Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Etta Lemon/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 September 2021 [1].

Etta Lemon edit

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak, Shyamal 12:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC), [reply]

Enter the Dragon! Etta Lemon's authoritarian leadership of the RSPB, an organisation she helped to found, led to this nickname. Awarded the MBE for her war work and a pioneering bird conservationist, she was strongly opposed to the campaign for women's right to vote. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley edit

What a delightfully unexpected article! Not much by way of comment from me, but these are my few quibbles:

  • She was born into an evangelical Christian family in Kent, but after her father's death she became a campaigner against the use of plumage… – the "but" seems to imply some connection or contrast between the first and second parts of the sentence, but I don't think there really is one.
  • Frank Lemon, who became its legal advisor – for such a venerable British institution it would be nice to use the traditional English "adviser" rather than the American "advisor".
  • did not prevent them being sold – I think this would be better as either "did not prevent their being sold" (gerund, and all that) or "did not prevent them from being sold".
  • captain of muskettry – spelling? You have "musketry" later, which looks more convincing to me.
  • Together with the twice-widowed Eliza Phillips – I'm a little doubtful that Mrs P's twice-widowed status is all that relevant, but I do not press the point.
  • at Phillips' home – unexpected form of the possessive: wouldn't Philips's be the usual form?
  • outstripped by the SPB due to the latter organisation's extensive network – in my book "due to" is not accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to" in formal BrE. "Because of" always strikes me as better than either.

That's my lot. I greatly enjoyed this article, and look forward confidently to supporting on my next visit to this page. Tim riley talk 13:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley, many thanks for the review, that was quite painless! I can't believe that after all the times I've read this article that silly errors like "muskettry" still survive. I've kept twice-widowed if only to encourage people to read that article too, otherwise I've followed your excellent advice, including replacing "but" by "and". Thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've just spotted one extra small quibble: Sir Edward Grey but Sir Auckland Geddes – one has his Sir in the link and the other doesn't. I strongly prefer the former style, but whichever you prefer (the MoS is silent on the matter) you should be consistent. I do not propose to wait for that to be addressed before adding my support, which I now do. The article is well balanced, judiciously proportioned, sensibly illustrated and, I don't doubt, as widely sourced as possible. Tessa Boase's book crops up a lot, but I can't imagine there are many alternatives, if any, and the twelve references to the ODNB – two different articles therein – give comfort that we are OK so far as FAC criterion 1c goes. A most pleasing article, which I much enjoyed reading and am pleased to support for FA. – Tim riley talk 16:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley Thanks again for the kind words and support. I've sorted out the knights as you suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon edit

I had a quick look and made a few edits already (I believe them to be minor, but please revert if I was mistaken). Before I comment in full a question: is Margaretta Louisa Lemon really the right title for this article? From your use of Etta Lemon within the article, and even in your little nomination blurb, I get the impression that Etta Lemon is the more common way to refer to her. Just a question, I have not looked into it in depth. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Edwininlondon, it's always a bit tricky with formal/informal names. There is a redirect from Etta Lemon, and my earlier Emma Louisa Turner had the formal title despite her most frequently being referred to informally as "E L Turner", so at least it's consistent. I don't think it's like a stage name where the birth name would clearly be inappropriate. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's tricky indeed. Reading WP:COMMONNAME it seems to me that "Etta Lemon" scores high on the naturalness criterion, higher than her birthname, am I right? Or is it just Tessa Boase who uses Etta Lemon? What about the other criteria? Edwininlondon (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Edwininlondon The commonest usage is Mrs Lemon in all sources. Where a first name is given, ONDB uses Etta Smith while she is unmarried, but Margaretta Lemon exclusively after her marriage. ZLS ref uses Margaretta, others just have initials Mrs M. Lemon or Mrs F. E. Lemon. Boase only occasionally uses Margaretta, overwhelmingly Etta, but then she also refers to the Duchess of Portland as "Winnie" more than once, and I doubt that we are going down that route. If you look at the RSPB site or publications, it's always Etta, but the articles are always written by Boase as her biographer. Boase definitely does informal, and is pretty well ubiquitous on the web, but that isn't reflected in the other sources. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so that seems not to favour Etta as article title. But would Margaretta Lemon not be a better article title than Margaretta Louisa Lemon? And would it not be better to use Margaretta in the article text instead of Etta?
I guess the encyclopaedic formal option would be (with or without Mrs.) Lemon but Etta does give it a warmer touch. Shyamal (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, changed to Etta Lemon now, can someone check that i've not missed anything? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My comments:

