implemented them to the captions. Alexeyevitch(talk) 12:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Will do a spot-check later today- might review prose too, but other's seem to have covered most of it, very quickly too. DWF91 (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC), User:Iazyges[reply]

Hey, y'all! Long time no see. I've been absent from FAC for a long time in pursuit of a real-world goal. Now that I've fulfilled my dream, I've decided to come back home. And what better way to get back into the grind than by... well you know me: an article about obscure royalty! Brought to you by myself and Iazyges, whom I had the pleasure of working on this article with at the Military history A-class review. Enjoy. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka

edit

Glad to see your return.

  • I would split section "Life" into two sections (Perhaps "Early life/Before ascension" and "Co-emperor/Rule"), and avoid the title "Life" (since the whole article is dedicated to his life).
  • Link his father when he is first mentioned in the article and introduce him as a Byzantine military commander or something similar.
  • Introduce Romanos Argyros as a Byzantine aristocrat.
  • ...he had married... Name Christopher.
  • Romanos succeeded in having his daughter Helena Lekapene married to... I would rephrase: "Romanos had his daughter...", and also mention what was his position at that time to provide a context.
  • Did Romanos crown himself emperor? I assume he was crowned by the Patriarch.
  • Did Romanos crown his wife and son himself?
  • In 928, his father-in-law Niketas unsuccessfully tried to incite Christopher to depose his father, but was banished. I would rephrase: 1. Niketas tries to incite him 2. He fails. 3. He is banished.
  • Is the link to "more than the Egyptians" useful?
  • Christopher was succeeded by his father and his two brothers, Stephen Lekapenos and Constantine Lekapenos, and Constantine VII They did not succeede him.
  • Romanos died in June 948, Stephen on Easter 963, and Constantine sometime between 946 and 948, while trying to escape. Delete.
  • File:116 - Christopher Lekapenos (Mutinensis - color).png: what is the source of the reference to Constantine VII in the caption? Borsoka (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Hello Unlimitedlead and Iazyges, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

Both images are relevant to the text and placed in appropriate locations. They have alt texts and captions. I didn't spot any issues. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a war involving most Levantine powers which weakened the crusader states in the early 13th century. Borsoka (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LunaEclipse

edit

Spotcheck coming in the following days. Trout me if I don't get to this in 2 weeks. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/it/other neostalkedits) 17:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perry 2013:
    • There's no mention of Leo's excommunication being lifted?
      However, by the end of the year Leo had restored almost all the Templar territory he had taken... In return, the pope granted Leo absolution. (Perry (2013), p. 79.)
    • Bohemond is mentioned nowhere in this source, yet it is used to back up the claim of him being a lawful prince.
      Bohemund came to Acre in autumn 1217...Indeed, in early 1218 John recognised him the rightful prince of Antioch. (Perry (2013), p. 80.)
  • Runciman 1989:

For now, this is a weak oppose. The article has some issues with sourcing that can be addressed in a timely matter. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/it/other neostalkedits) 23:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: ping. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/it/other neostalkedits) 23:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Above, I quoted the texts from the cited book (Perry) verifying the statements from the article. Borsoka (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/it/other neostalkedits) 03:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Hanoverian army officer. Having offered his services to Britain when Hanover was invaded during the Napoleonic Wars in 1803, he spent the next decade commanding a regiment of the King's German Legion. In 1813 he was given command of a KGL brigade fighting in the Peninsular War, serving there until the end of the conflict and conducting a strained relationship with the Duke of Wellington. When Napoleon escaped from his exile Hinuber was prepared to command the division he was at the time leading, but he was superseded. Somewhat understandably frustrated by this, he refused any other commands and missed Waterloo. With the end of the war he joined the reconstituted Hanoverian Army, serving until his death in 1833. A fluent speaker of English and French, he anglicized his name from Eduard Christoph Heinrich von Hinüber. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

edit

Lead

  • Hinuber commanded his brigade at the Battle of Nivelle in 1813 and then at the Siege of Bayonne in the next year,... Could you replace "in the next year" with "in the following year" (indirect speech)?
  • Done
  • London has been linked neither in the lead nor in the first section.
  • Per Epicgenius below, I've found in the past that editors have deemed London not a necessary link

Early life

  • His older brother was... "Elder" is more commonly used when referring to human relationships.
  • Done

MSincccc (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hanoverian army
  • Hinüber was part of a mixed group of 800 Hanoverians that joined with an Anglo-Indian army which on 13 July 1783 attacked the French-held city of Cuddalore. Could this sentence be simplified? It can be improved.
  • Done
  • Hinüber was one of the latter group,... This sentence could be rephrased as:
Hinüber chose/opted for the latter, finally departing in July 1792. It avoids the slightly awkward phrasing of "one of the latter group" and directly states Hinüber's decision.
  • Done
Peninsular War
  • Hinuber had been given command of ... You could use "he" here as "Hinuber" is mentioned in the very previous sentence.
  • Done
Pickersgill-Cunliffe A fine article indeeed. It was an interesting read. Looking forward to your responses to the above. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MSincccc: Hi, thanks for taking the time to review this. I've responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MSincccc (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave some comments in a bit.

Lead:

  • Para 1: "Originally part of the Hanoverian Army, in 1782 he fought in the Second Anglo-Mysore War in India" - This is grammatically correct, but it still feels weird to have "Originally part of the Hanoverian Army" set up as a modifier, as it implies that he was not part of the army when he fought in the war in 1782.
  • Rejigged
  • Para 3: "where he notably led the response to the French counter-attack" - As mentioned below by Tim, this a word to watch, specifically a WP:PEACOCK term. In addition, is the "notable" part referring to his role in the attack being a significant one, or the fact that this is what he's best known for?
  • I've removed it, completely unnecessary
  • The "Personal life" section mentions a wife and five kids, but this isn't mentioned at all in the lead.
  • I don't consider the existence of his family to to be a key point in "a summary of its most important contents", when he is known exclusively for his military career. I won't die on this hill but don't think it is necessary to include it.
  • I only mentioned this because the Personal life section is the only one in the article that is not mentioned at all in the lead. (Technically, the "Early life" section isn't really touched upon either, but at least the birth date is mentioned briefly.) While I agree it's not strictly necessary per MOS:LEADREL, because de Hinuber wasn't known for his personal life, you do summarize all the other level-2 sections in the article, so this omission just jumped out at me. Epicgenius (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In contrast to MSincccc's comment above, I don't think London really needs a link (it's one of the examples mentioned in WP:OVERLINK, actually).
  • Have responded to MSincccc, and yes my understanding is "London" is a well-enough known term to not need a link

At this point, I'm going to wait for MSincccc and Tim riley to complete their respective reviews of the next few sections so as to avoid conflicting comments. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "His father was the German tutor to George II's children." - Like a German-language tutor, or just a tutor who was German?
  • Source says "His father was the German tutor of the children...", so I can't confirm this - possibly both, I suppose?!
  • "at which point he was sent to live with his uncle in Hanover so that he could receive a German education" - Similarly, is this a "German-language" education?
  • Similar to the above, the source doesn't provide any more detail. I think it means a culturally German education, but can't add anything to the text
Home service:
  • "Hinüber joined the Hanoverian Army as a cadet in the Hanoverian Foot Guards in April 1781. He was subsequently commissioned as an ensign in the 15th Infantry Regiment on 1 July." - To me, these two sentences feel a bit choppy. It's basically structured like "Hinüber did this. Then he did something else the same year", so I'd consider combining these. (Also, you don't need "subsequently" if you do decide to combine them, as July is after April.)
  • Done
  • "regiment had been formed in May to go to India and reinforce the British Army fighting the American Revolutionary War and Second Anglo-Mysore War" - This may need a few words or a comma for clarity (specifically after "Army"). Was the regiment was fighting in these wars, or was it the army at large?
  • Slightly reworded
India:
  • Para 2: "While in India the regiment was renumbered as the 14th Infantry Regiment and Hinüber was promoted to captain on 6 April 1788.[2][9] In 1789 the seven-year contracts of the Hanoverians began to end," - The juxtaposition of the years at the end of the first sentence, and the beginning of the second sentence, looks unwieldy. Perhaps these can be rephrased so that you don't have what's basically an "In 1788. In 1789" situation.
  • Rejigged
Flanders and defeat:
  • Para 1: "On 29 April the small 1,800-strong garrison escaped a besieging French army of 14,000 men, receiving heavy casualties as it fought through to Roeselare" - I would remove "small", since the sizes of the garrison and the French army are already both mentioned.
  • Done
  • Para 2: "This latter battalion" - Personally I'd say "The latter battalion" (or even just "The latter").
  • Done
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

edit

It seems an odd thing to carp about, but when a word comes up time after time one does begin to notice it, and there are a helluva lot of "with"s in this article. More than fifty, in fact, and though nobody could possibly object to them in "lived with his parents" ... "sent to live with his uncle" etc, they are less welcome in such constructions as "his family was part of the bureaucratic elite, with relatives such as Jobst Anton von Hinüber playing an important part...", where it could be avoided by redrawing on the lines of "his family was part of the bureaucratic elite: relatives such as Jobst Anton von Hinüber played an important part...". Similarly in such phrases as "With George III ruling both Hanover and Britain", "With his regiment having been renumbered", "with the Third Anglo-Mysore War beginning" etc. At one point in the Forming the KGL section you manage in a 50-odd-word stretch to average a "with" every ten words. I recommend a thorough pruning.

Never say I don't have a writing "style"! I've come as close to a decimation as I think I could reasonably manage

Now, to individual comments:

  • "where he notably led the response" – a bit WP:PEA. Notable according to whom?
  • Per Epicgenius response, removed as utterly unnecessary
  • "A quarter of the Hanoverians became casualties, including Hinüber who was wounded in action. They occupied the abandoned French outposts" – "They", presumably being the three-quarters who hadn't been killed or injured, but your prose says it was the dead and wounded who did the occupying.
  • It would have been impressive if they had! Changed
  • "In 1789 the seven year contracts" – needs a hyphen.
  • Done
  • "his regiment were stationed in the Netherlands ... the regiment was seconded" – is "the regiment" singular or plural? You should be consistent here and throughout.
  • Have tried to wipe out as many of these as I could find
  • "Hinüber chose to go by Henry de Hinuber" – perhaps "go by the name of"? I've never seen just "go by Name Surname" anywhere before.
  • Done
  • "with fellow Hanoverian Friedrich von der Decken" – clunky false title. An indefinite article and a comma will remedy that.
  • Done
  • "and as such he championed the recruitment" – not sure what you mean by "as such" here. Do you mean "accordingly" or something like that?
  • Removed as unnecessary
  • "With the siege of Hamelin underway" – Both the OED and Chambers give "under way" as two words, not one.
  • Already removed as a casualty of one of the other FAC edits

Real life summons me. More later. I'm enjoying this article. Tim riley talk 15:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Hi, have responded above and ready for more! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second and concluding batch.
  • I notice a few citations that are not in numerical order. Perhaps this is intentional, but I mention them just in case:
  • stationed around Celle.[9][2][26]
  • was given the British rank of major on 17 November.[34][2]
  • Line Battalion which was officially formed in May.[35][33]
  • to 4 June 1811, when he was promoted in British service.[34][2]
  • transferred to the command of the 2nd Hanoverian Infantry Brigade.[9][2]
  • was withheld any pay or further promotion by seniority.[81][2]
  • based in Frankfurt.[81][2]
  • suffering from mastitis, on 2 December 1833.[81][10][83]
  • the first of which was pre-marital.[9][3]
  • Imperial Austrian Army hussar officer.[9][3]
  • Fixed
  • Other minor quibbles:
  • "Hinüber and his regiment was stationed in the Netherlands" – two nouns but a singular verb.
  • Fixed
  • "Upset by storms in the Bay of Biscay, the French took control of the city " – this reads as though it was the French who were upset by storms. Is that the intended meaning?
  • No, fixed
  • "intended to take pressure off their Austrian allies " – "their" being Britain?
  • Yes
  • "Joachim Murat's attempted invasion of the island" – You mention immediately before that H had remained in the Mediterranean but not specifically that he was still on Sicily: might be as well to replace "invasion of the island" with "invasion of Sicily".
  • Done
  • "The brigade had seventy casualties" – here and elsewhere I as a non-military man (presented with the Queen's Award for Cowardice in 2014) find "casualties" a confusing term. One could, presumably, be a casualty if slightly injured, severely injured, or dead, and though I realise you are confined to what the sources say I think it would be helpful, if possible, to say "x injured and y killed".
  • I have split out one of these statistics into killed/wounded, but the others are not expanded upon by the sources
  • "Hinuber, who received a severe contusion" – this seems a conspicuously posh way of saying "who was badly bruised".
  • I'm following the source in calling it that, didn't want to change it considering the rather particular use of the word
  • "The KGL was kept separate to the other British Army units " – "separate from" might be a more normal usage.
  • Done
  • "to ensure that the newly arrived British units received a backbone" – I am far from expert with hyphens, but I note that earlier we have "newly-formed 1st Battalion" with a hyphen but "newly arrived British units" here, unhyphenated. I think the second form is correct, but don't take my word for it.
  • Made consistent
  • "Ron McGuigan and Robert Burnham note that if Hinuber had stayed with the army" – I'd be a bit cautious with "note" here. It suggests that the statement that follows is an established fact agreed by all, which I'm not sure is true here.
  • Changed to argue
  • "The Militärcomité" – needs to lose the '' and be instead {{lang|de|Militärcomité}}. This is for the benefit of people using screen readers.
  • Done
  • "Bundesmilitärkommission [de]" – the same applies here, though goodness knows how one goes about combining the interlanguage link and the lang template.
  • "but was withheld any pay or further promotion by seniority" – I didn't and don't quite understand what you are saying here. Does it mean that his seniority made him ineligible for pay and promotion or that he was ineligible for pay and for automatic promotion according to seniority?
  • I've removed the seniority mention as it isn't necessary - he wasn't getting a promotion of any type! Promotion for a general would come by seniority, as in you get towards the top of the list of lieutenant-generals as the people above you either die or get promoted, and when you get to the top you get promoted too. He would have gotten to the top of the list and continued to sit there, with those junior to him being promoted over him.
  • "five children, the first of which was pre-marital" – as children are people, perhaps a child is "who" rather than "which", so "first of whom"?
  • Done

That's my lot. This is an excellent article which I have enjoyed reading and reviewing. Tim riley talk 12:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Hi, I've actioned all your points above. I'm glad you enjoyed it; I do worry sometimes that my interests are far too niche for any kind of wider audience! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When writing is as lively and vivid as yours you need have no worry that it won't communicate to an audience that is interested in the topic, which is what we're here for. I am happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. It is well and widely referenced, with a judicious mix of vintage and modern sources, the info-box is marvellously succinct and informative, the illustrations will do very well and are no doubt as good as they can possibly be (a pity of course that there's no picture of Hinuber but I'm sure that's because there isn't one to be had), the narrative is clear and an excellent read, seemingly balanced and comprehensive. Meets all the FA criteria in my view and I'm pleased to sign up to its promotion. I don't recall encountering any previous articles by Pickersgill-Cunliffe but I hope to encounter more. Tim riley talk 16:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to make a correction but you were in fact my very first FAC reviewer, at Charles Richardson (Royal Navy officer) in 2022! I couldn't find any image of Hinuber, or even mention of one existing. There is an image on the internet that claims to be Hinuber, but there was no source for it and the blog it was hosted on has since gone down. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Friendofleonard (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an important Canadian military figure in WW2 - and the only Canadian to command a theatre of war in WW1 or WW2. In an earlier form the article was submitted for FAC and underwent peer review as well as external review by three Canadian military historians. At that time (2023) there were differing views from reviewers as to whether the article was too long and detailed or too brief. The article has since undergone further minor edits and is now resubmitted for consideration by the principal author. Friendofleonard (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Rear_Admiral_Leonard_Murray_1943.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Midshipmen-royal-naval-college-halifax.jpg, File:Commodore_Leonard_Murray_c_1942.jpg, File:Murray_and_Muselier_c_1942.jpg, File:Rear_Admiral_Murray_in_retirement_c_1965.jpg
  • File:HMS_Iron_Duke_(1912).jpg: source link is dead; when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Murry,_Admiral_L.W..jpg
  • File:Murray_Building_S-15_CFB_Halifax.jpg: where is that licensing coming from?
  • File:Order_of_the_Bath_UK_ribbon.svg is not original enough to warrant copyright protection. Ditto File:UK_King_George_VI_Coronation_Medal_ribbon.svg, File:UK_King_George_V_Silver_Jubilee_Medal_ribbon.svg, File:Legion_Honneur_Commandeur_ribbon.svg, File:Croix_de_guerre_1939-1945_with_palm_France_-_ribbon_bar.svg. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose  Comments  from Noleander

edit
  • Overall, layout & format looks attractive. I like the occasional block-quote ... breaks-up the wall of text.
  • Murray was in the inaugural cohort... Some readers may not know what "cohort" means in this context; not sure what the MOS says about jargon vs layman wording. Consider "... inaugural class".
  • Lead: Following the riot, Murray retired from the ... ambiguous: did the riots cause the retirement? or simply a coincidence? Should tweak the wording to clarify. I see lower in the body, it is definitely cause-and-efffect, so maybe something like "The consequences of the riot led Murray to retire ... " or similar? The WP article on the riot says "The following year, Murray resigned in protest of the Board of Inquiry's findings."
  • For the good of the service, I went into voluntary exile.... Murray left Canada for the United Kingdom in September 1945 ... This raises a lot of questions in the mind of the reader: (1) Why did he feel a need to exile himself; was it shame over the riots/retirement fiasco? (2) Why did he go to another country? Why not stay in North America? (3) Why did he pick UK? Did he have family there? Did his spouse have family? Or he simply enjoyed UK?
  • Following up on the above: Although clearly feeling that Canada had abandoned him following the Halifax Riot, ... I think that sentiment needs to be duplicated in the "moved to UK" part of the article. Tho, it still remains fishy that he moved across the Atlantic just because of an early retirement. Did he not have siblings, children, grandchildren in Canada?
  • POV? Admiral Murray was controversially blamed ... Does the Redman source say he was unfairly singled-out? If not, I'd remove or reword "controversially". I see that the WP article on the riot has: "... it is generally accepted that the underlying causes were a combination of bureaucratic confusion, insufficient policing, ...". I'm not saying he was responsible or not, but the WP articles seem indicate that he was heavily responsible. Of course, if the source Redman, Stanley R., pp. 10, 37, 167 supports "controversially" then it is fine as-is.
  • Clarify for readers that are not familiar with the two Frances in WW II: This was interpreted as a territorial claim on behalf of General Charles de Gaulle, thereby creating a diplomatic incident between France, Canada and the United States. De Gaulle's seizure of the archipelago was over the opposition of Canada, United Kingdom, and United States, which were concerned about pushing the Vichy government into an openly pro-German stance... Might be better for readers if you specified _which_ France each time France is mentioned. e.g. This was interpreted as a territorial claim on behalf of Free France (under the leadership of DeGaulle), thereby creating a diplomatic incident between Vichy France, Canada and the United States. De Gaulle's seizure of the archipelago was over the opposition of Canada, United Kingdom, and United States, which were concerned about pushing the Vichy government into an openly pro-German stance... I may not have the wording correct, since I'm not a WW II person, but you get my gist.
  • Clarify A personal highlight of this period ... would help readers to specify who it was personal for: Murray? Churchill? I suppose Murray, but why make readers do the work of figuring it out? A personal highlight for Murray in this period ...
  • Source? Murray's moment of singular pride came in this period .... the cite following that quote appears to be a dry list of ships? So "singular pride" seems a bit florid for the editor's voice. Not a show stopper for FA, but if there is a source that talks about how special the event was, maybe include it as a cite.
  • Cite format uniformity: I've heard FA is pretty strict about consistency in cite formats: most simple cites in this article do not end in a period (.), which is okay, but a few do end in periods, e.g. Douglas, p. 184. and Cameron, p. 34. and one or two others.
  • Did he become citizen of UK? He dabbled in British politics, becoming a member of the Conservative Party and ran unsuccessfully as a candidate in municipal council elections in Buxton in 1965. Many readers might conclude he was a UK citizen, since he ran in an election. Dual citizenship?
  • Redundant categories: I see two categories at the bottom: Category:Canadian admirals and Category:Royal Canadian Navy officers. The former is a subcategory of the latter. I believe the WP guideline is that only the subcategory (in this case, Admirnals) should be listed in this article on Murray; otherwise his name appears twice within Category:Royal Canadian Navy officers.
  • Large quote at bottom: Except for the few months at sea in Assiniboine, my.... I've never seen a large quote like that at the end of a biographical article. I just looked thru several recent FA nominations of biographical articles, and I don't see any similar large, standalone quotes. I think the MOS WP:LONGQUOTE is pretty clear that quote boxes are strongly discouraged ("Quote boxes should generally be avoided as they draw attention to the opinion of one source as though Wikipedia endorses it, which may violate the neutral point of view policy") and that large quote functions an awful lot like a quote box, in my opinion (granted, this quote is by the subject of the article, not a "source"). I'm sure many editors would also advise removing the quote, saying "WP is not Wikiquote". I suggest removing it unless (a) there is some precedent for that in FA-quality biographical articles; and (b) there is a strong 2ndary source that uses the quote, and even then you should include the quote within prose, and use the 2ndary source as a cite.
  • I cannot find any more constructive criticisms to make, so I'll wrap it up. Happy to support once the above issues are addressed or resolved. Note that some of them are optional suggestions. (Support contingent on successful image & source checks). Noleander (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @user:Friendofleonard Noleander (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Many many thanks Noleander - very thoughtful comments. I have a family emergency so might be a while getting back to this but rest assured that I will soon. I am also keen to address the image copyright comments. One problem is that the most important images were scans of photos in the Canadian national archives that are without doubt 80 years old (and the Admiral himself has been dead for 44 years). So I need to figure out the copyright status of these very old images taken by Canada's Ministry of Defence. Friendofleonard (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Friendofleonard - Regarding the images: I see in your prior FA nomination of this article Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leonard W. Murray/archive2 there were some issues with the images and you wrote "Fixed pix sizes removed, alt text added, and all the copyrights have been reviewed and cleaned up. Except the medals. All the medal images are from existing wikicommons records that I do not manage." Then a reviewer wrote "If the images are to be used in this article, they do need to be tagged correctly, even if you weren't the original uploader. A bunch of the other images are still missing publication dates."
    That was two years ago. How can there still be some images with missing data now in the third nomination? Are there other (non-image) issues that were raised two years ago that are not yet fixed? Since the article still has not resolved issues that were raised two years, I'm opposing this nomination at this time. Noleander (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the northernmost and most eroded of volcanoes in the Ampato-Hualca Hualca-Sabancaya volcanic chain. It bears both past and current glaciers, which are or were an important source of water for the town of Cabanaconde, which used to venerate the mountain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pickersgill-Cunliffe

