Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cottingley Fairies/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:05, 8 May 2010 [1].

Cottingley Fairies edit

Cottingley Fairies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost 100 years ago, two young girls took a series of photographs that they claimed were of fairies at the bottom of their garden. The photographs convinced Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes, and subsequently became perhaps the most famous photographic hoax of the 20th century. The younger of the two girls maintained until her dying day that the final picture was genuine however. Make your own mind up. I only intended initially to do enough to this article to justify removing all the disfiguring tags it contained when I came across it, but I became fascinated by the story. I hope you do too. Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I removed the one dab link; no dead external links. Ucucha 20:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In honour of human credulity, I support this hilarious article. Bishonen | talk 22:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    • Thanks. I think it proves, if proof were needed, that people believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of the evidence. Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments: Great article, well-written and entertaining. Just a few small concerns.
  • The first image's description page gives a date of 1916, but the article says that the first photos were taken in 1917.
  • Caption for the third photograph gives the girl's name as "Francis", as does the "author" field on the description pages of the second and fourth photographs
  • The picture of Conan Doyle and the second photograph sandwich on my screen
  • The "two reprinted, better defined prints" are the 1917 photographs?
  • Is Conan Doyle's book The Coming of Fairies or The Coming of the Fairies?
  • Formatting in bibliography should be consistent.

--Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replies:
Thanks for taking the time to read through the article and for your observations.
  • The description given for the first image was wrong, so I've corrected it to 1917.
  • She's consistently called "Frances" now.
  • What resolution screen are you using? The pictures of Conan Doyle and the second photograph look fine on my laptop.
  • Yes, the "two reprinted, better defined prints" were of the 1917 photographs. I've clarified that.
  • Conan Doyle's book is called The Coming of the Fairies. Fixed.
  • What's the problem you see with the formatting in the Bibliography? Each entry is using the same {{citation}} template.
Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the bibliography: the second is the only one that includes a location; the last is the only one with publisher in parentheses. As for the sandwiching: I was using a smaller screen to view the article (not sure of the resolution), but on my regular computer it looks fine. --Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the location is especially informative, so I'll remove that. The last entry is the only one that's an essay in a collected edition, which is why the details are shown slightly differently by the template I suppose. Fixed the formatting issue. Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Such lovely innocence. Very well written and engaging article. Ceoil (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I reviewed this at WP:GAN a few days ago and I am happy to see it at WP:FAC. I remember being told about this investigation and seeing these pictures in the late 1980s. Its a well written article and is deserving of FA. Pyrotec (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Read over the original drafts, and it's only improved. I found the story entertaining the first time I heard it, and now that it is laid out in front of me, it is excellent. ceranthor 00:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (and, no doubt, ignorant ones, but from an "outsider" nevertheless...)

  • I thought that the MOS suggested not squeezing text between a pair of images.
  • "he gave around the UK" just reads a little odd, why not around the United Kingdom?
  • Not sure that Conan Doyle's image adds anything to the article. What's the relevance?
  • "He agin brought" - typo.

The Rambling Man (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replies:
  • I seem to remember that the MoS did at one time have a recommendation against sandwiching images, but it no longer does.
  • The MOS clearly says "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other." The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it does, I thought that had been removed. Hard to keep up with the shifting sands of the MoS. Resolved by removing the image of Conan Doyle. Malleus Fatuorum 13:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a problem with "around the UK", any more than I'd see a problem with "around the US".
  • Conan Doyle was very highly regarded, and it was his belief in the authenticity of the photographs that gave the hoax credence. He is a crucial figure in the story.
  • Typo fixed.
Malleus Fatuorum 01:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For astetic reasons I would cut the pic of Conan Doyle and shift the lower pic before the 2nd para of that sect. Most know who Conan Doyle is, we dont necessarily need his big tash and grim stare to remind us. Ceoil (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, very well then. Malleus Fatuorum 13:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was advice rather than an order. Its your call. Ceoil (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support well done, my only quibble is that there is one hanging sentence at the end. Some latter day pop culture stuff could do with a little better embellishment and analysis. The film review cited notes the rather facile road the film by assuming the fairies are real, and I think that is worth putting in (as it is there is a one sentence para sticking out like a sore thumb at the end) I recall the photos being talked about or discussed in the Brian Froud book faeries which I think was on many bookshelves in the late 70s or early 80s, and hence got more popular there. The other film Photographing faeries is based on a really cool novel I read of the same name, so is sort of an indirect path (the book was more call of cthulhu-esque in its tale-telling and I in fact wrote a Call of Cthulhu adventure based on it).