  • nee should be linked, as per MOS:NEE
  • A few more links perhaps (Kent, Evangelisation Society, Cambridge, Teetotal, Brighton, infirmary)?
  • She founded the Fur, Fin and Feather Folk --> is "the" correct here?
  • I can't see why not, it's what Boase uses and it seems natural to me anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Etta married Frank Lemon on 25 May 1892 --> by giving the exact date I got the impression this day was significant, but I don't think that is the case. I think just using the year only might be better, avoiding a possible distraction
  • During her tenure, the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act 1921 --> this way of phrasing suggests to me that her role in this was minimal or non-existant. Should it be written perhaps with a bit more (of a hint) of causality? Or would that be inaccurate?
  • I think it's hard to show direct causality, she wasn't a politician, and it's men that pull the levers of power then Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • William Elisha Smith and Louisa --> William Elisha Smith and Louisa Smith I would say
  • Etta was the oldest --> I'd like to see something about her short name here, rather than later in footnote a
  • The Society aimed to promote --> The society aimed to promote
  • leading to the trade term "aigrette" --> what was this a term for? For the trade of hatmaking?
  • Since shooting breeding --> Repetition of since
  • Members pledged not to wear --> Perhaps merge this with the previous paragraph
  • which did not itself wish to take up the plumage cause --> that's curious. Is there anything on the reason why not?
  • The SPB had its own offic --> bit of a short paragraph. Can it be merged?
  • was associated with Etta Smith and Eliza Phillips --> should that be Lemon and Phillips?
  • I think not, Hudson Margaretta before her marriage, and I've said right from the start in the text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and its single-issue focus--> going by the name Plumage League, I would expect it to be a single-issue campaign as well. Was it not?
  • publishers and watchers committees. --> later on Watchers is consistently speeled with a capital. Or is this something different?
  • Mrs Lemon soon came --> Just Lemon will do. See MOS:MRS. There are a few more Mrs Lemons in the article
  • Blanche Atkinson (1847–1911) --> why the years? Not given for other people
  • Etta Lemon became a committee member --> Lemon became a committee member (it's quite clear we're not talking about Frank here)
  • In 1917, during World War I --> earlier it is First World War. Better to be consistent
  • £13,770 5s 5d --> the 5s 5d need explanation (for anyone not British)
  • admitted in 1909,[39] The others were --> I think a full stop or a semicolon is needed
  • and since much BOU --> the acronym needs to be introduced first, a few lines back
You're welcome. All looks fine. I checked your change from Margaretta to Etta and could not see anything you missed. I did change one more stray Mrs Lemon into Etta Lemon. I Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for review, changes and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Nikkimaria, thanks for reviewing. Could you clarify what needs to be done for the FUR? I didn't add the image myself, and I'm unclear what the problem is Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the lines in the current FUR are very short and non-descript - for example, not replaceable with fair use because "copyright". I would suggest expanding the FUR and making it more specific to the circumstances of this image. Also, what has been done to attempt to track down the original creator/source of the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria, thanks. The copyright is claimed by the Lemon Family Archive, I've added that. It seems likely that this photo was taken on behalf of her or Frank Lemon, but I can't verify that. She's obviously a young woman here, but no clue to actual date, and her biographer, who had access to the family records, doesn't give a date either. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, good to know. Suggest expanding the other lines as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
UK - not sure about the definition of publication - according to the available metadata on the Surrey History Centre, Woking site it was collated as an album "Borough of Reigate Jubilee year of incorporation: some portraits" (1913) with the photographer identified as most likely "Ralph Winwood Robinson" (1862-1942). Shyamal (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So in any case more than 70 years after his death Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
William McKenzie Morrison (1857 – 1921) - according to the source, this may have been processed from a negative in the archives - Reproduction Number: LC-DIG-ppmsca-72874 (digital file from original) LC-USZ62-44168 (b&w film copy neg.)
If the author died in 1921 then the life+100 tag won't apply until 2022 (it turns over at year-end). The LOC page says 1927 though? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed the pd-old-100, it now only has the pd-old-70 claim. 1927 seems to be in error - possibly via worldcat - see http://pic.nypl.org/constituents/2502 Shyamal (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This will need a US tag as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added - also image swapped to this version - c:File:Lillian_Russell-ppmsca-72874u.jpg Shyamal (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where was this image first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a remastered positive from the negative of the same image as above. Unable to see any usage online, may be unpublished - there is one in the same dress published as a postcard in the 1890s (attributed to Pach Brothers). Shyamal (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - if this particular image was unpublished the current tagging will need amendment. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, can you please advise on what tag we should be useing? Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Shyamal has added a PD-unpublished tag, which would be appropriate if this was never published before 2003 - is that the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the option if we did not know for sure? I am assuming the protection for unpublished is greater and so if that has expired then it also handles the other situation where it was published somewhere in the 1890s. Shyamal (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it were published somewhere in the 1890s it would also be PD - we'd just run into issues if it were published in the intervening period. We go by the earliest publication that can be confirmed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, Jim, Shyamal, is this resolved? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just looking for confirmation re: first known publication for File:Lillian_Russell-ppmsca-72874u.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subject Lillian Russell died in 1922, the photographer died in 1921. I would imagine that any published usage of that photograph was made before that, if at all. I cannot find evidence that the image was first "published" at any date - but that certainly is not proof of absence of publication. The LOC note "Rights Advisory: No known restrictions on publication" is as much as we can get. Shyamal (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was reproduced in "Some Recent Works by Mr. P. A. de László," The Studio, Vol. 86, No. 366 (Sept. 14, 1923), pp. 128-134. (not sure if that was the first publication though).