edit

Will review shortly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for now. This is a non-expert review and I do not claim to be able to corroborate the more technical aspects of the article! I think the biggest point to make for me is confusion over the chronology of the volcano/mountain. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

edit

As always, I greatly admire your campaign to get all these Andean volcanoes to FA.

  • All images appear to be appropriately licensed, with good alt-text.
  • SFNs are consistently used.
  • There was a couple ref errors, which I fixed - one was missing an HDL, while another had the HDL accidentally formatted onto its page number.
  • The capitalization of chapters, titles, and journal articles is inconsistent. Some works are in title case, others are sentence case - and one, Gelles 1995, is entirely lowercase. I would make at least the English-language works consistent in their capitalization. The Spanish ones appear to be consistently in sentence case as-is.

That's all from me! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got the standardization, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was one more that was off that I fixed - support on the source review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanoguy

edit
Geography and geomorphology
Geology
  • "There are three clusters of shallow seismic activity at Hualca Hualca driven by volcano-tectonic processes". I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying shallow earthquakes occur in three clusters at the volcano?
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That all I have to comment on. With that being said, I've nominated Tseax Cone for FA. Volcanoguy 21:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): —Kusma (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the naturalist on the second voyage of James Cook. He quarrelled with everybody and anybody, spent all of his money on books and was long described as "one of the Admiralty's vast mistakes". He published on entomology, botany, ornithology and mineralogy and translated travel literature. By training, he was a Reformed pastor; I present here the story how he became one of the first people to cross the Antarctic Circle. —Kusma (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Johann_Reinhold_Forster,_engraving_by_Bause_after_Graff.png needs a US tag. Ditto File:Schleuen_-_Joachimsthalische_Gymnasium_1757.jpg, File:Joseph_Banks_West.jpg, File:KarlAbrahamZedlitzDBerger1782.jpg
Thank you for the review. I have added US PD tags (and evidence of publication). We discussed Forsterundsohn a few years ago at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Voyage Round the World/archive1: copies were for sale in Germany per mail order in 1860. —Kusma (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria could you take a look at File:Grab Johann Reinhold Forster.jpg (which I edited and re-uploaded as File:Grab Johann Reinhold Forster (adjusted).jpg). I know in the past I've been dinged on copyright issues for taking photos of these kinds of historic plaques, so I just want to make sure we're not going to run into the same issue here. Perhaps it's OK because Europe has less brain-dead copyright laws than we do in the US? RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The brain-deadedness of the copyright law depends on the country - where specifically is this? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: this is Germany, which has freedom of panorama. I have also added a new image (published in 1768) that you might want to review: File:Johann Reinhold Forster 1768 map of the Volga region.png. —Kusma (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support  Comments  from Noleander

edit
  • Overall, great article. Having a hard time finding things to comment on.
  • Forster died from an aortic aneurysm that he had himself diagnosed as sclerosis of the aorta including a distension at the left ventricle. Ambigous: "distension at the L ventricle" .... was that part of the self-diagnosis? Or part of the reason for death? or both?
    I just removed the self-diagnosis.
  • Better word: .. and was in debt, he turned to Germany .. suggest "returned" instead of "turned". Why make reader guess if he actually went to Germany or not?
    done
  • Clarify: ... six weeks before Cook's work and... What "work" of Cook? Either name the work, or link to it, or spell out "Cooks narrative of the voyage". I gather the work is A Voyage Towards the South Pole, and Round the World : performed in His Majesty's ships the Resolution and Adventure, in the years 1772, 1773, 1774, and 1775 ? It appears that Cook's work was never as famous as George's work? If so, maybe mention that.
    Yes, that one. I will mention it in the later section, not in the lead. Cook's work was also quite famous, but I haven't written the article yet. (See A Voyage Round the World for a contemporary comparative review).
  • Too many books :-) In section Johann_Reinhold_Forster#Return_to_England_and_controversies .... I'm getting confused about the accounts of the voyage: there were three? one by Forster, one by son George; and one by Cook? Plus 4th book "Characteres generum plantarum". Some readers might benefit from a sentence near the top of this section enumerating the works, so they can get them straight in their heads as the article reveals the publication details & conflicts, etc. E.g. The voyage resulted in the publication of three narratives by Forster, George, and Cook. ... or something like that.
    There are even more narratives by others, but Cook's sold best by far, as the Admiralty had paid for engravings. I tried to rearrange and expand things a bit and linked to the main articles about the books (two GAs one FA)
  • Confusing: he publication of A Voyage Round the World had not been successful financially, and by late 1777 Forster was so deeply ... Seems odd that if the son's book did not sell well that would impact finances of the father? How well did father's book sell?
    Well, the father had financed the book. Observations was a scientific book financed by subscriptions, written for scientific fame not for money.
  • Word "surviving" in lead ... they had seven surviving children;... and also in body ...they had seven children who survived childbirth I suppose the sources use the word, no? Still, the word is distracting and doesn't add anything to the article. If some children died when 1 week old or 1 day old would you highlight that fact in the article? Suggest dropping the word unless the sources have something special to say about the non-surviving pregnancies. Not a show-stopper for FA, just my opinion. Maybe just drop it in the lead.
    Dropped in the lead. One child died at birth. I haven't talked about the other children but could do so.
    I'm not suggesting other adding more info about other children. But (see below) if any children have an English WP article, maybe put them in the InfoBox.
  • Split paragraphs? Article has a few beefy paragraphs, including In 1765, Forster obtained leave from ... The paragraphs all look decent, and the size is not a show-stopper for FA, but if there is a convenient way to split the paragraphs, consider doing so. Might help readers navigate articles on small devices.
    Split that one.
  • Debt to Banks: the debt is mentioned 2 or 3 times, e.g.: Only Forster's debt to Banks remained, but he... & After Forster's death, Banks forgave his widow the remaining debt of £250... The debt sounds like a big deal, but I cannot discover where the debt originated, or why. Maybe I'm blind. If not already in the article, should mention the origin of the debt.
    Added one mention of £200 loaned in 1777.
  • Help reader avoid clicks: ... arguments were refuted by Dan Henry Nicolson and Francis Raymond Fosberg Why make user click on those names to determine their authority? Better to insert a word like "historians" or "biographers" or "academics" etc before the names.
    Done.
  • Add a few words: As he had fallen out with many powerful men in England... I know that the "Legacy" section says that Forster was an obnoxious man, but maybe you could add a few words earlier (at the "... fallen out..." sentence ) explaining why he fell out. E..g As his abrasive personality had caused him to fall out with many powerful men in England ...
    • Done?
  • Add a few words: Modern assessment of Forster has resulted in a reassessment of his contributions, .... Well? We want to know: How did the assessment change? Better? worse? Don't leave us hanging!
    • Added a few choice words of modern praise that should answer the question.
  • InfoBox should name the son Georg, yes? |children = [[Georg Forster]]
    • Added, also postnominals and a few more odd bits. I am not good at infobox writing.
  • Conclusion: Great prose; ample citations; decent illustrations; complete coverage. I'll be happy to support once the above items are resolved/addressed (note that some are optional suggestions). Contingent, of course, on passing the image check and source check. Noleander (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the review! I have done some easy bits and will try to get to everything else soon. I am glad you like the article, but no biography of Forster is likely to be complete. As Hoare says in his introduction, "Forster's character was complex enough and his interests catholic enough for any first biography to leave some depths unfathomed." —Kusma (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a couple of minor things above. Noleander (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am still looking for the right words to explain Forster's fight against Sandwich and how his obstinacy and pride together with a lack of his understanding of his status caused his failure in English society. I've been quite busy with IRL work so I'll try to get to this when I have had time to think and consult a few more sources. —Kusma (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Noleander, I think I have responded to all of your comments. Thank you very much again. —Kusma (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Great article! Noleander (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

edit

Lead

  • Could "Tczew" be linked to Tczew?
    That would be a duplink, Dirschau is linked to Tzcew.
  • Could Alexander Dalrymple be introduced in short in the lead?
    done in lead and body.
  • Forster died in 1798 and is buried in Halle. Could "is" be replaced with "was" in this sentence because it’s the correct passive form. The action of being buried happened to Forster, so we use the passive voice here. "Died" is active, but "was buried" is passive.
    The thing is, his grave was never moved, so he is still buried in Halle.

Early life

  • Forster's father was Georg Reinhold Forster, who became mayor of Dirschau in 1733 (the third Forster to become mayor of Dirschau),... Could "the third Foster to become mayor of Dirschau" be replaced with the phrase "the third Foster to do so"?
    Now "the third Forster in this position". Good point not to repeat "mayor of Dirschau".

Marriage and work as pastor

  • Could Kronstadt be linked it in this sentence as it has not been done previously:

The Forsters then traveled by boat from Kronstadt to London, where they arrived on 4 October 1766. MSincccc (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • done.
Translator and scholar in London
  • Instead of an employment opportunity in England, Planta suggested a pastoral vacancy in North Carolina. Could "North Carolina" be linked here aqs it has not been done previously?
    Linked to Province of North Carolina; this is pre-US independence so before modern North Carolina existed.
  • He was introduced to the Society of Antiquaries and elected an Honorary Member in January 1767. Could "honorary member" be used in this sentence?
    no, because (as I just checked) he was elected as "Honorary Fellow". I think these Fellows are uppercase honourifics, but I don't understand that part of the MOS so I will bow to expertise.
MSincccc (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appointment as naturalist for Cook's second voyage
  • Could James Lind be introduced in short here?
    good point, done.
  • In a letter to the Prime Minister, Lord North,... Could "prime minister" be used in this sentence?
    Don't know
Return to England, publications and controversies
  • The first publication was on botany, the book Characteres generum plantarum, which appeared in 1775/76. This sentence could be improved upon as:
The first publication, Characteres generum plantarum, was a book on botany which appeared in 1775/76.
  • I would like to have the botany first. I am probably not telling the story right, but I think Forster really rushed to publish the botanical results as this was where he was most anxious not to be pre-empted by others.
  • Forster was spending lavishly and soon was in financial difficulties. You could use "he" here as "Foster" is mentioned in the very previous sentence.
    I could, yes, but I think I'll expand what I say about the Observations a bit.
Professor in Halle
In March 1780, Forster's paper on penguins was presented by Johann Friedrich Gmelin at the Göttingen Academy of Sciences;...
Indeed it should, done.
  • ...but was at first not successful with the students... Could the phrase "but was initially unsuccessful" be used?
    Reformulated. "success" is perhaps not the best word here anyway.
Death and legacy
  • Geographic features named after Forster include Lake Forster and Mount Forster in Fiordland and Forster's Passage in the South Sandwich Islands. Could South Sandwich Islands be linked here?
    Yes, done.
This rounds off my list of suggestions to improve the article. Kusma It was an interesting read overall. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you MSincccc, I have implemented most of your suggestions. —Kusma (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MSincccc (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

edit

(Early life and education)

  • Johann Reinhold Forster was born on 22 October 1729 in Dirschau, Pomeranian Voivodeship, Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth Maybe shorten this to "in Dirschau, in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth"? A little loss of precision, but more readable (and less WP:SEAOFBLUE) and people can click through for the details if they're interested.
    I like the link to the Pomeranian Voivodeship because that makes it easier to find out that the area came under Prussian control soon after in the First Partition of Poland. When I made my first edit to this article in 2005, there had been a lot of silly nationalist edit wars between German and Polish editors on whether he was from West Prussia (which did not exist at the time). From the experience from back then, I would like to be precise and link to articles that make it easy to get to the actual historical facts.
  • descended from a Yorkshire-born ancestor link Yorkshire.
  • was descended from ... a descendent of the Scottish Forrester family. rephrease to eliminate saying "descendent" again. Or, maybe, "... who in turn was a descendent of ..." works better? Also, are any of George Forrester or Forrester (surname) members of that family? In which case, make connect them somehow?
  • He had emigrated from England Does "he" refer to Johann or to George?
    Tried to clarify the points above. I don't have a proven connection to the family, but Forster claims the coat of arms was three black hunting horns on silver, close enough to some of commons:Category:Forrester arms.
  • his mother was the widow Eva Plaht this makes it sound like she was already a widow when he was born. Is that the intent?
    Yes, clarified.
  • Link Latin school
  • His teachers included Johann Philipp Heinius [de], the school rector, who taught theology, Hebrew, Roman antiquity and philosophy, ... alternate commas and semicolons in this nested list per MOS:SEMICOLON
  • As a compromise, Forster studied theology it's been said that a good compromise is when neither party is happy :-)
  • Possibly to please his father by obtaining a permanent position, Forster, who was ordained in Königsberg in August 1753, accepted the post of ... Might work better as, "Forster was ordained in Königsberg in August 1753 and (possibly to please his father) accepted the post of ..."
  • Hochzeit-Nassenhuben parish are either of these places Stare Osieczno or Mokry Dwór, Pomeranian Voivodeship? If so, link.
    All done, but Hochzeit is Wiślina.

(Marriage and work as pastor)

  • Forster sold the family house in Dirschau soon after Note to self: it's always a good idea to comply with your father's wishes, especially if he's old and ill and has property you might inherit.
  • started to spend ... started to concentrate reword to eliminate the repetition.
    improved
  • Egyptian languages like Coptic perhaps "such as" instead of "like"?
    done
  • which was a usual step "was" -> "which would have been". Also, while "usual" is not wrong, the first time through I mis-read it as "unusual", so maybe eliminate that chance with something like "which would have been the traditional next step"?
    Reworded differently.
  • In 1757, he wrote to the mathematician Leonhard Euler in an attempt to find a position at the new Imperial Moscow University how did a parson in a small town and an interest in Egyptian languages come to even be aware of Euler, let alone ask him for assistance? And what was Euler's association with a university in Moscow?
    This is not as crazy as it sounds. Leonhard Euler lived in St Petersburg 1727–1741 and 1766–1783, so he was very well connected to Russia. The contact between Euler and Forster was mediated by Forster's school friend Friedrich Gabriel Resewitz [de]; from his time at the Joachimsthal Gymnasium he had a few connections that could help with letters of recommendation and introductions.

I'll stop here for now and pick up later, but possibly not today. As is my wont with longish articles, I'll probably take this in small chunks and work my way through it over a few days.

(Russian expedition)

  • Link St Petersburg
    Done
  • I don't think the "Shore of Lake Elton" image adds anything useful to the reader's understanding of the subject, i.e. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE
    Swapped this for Forster's map of the region he travelled to.
  • the favourite of Catherine the Great the favorite something of ...
    In British English, favourite can be a noun for "someone enjoying special favours".
  • colonists were thriving and happy ... supply of willing German colonists reword to eliminate repetition.
    Shortened.
  • Somewhere around here, I'm starting to wonder how Forster is involved in all this stuff. On the surface, he's a minor religious leader in a small town. But he seems to have connections to internationally-renowned mathematicians and world leaders. It needs explaining how this comes to pass. I'm guessing that the Forster family had a lot of money, influence, and power; if that's the case, it should be stated when the family is first mentioned, to properly set the stage.
    The family background is solid middle class, mostly merchants. They seem to have been rich enough to be able to cope with the disability of Forster's father and still send him quite far away to an excellent boarding school and to university. Forster's connections seem to stem from his school friends, and then one friend introduces him to other people which can turn into more friends. He must have been quite interesting to others because of his usually excellent library that nearly bankrupted him a few times in his life. Forster is a rather peculiar person, but the reason for his success is not his family background, but his learning and scholarship. Hoare's biography usually mentions who introduced Forster when he makes a new contact; the "Arrival in England" section shows this for a few of the people important for the story I am telling here. I could add that the Russian story started after some Russian person came to Danzig in search of a pastor for the German congregation at Archangelsk.
  • hundreds of specimens of plants -> "hundreds of plant specimens"
    done.
  • read in several sessions at the Academy of Sciences at -> of
  • You mention various amounts of roubles. Link to Ruble, but also, between currency exchange rates and inflation, I have no clue if 1000 roubles in 1770 is a lot or a little.
    {{inflation|RU}} gives absolutely crazy results. From [1] p. 63 I gather it is a lot, 40 years' wages for a matallurgy worker. But it is very hard to give useful comparisons as the cost of living was also different; if you are lucky you get a number that gives you a mental image that is off by a factor of 5 instead of 100.

(Arrival in England and teaching at Warrington Academy)

  • Planta did not receive Forster as warmly as he had expected is "he" Planta or Forster?
    "the latter".
  • Planta suggested a pastoral vacancy in North Carolina I, as an American, understand that in 1766, North Carolina was a colony of England, but many of our readers may not know that, so it bears a short explanation. If nothing else, link to Province of North Carolina
    Linked
  • naturalist Daniel Solander, a disciple of Linnaeus who also worked at the British Museum was it Solander or Linneaus (or Woide?) who worked at the museum?
    Clarified.
  • Forster sold some items ... and supported by relatives, to England this sentence is confusing
    Split.
  • annual salary of £60 as noted earlier, is that a lot or a little?
    I don't want to use {{inflation}}, which gives £9766, less than minimum wage today. The somewhat more helpful https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/currency-converter says "600 days' wages of a skilled tradesman", which sounds like a lot more than minimum wage. It certainly was not a lot of money for a man with a large family and unhealthy spending habits, which is the reason why Forster got a second job.
  • tutor in modern languages and natural history ... taught French, German, and natural history a bit of repetition there.
    One is the description of his position, the other of what he actually did; not sure how to best improve this.
  • she provided him with access to the family library maybe "... her family library"?
    The library was a shared interest of Anna (you might remember her from your review last year) and her father.