Blah, to sum up, not a deal breaker but could be embellished. I will try and find the froud book in a sec. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of Lady Cottingley's Book of Pressed Fairies? Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not seen it. Just found my copy of Faeries by Froud and Lee - my mistake, no Cottingley mention there but they do have a bunch of pretendy B/W photos of themselves in the back. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a great fan of the "in popular culture" stuff (in case you hadn't noticed), or more specifically perhaps, the way it's handled in so many wikipedia articles. I really don't see what they tell us about the subject, but out of deference to whoever started the Cottingley Fairies article off I left in the reference to the two films, only one of which really has much to do with the fairies. I'd just as soon take it out. Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know. I love the stuff but it is often hard to get decent references. I do like the film article's discussion of the main film, and has prompted me to find the other. I was going to add that the film interprets the fairies as real but then I paused for plotspoiler-type reasons. Given all that, I didn't see non-embellishment as a deal-breaker. If I find anything cerebral I will add it but I am not holding my breath as I have alot on my plate ATM. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. A fascinating, well-written snapshot (haha) of an interesting tale. I've made a few minor changes myself, but have a few more suggestions, which shouldn't be difficult to incorporate.

  • "Elsie left open the possibility that she believed she had photographed her thoughts"; something similar appears twice. It seems a bit wordy. Is the "believe" part necessary?
  • Who said "must have seemed like a godsend"? Magnusson, I'm guessing, but this should be clearly attributed/referenced.
  • second opinion -> another opinion? In my view a second opinion had already been sought.
  • When and why did Sir Oliver Lodge get involved and give his opinion? This info would benefit from a bit of context. Doesn't need to be extensive, but enquiring minds want to know...
  • Can we have a reference after the first paragraph in the 1920 Photographs section?
  • I'm a bit confused by "Geoffrey Crawley explained the discrepancy in the women's accounts...." sentence. It seems to me that he is offering a third option rather than anything else, but perhaps not. May need rewording/amplifying.
  • "Reflections on the Cottingley Fairies"; this may be for the future, but it seems for completeness it would be interesting to get hold of this book and incorporate some of Frances' recollections.--Slp1 (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replies:
  • I think the important bit is "she believed"; removing that could give the impression that someone else believed it, not Elsie.
  • "... must have seemed like a godsend" is a quote from Magnusson, yes. The citation is given at the end of the paragraph for all the quotations and material in that paragraph. Are you asking for something like "... must have seemed like a godsend", according to historian and broadcaster Magnus Magnusson"?
  • I don't follow your point about "second opinion". Snelling's was the first, and Kodak's was the second.
  • Conan Doyle showed the prints to Lodge, clarified.
  • Added citation for the first paragraph in the 1920 Photographs section.
  • I think that the explanation offered by Crawley resolves the question of why Frances and Elsie both claimd to have taken the fifth photograph. It's not a third explanation, it's an explanation of why the girls both believed that they'd taken the picture, because in fact they both had, but at different times.
  • Frances's book Reflections on the Cottingley Fairies is currently out of print, despite having been published only last year, and consequently difficult to source. I seem to remember that Frances's daughter paid for a limited print run herself. I've expanded on the book a little nevertheless, based on a newspaper review I came across.
Malleus Fatuorum 15:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine about the "believed"
  • Yes, possibly, what you've done is great. Another option would have been to put an extra citation to Magnusson at the end of that sentence to make the provenance clear, so that people don't need to read ahead too far. But I like what you've done better.
  • I still think "another opinion" or "a further expert opinion" would be better and more accurate. Doyle and Gardner had their opinions, making Snelling's a second opinion to me. Also Smith talks about how Conan Doyle had been asking his family and friends for their input before they submitted the pics to Kodak p.384.
  • A good solution, I think. --Slp1 (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for fixing up the other things
  • I got intrigued and downloaded the Times letter, and I see your explanation was accurate. I've had a go at making it clearer in the text. Hopefully it's okay. When reading Crawley I noticed implied a different order of events about the "clarifying" and printing of the pictures: that these was done by Snelling himself after he had given his opinion on the pics' authencity. Smith, which seems an excellent source, also follows this order. I've boldly moved the sentences concerned a bit later in the text, but I am aware that I don't have Magnusson to consult...
  • What you've done seems fine, and one source (can't remember which) even goes so far as to say that Snelling had a vested interest in the authenticity of the pictures, because he was being paid by Gardner to reproduce them. Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it was Smith, I believe.--Slp1 (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already mined that Daily Express article, and I'm not about to spend £10.49 just to get another quote from Frances. Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. £10.49 plus postage, you mean! I don't think getting Frances quotes would be the main goal of getting access to the book, though. It turns out there's a copy in the Bodleian, and also, very surprisingly, at Dalhousie University where a friend of mine teaches. Maybe one of these days I'll get her to borrow it for me. --Slp1 (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This article had been tagged with a number of issues (at one point I considered tackling it), and I'm happy to see it nicely expanded. What an interesting story. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. I actually only intended to do enough to justify losing those unsightly tags, but, well you know .... Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cottingley_Fairies/archive1&oldid=1091467690"