Support from Cas Liber edit

Looking now....

  • I'd use descriptors to describe Brightwen, Eliza Philips and Emily Williamson
  • .. although Etta's conservatism, authoritarian management and opposition to scientific ornithology increasingly led to clashes with the organisation's committee. - is in lead but I can't see where this is expanded on in text
  • I think it's all in the final section, which I've retitled to make it clearer that it's a summary of her strengths and weaknesses. Please feel free to tweak the heading if you don't like the new one Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking okay on comprehensiveness and prose otherwise

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • "after her father's death she became a campaigner" - is this correct? The text says the father died 1899 but certainly mentions campaigning activities before that
  • Source for Note f?
  • I didn't put that in and I have no idea how to format it, so I've recalculated with measuringworth, which gives a reasonably similar outcome Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria, when I've used Measuringworth in previous FACs I've formatted it just as a link to the tool, so I'm not totally sure what you're asking, but I've added (relative value £ UK purchasing power) to the ref. Is that what you meant? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - the tool provides several different means of assessing relative value, so if linking simply to the homepage we need to identify which is being used. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest moving the Brightwen edition statement to the Cited texts section rather than having it in short cites
  • Be consistent in how ODNB cites are formatted
  • Several Clarke refs are missing closing parenthesis
  • London Gazette should be italicized

Comments Support from Z1720 edit

Non-expert prose review. I made some small edits to the article that can be reviewed. If something is reverted, please note it below.