(Translator and scholar in London)

  • zoology and botany link these.
  • Forster also translated ... a Catalogue of the Plants of North America Maybe break this up into two shorter sentences?
  • ncluding scientist and artists scientists (plural)
    All done.

(Appointment as naturalist for Cook's second voyage)

  • On Banks's suggestions and against the objections of Hugh Palliser, the Comptroller of the Navy, significant changes were made to the expedition ship, HMS Resolution, in order to accommodate Banks's large entourage and their equipment This is kind of hard to follow. Maybe shuffle things about a bit:

    On Banks's suggestion, significant changes were made to the expedition ship, HMS Resolution in order to accommodate Banks's large entourage and their equipment.[79] Alterations included an additional deck and a "roundhouse" on top for the captain, as Banks was to occupy the great cabin.[80] This was all done over the objections of Hugh Palliser, the Comptroller of the Navy, who said it made the ship so top-heavy that it was deemed unsafe, and the additions were removed again at Sheerness Dockyard.[81]

  • "For these reasons I hope ... having withdrawn himself from the voyage. I would set this long passage off with {{blockquote}}
  • where the expedition ship, HMS Resolution, arrived on 3 July.[88] You've already explained that the Resolution was "the expedition ship"; no need to do that again here.

(Voyage around the world)

  • The two expedition ships, Resolution and HMS Adventure Previously, you have only talked about the Resolution, now the Adventure appears, unexplained, on the scene. It seems like it needs some sort of introduction and explanation of how it came that there was more than one ship.
  • The first stop was Madeira I'd say "Madeira, Portugal", as many people won't know that.
  • Cape Colony likewise, say where this is.
  • stayed with Christoffel Brand introduce him
  • ship reached 71° 10′ southern latitude a few sentences back, where you talk about the Antarctic Cirle, give the latitude for that, so when the reader gets here, they know if 71-10 is above or below that. Also, was this the most south the ship reached? Or did that happen on the previous crossing?
  • The southern hemisphere winter was spent we already know we're in the southern hemisphere, so I think you can just say "the winter was spent"
  • A map showing the entire route, with major locations/dates noted, would be very useful.

(Return to England, publications and controversies)

  • After their return to England, I'd say "After their return to London", which is both more specific and gives context to the following Percy Street address.
  • He was received by the King in August 1775 and presented some animal specimens to the Queen Do these people have names?
  • An important source of money for Forster was Banks it may be difficult to avoid, but this makes it sound like you're talking about the financial institutions, not the person.

(Professor in Halle)

  • The remaining difficulty was that this is the first difficulty you've mentioned, so unclear what "remaining" referrs to.
  • but he did not pursue the matter at the time Who is "he"?
  • essays on cultivation, husbandry and general technology link husbandry, and maybe some of the other subjects as well.
  • In 1792, French revolutionary troops captured Mainz, where George had obtained the position of university librarian in 1788. The timeline is getting confusing here. This overlapped his appointment at Halle? Also, things are presented in that sentence in reverse order. And, it's unclear what effect the French troops capturing Mainz had on his appointment. Oh, wait, I see. This is about his son. So give the reader a heads up that the subject is changing. Something like, "Meanwhile, his son George had ..."

(Death and legacy)

  • On 9 December 1798, after long suffering from angina, Forster died from an aortic aneurysm. I'd flip this around. First say he died, then follow up with the history of angina. Big idea up front.
  • 8,000 Taler as mentioned earlier (and applicable in many places), I have no clue if 8,000 Taler was a lot or a little. I've never even heard of a Taler before this, and I certainly don't have any clue what a 1798 Taler would be worth today. Maybe instead of scattering conversions all through the text, this could be handled with a consolidated note listing the value of all these currencies?
  • John Elliot had summarised him ... Philip Edwards later described ... Elmer Drew Merrill accused ... John Beaglehole described ... Yeah, we get it, he pissed off a lot of people, but this litany of haters doesn't make for great reading. Is there some way to cut down the verbiage a bit while still getting the main point across?
  • Geographic features named after Forster include ... for what it's worth, List of New Zealand places named by James Cook claims Lake Forster is named after George, not Johann. I'd also change "Fiordland" to "Fiordland, New Zealand

OK, that does it for me. I know this is a lot, but most of these are stylistic nit-picks and more on the order of suggestions than demands. The one thing I will strongly argue for is explaining the values of the various monetary amounts in terms a modern reader would understand. Even if you can't manage to convert them to a numerical value in some 2025 currency, descriptions like "a day's (week, month, year, whatever) wages for a typical merchant" would give the reader some context.

I'm also going to echo Noleander's concern about paragraph length. There's a lot of paragraphs that just seem to go on forever, but I'll leave it to you to figure out which ones could reasonably be split up. Overall, a very nice job.

  • Thank you for this very detailed review with many excellent points! I have started responding / fixing things, but it will take me a while to work through this (with my usual lack of foresight I started this FAC just before my day job got unusually demanding) but I hope it won't be more than a few days. —Kusma (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 05:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a brief time, George B. Crittenden was an example of some of the greatest pathos of the American Civil War. He was the son of John J. Crittenden, who tried to stave off the Civil War as a congressman. When the war came though, George went south and became a major general, while his brother Thomas L. Crittenden stayed north and also became a major general - the highest ranking instance I can think of for brother against brother. George's time in the spotlight did not last long. He had been arrested multiple times while serving in the antebellum US Army for being drunk on duty, but his career was saved by his father's influence. His first Confederate field service ended in a disastrous defeat at the Battle of Mill Springs. Rumors of drunkenness followed, and his fairly incompetent subordinate whose fault part of the mess was had been killed and thus avoided the blame. Arrested for drunkenness again a few months later, and without a powerful father to stave off the consequences, Crittenden spent the rest of the war as an obscure staff officer. A touching story about Crittenden's actions in the Black Bean Episode, which is repeated in many biographical descriptions of Crittenden, is probably false. Hog Farm Talk 05:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • An awful lot of icons - see MOS:ICON
    • Removed. I don't think these are useful, but I'm 100% certain that somebody will add them back later. There's a group of editors who considers these to be necessarily and I'm frankly tired of dealing with this. Hog Farm Talk 06:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:ACW_Western_Theater_September_1861_-_April_1862.png: see MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't know what to do here. We have a map, which has been created by a professional Civil War cartographer whose work has been published in scholarly RS and has been donated to Wikipedia. This is essentially the best possible map we could have for this. And now we can't use this, which will be of great benefit to the vast majority of readers, because it may cause some issues for a minority of readers. I undestand and sympathize with the accessiblity concern, but there's a point where we need to apply some Utilitarianism - removing this image would be like saying that nobody can have a parking spot if there's isn't an ability to have one that is perfectly accessible. Hog Farm Talk 06:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review. I assessed this at GAN to FAC standard, but I imagine I can find another nit or two to pick.

  • "In 1842, he traveled to the Republic of Texas". Optional: 'In 1842, he traveled to the then independent Republic of Texas'?
  • "In 1846, Crittenden rejoined the military for service in the Mexican–American War, and received a brevet promotion for his actions at the Battle of Contreras and the Battle of Churubusco. He had been arrested for drunkenness before his regiment saw service in the war" I assume that the arrest in the second sentence was before the second clause of the first sentence? If so, maybe rejig to put in chronological order? I struggled to wrap my head round just what had happened when here.
  • "Bachelor of Laws". Why the upper-case initial letters?
  • "n 1836, he commanded a company in the Kentucky militia." Perhaps better as 'By 1836, he commanded a company in the Kentucky militia.'?
  • "Crittenden later moved to the Republic of Texas". 1. A date is given for this in the lead. 2. Maybe insert 'then independent'?
    • Have done 2) but I've removed the date from the lead as there's not a specific year mentioned in the lead and Eubank's ambiguous phrasing leaves open the possiblity that this was before 1842. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as the tale is not found in survivor accounts of the incident and that the prisoners were blindfolded". If you have "as the tale, you need 'and as the prisoners ...'
  • "Andrew Jackson provided critical assistance, by writing a letter to Santa Anna". Who might these two people be?
  • "gave Crittenden a bottle of alcohol". An actual bottle of alcohol?
  • In the last paragraph of "United States military service" "Crittenden" is used five times in the initial five sentences, including twice in the first sentence in the space of ten words. There are similar situations elsewhere.
  • "the family's firstborn son." Perhaps this could be mentioned in the first few sentences of the article?
  • "Crittenden decided to attack while his opponents were still separated and sent his troops on a night march to attack Thomas on the morning of January 19." Can we avoid "attack" twice in the sentence?
  • "Crittenden's men were poorly trained and badly armed". Is this a reference to Zollicoffer's force?
  • "had been drinking to some extent before the battle, although the extent of his insobriety". "extent" twice in seven words?
  • "Further allegations of treason and "constant inebriation" spread." The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
    • The source (Woodworth) is quoting a 19th-century source that is not directly named. Woodworth's citations are to pp. 849-850 of this, which does not contain the "constant inebriation" quote, and to pp. 256-257 of this, which does contain the quote in a letter written by J. G. M. Ramsey. So I can attribute this quote to Ramsey, but it's going to be a bit awkward of a citation - unless another editor is digging into Woodworth and his footnotes, it's going to look like I'm just cherry-picking quotes from primary source letters. Gog the Mild - how would you recommend handling this? Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good IAR case. I suggest leaving it as it is.
  • "to command a division,[55] which was known as the 2nd Division of the Army of Central Kentucky." Perhaps 'to command the 2nd Division of the Army of Central Kentucky.'?
  • "he submitted a resignation". 'he submitted his resignation'?
  • "Crittenden did not reach Johnston's army before it surrendered, and was paroled on May 5." This reads as if the army was paroled. Any details on when or where Crittenden surrendered, or who to?
    • Dammit - I've always been able to trick Google Books into giving me all of the pages to view through various ways, but I can't get the relevant page this time. This is a weird case where Prichard 2008 states that he did surrender with Joe Johnston, but Prichard 2010 disagrees and has more information. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If further details on the circumstances of his surrender are out there, they should really be included.
  • "was indicted in the federal court system for treason" Any date?
    • Neither of the Prichard works gives a date. Eubank doesn't mention this and glosses over his whole postwar career in less than a page. Cutrer relegates everything post-resignation into a single paragraph and doesn't give this detail either. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the last two - I can't easily answer these. The library of Wilson's Creek National Battlefield holds a print copy of Prichard 2010. The same library also holds a copy of the relevant volume of William C. Davis (historian)'s The Confederate General which I didn't consider using due to difficulty of access and the fact that Prichard, who wrote two longer and more recent works, used that as a source so I don't expect anything in there that would be preferable to Prichard. I'll reach out to the battlefield tomorrow and see about setting up an appointment to review that page of Prichard and the Davis work some weekend. Hopefully I can get something to work out, I've had mixed luck with getting source excerpts from NPS units before. The last time I went out to Wilson's Creek for something, the volunteer librarian expressed great frustrations with Wikipedia and and seemed to consider the whole project hopeless, so we'll see how things go this time. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, US librarians extend the same goodwill and bonhomie to those who sully their institutions with their physical presence as UK ones then?
Supporting on the understanding that details of his surrender will be included in the article as and when you can access the source. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild - the NPS sent me scans today. The chapter in The Confederate General is two pages long, and devotes a paragraph and a sentence to his post-October 23 1862 resignation life, although it does clarify some points in his earlier career. All I have to work with on this from Prichard 2010 is the following paragraph: The fall of Richmond led Brigadier General John Echols, Breckinridge's successor, to abandon the department and march eastward in an effort to link up with Lee's retreating forces. Upon reaching Christiansburg he learned of Lee's surrender and set out to join General Joseph E. Johnston's Army of Tennessee in North Carolina. Unable to reach the army he once left in disgrace before it surrendered, Crittenden was paroled at Greensboro on May 5, 1865. This paragraph is sourced to pages 91 and 92 of this book and to Crittenden's Compiled Service Records. The book contains two references to "Crittenden" according to gbooks snippet view, one of which is to somebody else and the other of which is on p. 36. From the Gbooks preview, those pages are about Echols' march. The Sifakis source in the further reading devotes a paragraph to Crittenden's whole life and does not mention his parole at all. I know of no other usable secondary sources to work with (the Hafendorfer work about Mill Springs mentioned in Prichard 2010 is an out-of-print self-published book from 25 years ago). As a note - Johnston's surrender occurred on April 26 at Bennett Place near Durhan, North Carolina. Johnston's men were paroled and sent home. Hog Farm Talk 03:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little surprised at the casualness of the secondary sources, but you can't help that. It appears that you have included everything that there is to include. Thanks for updating me. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pickersgill-Cunliffe

edit

Happy to review this. If you could give me a ping when you're finished with Gog's comments I'll have a read through then. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - Would you prefer to wait until after the Wilson's Creek inquiry to conduct your review? I emailed them this morning (USA time). Last time I had to reach out to Wilson's Creek for a source, it took nearly three weeks. The most recent time that I reached out to a different NPS unit they didn't respond. Hog Farm Talk 02:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Just let me know when you're ready. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - I believe all of Gog's comments have been resolved as best as possible. Hog Farm Talk 04:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 21:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the youngest volcanoes in Canada. According to legends of the local Nisga'a people, it caused 2,000 deaths and the destruction of at least three villages. This would make it the deadliest geological disaster in Canada and the second-worst natural disaster in Canadian history by death toll, succeeded only by the 1775 Newfoundland hurricane which caused at least 4,100 fatalities. Tseax Cone has therefore been described as the deadliest volcano in Canada. Volcanoguy 21:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Hurricanehink

edit

Happy to review this, seeing as I have a hurricane FAC of my own! Always love when disasters get compared to tropical cyclones, just sucks for the people affected by them.

  • "A secondary eruptive centre lies just north of Tseax Cone on the opposite side of a lava-dammed lake." - is that lake Melita Lake? Considering the infobox image mentions it, I think you should add that if that's the case
    Done. Volcanoguy 22:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add non-breaking spaces for all numbers connected to their unit. For example, 800 years
    Done (I think). Volcanoguy 23:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Renewed eruptions from the volcano could start wildfires and block local streams with lava flows." - small question here - since the article mentions a previous eruption, I was left to guess it's been dormant for 800 years. But then later on I learned that there were eruptions as recently as the 1700s. So the dormancy and its last eruption should be in the lead.
    Nowhere in the article does it claim that the volcano has been dormant for 800 years. I used "sometime in the last 800 years" in the lead because the oldest radiocarbon date obtained from trees killed by lava from the volcano is 625 ± 70 years, but more recent radiocarbon dating has yielded younger ages. Like the article states, the exact timing of volcanism at Tseax Cone has been a subject of controversy due to there being no direct written accounts. Researchers have speculated over the years whether or not the volcano was active twice or only once so I'm just trying to keep things simple in the lead. Cinder cones like Tseax Cone usually erupt only once so it may not be dormant but rather extinct. Volcanoguy 23:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweaked to "both were formed by volcanic activity sometime in the last 800 years". Volcanoguy 00:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given all of that, then could you go more into the controversy and discrepancy with the age? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a paragraph about that in the introduction. Volcanoguy 16:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aiyansh comes from a Nisga'a word meaning 'leafing early' or 'early leaves' whereas Tseax comes from a Nisga'a word meaning 'new water'. - for more context, it would be nice to explain the importance of Nisaga'a here.
    Maybe if I had the sources. Volcanoguy 00:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just meant, who are the Nisga'a in context of the article. That should be explained somewhere. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the Nisga'a - because of how you linked it earlier, I originally thought you overlinked here, so maybe be clearer how you link Nisga'a twice, clarifying whether it's the people or the language
    Added "people" after "To the Nisga'a", not sure if that solves anything. Volcanoguy 23:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The area has a climate that is somewhat transitional" - I don't get the "somewhat" here. Considering what "transitional" means, I don't think the word is needed, unless there's something I'm missing?
    I'm not sure what to do here; the source uses "somewhat transitional". Volcanoguy 23:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea but you don't need to copy the exact wording unless the "somewhat" is important for context. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "Areal wildlife"? Is that a specific term?
    Clarified. Volcanoguy 23:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the specific note about "peralkaline" over all the other rocks?
    Peralkaline on it's own isn't a rock it's an adjective like mafic and felsic. Volcanoguy 23:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The beginning of the "Petrology" section is confusing, partly because I don't know what that is. Is that the most appropriate section name if you never explain what that is? If it is, could you explain what that is?
    Wikipedia has an article on petrology; maybe give it read. Volcanoguy 23:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But when I read an article, I expect to not have to read other articles just to understand the article for context. You shouldn't use a section title without ever mentioning the word. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe add {{see also}} in the section? I'm not sure what else to use for the section title. Volcanoguy 17:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That still wouldn't be that useful. What I'd love to see is explaining the term and using it in the section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've retitled the section to "Lava composition and distribution". Volcanoguy 18:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering how often you use "metre" and "kilometre", I suggest abbreviating them after their first use
    That's not a requirement is it? I like keeping things consistent. Volcanoguy 23:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Kind of a requirement - see MOS:UNITNAMES. "In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times, but symbols may be used when a unit (especially one with a long name) is used repeatedly." ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So should all of the units be changed to use symbols? Volcanoguy 18:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All but their first usage. For example the first time you use "kilometre", it should be spelled out, then other ones should be abbreviated. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Volcanoguy 19:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All four lava flows contain intact and collapsed lava tubes, as well as lava tree molds.[25][42]" - since the next section goes into more detail on this, it feels like this sentence would work better introducing the second paragraph
    Done. Volcanoguy 23:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This 17,717-hectare (43,780-acre) protected area is noteworthy for being the first provincial park in British Columbia to be managed by both BC Parks and a First Nation, as well as the first provincial park in British Columbia to combine indigenous culture and natural features." - I loved this fact and think it should be in the lead.
    I think that would be more appropriate in the lead of the park article. Volcanoguy 23:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed the read, so it won't take much for my support. Let me know if you have questions about my comments, Volcanoguy. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: I've responded to all of your comments. Volcanoguy 00:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Volcanoguy:, thanks, I replied to your follow ups. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support! Thanks for the fixes. The only thing was including the "somewhat", which I don't think is a big enough issue to withhold my support. Good job on this. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review with caveat

edit

The caveat being that I am here because of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hualca Hualca/archive1.

That's most from me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC) There are some sources linking to Google Books and others who don't despite apparently having them (e.g "An Introduction to the Ecoregions of British Columbia"). I notice that papers sometimes don't have consistent IDs but I figure that this is something bots handle. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Departure– (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a well-observed tornado in Iowa last year that has been important for research, with portable radar units estimating the third highest wind speeds on Earth to be in there while it was striking Greenfield. This was the subject of multiple failed articles but this one, created by Nicholas Krasznavolgyi and also heavily edited by WeatherWriter, was brought past C quality by me, and I'm going to be the one getting this to FAC quality. I know it's been less than one year since this tornado happened, but I think there's more than enough here for a featured-quality article in the coverage this tornado has gotten. Departure– (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review by EF5

edit

I'll be doing a general review of this (with focus on the "tornado summary" section) shortly, as promised on my talk page. :) EF5 18:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References:

  • [1] - Shouldn't this be "Event Report: EF4 Tornado" per generally accepted naming conventions?
  • [2] - Same as above, but EF3 instead.
  • [13] - CNN needs linked
  • [14] - The Des Moines Register needs linked.
  • [20] - This is a blog. Do we know if Katie Pflaumer is a subject expert?
  • [21] - Link is broken.
  • [22] - I know Groenemeijer has a PhD in physics, but do we have any better source than Twitter?
  • [23] - Ethan Moriarty only has a BS in meteorology, so I wouldn't consider him a subject expert. Is there any better source than YouTube?
  • [25] - The Des Moines Register needs linked.
  • [26] - Remove the "• Iowa Capital Dispatch" from the title and link Iowa Capital Dispatch.
  • [27] - "www.kwqc.com" needs changed to KWQC.

Will do a general spotcheck shortly. EF5 19:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1: I don't know. The Storm Events Database doesn't have a standardized style. This isn't the one I usually use either.
  • 2: See above.
  • 13: Will do.
  • 14: Will do.
  • 20: I asked at RSN and they said that this is likely reliable for the purposes of this article.
  • 21: Will check.
  • 22: A self-published source by a subject-matter expert? I don't see why not. This is the best way to link it to IF5 intensity.
  • 23: This was brought up before and I'm pretty torn about its inclusion. I'll see what other reviewers think.
  • 25: Will link.
  • 26: Will do.
  • 27: Will do.
Departure– (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's the tornado summary review:

  • Although not a policy, you should try to avoid using "would" per WP:WOULD. This is more of a recommendation. EF5 16:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "power poles, and farm buildings" needs to be changed to "power poles and farm buildings". EF5 16:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Northeast of there on 310th Street, a nailed down cinderblock foundation home and an outbuilding were obliterated and swept away; vehicles inside the garage of the home were damaged, but not tossed, while debris from the structures and vehicles within it were left straddling along the sides of the foundation." This sentence is far too long, I'd suggest splitting it. EF5 16:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything past this point in the summary wasn't edited by me. Thanks for your suggestions. Departure– (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the tornado passed over Nodaway Park Ponds and destroyed two outbuildings and inflicted severe roof damage to a home at EF2 intensity" Suggest rewording to "the tornado passed over Nodaway Park Ponds, destroying two outbuildings and inflicting severe roof damage to a home at EF2 intensity". EF5 16:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an intense high-end EF3 strength" Change to "high-end EF3 strength", the "an" isn't needed and the "intense" is already covered by the "EF3". EF5 16:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and snap large trees" Change to "and snapping large trees". EF5 16:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got, ping me when done. Note that I have an open FAC, feel free to review. :) EF5 16:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5: All done. Thanks for your review! Departure– (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on "tornado summary" prose and ref formatting (spotcheck still needs done, though). EF5 16:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Image review

edit
  • Synopsis image is missing alt text
  • The maps would benefit from being scaled up
  • File:Reed_Timmer's_drone_footage_of_an_EF4_tornado_near_Greenfield,_Iowa.png needs a more expansive FUR
  • Alt added.
  • As it stands, I don't think I can expand the map's resolution using my current set-up. The one I made in the Aftermath section is also the only one that may be viable to upscale.
  • Noted, will do soon.
  • I believe @Wildfireupdateman contacted the DOW facility / FARM team directly for that graphic. The image might also be somewhere on Twitter. Departure– (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. Per Wurman:
    "I just shared a powerpoint presentation which I gave at the recent AMS SLS conference.
    Explicit link is: **Link**
    I should have the raw separated images and loops too, or you can probably extract them from the large Powerpoint."
    Presentation was given by Joshua Wurman at the 31st Severe Local Storms Conference on October 21st in Virginia Beach.
    Event details: https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/assets/File/31SLS%20Printed%20Program%20Final.pdf
    I believe all DOWs are part of the FARM facility (http://www.farmfacility.org/) run by Joshua Wurman and Karen Kosiba.
    The radar data itself was (of course) gathered on the day of the Greenfield tornado (5/21).
    I believe this specific image is not found anywhere on Twitter.
    Radar data is generally PD per 909.3(B) on https://copyright.gov/comp3/chap900/ch900-visual-art.pdf (I asked a Commons admin to confirm, and he said "now with DOW not being pre-positioned you do have an argument for copyrightability from that direction but I don't think it's a particularly good one, unless there's some sort of human creativity evident, either in how the radar is being operated or how the data is being processed")

Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Discussion to do with an image that is unrelated to a review.
  • Also, while you're here, I wanted to ask you something. Which DOW unit was in Greenfield proper during the tornado's passage? It is known that DOW7 was a few hundred yards out of town, but the one operated by Kosiba and mentioned in the AMS blog has been referred to as both the rapid-refresh DOW8 and the standard DOW6 in reliable sources. Could you ask for a quick verification or find something concrete to back all of this up? How much does Wurman's word mean, and would a tweet from him or Kosiba be enough to resolve this potential factual error? Departure– (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm at school right now and can't access the slideshow at the moment. It's probably on there somewhere. I've DMed Maiana(the person who took the DOW8 photo that you were asking about yesterday) on Linkedin. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maiana says it was DOW6. However, I believe it is not needed to label the DOWs according to their numbers.Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Odd. So the blog says it was DOW8, but the FARM site and Maiana now say it was DOW6? Yeah, I'm going to mark the image with cautious ambiguity. If I'm not mistaken (and this is my own synthesis), DOW8 was near the hospital, DOW7 was a few hundred meters out of town, and DOW6 was active, and was a few miles south-southeast of Greenfield. I know this because the DOW6 velocity image could not have been produced by a radar in Greenfield, assuming a north-is-up viewpoint and given the timestamp the radar image was taken. The dividing line between incoming and outgoing velocities in a tornado vortex signature must always be, by definition, radial towards the site of observation, or DOW unit in this case. What a mess. I bet we'll get more detail on May 21 this year, once (hopefully) this FAC is wrapped up. The map will read as "DOW vehicle operated by Kosiba" once I get a chance to edit it. Departure– (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my, in my search of finding where DOW6 was, I stumbled upon a 75-minute long source by the AMS (hey, that's the same amount of time WoFS gave of advanced warning in this same event! How coincidental). I think this might just be the presentation Wurman took the image from. This is one hell of a reference I'm going to dissect to death when I have some time. Departure– (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can confirm: around the 19 minute mark, a graphic showing both DOW6 and DOW8 appears. The second star near the Adair hospital is a pod? Likely the same observation pod from the AMS blog source. Also, turns out Greenfield had satellites just like Greensburg! All information to be added once I have the time to fully absorb the information in this source. Departure– (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it possible that DOW7 and DOW8 were at the same spot? Since the image I uploaded comes from DOW7 and it looks to be at the same location as DOW8 in the video image. Also, at around 20 minutes into the video, the arrow points to DOW8 but the radar image says DOW7. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It could be. That is still a bit of undue synthesis. Departure– (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Off topic here but I would suggest adding a sentence about the dissipation of the tornado, as the section name is "Greenfield and dissipation" but there's no mention of the location of dissipation. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it appears to be the slideshow that Wurman sent over. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified the free-use rationale. I hope in its current state it's satisfactory for a featured article. As for the map, specifically the one at the end, I might be able to produce a larger-resolution image later on today. The potential factual error in the image is going to also be fixed (DOW6 will be re-labeled as Kosiba's DOW unit until further concrete clarification). Departure– (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's now safe to label DOW8 as Kosiba's. From Wurman's video, a secondary tornado forms over DOW8, and per the blog, "Kosiba’s DOW vehicle ended up directly in the path of a weaker tornado that was forming as they collected data near Greenfield." Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I believe in the blog where it says "one DOW raced to get about 10mi out" that DOW is the DOW6. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Odd. Where does DOW7 fall in all of this? In File:GREENFIELD DOW.jpg it's clearly displayed as DOW7, which would be the one that I believe recorded the 300+mph measurement. I'll take another look. Departure– (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Per the FARM facility site, an annotated image show DOW6 and DOW7 as assuming a shape like that of a satellite dish, whereas the rapid-scan DOW8 appears as a flat plane. The image in Greenfield I shared with you earlier can't be DOW8. It's DOW7 almost certainly. Maybe the photo was taken from DOW8? That could be a possibility. What is known is that DOW6 observed the tornado from west of Greenfield, and DOW7 observed the storm from east of Greenfield. I'll look more into this. Departure– (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the very top of the FARM site, DOW8 is annotated as "Rapid-DOW (also DOW8)", and it has a green box that none of the other trucks have. I think that green box is the actual DOW8. It would fit with DOW-7 and DOW-8 being at the same location, and the image by Maiana earlier. However, the collage shows that the truck is conspicuously marked DOW8, and I can't tell what the Maiana photo says, because the resolution is far too low.
  • The Maiana photo can't be the Rapid-DOW, but it could still be DOW8.
  • DOW6 recorded the tornado from the WEST of Greenfield.
  • DOW7 recorded the tornado from the EAST of Greenfield.
  • My theory is that DOW8 was the vehicle used, and DOW7 was the radar used. That would explain the green box and the inconsistent labeling between software and everything else.
  • This NBC video on YouTube shows a DOW unit in action, rotating rapidly. I believe "Rapid-DOW" refers to phased-array radar similar to the Advanced Technology Demonstrator, as the traditional DOW is rapid too. The FARM source states scans were taken every 7 seconds. The video also shows the green box, labeled "GBW 15", on the DOW6 vehicle.
What a mess. Departure– (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe DOW6 is west of Greenfield and DOW7 is east of Greenfield, as the radar from DOW6 shows the tornado to the southeast/ESE of itself. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Damn. Yeah, that's what I meant. Departure– (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting into horrifying levels of SYNTH here, best to just leave it as "Kosiba's DOW" or "a DOW vehicle" or things like that. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, I do think much of this needs not be synth. We can label the one in east Greenfield as DOW8 as it's verified by the source. DOW7 recorded the record-breaking wind figure. DOW6 was west of Greenfield. The pod was near the Adair County medical center. Those facts are not synthesis and they can be added to the map. I think most of this was just me wrapping my head around all the semi-conflicting facts. Departure– (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wildfireupdateman: I've uploaded a new version of the file. How does this look?
 
New image with updated annotations. If it doesn't update, purge your browser cache.
Departure– (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 20:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Welcome to my house! Enter freely and of your own will."

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897) is among the most famous pieces of English literature. Work on this article began as a contender for the 2021 Core Cup, coming second, then pushing a little further to GA level. This year I decided to expand further. I am grateful to several editors for their contributions, but especially PR reviewers (DoctorWhoFan91 & LEvalyn) and Aemilius Adolphin, who has been superb at spotting misconceptions about the novel busted by recent scholarship ... And gosh, there are many! I hope you enjoy reading it. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 21:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Vlad_Tepes_002.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US tag.
  • Source link replaced by another editor
  • File:Stoker_Dracula_Notes_Personal.jpg
  • File:Dracamer99.jpg: who is the artist and what is their date of death?
  • Bram Stoker died in April 1912. When Universal Studios tried to create a Dracula film in the 1930s, they realised Stoker messed up the copyright filing and the novel was reclassified as public domain in the United States.
  • Oh. No. Not saying that. I don't know who made it. I've removed it
  • File:Dracula1931BelaLugosiColorCrop.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Dracula1931BelaLugosiColor.png
  • Removed both of these
  • File:Bela_Lugosi_as_Dracula,_anonymous_photograph_from_1931,_Universal_Studios.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • Removed, can't find the original publication via image search

Also, not an image comment, but there are a number of harv errors that should be corrected before a full source review is done. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikkimaria. I'll look at the images today. Regarding the Harv errors: I think you're referring to the error that appears when you do not use a source as a footnote. I don't know how to fix this: the links need to be there because I reference other chapters in the books by different authors. If you could give some advice on how to stop the error, I would appreciate it. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 08:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few others (which I'll highlight in my review), but to get rid of the one's you're referring to, see Thunderball_(novel)#Books and follow the formatting for Lindner and Strong. - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed (I think). Thanks. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 10:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striving for transparency: images are not my strong point and these concerns makes me want to remove the images because I don't really know what to do. I fear that might cause other issues, though. Would appreciate any experienced hands giving me a bit of advice on this bit. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 11:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking: if you look at the copyright tags on the image description pages, you need to make sure (a) the tag conditions are met. For example, this tag on Commons indicates that "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States.", so if there's no US tag that's a problem. And (b) there should be evidence that the tagging is correct. For example, File:Dracamer99.jpg has a tag indicating it's PD because the creator died over 100 years ago, but the artist is not named. Is it known who they are and that they died over 100 years ago? If no, this tag should be replaced. (The work is recent enough that it's very possible the artist did not die over 100 years ago).
Sources link will hopefully be an easy fix - check whether they're available in archival services like the Wayback Machine. If not, are there other links available to verify the tagging?
For missing US tags, the Hirtle chart lists the most common US tags available and when they should be used. You'll see that in most cases the tagging is based on publication date - check your sources to see if they include that information, or include image credits that can help you identify it. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be better now. I've added Alt Text, too. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 17:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Passerby comment
edit

I've updated the licensing on File:Dracamer99.jpg and it should be safe to use & restore to the article. The artist appears to be unknown - previous upload seems to have thought Stoker himself was the artist by claiming a 1912 death date, which seems very unlikely. While the artist is unknown (at the very least, the edition's front matter doesn't attribute an artist), this was a US-first publication, so the artist's death date doesn't actually matter anyway - the British edition lacked this cover art. SnowFire (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the case of an 1899 publication in the US first like this edition of Dracula - we're safe. It's pure public domain, hence the tag. And yes, it applies to both cover art and the text.
  • The problematic case would be something like... it turns out that this cover art was actually published in a British magazine in 1898. The US publisher got permission from the British artist to reuse their work. Also the artist was like 20 when he made it, and lived to age 100 and only died in 1978. Then we'd have a piece of art that was public domain in the US, but still under copyright in the UK. Even then, we could still use the art, just we'd have to move the image from Commons back to English Wikipedia as it wouldn't be public domain in the source country (required for hosting on Commons, not required on en wiki). The above scenario is purely hypothetical and there's no reason to think it's true for this particular image, though.
  • The other problematic case would be something like... a book published in the US in 1940 didn't have the copyright renewed and fell into public domain. However it reused cover art that'd been previously published in 1936 from a source whose copyright WAS renewed. That would be awkward and would get into de minimis discussions, but probably the result is the hypothetical 1940 work's text being public domain, but not its 1936 cover art. That's definitely not the case here though, with everything safely pre-1930. SnowFire (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some image suggestions

edit

Dracula is a famously "visual" subject, so I think there is room for the article to have some more images included. I took the liberty of doing some searching, and I offer the following ideas (I have checked the licensing for all of these):

  • An image of Henry Irving for the paragraph There is almost unanimous consensus that Dracula was inspired, in part, by Henry Irving.
  • This is a great idea! I've used the first one of Irving. Thank you.
  • Something evocative for the sexuality section, several options: [2] [3] [4] [5] -- though honestly, all the examples seem to be mostly about sexually vulnerable women, rather than sexually aggressive ones, so maybe better to leave them out...
  • A crucifix moment for Religion, superstition and science
  • A a Bela Lugosi Dracula in "Adaptations", before the Christopher Lee image (or maybe this one?)
    • Ah, I see Nikkimaria flagged the first one as having an ambiguous origin, but the second Lugosi image is definitely usable.
I've put the 2nd one in!
  • Maybe too silly, but... I think this guy is cute and a fun illustration of the idea in "Influence" that Dracula is the iconic vampire.

Also available are some book covers from 1901 and 1919. It both surprises and bothers me that most images in Commons are from the films, rather than the books; apparently, that Swedish serialized version was the first illustrated edition, and its illustrations are not exciting. They are collected here, but I couldn't immediately think of good uses for any. If have an idea for one, though, I'd be happy to help with some image editing to make them more visually legible. You've mentioned feeling uncomfortable with images, so I'd be very happy to assist if you like. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), would you kindly review these image changes? — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 16:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stoker_Dracula_Notes_Personal.jpg still needs a US tag
Thank you LEvalyn. Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) Let me know if I can help (or get help) with anything else. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 23:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

To follow in a day or two. - SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting and organisation
These all happily sorted
  • As per the above, there are ways to show chapter use without displaying error messages.
  • Done
  • The following are not used and should be removed: Houston, Mulvey-Roberts (chapter), Showalter, Moretti (chapter)
  • Removed Houston, Mulvey-Roberts, and Showalter. Existed in previous drafts, but the content was rewritten (and sourced to elsewhere). The Moretti chapter is identical to his essay (The Dialectic of Fear); I removed the chapter because the JSTOR link will probably be easier for most people.
  • I'm always a little concerned by 'further reading' sections that contain reliable sources. Why were they not used as sources?
  • Fair question. Depends on the source. In short, though, they're recommendations for further reading because the content slowly became out of scope as the article's size increased. e.g., Demetrakopolous (1977) is an influential article but the referenced material was removed following feedback from another editor. The "Sexuality and gender" subheading was condensed to provide an overview rather than detailed analysis. One day, I hope this reference can be used on a Critical analysis of Dracula page.
  • There are so many sources on Dracula that "why this, not that" has to be a question of source quality and editor curation. You can see some of these discussions on the Talk page re: recent scholarship vs old.
  • Within the Books, the capitalisation goes awry in a few places and should be made consistent
  • Done I fixed 1 but can't find any others. Can you highlight?
  • Should be fixed now
  • Why do some of the references contain quotes and most don't?
  • I couldn't get physical access to the Browning book (or even a PDF) because I purchased an ebook to get the info, so it's in lieu of a page number.
  • (Don't know how this got removed but restored.) I can't find this in Apple's Books app – it uses dynamic page numbers (that change based on font size etc)
  • p -> pp for the following refs: 9, 12, 13, 16, 26, 46, 68, 74, 79, 121, 125, 126, 132, 133, 134, 142, 161, 171, 181, 182, 183, 191, 200
  • Done Should be fixed now!
  • pp. -> p for ref 178
  • Done Thanks, I never actually understood the rule on this until reading your comment.
  • Sommerlad (The Independent) is listed with the websites: why not with the newspapers, as that's what The Independent is?
  • Done
  • You now have two different methods of displaying chapters. There's the way you've done Nystrom (In Browning (2009)) compared to the way you've done Stoker (in Browning (2011)) - These are just examples: there are others too
  • Done. Should be the same across all. To avoid a problem with Davison, I removed a dedicated biblio instance for a chapter within the book; let me know if this was a mistake.
  • Frayling should also be displayed in the same way (in Miller (2005))
  • Done
  • Miller (2005 - chapter) is also shown as a chapter in her larger work, but this is listed under Journal and newspaper articles, which I don't understand
  • Footnote [h] is about this one – originally published as a standalone essay, but later it was reproduced within a book (hence the double). The article was first by 5+ years. Not sure how I should do this
  • If you're using both sources, then keep the article within the journals and pop the book into the Book section. That will allow you to have the chapter indented below the main book entry and to move the Frayling chapter to accompany it. All will then be both in the right section and consistently formatted. - SchroCat (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Killeen: why is "An Edinburgh Companion" not italicised? It looks like part of the journal name
  • Not sure what to do with this one. It's not a journal – it's in a book – but I struggled to get a cheap copy of the book, so elected to use the copy of the chapter posted on JSTOR. It looks like the automatic citation has misunderstood that it was a chapter?
  • I didn't move it (it's already under Books), but I updated the citation template to use Cite book instead of Citation.
  • Needs a bit of a tweak: it now shows " Irish Gothic: An Edinburgh Companion. An Edinburgh Companion. Edinburgh University Press."
  • Fixed!
  • There are some publishers without locations
  • Probably the scariest comment I've seen. Is it absolutely essential that this be done? I really don't want to do this.
  • Done – removed for Books and Newspapers.
  • Contemporary critical reviews: why do some have locations but not all (and none of the modern news sources do either)
  • If I was able to find the review via newspapers.com, I included the page number; if I could not, I provided a critical history of the novel that contains the full text. You can see this discussed in footnote [n].
  • Again, consistency is key and it's odd to have, for example, The Telegraph being on one list with no location but showing London on a second list. - SchroCat (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahhh – I've misread your comment. When you said "location", I thought you meant page number (location of the info). I'll take a look at this tonight.
  • Update: Fixed
  • You have The Telegraph and The Daily Telegraph
  • The honest answer to this is that I don't know how this is done.
  • There's an error message showing on the Herbert reference
  • Fixed
  • Ref 63 (Browning 2011) is broken
  • Broke this when expanding publication; fixed now. Sorry.
  • Hogle and Miller (2001) are both are missing an ISBN or oclc, as is McNally and Florescu (in Further reading)
  • Fixed.
  • Miller, Elizabeth (2005a) is a self-published source
  • A summary of her achievements from her obituary in Locus (magazine): Her non-fiction volumes include A Dracula Handbook (2005), Reflections on Dracula: Ten Essays (1997), Dracula: The Shade and the Shadow (1998), Dracula: Sense & Nonsense (2000), Dracula, a Documentary Volume (2004), and Bram Stoker’s Notes for Dracula (2008, with Robert Eighteen-Bisang). She co-edited The Lost Journal of Bram Stoker (2012, with Dacre Stoker). Miller was the founding editor of the Journal of Dracula Studies. Her books won two Lord Ruthven Awards, and she received a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Dracula Society in 2012.1
  • Quoting from my footnotes: Mathias Clasen describes her as "a tireless debunker of academic Dracula myths".2
  • Another footnote: Dracula: Sense and Nonsense, was said by academic Noel Chevalier to correct "not only leading Dracula scholars, but non-specialists and popular film and television documentaries".3
  • The CBC called her "chief of the Dracula police" (this obit actually made me sad; I emailed her in 2021 and never got a response): Miller, a graduate of Memorial herself, spent 25 years writing about Dracula and his creator, Irish writer Bram Stoker. She wrote or edited seven books on Dracula including Dracula: Sense and Nonsense and The Lost Journal of Bram Stoker. MUN named her professor emerita following her 2005 retirement [...] Over the course of her career, Stoker said Miller became known as the "chief of the Dracula Police," as someone who cared deeply about the character and worked hard to learn the truth about Bram and Dracula's origins, which garnered respect from fans around the world.3
  • There's more detail on her credentials in the CBC interview, but hoping this is sufficient.
Yep, that's all fine. I guessed there wouldn't be, but it has to be highlighted and cleared during the review so its on record if challenged later. - SchroCat (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a few problems with the alphabetical order with the following:
Books
Farson -> Miller -> Giesen
Kord -> Killeen
Miller (2006) -> Punter -> Noll
Stuart -> Auerbach -> Stoker
All fixed. Thank you, and sorry about these...
Journals
Dearden -> Fitts -> Doniger
Fixed.
Contemporary critical reviews
  • Several running out of alpha order here (and the caps need sorting in a couple too)
Writing these out for my own sake...
  • The Academy
  • The Advertiser
  • The Bookseller
  • The Daily Mail
  • The Daily Telegraph
  • The Land of Sunshine
  • Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper
  • Of Literature, Science and Art
  • The Manchester Guardian
  • The New York Tribune
  • Review of Politics, Literature, Theology, and Art
  • Publisher's Circular and Booksellers' Record of British and Foreign Literature (fixed).
  • The San Francisco Wave
  • Saturday Review of PLSA
  • Vanity Fair
I understand your comment on caps, but I don't want to capitalise the "untitled review of Dracula"s; as long as this is consistent, I hope I can be indulged in this – they aren't real titles so capitalising them feels inappropriate
Ah, you're sorting on publication name, rather than article title. That's not clear, which is what makes it look odd. It's unusual, as the main 'Journals and newspapers' is run by author name (which is the first thing that appears in each line). For the untitled pieces, maybe just "Untitled"? - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the contemporary reviews have author names, so I figured it would be up to me how I alphabetised in the next section. I've updated the titles to Dracula :)
  • FN 'p' should have the newspaper names in italics - and should have a properly formatted citation too
  • I've italicised the newspaper name & fixed the citation
  • Ref 47 - a and b - now broken
  • Fixed
  • A few more p -> pp: 62, 83, 136, 153, 172, 211
  • This should be done by a machine why are we doing this in the Year of Our Lord 2025 😭 Is there no script to fix this? (Or even highlight so I can see it)
  • Fixed!
  • Annoyingly not! I tend to use CTRL F to search for the text pp. On my system that highlights them in yellow, which makes the process of going down each column a bit easier, but that's about as good as it gets, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was CTRL+F'ing for "–" to do this, which is how I missed some of those. The range was delineated by - instead. My oversight, really.
  • Why are some of the newspapers linked and others not?
  • Some don't have pages. For the Manchester Guardian, it isn't the same publication as the Guardian (no matter what our redirect says!)
  • Fixed
Coverage and reliability