  • "She was finally ousted from her leadership role in 1938, aged 79." Delete finally as redundant.
  • The article calls the subject of the article by Etta before explaining that it was her nickname. Either explain that Margaretta was Etta earlier in the paragraph or use general pronouns until the Etta name is explained.
  • We start the article with Margaretta "Etta" Louisa Lemon, I think that's adequate indication it's a nickname, and it's self-evident it's a shortening of Margarette Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the one hand, we can't guarentee that readers will read the lede, but on the other hand I think I need to put some faith in the readers to be competent about who the article is talking about. I won't let this prevent my support unless another editor has this concern. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, no other reviewer has mentioned it as an issue yet Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Etta and Mercy (the sisters preferred to be called Etta and Mercy rather than by their first names)" perhaps "Etta and Mercy (the names that the sisters preferred to be called)"?
  • "to meet just the British demand" -> "to meet the British demand alone."
  • "Shooting breeding birds effectively led to the failure of their eggs and chicks to survive, actual losses will have been much higher." -> "Shooting breeding birds effectively led to the failure of their eggs and chicks to survive, causing actual losses to be much higher."
  • "At its peak, the British trade was worth £20 million annually, around £204 million at 2021 prices." I suggest using Template:Inflation as this will prevent the need for this article to need constant updating as it gets older.
  • I replaced Template:Inflation because the sources reviewer required a proper source, which a Wikipedia template is not. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That surprises me: in other FACs I have seen other editors add this to the article prevent the article becoming outdated. I'm going to ping @Nikkimaria: and ask for their thoughts on using the inflation template, as they conducted the source review. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not terribly familiar with that template - is there a way for it to display the source it uses for the conversion? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at Template:Inflation, although my understanding of templates is probably lower than yours. To calculate UK inflation, the template sources Measuring Worth, the same source used in the Etta Lemon article. I do not think the template can add a citation that would be updated if the template's UK inflation calculation is updated in the future, possibly causing it to fail the FAC verification requirement. If the template is not used, then the article's 2020 inflation number would need to be updated every few years, which by itself would not be a big deal but when multiplied over several articles this can take up a lot of time. Does the inflation calculation need to be cited if the template is used? Should this template's use be discussed by the wider FAC community? I first discovered this template when a frequent FAC nominator added it to my first FAC article. Z1720 (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the citation would need to be updated dynamically - it could simply link to the base site and specify which calculation is being used. But I do think that there would need to be a citation displayed for the calculation. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've used Measuringworth in other FACs without problems, and I don't think it's mandatory to use a particular source/template. I have no idea how to reference the template, but if you have a solution, please feel free to change to the template Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like this is creating more problems than is worth including. I will keep this conversation in mind for future reviews (specifically to ensure uses of Template:Inflation in FACs include a citation) and I won't let the template's exclusion prevent my support. Z1720 (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At church she would note women who were wearing feathered hats, and send them a note explaining how birds were killed to make them." Too much note, change one to a different word.
  • "Together with the twice-widowed wildlife activist Eliza Phillips," Is it important in this biography for the reader to know that Phillips was twice widowed? If not, remove it as trivia.
  • "Other early members included the wealthy, unmarried Catherine Hall, and the 15-year-old Hannah Poland, a fish merchant's daughter." Is it important for this biography to know about other early members? If not, this info might be better placed in the article about the organisation.
  • they were amongst the earliest of members and both were, or became influential, so in an section about the founding of the SPB/RSPB i think they rate with Lemon and Phillips Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion is that this article is about Lemon, not the SRB/RSPB so this information would probably be better placed in SPB's article (when it is created. However, I will not let this prevent my support. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article will often use the full "Etta Lemon" name. I suggest only using one name, as that will make the article shorter.
  • I've also had suggestions to use the full form more, and there is no length limit on an FAC Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:SURNAME articles generally refer to a person by their surname after the initial mention. Except for the first mention, and instances where her first name is used to distinguish from Frank Lemon, I do not think her full name is necessary. Was there a specific reason to use the full name more often in the article? Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A bill to control the trade in feathers was unsuccessfully introduced in parliament in 1908,[23] but during the First World War, feathers were among the luxury items whose import was banned from February 1917 for the duration of the hostilities." Is there a connection between these two events? If not, they should be separate sentences
  • The lede says, "She was finally ousted from her leadership role in 1938, aged 79." But the article says, "She bowed to the inevitable and submitted her resignation from the committee to the Duchess of Portland in the same year." Ousted to me implies that there was a vote to remove her, rather than her resignation. I think the phrasing needs to be changed somewhere to ensure these align.
  • " L. J. Rintoul and E. V. Baxter joined them in 1911." I do not know if this information is important for Lemon's biography and can probably be deleted as trivia.
  • I don't think the admission of women to all-male societies would be trivial now, and it certainly wasn't a century ago, I think all the six first female members are worth mentioning, even if there was a year's delay, otherwise I might as well just mention Lemon and none of the others Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean to diminish the accomplishments of these women, but I am unsure if their mention is important in Lemon's article. It might be worth deleting the other people inducted with her, as they were inducted at the same time. However, the 1911 inductees especially stood out to me as I was unsure how their induction was connected to Lemon. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she faded into the background" -> "recognition of her work decreased"? I think faded into the background is an MOS:IDIOM
  • "but from 2018 she began to be rehabilitated." -> "but from 2018 her reputation began to be rehabilitated."

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some comments above. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concerns have been addressed. I now support. Z1720 (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2021 (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/Etta_Lemon/archive1&oldid=1046390016"