More to follow - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I've removed the {{done}} template as we're not supposed to use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages (it bloats out, slows up and for some people crashes the loading time of the main FAC page and can lead to errors in the FAC archives. Just using a plain text "Done" is okay. - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]
  • You have in the lead and IB that the novel was published on 26 May 1897, but that's not covered anywhere in the article (the publication details are very scant) and isn't therefore supported by any citations. - SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great catch. This is so obvious that I completely forgot about it. There is uncertainty around the precise publication date, but it is widely believed to be May 26. I will render it in the article as "May 1897". For now, this information is included as a footnote, but I am happy to move it into the actual body of Publication, too, since it is within scope for the section. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 17:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And did it really cost 6 schillings, or was it 6 shillings? If the former, it would be best to explain a little more. - SchroCat (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! Thanks; fixed.
I have expanded Publication slightly, partly by adding content and partly by moving some information from Adaptation.
Expanded some more. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 00:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Daily Mail only barely passes the threshold (per WP:DAILYMAIL), but having the use sit in a quotebox without the context of associated text brings too much attention to what is a rather weak source. I'd suggest merging this within the text as a block quote and ensuring there is sufficient context to justify it.
  • I can see it says Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context. In this context, I think the Daily Mail is completely fine to include because it is a primary source for Dracula's reception in 1897. The source makes no claims other than its response to Stoker's novel. I don't feel strongly on the block quote so have removed it.
  • I have thought about this overnight and would like to re-include the quote:
  • The Daily Mail is a fine source in this historical context.
  • It is a primary source for contemporary reception, directly quoting the paper's view rather than using it to support anything.
  • It provides great flavour for a very dry area of the article, including some Victorian hallmarks (melodrama and misogyny). What do you think, SchroCat? — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs)
  • I think it's fine to bring it back, but not in a quotebox - only if its inline and with appropriate context. You'll be expecting too much from readers if you expect them to be able to pull out the Victorian aspects (the m&m) without it being framed in some sort of context. By that, I mean that if a 19 year old from South Africa (as a random example), reads it, will they understand the cultural and historical nuances you want them too if it's just sitting in a box that highlights it as something special? - SchroCat (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree.
  • It is a direct comparison to the works of Ann Radcliffe, mentioned in detail in paragraph 1.
  • It is too complicated to condense for the prose. It is also sort of funny – again, in a very dry section.
  • It notes that it was written in 1897; I would expect any 19-year-old to recognise that, yeah.
For now, I will restore; if no other reviewers comment on it, I will actively solicit views from other reviewers. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 14:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It notes that it was written in 1897; I would expect any 19-year-old to recognise that: but they wouldn't understand the historic-cultural context you think you show. And that goes for an 18 year old in the US and in the UK too: you're presuming too much pre-existing knowledge for whatever it is you're trying to show.
    The problem with boxes is that they draw the eye to something that people are going to assume is more important than text in the main body. And here you are, proposing that something a highly dubious source of very low repute is given a far more prominent position than things worth including in the body that have background and context that aid their understanding.
    Have a look at MOS:PULLQUOTE (and although this is not a pullquote, it's only a tiny piece of formatting away from that): "This unencyclopedic approach is a form of editorializing, produces out-of-context and undue emphasis, and may lead the reader to conclusions not supported in the material". If this article passes FAC, it will end up on the front page, and at that point people will remove it or dump it into the body. It's far more preferable to use the quote properly with context and background to actually inform the reader of its point, rather than confuse or mislead them. - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What conclusions could the reader draw from this? It is not sourcing an editorial opinion. It is simply a primary source for reception, and a historical document, presented without context because context is not required.
  • If it does on the front page, I think it'll be fine. Since it was added in June 2021, the article has received 4,983,000 views. Readers are too busy posting "Dracula is GAY NOW?" on the Talk page to consider anything like this. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 19:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's your call, but I'm not going to sign off a source review which gives such undue prominence to a source that is all but blacklisted. Others may disagree and sign off on it, but I won't, so it may be best if request another reviewer to complete this. The sources are pretty much in good order now and good luck with the remainder of your nom. - SchroCat (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's disappointing. Fair enough. Thank you sincerely for the time you spent on it.

Highlighting the above to other reviewers. SchroCat and I had a dispute over the permissibility of a 1897 Daily Mail review extract. I feel it is not that different from a photograph (which, in theory, could substitute for it); you can see SchroCat's objection above.

As I understand it, the Daily Mail was deprecated, in part, because of doubt over the reliability of their historical archives. There are 2 high-quality sources in the article that attest to its authenticity; it is supporting material for this content. It is not used to justify an opinion and functions as a historical primary source in a picture-free section. Thank you. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 20:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, it's not necessarily the use of the quote itself, it's having it disconnected from the article by having it in a quote box, rather than as a block quote - and the MoS tends to back this up. The fact it's from such a low-grade source that we're giving higher attention just makes it worse. - SchroCat (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the quote charmingly exemplifies 19thC literary criticism on the Gothic, and is present in a "primary source" capacity which makes the deprecated status of the modern-day Daily Mail largely irrelevant. I think it's nice to 'illustrate' the Gothic comparisons and the reception of the novel as frightening, especially since there are no images. The quote exemplifies several major points about the vibe of the 19thC reviews, and I don't think someone whose eye skipped right to this quote would be misled about the book's reception.
However... as someone who just read a biography of Ann Radcliffe that spent a whole page describing diary entries where she ate completely normal food, because people in the 19thC were obsessed with totally crazy rumours about her like this raw beef thing... I think a different primary-source quote might have less collateral damage. Is there something from The Bookseller, maybe? ImaginesTigers, happy to help look for other options if you like. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks LEvalyn. I'd like to wait for some more views. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 10:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 1897 Daily Mail quote should be kept and in the existing quote box. It is a quintessentially Victorian literary comment that captures the difference in standards between the contemporary critical milieu and our own times today. My immediate reaction upon reading the quote was: "That is an amusing and engaging quote that reminds the reader how much has changed between then and now."
I concur with LEvalyn regarding the irrelevance of the current Daily Mail's deprecated status as this is a primary source literary review from over a hundred years ago. My one difference of opinion is that I don't think most readers will assume that either Ann Radcliffe (whom I adore as an author) or Bram Stoker actually fed on raw beef or any special diet based on that quote. Instead, I think most readers will react with a smile or a chuckle at how much literary criticism has changed in a hundred years. — Flask⚗️(talk) 19:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Flask. I'll keep waiting for more input. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 22:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the quote from the contemporary review in the Daily Mail should be kept in the quote box. The Daily Mail of 1897 was a very different publication from the current one and it is only quoted in order to give readers the flavour of contemporary responses to the novel. It makes the article even more vivid and informative. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from LEvalyn

edit

I am very glad to see this at FAC! It looks like you're already in very good hands with SchroCat for a source review, so I'll focus on general prose/content comments. My thoughts on this version, being more nitpicky than at Peer Review:

  • I know there was a discussion on the talk page about how much to summarize the plot in the lead; I like the more-detailed summary currently in the lead. I would even consider changing attempt to kill him to "hunts and kills him".
  • Done!
  • Stoker's notes do not mention Báthory; he probably found the name Dracula in Whitby's public library while on holiday, selecting it because he thought it meant "devil" in Romanian. I'm not sure why these two facts are connected by a semicolon. I'd actually suggest just deleting "Stoker's notes do not mention Báthory" since the lead already gives the high-level important info that this inspiration is no longer considered credible.
  • Done!
  • Following publication in May 1897 maybe "its" publication?
  • Sure!
  • Harker awakens in bed -- could this be cut from the summary for concision?
  • It can; done.
  • a "bloofer lady" (beautiful lady) -- this bit of dialect also seems like an extraneous detail, unless decoding it is significant to the plot
  • Need to keep this one – added by another editor.
  • The four go to her tomb I'm not sure who "the four" are
  • Fair! Done.
  • Dr. Seward's asylum elsewhere in the summary he is just "Seward", which seems more appropriate
  • Fair, but I think it's useful to higlight that he is a doctor when mentioning he has an asylum.
  • Jonathan Harker and Arthur Holmwood follow Dracula's boat on the river, while Quincey Morris and John Seward parallel them on land. probably also ought to be last name only
  • Done :)
  • After routing the Romani -- two sentences in a row have this "After..." construction; I think you can accomplish some concision as well by cutting this and changing the hunters converge and attack it to "the hunters attack and rout the Romani"
  • Tightened!
  • In context, the clause an obituary for him in The Daily Telegraph, saying could be removed to focus on the content of what Caine wrote.
  • I'd like to keep this as part of the "who, what, when, why".
  • In footnote g, There is a reference to Vámbéry in the text, I'm not fully clear which text "the text" is -- Dracula?
  • Yup! I'll change text to novel.
  • Likewise, McNally suggested in 1983 that -- I think it's been too long since the Vlad inspiration began for "Likewise" to be sufficient as a transition. Maybe something like "As another possible historical inspiration, McNally suggested..."
  • Changed.
  • Praise, rather than a suggestion --it's definitely an improvement to have the provenance of Dracula's notes in a footnote. This whole composition section of wonderfully improved.
  • <3
  • suggesting the reason as last-minute title change this was a bumpy read; I wonder about entirely rearranging the information: "The title may have been changed at the last minute (printer's copy etc). Belford suggests that a title change could account for the "shabby" physical quality of the book." Maybe even say here that it was yellow with a red title and no image...?
  • I really like how paragraph 2 begins, so would prefer not to move this around, but I have rephrased!
  • You certainly fixed that bumpy sentence, but now I feel like this sentence is confusing: The surviving publishing agreement were signed and dated May 25, 1897; Miller suggests they were a formality. -- we don't have the context (yet) that the contract is possibly signed literally the day before the book was published.
  • Fixed!
  • To protect his copyright interest -- specifically his copyright interest in stage adaptations, right? Maybe spell that out.
  • Not clear: Miller casually says stage but Browning says all adaptations. It would technically be OR if I used the relevant legislation to work it out, so I figured the as-is was fine. Let me know what you think.
  • The ambiguity that I want to address is, without a bit more info, it reads like he's protecting his copyright interest in the novel-- which can't be right. Maybe "his copyright interest in adaptations" and leave it unspecified whether that's stage adaptations or all adaptations?
  • Understood now. Should be fixed!
  • critic David Seed writes that has been that "this" has been? or even that "its epistolary structure" has been?
  • Rephrased
  • Critics highlight the structural context within the fashion of 19th-century diaries and travelogues this feels contorted and I'm not sure what it means. Maybe just, epistolary structures were popular in 19thC travelogues and published letter collections? (I actually think epistolary novels had substantially declined in popularity by this point of the 19thC, after having been super popular in the 18thC...)
  • Travelogues remained popular into the 19th century; imperial scouts loved to travel while writing accounts of their time and how much they missed their family.
  • What you've said here makes sense, but the sentence Critics highlight the structural context within the fashion of 19th-century diaries and travelogues still doesn't convey much information to me. Specifically, "the structural context" is not a very informative phrase, and I'm not sure what it means to "highlight it within the fashion". Can you try something more like "Critics note that..." and state whatever fact you have in mind here? Is it that the book matches the style of popular diaries and travelogues?
  • I have looked for some more sourcing on this and come up blank. Portions of the early Harker chapters were essentially lifted from imperial scout journals, as context for you; for this section, though, it usually just a passing mention made by scholars that it was in style at the time. I'll try rephrasing but limited by sourcing here :(
  • More praise rather than suggestions: the "Gothic genre" section is much improved! Good flow and a good high-level summary.
  • <3
  • The citation in note p looks mis-formatted?
  • Sadly not. I have an Apple Books version of this, and have never been able to get a PDF (or the actual book). I'm using the location field to cite locations.
  • That part's fine, when I was looking at the note the problem was that the citation was smashed directly in the note rather than being a footnote--but it's fixed now!
  • coincidentally also published in 1972 cut? seems distracting
  • I've rephrased, but the 1970s are when Dracula's critical reappraisal happens, so I will keep the general sentiment.
  • Something has gone wrong grammatically here: Several mentioned novelist Wilkie Collins and The Woman in White (1859) were especially common
  • My bad; a mistake added yesterday. Fixed.
  • The British magazine Vanity Fair noted that the novel found Dracula's disdain for garlic funny just to be clear, the review said the novel thought it was funny? or the review thought it was funny?
  • Fixed!
  • Jonathan Harker's excitement over the prospect of being penetrated in context I feel like we need to specify, penetrated by what?
  • I think no on this one; the source doesn't say (although it clearly means fangs). The ambiguity and euphemism is part of what the scholar is highlighting. I think having a reader wonder, "penetrated by what?" is a good thing here. They should go engage with the criticism off wiki if they want to know more! (Maybe they, too, are excited to be penetrated.)
  • Praise again: the new "Sexuality and gender" section is a great improvement over the previous, and much more successfully reads as a signposted series of key ideas.
  • <3
  • I still think this sentence suffers by separating the main subject and verb so far: The vampire hunters use many weapons—including Christian practices and symbols (prayer, crucifixes and consecrated hosts), folkloric practices (garlic, staking and decapitation) and contemporary technology (typewriters, phonographs, telegrams, blood transfusions and Winchester rifles)—in their battle against Dracula. Grammatically, the most important information (that they combine Christian, folkloric, and technological tools) is treated as subordinate to the uninformative statement that "vampire hunters use weapons". I really think something like "The vampire hunters' many weapons come from a range of traditions: (list the three)" guides the reader to pay attention to the right pieces of information.
  • I'll work on this today (need a bit more time to review sources).
  • While largely set in England, Stoker was born, pedantic, but grammatically this suggests that Stoker is set in England... "While the novel is largely set..." would fix it.
  • Good catch – fixed!
  • the vampire represents the death of feudalism really it's his defeat that is the death of feudalism, right? because he "is" feudalism?
  • Oddly, no. Dracula's undeath (i.e., his life) is what represents feudalism.
  • Victorian psychiatry ("alienism") is there any helpful wikilink or footnote that could give more explanation of 'alienism'?
  • No :( There really should be. I could red link it.
  • Hmm.. our disambiguation page alienism says the term is just the Victorian word for psychiatry, which suggests you could change the parenthetical aside to "(known as 'alienism')" or cut the parenthetical entirely. The best wikilink option I could find was Psychiatry#Medical specialty which "Victorian psychiatry" could plausibly point to but also isn't necessarily helpful. Your call on how to handle this section, I just think it's too confusing throwing the word "alienism" in parentheses without more of a hint on what it actually means.
  • I've added "known as" to the paranthetical! It's a fair point. I'm not keen to relate alienism to modern psychiatry given how much of it was pseudoscience.
  • Brian Aldiss writes that, if Count Dracula represents the disease itself and Renfield's madness is a symptom of advanced infection -- main verb is missing
  • Should be fixed!
  • a Hungarian silent film that premiered in 1921—this release date has been questioned by some scholars some kind of polish is needed here. A film that likely premiered in 1921, though this date...?
  • Fixed :)
  • Dracula has been adapted a large number of times this whole paragraph might be better placed at the start of the Adaptations section.
  • Moved!
  • rendering all other vampires BS or AS for clarity, I think the footnote about "Before Stoker or After Stoker" need to be in the main text. Since BS can also mean bullshit, it's challenging to get to the right interpretation withouse help.
  • Fixed :)
  • Praise: the bit about public domain licensing in 1930 makes much more sense in "Influence", good job re-homing it.
  • New concern after some of the revisions: Count Dracula's cultural omnipresence is widely reported to have negatively impact academic analyses of the undead. He is "the reference point" to which all other vampires are compared. -- this seems to repeat/continue the Hughes bit at the end of the previous paragraph, and makes for a weird first sentence of the new paragraph. If it were me, I'd consider ending paragraph 2 with "The character of Dracula is "the reference point" to which all other vampires are compared. William Hughes writes critically of the Count's cultural omnipresence, noting that the character of Dracula has "seriously inhibited" discussions of the undead in Gothic fiction." and then start paragraph 3 with "One factor that may have contributed to the novel's enduring status is its early entrance to the public domain. In the 1930s...."

Overall, this is a meticulous and thorough article that effectively summarizes an enormous quantity of material. I am really impressed with how much it has improved since the Peer Review, when it was already very strong! I made a lot of notes above but most are just "for your consideration" ideas. When you've had a chance to think about them, I expect I will be very happy to support. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your time and kind words, LEvalyn. I've implemented most of your suggestions and responded in-line to each. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 09:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the fixes and the comments! I only had a few further follow-up notes, discussed in more detail inline above: publishing agreement, copyright interest, travelogues, alienism, and my new note about the end of the "Influence" section. None of them are dealbreakers, though, so I am happy to support. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Thank you so much LEvalyn. I've responded again to your queries and really appreciate the time you spent. Hope it was an entertaining read! — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 13:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support  Comments  from Noleander

edit
  • Overall, the prose is top-quality, coverage is thorough, the cites look ample, and there and nice illustrations. Great article!
  • Thank you.
  • Lead: An epistolary novel, the narrative is related through letters, diary entries, and newspaper articles. Not sure if the phrase "An epistolary novel" betnefits the reader here in the lead. Putting it in 2nd sentence looks like the editor is showing off. That fancy literature term is better in the body, IMHO....in fact, i see it already is there in the section "Epistolary structure". Just start the lead sentence with "The narrative .."
  • Not the first time someone has said this, so I've made the change but kept the wiki-link to the term.
  • Following publication in May 1897, Dracula was considered a frightening work by positive and negative reviewers. I'm not sure what the point of that sentence is. I think it could be deleted and the two following would suffice (tho some word-smithing to the latter sentences is needed in that case). That "Following ..." sentence is confusing: of course the book was considered frightening by all reviewers. It is a frightening story. As a reader, I had to stop and try to figure out what point you are trying to make; and I never did.
  • This is fair. Rephrased.
  • In a letter to Walt Whitman, Bram Stoker described his own temperament as "secretive to the world", but he nonetheless led a relatively public life. This sentence is a bit confusing: Was Stoker a recluse or not? Is the point that he lied to Whitman? or that he had a complex character? Or is the point that he was introverted, but forced to live in the public eye for the sake of his career? Whatever the point is: clarify it. Also: There is no cite on that sentence.... is that sentence based on a scholarly work? If so: what is the source saying? What is the source's point?
  • His natural temperament was shyness but he led a public life. I believe this is clear from wording, but I am open to changing it; if it confuses you, it is likely to confuse others.
  • That sentence has the quote "secretive to the world" which is a primary source; the editor's job is to present that to the reader in plain language. Maybe something like BSs job as a house manager for theater XYZ involved a large amount of daily interactions with other people; but he was a private man, and presented a bland facade to the public, keeping his inner feelings to himself. Not a show stopper if you leave it alone, I'm just trying to help the reader.
I get where you're coming from. I've asked some friends for an uninformed opinion on this one and there wasn't any confusion about what it meant. Let's keep this one unresolved for now. Bolding to draw some attention to others — would appreciate feedback from other reviewers.
  • If there is no citation on a sentence, the information can be found in the next citation; if info is spread across multiple sentences, I consider it a little tacky to slap a footnote onto every sentence when the information is all on a single page. You can find it in Hopkins (2007)'s Bram Stoker: A Literary Life (p. 4): On the one hand, his role as Acting Manager of Sir Henry Irving’s Lyceum made him one of the most publicly recognisable figures of Victorian London; no evening at the Lyceum was complete without Stoker, in evening dress, greeting the guests at the top of the stairs. On the other, he was intensely private. As Stoker himself wrote to Walt Whitman, whom he greatly admired, ‘I am equal in temper and cool in disposition and have a large amount of self control and am naturally secretive to the world.’
  • I have no problem with a string of 2 or more sentences with a single cite at the end of the string. I only mentioned "no cite" for that sentence as a clumsy way of suggesting that maybe the source (wherever it is found) could provide some illumination leading to clearer wording.
  • Ah, understood!


  • The article says that Stoker wrote a large amount of notes when researching the book; and the article does a good job discussing the notes. Where are the notes now? are they held in some library somewhere? Also: are the notes available in book form or online? And is that source in the article's Bibliography? Apologies if it is there: I searched for it and could not find it.
  • The notes are held by several people rather than just one, including private collectors; to this day, they remain notes that have never been made accessible to scholars. There have been several studies of the notes, but this article draws from most is Miller and Eighteen-Bisang's Bram Stoker's Notes for Dracula: A Facsimile Edition (2008). As far as I know, they have never been published separately from scholarly commentary, but I would be happy to add all studies of the notes as a dedicated subheading under "Further reading".
  • Yeah, if it is not too much work. One of the purposes of any article is to provide links for curious readers to delve deeper. Or you can leave it alone; won't stop me from Supporting for FA.
  • I think it’s a great idea and I'm happy to do it.
  • @Noleander: Hello again. I've added 3 so far (there are more) but some are duplicates (from sources that already appear), causing referencing errors. I am not sure how to fix this—do you know if there's a way to make them into "dummy" sources? Fixed with ref=none suggestion from another editor
  • My first side-note is that I have learned that the Stoker notes are still actually located in the Rosenbach Museum; I will update the article with this information.
  • My second side note is that your support was conditional on image and source review. I think it is important that I notify you that the source reviewer has recused themselves due to a dispute. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 20:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @user:ImaginesTigers If the dispute is related to the box-quote: my 2 cents is that I'm working on an article for FA nomination (may submit it next week, with luck) and I had a box quote, but I removed it prior to submitting to FA, because it is kind of an UNDUE/POV concern. The box really draws the attention of the reader's eyeballs, in a way that is a bit hype/commercial/cheesy. Also, I think the MOS discourages the boxes, and prefers template:blockquote. I have a couple of the latter in my article. I'll leave my "Support" as-is, and let other editors come to consensus on the box quote. Noleander (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thank you. I have a number in mind for what I think would constitute consensus but I don't really think I can be convinced. I don't think it draws the focus away any more than a picture would. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 22:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like none of the Sources has an "author-link" tag. That is not required for FA, but if any of the authors is particularly noteworthy, and has a WP article, it may help curious readers if you gave them a blue link to click on.
  • Help, please. I tried to do this by adding "|author-link=Lizzie Dearden" to bibliography listings but it didn't work. In order of appearance, these individuals could be linked (I may have missed some):
  • I love the "Notes" section ... it is always a good sign when the notes are more interesting that the body :-)
  • We agree on this very much. My discovery of EFN was a very happy day.
  • It seems like many critics/people refer to the book as "Bram Stoker's Dracula". Is that correct? Are there any sources that discuss that name? Not many novels are commonly referred to that way (Mary Shelley's Frankenstein?) Not a big deal, but if any sources talk about that longer name, it may be worth mentioning.
  • As far as I know, no sources discuss this. If academics are analysing a work and its author, they will often include the author's name because it will mean more readers find it at libraries.
  • Should review the "p" vs "pp" for page ranges. I see a mistake at Miller 2005a, p. 26, 124–125. I wish WP folks would automate that p vs pp in their software, but until they do ...
  • SchroCat caught a lot of them early on. I have fixed this and one other I found (from newly added content).
  • Reword sentence: Even within academic discussions, the boundaries between Stoker's novel and the character's adaptation across a range of media have effectively been blurred. I think that is an important point, so try to help readers understand it. I think you are saying something like Adaptations have deviated significantly from the original book, and over time, many people - including academics and critics- mistakenly believe that plot elements from some adaptations are also in the book I may be wrong there, but whatever the point is, maybe you could spell it out more for readers' benefit.
  • (Self-trout) Reviewing the source, I'm not even confident that my paraphrasing is faithfully replicates the meaning of the passage I'm referencing. Hughes writes: {{tq|The glib insistence – common to both academic criticism and the [...] discourse of Gothic writing – that the vampire and Count Dracula have become effectively synonymous has seriously inhibited the debate on the portrayal and signification of the un-dead in Gothic fiction. The eponymous anti-hero of Bram Stoker's 1897 novel has become the reference point to which the characteristics of other vampires are judged to have adhered, or to have departed from. Stoker's vampire has thus ceased to be merely a fictional character. Frequently styled as the epicenter of a cultural industry of which Dracula the noel is but a tangential fragment. Dracula the character is now a preoccupation for writers and critics, a device to be employed not merely in stylistic guise but also as an indicator of cultural implications that have become the commonplaces of a shared discourse.
  • I have implemented the following but welcome feedback:
  • "William Hughes writes that Count Dracula's cultural omnipresence is widely reported to have negatively impact scholarly analyses of the undead. He is "the reference point" to which all other vampires are compared."
  • Reword sentence: Scholars had known about the existence of the Icelandic adaptation since the 1980s because of Stoker's preface, considering it to be genuine until the Swedish translation was rediscovered. Confusing in several ways: (1) "known about the existence"... does that mean the translation was lost? When was it rediscovered? If not lost: remove "know about its existence". (2) what was considered "genuine"? the translation or the preface? (3) When the Swedish version surfaced, they discovered the preface was not written by BS, correct? So what? Why is that important for this article?
  • I completely understand your concerns here. Let me explain:
  • Originally, the Icelandic version was considered authentic.
  • When the Swedish version was rediscovered (it was indeed lost, as mentioned earlier), scholars realised that the Icelandic version wasn't a translation of Dracula: it was a translation of the Swedish version (essentially a literary telephone game.
  • I'll redraft but need more time to review exactly what the sources say to avoid issues.
I have redrafted this. Let me know if it's clearer. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 16:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got some missing text here: Elizabeth Miller writes that .[4] Early Stoker after the word "that".
  • I have absolutely no idea what I meant to write there. The attached footnote is to Bedford, not Stoker. I've removed it but will try to remember...
  • Section title "Reception" ... should that be "Contemporary reception"? Or "Reception at time of publication" ? The title "Reception" by itself, to me, means the opinion of critics and public over all time: from publication to today. But I may be in the minority.
  • I have one previous FA, League of Legends. I use Reception in that article to mean contemporary reception, with a different subheading for later reappraisals. To make this change, I need the suggestion to be repeated by 2+ editors (including yourself). It would feel out of line with our other articles, IMO.
  • I defer to the consensus of other editors re section title for "Reception"... I'm no expert in literary stuff. But the first sentence of the Reception is Modern critics frequently write that Dracula had a mixed critical .... Kinda steers the readers into thinking the section will include modern reception also. Maybe the first sentence should be "When Drac. was published the critics ...". Then a bit later include a discussion of how modern critics perceive the original critics. That leads to another question: Why even mention the modern critics? Shouldn't the editor's voice say "When the novel was published in 189x the reception of critics was mixed [cite modern historian/critic A]. Although some sources suggests that contemporary reception was generally positive [cite modern historian/critic B]. In other words: why emphasize the identity of your sources (viz the modern critics)?
It's a fair question. The answer is that John Edgar Browning is a subject-matter expert on Dracula, and favouring his opinions – over, say, scholars with 1 article on Dracula who write it had mixed reception – makes the article stronger. While all of the sources in this article are high-quality and reliable, some are given more presence than others because they are acclaimed academics on the topic. You will see many critics from this article are winners of the Lord Ruthven Award, a prize for exceptional work on the topic of vampires (or Dracula specifically).
An encyclopaedic view of a topic requires expert third-party sources to shape its presentation. Presenting only the original reception is not encyclopaedic and is more likely to lead in original research.
I may be coming off a little stronger than intended here, but if I am wrong in this, my entire approach to editing is wrong, and the effort would not be worth it. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 16:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine, it is not a big deal. I was under the impression that naming a source (in the body text) - or even referring to the source ("modern critics say ...") - should only be done in rare situations. The ideal is for the body text to be written in the editors voice, re-phrasing what the sources say. So when the Drac article mentions the "modern critics say .." it kinda breaks the spell for the reader. But I defer to your judgement, and retract the suggestion. Noleander (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a section or even a paragraph that summarizes the overall perception/assessment by modern literary academics: what do modern scholars of English Literature write about the book? Of course, the section "Context and interpretation" has a lot of details, many of it clearly taken from literature academics. But where is the overview? How do modern literature academics view the book? How do they rate it relative to other classics? Has it stood up over time? what do they like about it? What don't they like about it? etc. A couple of approaches to fill this void: (a) Add a paragraph of text immed after "Context and interpretation" BEFORE the first subsection "Context and interpretation"; OR (b) add a new subsection under "Context and interpretation" titled "Assessment by modern scholars" or similar.
  • I understand what you're hoping to get out of this. Could I do it? Yes. Would I feel good about it? Probably not. The reason is that academics don't routinely consider "do I like this book" or "how do I feel about it compared to Frankenstein". They situate it within a historical context and explore the period. There is no dedicated topic for "how critics feel about the text", so it would be borderline OR and could never be representative. The article has the below comments, which touch on the topic, but any more than this would make me uncomfortable.
  • Scholars explore the novel within the historical context of the Victorian era and discuss its portrayal of gender, sexuality, race and religion.
  • Since the 1970s, Dracula has been the subject of significant academic interest; the novel has spawned many nonfiction books and articles, and has a dedicated peer-reviewed journal. The novel's complexity has permitted a flexibility of interpretation, with Anca Andriescu Garcia describing interest from scholars of psychoanalysis, postcolonialism, social class and the Gothic genre.
  • Fair enough .. if the sources don't have much, I retract my suggestion.
  • Conclusion: It is a great article, and I foresee no issues with FA approval. I'm happy to support after the above issues are resolved/addressed (pending "pass" on source & image review) Noleander (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander: Replies provided o7 — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 15:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@user:ImaginesTigers See note above re "author-link". Changed to "Support". Great article. Noleander (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the diffs – very helpful. I've added one for all author/editors who should have one. I'm a little tempted to red-link some of them.
Very much appreciated your time and support. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 16:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

edit
  • Certainly. Done.
  • Certainly; done.
    • ...with William Hughes specifically citing the influence of Irving's performance as Shylock in a Lyceum Theatre performance of The Merchant of Venice. "Performance" is unnecessarily repeated here. It could be rephrased as:
    ...with William Hughes specifically citing the influence of Irving's performance as Shylock of The Merchant of Venice at the Lyceum Theatre.
  • Changed! Another reviewer also caught this.
    • Could Ármin Vámbéry be introduced in short here as "the traveller"? It will assist the audience.
  • Given the word's usage as a substitute for Romani people (discussed on this article), I think the word would be a bit confusing. If more information is required, they can always go to his linked page. I'd ask for at least one other person to agree with you on this as a result.
  • Great question. No idea. The footnote isn't even Miller – it's Bedford! I've removed it for now (until I can potentially remember).
    • An edition of the novel released by publisher Penguin Using "the publisher" here would be finer.
  • I have changed this to "An edition of the novel published by Penguin".
  • Certainly. Done!
@MSincccc: Thank you for the feedback! — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 12:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • John Edgar Browning and Caroline Joan S. Picart write that the novel... Wouldn't "note that the novel" be more appropriate in this context despite the present sentence also being grammatically correct?
  • Sure!
  • Browning is introduced in 'Reception' (with some applomb); I have introduced Browning and Picart with a single word ("scholars") and Retamar with "literary critic". Thank you
Influence
  • It was not the first novel to depict vampires, but dominates both popular and scholarly treatments of vampire fiction. Link "vampire fiction" to the article Vampire literature?
  • Makes sense
  • Wendy Doniger described the novel as vampire literature's... "The Indologist Wendy Doniger..." ?
  • I've introduced an alternate, "humanities scholar", that will make more sense to more people.
  • Patrick McGrath notes that many... "The novelist Patrick McGrath..."?
MSincccc (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure!
Context and interpretation
  • Thank you.
  • Done!
MSincccc (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Context and interpretation
  • I have done this, but I have removed the link to parasites that is right beside it. There are a lot of links in that section.
Reception
  • ...such as The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, had more restraint. Could the author's name be mentioned here (i.e. Robert Louis Stevenson)?
I haven't done this for the other novels (e.g., Frankenstein) mentioned in this section, so I will avoid it here, too. It isn't really relevant to the point for this particular case.
@ImaginesTigers This concludes my list of suggestions for the article. I hope you found them constructive. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 05:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MSincccc: They were very helpful. Thank you very much. Are you happy to support the nomination? — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 13:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ImaginesTigers Support. MSincccc (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Aemilius Adolphin

edit

I agree with others that you have substantially improved the article since it achieved GA status. So just a few comments and suggestions:

  • Textual history: Composition
  • There's an apparent contradition here. The first paragraph quotes Bierman saying that the first notes of the novel's early chapters "differs from the final version in only a few details". The final paragraph uses the wikipedia voice to say "Stoker's initial plans for Dracula markedly differ from the final novel." This could probably be fixed by tweaking the wording.
  • I've made some changes to include more detail. I think the point of confusion is between Stoker's earliest dated notes, versus an aggregated report (drawing from many of the notes).
  • Context and interpretation: disease
  • "Stoker's grand-nephew provides evidence that Stoker died from syphilis, suggesting that the infection's slow progress meant Stoker could have contracted it while writing the novel." The theory that Stoker died of syphilis is hotly contested so alternative views should be presented. See: WP:BALANCE. Miller (2006) pp 114-115 states that Leslie Shepherd, Ivan Stoker Dixon, Barbara Belford, William Hughes and others either reject the claim outright or call it highly speculative. An alternative would be to reword the passage to indicate that it is speculation.
  • I don't entirely agree. The context is not provided within a section dedicated to biographical detail and is clearly attributed as a subjective opinion; it is frequently relevant to readings on the novel that discuss syphilis (which are legion). The way he came to this conclusion is also mentioned.
  • I understand the concern, though, so I'll make an update to the footnote.
After reflecting more on this, I believe you are right. I propose the following:
I'll remove the mention of syphilis from the section on disease; I have found some good sources to build up the social degeneration aspect.
I'll move the syphilis statement under the "Author" subheading, as Stoker's grand-nephew suggested that Stoker died for syphilis, but this is widely contested by scholars..
I'll write a detailed footnote detailing Miller, Bedford, Shepard and Hughes' objections. This would keep the article flowing but make sure detailed information is available to those who want it. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 00:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sound like a good approach. I will have another look when you have made the changes. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the changes discussed above but it's just a starting point. I will continue to expand the disease material. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 17:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adaptations
  • I suggest it would be more accurate to call the two versions of Powers of Darkness "foreign language literary adaptations" than translations. They were only loosely based on Dracula. Eighteen-Bisang and Miller (in the source cited) calls them adaptations, not translations.

Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Understood. Done.
Thank you for your time and assistance! — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 13:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments
Your recent edits meet the concerns I raised earlier. However, I have some more comments on the latest iteration of the article which might help your ongoing revisions. I am keen to avoid unnecessary comments on a moving target, so if you could let me know when you have arrived at a version you are satisfied with I would be happy to provide further feedback on that version.
Article is pretty stable now and will only be changed as part of this FAC.
  • Lead. "The book's characters have entered popular culture as archetypal versions of their characters: Count Dracula as the quintessential vampire, and Van Helsing as the most iconic vampire hunter." Have any of the other characters become archetypes? The sentence could also be simplified. I suggest: "[Two of] the book's characters have entered popular culture as archetypes...etc."
I like the current wording for this.
  • Plot. "Soon after Harker awakens, Dracula leaves the castle, abandoning him to the women." This suggests Harker was asleep through all this. More accurate is: "Six weeks later, Dracula leaves the castle, abandoning Harker to the women."
Updated
"Jonathan Harker and his now-wife Mina return and join the campaign against Dracula." "New bride" is better than "now-wife".
Updated
"As the men find Dracula's properties, they discover many earth boxes within. The vampire hunters open each of the boxes and seal wafers of sacramental bread inside them, rendering them useless to Dracula." Better is: "The men discover that Dracula has distributed his boxes of earth around various properties in London."
Updated
"Harker and Holmwood follow Dracula's boat on the river, while Morris and Seward parallel them on land." "Parallel" doesn't work as a verb here. Better is: "Harker and Holmwood pursue Dracula's boat on the river, while Morris and Seward follow them on land."
Updated
"Quincey is mortally wounded in the fight against the Romani. He dies from his wounds, at peace with the knowledge that Mina is saved." Better is: "Quincey is mortally wounded in the fight against the Romani. He dies from his wounds, at peace with the knowledge that Mina is saved."
Updated
  • Composition. You quote Birman twice saying that Dracula was always intended to be epistolary novel, but it was initially set in Styria.
People are allowed to write diary entries and letters in Styria as far as I know
  • Publication. "Early Stoker biographer Barbara Belford noted the novel looked "shabby" because of a last-minute title change." Needs a citation. It appears to have been lost in the revision process.
Updated
"The surviving publishing agreement was signed and dated May 25, 1897; Miller suggests the signing of them one day before the official publication date indicates that they were a formality." The source should be: Peter Biel (2005), "Item 100, Sotheby's catalogue, 10 July 2001" in Miller (ed) (2005) etc. The source states there are two surviving publishing agreements: the handwritten one signed by Stoker on 20 May and the typewritten one signed on 25 May. As agreement is singular, the sentence should be: "The surviving typewritten publishing agreement was signed and dated 25 May 1897. Peter Biel of Sotherby's suggests the signing of this agreement one day before the official publication date indicates that it was only a formality." British dating should be used throughout: eg 25 May 1897, not May 25, 1897.
I haven't made the first change: Miller is fine to cite as an expert here.
I've updated the second
"Stoker organised an informal reading of the novel in the week before publication in the Lyceum Theatre." It wasn’t an informal reading of the novel, it was a reading of Stoker's dramatic adaptation.
Removed the word
"Miller states it could have been published anywhere from late May to June 1897." It isn’t Miller who states this, it is Eighteen-Bisang in Milller (ed) 2005. The citation should be: Eighteen-Bisang, Robert (2005). "The First Dracula". In Miller, Elizabeth (ed.). Dictionary of Literary Biography, Volume 304: Bram Stoker's Dracula, A Documentary Volume. Thompson Gale. p. 258. ISBN 078766841 9.
I've made the change to the prose, but the reference is now broken and I don't have the skillset to fix it.
"An edition of the novel published by Penguin in 1993 was the first to include Dracula's "missing chapter", 'Dracula's Guest'." This is incorrect. The source states that Florescu and McNally's The Essential Dracula (1979) was the first edition to include the story as part of the novel. The source should be cited as Eighteen-Bisang "Other Notable Editions," In Miller (2005 ed) etc. p. 291.
Fixed! Good catch.
The first paragraph of the section over-uses semi-colons. Some of these would be better as full stops, or colons where they: "introduce something that demonstrates, explains, or modifies what has come before." MOS:COLON.
They are fine and modify what came before.
  • Epistolary structure. Better is: "Miller writes that the "collaborative narration" reinforces the idea that Dracula must be defeated by the combined effort of his victims adversaries."
Sure, why not?
  • Sexuality and gender. "Dracula contains no overt homosexual acts, but homosexuality or homoeroticism is a theme discussed by critics." It would be better to make a more general disclaimer at the beginning of this section; viz: "Dracula contains no overt sexual acts, but sexuality and seduction are two of the novel's most frequently discussed themes." The point is that this is a Victorian novel where sex is entirely sublimated, suggested and allegorical. Readers of the article might be surprised to learn that the novel contains descriptions of felatio (it doesn't) and some might even be put off reading the novel if they think it is pornographic.
This isn't supported by the reference, which is about homosexual acts. I could go find a new source, but I think this is a bad use of time: reading the detailed analysis of a novel is not generally what people do to be tempted into reading it.
"Senf notes that Lucy is punished for expressing dissatisfaction with her social position as a woman, destroying the vampire while "reestablishing male supremacy"." The meaning of this sentence is unclear. Should it be: "Senf notes that Lucy is punished for expressing dissatisfaction with her social position as a woman. She becomes a vampire and is destroyed, and male supremacy is thus reestablished."?
It seems like you understood the meaning of it fine, if you were able to rewrite it.
  • Race. "Daniel Renshaw writes that any antisemitism in the text is "semi-subliminal", reflecting the 19th-century conception of Jewish people; he argues more broadly that the novel represents a general suspicion of all foreigners." I think the previous version of this sentence should be restored; viz: "Daniel Renshaw writes that Dracula is not himself Jewish and that any antisemitism in the text is "semi-subliminal" etc. The excised phrase undermines Renshaw's main point: that although Dracula isn't Jewish he is given some characteristics which Victorian England also associated with Jews. Thus he is best seen as as a general symbol of the foreigner. The current wording also strongly suggests that Dracula is explicitly written as a Jewish character and can be compared with "some other cultural depictions of Jews". He isn't: he is a Transylvanian nobleman and his "Jewish" characteristics are inferred by critics.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point. I jiggled it around because it was confusing in its previous form. Added back in the clause about Dracula not being Jewish and added another qualification

I have made some of the changes to the article I recommended above because I think I sometimes expressed myself poorly and you misunderstood what I was getting at. Please have a look at my recent edits to the article. If you still disagree with them we can discuss on the article talk page.

Overall I think the article meets the FA criteria and I am changing from comments to support. I also disclose that I made some minor contributions to the article.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aemilius Adolphin: Sincere thanks for your contributions! I hope you will be a vanguard for this article in future. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 10:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ErnestKrause

edit

I'll try to limit myself to a literary appraisal of the article based on some well known essays written about Dracula during the last few decades.

Comments

  • Regarding the novels place in Edwardian fiction, Nicholas Daly in his essay for Texas Studies in Literature, Summer 1997, states that: "For a novel that enjoys a rather ambivalent relation to the canon, Dracula seems to solicit interpretation, and critics have been generous in obliging... In this respect the critical fate of Dracula resembles that of Frankenstein, a test in which the monster who dominates the action has been seen to embody threats ranging from the emerging working class to language itself. In the pandemonium of interpretive activity around Stoker's novel, Count Dracula has appeared as the embodiment of fears about degeneration, the influx of eastern European Jews into late Victorian England, a subversive female sexuality, reverse colonization, nascent media culture, male penetration, and monopoly capital, among other things." Is this covered in your Dracula nomination article, do you agree with Daly?
I'd say these are covered:
  • fears about degeneration are covered in Disease.
  • the influx of eastern European Jews into late Victorian England is covered in Race.
  • subversive female sexuality is covered in Sexuality and gender.
  • reverse colonization is covered under Race.
  • nascent media culture is covered under Legacy.
  • male penetration (and female) are covered under Sexuality and gender.
  • monopoly capital is mentioned under Political and economic.
  • Although you mention some of the late Nina Auerbach's material in your article you do not mention her book: Auerbach, Nina. (1995) Our Vampires, Ourselves. University of Chicago Press. In the book is her feminist reading of Dracula as in her chapter on "Dracula: A Vampire of Our Own". Do you agree with her reading?
Auerbach's writing is a great resource, but I focused on a summary-style overview instead of providing analyses by all possible reputable writers.
Auerbach's view on the feminist reading of Dracula seems noteworthy; does your library have a copy of this book in order for you to check? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is Jennifer Wicke's study of mass consumption of the novel in its transition to modernist forms associated with the production, consumption and distribution, of literature as she discusses it in her essay "Vampiric Typewriting: Dracula and its Media", published in ELH 59 (1992): 467-493, Johns Hopkins University Press. Is her position defensible that the novel has aspects which move it past convention Edwardian or Victorian themes?
It's out of scope for this article, but would warrant inclusion on a page on Victorian or Edwardian literature.
  • Daniel Pick's essay studies the pre-Freudian reading of the novel from the perspectives of Charcot, Nordau, and Lombroso in his essay titled: "'Terrors of the night': Dracula and 'degeneration' in the late nineteenth century." It appeared in Critical Quarterly 30, Winter 1988. Is the pre-Freudian psychological view of Dracula worth some relevant comment in your article?
It's a fair point, but (through conversation on the Talk) we decided not to include detailed rundowns of the Freudian interpretations. The material is largely covered under the Sexuality and gender section, but introducing Freudian analysis means explaining new terminology while keeping the ground largely the same. The novel's Freudian analysis is mentioned in Dracula#Reception but it is fairly dated now; scholars have moved on. This information would be great for a Critical analysis of Dracula page but would be inappropriate here.
This was about the pre-Freudian reading of the novel; it does not require any development of Freud's model of psychoanalysis. Do you have access to this essay by Daniel Pick? Your add on comment seems to suggest that the Critical analysis of Dracula should not be mentioned on the Dracula article or only summarized very briefly. I'm not sure that all literary analysis falls into the category of Critical analysis though you should let me know how you are drawing the lines between these two forms of analysis. In the absence of your red-linked article, it seems to put some emphasis on covering this topic at some added level in the current Dracula article which you have nominated. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments to start discussion of the literary analysis of the book. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: Thank you for your questions. I've provided in-line replies. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 14:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Part Two

  • It sort of looks like you may not have access to some or most of these sources. Some of them should come up on Google scholar if you give it look there. If you do not have any of the book length studies available to you, then let me know.
  • There is hardly anything in the article other than a single reference to the Marxist reading of this book. Saying more about the Marxist reading concerning race, empire, sexuality and family should be useful to the article. Here is one additional source which might be added to your article: Geoffrey Wall, "'Different from Writing': Dracula in 1897", in 'Literature and History' 10, Spring 1984, pp15-23.
I originally suggested structuring the "Context and interpretation" article by interpretive theory (i.e., as I have done on this draft for Frankenstein. This was opposed by another editor (see Talk) and I proceeded with a themes-based approach. You could add lots of individual essays; I don't think it is necessary.
  • Your summary of the Senf article does not look like a full reading of the text as it is usually consulted in the literature. Senf reads the book as being neutral on the question of good and evil, which is seen from Senf's perspective as lacking in the content of the novel. Dracula the character is seen much in the same perspective as his enemies, with little of moral value to separate them. You do not seem to cover this viewpoint.
As above, I consulted on whether we should include a "good vs evil" theme: the answer was no. I would need a stronger consensus to make these changes given the amount of work it would include.
  • You do mention Phyllis Roth's writings but not her important re-reading of the Oedipal themes being revisited in the Dracula novel. Her main work on these Oedipal aspects appears in the Journal of Narrative Technique, no.3 Fall (1979), pp 160-170. Let me know if you do not have access to this essay since the Oedipal myth connection seems like it would improve your nominated article and be useful.
Structurally, it does not fit within the article as it exists – there is no benefit to adding a single scholar's views on Oedipian aspects from 1979. As before, I do not think it is necessary and I will need much stronger consensus to add this.
  • If you don't have access to some of these sources, then let me know. As I've stated, this is inquiry about the literary aspects of Dracula as they have appeared over the last several decades which have received heightened attention in literary circles.

If your library does not have access to these, then let me know; your overnight edits seem to suggest that you did not have access to the sources I've listed in Part One of my comments above. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: Thanks for your thoughts. This is not about access to sources. I won't be implementing these suggestions as, once again, they aren't necessary for a high-level overview of the topic. If you are interested in doing this, I recommend you create a dedicated page for exhaustive scholarly analysis into Dracula. It isn't this article. Thank you — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 16:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Flask

edit

Very impressive and engaging article about everyone's favorite Transylvanian nobleman. Most of my suggestions focus on sentence flow. Feel free to reject any or all my suggested rephrasings.

Sentence flow

  • Dracula was mostly written in the 1890s. Stoker produced over a hundred pages of notes for the novel... As both the preceding/opening paragraph and this one begin with word Dracula, you could introduce a bit of variation here. Possible rephrasing: "Mostly written in the 1890s, Stoker produced over a hundred pages of notes for the novel..."
Done!
  • Some scholars have suggested that the character of Dracula was inspired by historical figures including the Wallachian prince... Possible rephrasing for flow: "Scholars have suggested various historical figures as the inspiration for Dracula including the Wallachian prince..."
Done!
  • Before Dracula was published, Stoker was already well known in the theatrical world as... To avoid the back-to-back use of "was," perhaps rephrase to: "Before Dracula's publication, Stoker was already well known in the theatrical world as..." or "Before the publication of Dracula, Stoker was already well known..."
Done!
  • Dracula scholar Elizabeth Miller notes that in his childhood Stoker was exposed to supernatural tales and Irish oral history involving premature burials and staked bodies. Possible rephrasing for flow: "Dracula scholar Elizabeth Miller notes that during his childhood Stoker heard supernatural tales and Irish oral history involving..."
Done! This one still doesn't quite feel right to me.
  • ...writing romance and sensation novels, and had published 18 books by his death in 1912... The comma after the word "novels" strikes me as a bit odd given that "and had published 18 books by his death in 1912" can't stand alone as a sentence, but I imagine you are trying to spread out the citations. Possibly rephrase to: "and he had published".
Good catch; you're right about the citation. I added the "he" - thank you.
  • The novel's vampire was always intended to be a Count, even before he was given the name Dracula. Possible rephrasing for flow: "Stoker always intended the novel's vampire to be a count, even before giving him the name of Dracula."
Done :-)
  • It was attended by a small group, primarily theatre staff; Edith Craig played Mina. Possible rephrasing for flow: "A small group, primarily theatre staff, attended the reading, and Edith Craig played Mina."
Done!
  • It was not the first novel to depict vampires, but dominates both popular and scholarly treatments of vampire fiction. Possible rephrasing for flow: "Although not the first novel to depict vampires, the work dominates both popular and scholarly treatments of vampire fiction."
Done!

Miscellaneous

  • ...there is a "widely held view" that the prose is "the excised first chapter of Dracula", which Miller contests. This sentence abruptly ends the Publication section, and the reader wonders why Miller contested this claim.
Done!
  • Using HarvErrors.js, Hogle 2002 has a "CS1 maint: ref duplicates default" message.
I'm not seeing this – it looks okay to me. Can't spot any duplicate sources – let me know if you still see this.
  • Perhaps add ref = none to the last bibliographic entry for "Further reading" and for the "Other" bibliographic entries?
Added!

Overall, excellent article! I enjoyed reading it very much. You did commendable work summarizing the myriad of different critical interpretations of the novel over the past hundred years. Also, the Notes are equally engaging. Great work. — Flask⚗️(talk) 03:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Flask: Thanks for the thoughts, Flask. Great suggestions – all have been made. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 14:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ImaginesTigers Support. Again, laudable work! — Flask⚗️(talk) 21:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Flask: Cheers old sport. — ImaginesTigers (talkcontribs) 21:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Fowler&fowler and Tim riley talk 17:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an outstanding Anglican bishop who might well have become Archbishop of Canterbury but for his relatively early death. Most of the work on the article has been done over quite a long time by Fowler&fowler, who has entrusted me, in his absence abroad, with bringing the text up to FA level, which I hope I have done. Tim riley talk 17:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from MSincccc

edit
  • Among his Merton friends he was dubbed "The Professor", or "P". "Among his friends at Merton..."?
  • The group friendship was intense, like many such in that time. "The group's friendship..."?

Minor comments above. I will provide further suggestions later. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are both fine as they are, me judice. Please don't feel obliged to "provide further suggestions later". Tim riley talk 19:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley Please don’t worry, I won’t trouble you. The article has been a good read so far, and I’d like to go through it in full. I assure you, my comments hereafter will be precise and to the point. MSincccc (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vicar of Embleton
  • During their ten years in Embleton the Creightons—he in his 30s and she, for the most part, in her 20s—between them, wrote fifteen books. Is mentioning "he in his 30s and she, for the most part, in her 20s" necessary here?
I inherited this from the text written by the principal editor, and didn't and don't feel the need to delete it. Tim riley talk 15:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could Sir Edward Grey be introduced in short here? (the statesman Edward Grey...)
I don't see how his occupation is relevant to his generosity in funding the building. Tim riley talk 15:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bishop of Peterborough
In June 1896 Creighton represented the Church of England at the coronation of Czar Nicholas II in Moscow,... MSincccc (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. Tim riley talk 17:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of his magnum opus, History of the Papacy in the Period of the Reformation, R. J. W. Evans writes,... Evans could be introduced as "the historian" here, though I will not insist upon it.
MSincccc (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley I hope my feedback has been constructive, and I will strive to improve next time I review an article at FAC/PR. I would be happy to support this article's promotion. MSincccc (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MSincccc (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Fowler&fowler

edit

I'm delighted to see this at FAC, nominated by Tim riley. Unfortunately, I'm unable to take part.

Tim was the first to offer a peer review years ago, so he's been associated with the article from the get-go. He has added much to what was there, creating a significant revision. I thank Brianboulton of happy memory for his critical and careful insights during an earlier FAC; it had to be closed because of impending travel. Creighton was one of the great men of the late Victorian age. I hope success in Tim's effort will bring wider notice to Mandell Creighton's many achievements. An early death robbed of many more. To the extent my opinion matters here, I offer Tim riley's effort enthusiastic support. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
  • The son of a stern but successful carpenter: I don't see much in the body about the stern side of this (we have "short-tempered", but that's quite different), and I'm not sure I'm totally convinced by the antithesis. Would we expect someone who is stern to be unsuccessful?
  • Agreed. Done.
  • We don't mention in the lead that Creighton was a university academic from the end of 1866: this would help explain Creighton had a parallel career in the clergy of the Church of England from the mid-1870s until his death. (from reading the lead, it sounds as though the Church was his main, or at least first, career).
  • The following year, he also was engaged as the first editor of the English Historical Review, the oldest English language academic journal in its field: as it was pretty new at the time, better to call it the first English-language (note the hyphen) journal in its field?
  • Done.
  • as a Canon Residentiary of Worcester Cathedral: lc on canon residentiary per MOS:PEOPLETITLES?
  • was a British historian, Anglican priest and bishop.: a question: would this be better as "British historian and Anglican bishop"? After all, we have plenty of people listed as e.g. "senior Royal Air Force officer", and we take as read that they were previously junior RAF officers; I think listing someone as a bishop would, in normal circumstances, cover that they were previously a more junior priest.
  • Robert, who never remarried, and seldom spoke of his wife again, raised the children with help from his unmarried sister who came to live with the family and was a kind mother-substitute to the children.: perhaps just taste, but I think this reads better with the comma after remarried shifted to follow sister. More seriously, I note that the source supporting it is not independent: it's either Mandell or perhaps Louise's childhood recollections, and people's recollections of their own childhoods are notoriously unreliable. If no secondary source exists (I recognise that any biographer would almost certainly just do exactly what we have done here), suggest framing this explicitly: "Creighton later recalled..." or similar.
  • and Mary Ellen (Polly, born 1849).: perhaps clearer as "known as Polly"? It took me a second to realise that we weren't giving a later married surname.
OK. Done. Tim riley talk 13:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a strong sense of duty in the household but affection was rarely expressed openly.: this was, of course, hardly unusual for Victorian fathers, though it may be tricky to actually say that without crossing into SYNTH.
  • It is emphasised in the sources; one has the impression it was a pretty dour household. And Creighton himself was anything but an unaffectionate when he became a father. This is what one source says: :Robert Creighton, who never married again, was reserved, hard-working, and strongly attached to his liberal principles. The household in which Mandell Creighton grew up was well ordered, but it lacked any stimulus of literary and artistic interest. Nor was there much outward show of affection. There was a strong sense of duty; the children were expected to have their heads screwed on the right way. No doubt Mandell Creighton absorbed some of his father’s liberal principles, but there was no paternal encouragement in the fields of literature, architecture, and history, in which he was later to distinguish himself.
  • As his Carlisle teachers had not prepared him for translation of Latin verse: for the translation, I think, but perhaps "to translate..."?
  • The medieval cathedral's high church ceremony: hyphen in high-church.
  • Yes.
  • He joined the Worcester Diocesan Penitentiary Association: I get a general sense of what that was, but can we clarify? Is this a group working towards penal reform?
Here is an interesting old archived story from the Worcester News, dated November 1910: "The Bishop of Worcester, the Rt Rev HW Yeatman- Biggs addressed a meeting this week of the Worcester Diocesan Penitentiary Association, formed three years ago for the reformation and rescue of unfortunate women." The date here intrigues me, since this would be after Creighton's death. Perhaps not a lot to be done here, but I might look very closely at the Covert source and its own sourcing to be sure that all was above board. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can find mention of the Worcester Diocesan Penitentiary Association in newspapers from 1881 in the British Newspaper Archive and 1884 in the British Library Newspapers online archive. Numerous sub-branches seem to have been set up over the years, and the one you have found may be one such. Tim riley talk 10:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's reassuring: equally, I think it means that we can't really use the Worcester News as a source for the purpose or activities of the WDPA, given that it's clearly discussing a later incarnation or a subgroup of it. Ah well. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • bringing the narrative to 1518 and the effective start of the Reformation: I would be more comfortable with a multi-cite to a modern source saying that we still think of this as the effective start of the Reformation (with all respect to the historical scholarship of the Carlisle Patriot), or else, if we don't, a change to "what was then considered...", with an explanatory note.
  • If you don't regard an Oxonian source as irredeemably tainted you may be OK with "Reformation", World Encyclopedia, Oxford University Press, 2004 (subscription required). Tim riley talk 16:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC) And if so, would you take pity on me and add it, as I find wrestling with the sfn system beyond me and I start crying? Tim riley talk 16:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Done -- you may wish to tinker with the bibliography entry. I couldn't find an author, as the full text seems to be locked behind a login I don't have via TWL, and it's possible that I've not perfectly imitated the article's house style. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bless you! Tim riley talk 19:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creighton also became determined to better understand the working-classes of his diocese: no hyphen here (we'd have one if it were an adjective in apposition: "a working-class hero").
    True (nowadays at any rate: many a Victorian writer would have hyphenated "working-classes" just as they hyphenated "Downing-street").
  • By late April, a compromise was reached for which Creighton reaped much praise as well as a growing reputation as a statesman: this seems a bit grandiose for someone who has "only" negotiated a trade union dispute. Statesmen really need to be in charge of, well, states. "Negotiator", "peacemaker", even "diplomat"?
Works well (and very appropriate in the Christian context). UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the second half of the 19th century, many academic reforms were instituted at Oxford, beginning with the Oxford University Act 1854. By the 1860s the reforms had trickled down the colleges: we don't really have a clear sense in this article of how the university and the colleges fit(ted) together, which makes this sentence tricky to parse for one who doesn't already know.
I had misread slightly as "trickled down to the colleges": now that I've got my metaphorical specs on, I don't think there's a major problem here (MOS:IDIOM, perhaps, but not in a serious way). I assume the point is that different colleges picked them up at different times, but they'd all fallen into line by the 1860s? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • new responsibilities given to college tutors, whose primary job had hitherto been to give personalised instruction in their rooms to undergraduates: it should probably be said that this still was (and indeed still is) the primary job of these people, at least at a college level.
Something like "whose teaching duties had previously consisted entirely of giving personalised instruction..."? That also avoids the other issue, which is that most of them would have seen their primary job as engaging in scholarship. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tim riley talk 13:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • After four years of teaching, his salary had more than doubled: do we have any idea of how much it was?
  • Although his high church views had moderated: hyphen needed here.
  • Yes.
  • His parishioners found it difficult to express their feelings openly: we've cited this to Creighton, and that makes it decidedly suspect: the other obvious explanation for the lack of high praise is that they didn't like him very much!
  • OK
  • he was appointed examining chaplain for the Bishop of Newcastle, Ernest Roland Wilberforce, and tasked with examining candidates for holy orders.: a little repetitious (and perhaps gives the sense that was responsible for checking under their frocks). Assessing?
  • OK.
  • During their ten years in Embleton the Creightons—he in his 30s and she, for the most part, in her 20s—between them, wrote fifteen books: given the dashes, the parenthesis of between them doesn't really land (it needs a breath before it, but the dashed clause interferes with that): suggest jumping it to wrote fifteen books between them.
  • end twenty years before the birth of Luther.: I note and defer to your decision to refer to well-known authors, composers etc by surname only, but I think historical figures generally get a full name, especially as Luther is at least as known as "Martin Luther" as he is mononymously.
  • De gustibus. I find seeing well known people with their full names spelled out rather patronising – "Oh that Jakob Ludwig Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy!"
  • his hatred of the papacy, [which] inflamed by his historical studies, knew no bounds: needs a comma after which, in the square brackets if you like.
  • to exchange the Canonry of Worcester for the Canonry of Windsor: I think we want lc on canonry, since we mean "being the canon of" rather than "physically hand over the institution known by that name".
  • Creighton was chosen partly because his love for ritual had created an impression among others that he had a high church outlook: hyphen in high-church.
  • In fact, Creighton was doctrinally quite broad church: we earlier had him down as 'a decided High Churchman'". What changed?
  • High/low church is more a matter of practice, and Creighton was fond of ritual, but doctrinally some extreme high-churchmen believed in things like masses for the dead and so forth which those in the broad church tradition emphatically reject. The two statements are not mutually contradictory. Tim riley talk 13:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I get the sense throughout that Creighton's main attachment to high-church forms was that he quite liked ritual, pomp and circumstance, not that he had any particular sympathy with Catholic-style beliefs. This could perhaps be made a little clearer here: something to the effect that, while Creighton's aesthetics were quite high-church, his theology was pretty broad-church? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • His preference for the concrete to the abstract is seen in his writings about the Church of England: this seems, with apologies to Creighton, a little abstract. Can we be slightly clearer about what we're actually talking about here? The followup sentence about seeing the CofE as "the soul of the nation" seems to slightly contradict the idea.
Having read the whole thing, my concern remains: I think we're distilling here, from the body, his historiographical view that the CofE should be viewed through its historical/social/national context, rather than treated as some disembodied Platonic Thing. I'm unconvinced that we can generalise purely from that to a preference for the concrete to the abstract. Being a little unkind, I might suggest that his choice of non-academic profession suggests a strong preference for the abstract to the concrete. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Tim riley talk 09:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A man of complex intelligence and exceptional vigour, Creighton was emblematic of the Victorian era both in his strengths and in his failings.: this reads as slightly woolly (can we WP:V that someone was emblematic of an era?) and slightly dated: you see lots of little comments like this at the end of biographies in EB1911, for example. I will reserve strong judgement until I've read the rest of the article, though.
  • seventy miles (112 km) away: can we make the format consistent here?
  • A few bits of close paraphrase: "strong sense of duty" in the section on home life, and the odd word "construing" in the section on school life. "Construing" here means composition in, or translation into, Greek (and presumably Latin).
  • I don't think anyone is going to object to "strong sense of duty" as a plagiarised phrase. And He was nicknamed ‘Homer’, a tribute to his ability to construe, which is what I would write, too. Tim riley talk 13:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be worth pointing out at some point that Durham School is and was a boarding school.
  • I don't imagine anyone is going to suppose he was a day boy, commuting from Carlisle, a 140-mile round trip. I can't recall seeing any of the sources specifically stating that it was a boarding school. Tim riley talk 13:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, indeed, but in most countries (and indeed to most people), the idea of living at school is bizarre, so many readers will be confused by the distance, or assume his family must have moved to Durham with him. There are quite a few hits on Google Books that confirm that Durham was a boarding school in the late C19th, though I'm struggling to find a really good source that says it unequivocally for the period we want. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I happen to remember from working on Hugh Walpole's article ages ago that by the 1890s Durham had boarders and day boys: ("Hugh was moved again, to be a day boy for four years at Durham School. He found that day boys were looked down on by boarders.") I think we could safely change "the 15-year-old Creighton left Carlisle for Durham" to "the 15-year-old Creighton left Carlisle to become a boarder at Durham" or some such. Tim riley talk 14:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that would work very well. Incidentally, most boarding schools do (did?) have day pupils: even those that call themselves full boarding usually have a handful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Henry Holden would rate a redlink; he has an ONDB entry.
  • Other pupils came seeking his help in translating passages from their classical studies: for their classical studies, as presuambly this means that he was helping them with their homework? From implies that the passages came from their schoolwork, but translating them wasn't part of it.
  • a position that appealed to his great desire to influence people, especially younger boys: as written, this sounds rather sinister. Is that intentional?
It reads as implying that he was Machiavellian, to me -- "So-and-so has a great desire to influence people" cuts quite differently versus "to mentor people", "inspire people", and so on. I certainly can't read "he had a strong to influence ... younger boys" without at least wondering if we mean that he was manipulative and perhaps keen to exert power over those below him in the hierarchy. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Very well. I don't agree but there's no harm in changing "influence" to "inspire". A bit woollier, but it will suffice. Tim riley talk 17:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creighton's education began in a nearby dame school run by a stern headmistress. His restlessness and mischief led to frequent punishment: my comment on childhood memories again -- I'm very uncomfortable about letting a (former) child pronounce judgement on the character of his headteacher.
I can tell you from first-hand experience that many children think they have the strictest teacher in the world, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem! I don't doubt it. But I can't share your belief that calling someone "stern" (or "strict") is a judgment on his or her character. And the citation is to a book written after his death. Tim riley talk 15:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but it was written by his wife, so we can hardly call it independent. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, and as Mrs C wasn't there she must have had this from her husband. But that, mutatis mutandis, is true of almost all recollections of schooldays in biographies. We can't say "according to Louise Creighton" as she can only be recounting what Mandell told her ("My good sir, you mustn't tell us what she told you – it's not evidence") and we can't say "according to Mandell Creighton" as we have no actual proof that he said it (though he must have). As it happens, neither the DNB nor the ODNB article on Creighton mentions a strict headmistress, but if they had done so they too would necessarily be recycling what Mrs Creighton wrote, there being no other published account of the events, and lo – the wicked primary source would magically be a secondary one. I think a pragmatic approach is called for here. Tim riley talk 13:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the only source that says it is his wife (and therefore almost certainly him), and the other good academic biographies don't consider it worth including, I can't see an alternative under our PAGs to excluding it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's plain daft. And there aren't any "other good academic biographies". Good sources for this article are scarce. It isn't controversial or judgmental and I do not propose to delete it. If you want to oppose FA on this ground, that's up to you. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't see the current approach (to use a non-HQRS and justify it via OR) as compatible with the FA criteria. It seems early in the day to be making solid judgements, so I'll leave this question as it stands for now. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope other reviewers will express a view on this point. I'll make a note to ask them to do so. Tim riley talk 15:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Scrub that. Bored and have deleted. Tim riley talk 16:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Vector 22, there is a pronounced sandwich between the family portrait and the one of Creighton at 15.
I think it depends on the skin you're using: I've tried it on a very small screen and a very large one today, and got the same result. Vector 22 is the default for new users and those without a login, which is the overwhelming majority of our readership, so I think we should work to make sure that the article reads well on that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is miles beyond my competence. Please rearrange to your own satisfaction and I shall applaud from the sidelines. Tim riley talk 19:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No longer relevant as I have had (see below) to remove the family group photo. Tim riley talk 15:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In his last year he moved out of college to share rooms in the High: this is very Oxonian-ese, though I appreciate that you've linked it.
  • his father, who treated him with modest generosity: this seems ambiguous to me: do we emphasise "modest" (and so read "gave him little"), or "generosity", and so get "gave him plenty, if not too much"). Suggest a rephrase.
  • undergraduates from public school backgrounds: hyphenate public-school backgrounds.
  • his poor eyesight prevented him from playing cricket and football,: as above, I'm not sure this is quite what the source (or Creighton) actually said.
  • Soon Ward was inviting Creighton and von Glehn to a Valentine's Day lunch hosted in his rooms in Brasenose College.: why the past continuous here: would Ward soon invited read better?
  • The Girls' Friendly Society, which aimed to empower girls, encouraging them, for example, to stay in school until the age of fourteen: I need some convincing that this was intended to empower them rather than to discourage them from falling into "poor morals".
I'm sure it was; I'm questioning whether that was the intention rather than just a pleasing by-product. If the source says this explicitly, fair enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does the quote "helping young women to help themselves" come close enough to "empowering" to satisfy you? Tim riley talk 09:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creighton, who took great interest in the parish schools, served as examiner for other schools in the region: other as distinct from what -- the parish schools?
  • This was not enough to satisfy Kensit and his more vocal evangelical supporters, who threatened to create more public disruption.: do we mean more disruption, in public or more disruption-in-public? Either way, we've only said that Kensit criticised him so far, which hardly counts as causing disruption, so the more needs some explanation.
  • Eventually the archbishops of Canterbury and York: is it worth saying that these were the two most senior clerics in the CofE? Are these McLagan and Temple?
  • Already named, and no need to name them again here, I think. There is a wonderful caricature in The Westminster Gazette of the two prelates at the hearing, under the caption "Sweetness and Light", Maclagan looking supercilious (literally) and Temple looking like a vulture eyeing its dinner. I wish there were space for it in this section, but alas! (I think you'll enjoy it, and I'll email it to you.) Tim riley talk 12:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • the low church forces: sorry to keep on...
  • His successor, William Wand was accused (in footnote): comma after Wand.
  • We spell out (and link) the full name of St Paul's on its second mention. Swap that with the first?
  • He was appointed to the Privy Council; he became a trustee of the British Museum, the National Portrait Gallery, and many other organisations: not sure the semicolon is quite grammatical here, unless we wish to imply that the trusteeships followed from being a member of the PC. Suggest "and became..."
I've had a poke around some style guides and agree with your assessment here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was the first time that a Bishop of London had been buried in Wren's St Paul's, which replaced Old St Paul's after the Great Fire of London in 1666.: this leads me to wonder when the last Bishop of London was buried in Old St Paul's -- worth a footnote?
  • Great minds ... That thought occurred to me as I was writing this and I had a rummage in the archives but couldn't answer the question. The last Bp of London I could definitely say was buried there was Thomas Ravis (d. 1609) but your question has sent me back for another rummage and I have now ascertained that John King (d. 1621), who looked a possible runner, was indeed buried there. There were no more till Creighton. Tricky to add a footnote, though, without citing the ODNB articles on George Montaigne, William Laud, William Juxon, Gilbert Sheldon, Humphrey Henchman, Henry Compton, John Robinson, Edmund Gibson, Thomas Sherlock, Thomas Hayter, Richard Osbaldeston, Richard Terrick, Robert Lowth, Beilby Porteus, John Randolph, William Howley, Charles James Blomfield, Archibald Campbell Tait, and John Jackson, all of whom were buried elsewhere. Tim riley talk 12:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could always fudge it and footnote "John King had been buried in Old St Paul's in 1621", citing only his ODNB -- that would be completely covered. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But wouldn't prove he was the last Bishop before Creighton to be buried at St Paul's – though now I think about it, if we're talking about Old St Paul's there are only four bishops of London after Bp King who died before the Great Fire, so I can add a footnote just citing those five articles. Shall do. Tim riley talk 14:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are the five relevant bishops of London whose ODNB articles show they were the last pre-Great-Fire ones not buried at Old Saint Pauls: McCullough, P. E. "King, John (d. 1621), bishop of London." Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. January 03, 2008. Oxford University Press. Date of access 8 Feb. 2025, <https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-15568>; Foster, Andrew. "Mountain [Montaigne], George (1569–1628), archbishop of York." Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. January 03, 2008. Oxford University Press. Date of access 8 Feb. 2025, https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-19038; Milton, Anthony. "Laud, William (1573–1645), archbishop of Canterbury." Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. May 21, 2009. Oxford University Press. Date of access 8 Feb. 2025; https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-16112; Quintrell, Brian. "Juxon, William (bap. 1582, d. 1663), archbishop of Canterbury." Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. January 03, 2008. Oxford University Press. Date of access 8 Feb. 2025, https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-15179; Spurr, John. "Sheldon, Gilbert (1598–1677), archbishop of Canterbury." Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. May 24, 2008. Oxford University Press. Date of access 8 Feb. 2025, https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-25304; I haven't the smallest notion how to get this lot into the impenetrable, horrific sfn system, and can't begin to try, but if you are minded to have go, please do. 21:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Failing which I might apply to my Wikicolleague and rlf SchroCat, who is versed in the mysteries of sfn but has still not been condemned by the Inquisition. Tim riley talk 22:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped the sources into the appropriate section, but don't know what they're supposed to be sorting, so I'll leave that bit to you. You can use the short refs {{sfn|McCullough|2008}} {{sfn|Milton|2009}} {{sfn|Foster|2008}} {{sfn|Quintrell|2008}} {{sfn|Spurr|2008}} to provide the links between the two. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm much in your debt, SchroCat Tim riley talk 09:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Morris 2011 - points after editor's initials.
  • Covert 2004 appears to be uncited.
  • Not following you. Could you be a little more specific?
  • Creighton and Fraser 2008: point after editors' initials.
  • Crowder 2004: ditto after author's.


  • I notice a few lapses of MOS:GEOCOMMA: should be Embleton, Northumberland, and later. This applies after e.g. "Merton College, Oxford" as well.
And now done, I hope. Tim riley talk 19:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow, I hope. Unsurprisingly, the writing is crisp and lucid, and makes for a very enjoyable read. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I hope?" Me too. Look forward to it. Tim riley talk 17:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creighton as Bishop of London, by Hubert von Herkomer.: no full stop (I'm being lazy in not just fixing it myself, I know).
  • A self-made man, Robert Creighton continually exhorted his sons to work, imbuing them with a sense of independence. This later allowed Mandell to make career choices that were unorthodox for his background: I don't see any of this on the cited page. Has a citation to another source dropped out? I also don't see any particular reference to Robert's short temper, and the source says that there was "no stimulus of literary interest", which is not quite the same as "few books" (I took it to mean that Robert didn't encourage his children to read literature). The author talks a lot about "liberal principles", but I must admit that he seems to be using "liberal" in a different sense to what I would understand, and I can't really figure out what he means by it.
Yes, I'm still not clear what is meant by the term here. I get the sense that it's being used to invoke a kind of nineteenth-century working-class autodidactism -- hard work, personal discipline, temperance and practically-minded education? After all, "liberal" usually means "generous" or "giving lots of freedom", and both of those seem pointedly inappropriate for Robert Creighton. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As his poor sight prevented his participation in sports he took with enthusiasm to walking: this isn't really supported by the source: he goes on (on the next page) to suggest that he never played cricket because his eyes were poor, but also to talk about spending four years in the boat club. Fallows says that he "showed no proficiency at games" (for which read "rugby and cricket"), but that to me seems to imply that he played them (albeit badly).
We've said that he was prevented from participating in sports; I don't see that stated in any of the sources, and several state or imply that he did participate in sports. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unimpressed by that, but will change "prevented" to "inhibited" Tim riley talk 19:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • At Merton, Creighton became a tutor in Modern History, which Kirby describes as "a relatively new subject which few were then prepared to teach".: it would be nice to have some background as to when Modern History was introduced at Oxford. The first Regius Professor in the subject had been appointed in 1724, and there had been a professor of it in Oxford since 1622, so I"m not totally sold on Kirby's judgement here. See this old article on JSTOR for the subject at Oxford prior to 1841.
Right, but WP:DUEWEIGHT applies -- if we're going to present one person's view of an issue, we have a duty to make sure that we're not missing out important context or making it seem unchallenged when it isn't. In this case, I think we at least need to clarify that "relatively new" means "two centuries old". I'm not disputing that it was unfashionable, but at the moment the quote without context is a little misleading. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Feel free to add whatever you think is duly weighty as your desired counterbalance. Tim riley talk 19:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • he was to remain devoted to the doctrines of the real presence and apostolic succession throughout his life, although he had little sympathy for ritualism.: the links are absolutely essential here, which isn't ideal. Suggest clarifying how these doctrines related to the division between high-church and low-church Anglicans, perhaps? I'm not sure how germane it is to go into detail as to what the beliefs were, as opposed to what they meant institutionally.
  • After some speculation by friends about whether Creighton would commit to taking holy orders, he was ordained deacon: I think we need to be absolutely clear that this was taking holy orders, since he didn't (yet) become a priest, and most readers won't really understand the difference (I must admit that I don't). Suggest "he did so by being ordained..."?
  • Good i