Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Hertfordshire/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 not promoted by Dabomb87 21:56, 24 May 2010 [1].

History of Hertfordshire edit

History of Hertfordshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): —S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article status. This is my first attempt at a FA, so I expect there will be tweaks I need to make!—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: "Tweaks" are definitely needed, I'm afraid:
  • All of the works in the Bibliography require publisher locations. Please also remove "No ISBN" from the books that were published before ISBNs came into use; it's kind of obvious.
  • The citations need quite a bit of format work. "'The Early Mesolithic Period', Hertfordshire County Council, retrieved on 9 August 2009." vs. "'The Later Anglo-Saxon Period", Hertfordshire County Council. Retrieved on 31 July 2009." for example. Please make consistent throughout.
  • There are numerous links simply titled "BBC", but that's the publisher, not the title of the individual articles/pages. Make sure to include title, publisher/website and accessdate; also, if applicable, include author and original published date, such as with some of the BBC/Daily Mail/Independent/Guardian, etc. links.
  • Is it necessary to denote the quoteboxes with... "Quote"? I'm fairly sure it's obvious what they are. :) The quotebox in the lead appears strange on my screen, as if it's kind of dangling off the map; I also have no idea who Richard Lydekker is, so context may be needed.
  • Blockquotes are for quotations that are three lines or longer; the letter quoted in "Seventeenth century" is only two lines.
  • There are quite a few short, choppy paragraphs consisting of only two sentences. While I understand the inherent need to separate thoughts while writing, it's very jarring on my eyes as a reader; I definitely suggest consolidating some of these sparse paragraphs, or else fleshing them out. The former would be easier, of course.
  • Needs a copy-edit throughout for wordiness and clarity. The first sentence in the first section states: "The land now called Hertfordshire has probably been occupied since about 12,000 years ago in the Mesolithic period." An abbreviated version could be: "has been occupied for approximately 12,000 years", with clarifying addition of "since the Mesolithic period". Other examples may exist throughout, and a c-e or two never hurts.

That's it for now. I hope this helps, María (habla conmigo) 20:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the technical bits, nice work. María (habla conmigo) 16:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—no dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 21:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SChurchillDuchsMarl_BestLo.jpg could do with a better caption, perhaps along the lines of Sarah_Churchill,_Duchess_of_Marlborough#Assessment, otherwise FAc3 is fine Fasach Nua (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Starting work on these matters now; I've ticked those I think I've resolved. :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad progress is being made, but please see the instructions on the FAC mainpage: "Use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) is discouraged, as they slow down the page load time." :) María (habla conmigo) 01:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... except in the case of Fasach Nua's remark, since he objected.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... okay, not ticking off the things I've done at all. Apologies to anyone I've mortally offended.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe all of these concerns are addressed.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a further copyediting pass in response to Yllosubmarine's assessment.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Just two points:

  • the portrait of King Stephen is obviously c. 1500 (not contemporary); I think this should be mentioned in the caption.
  • in the 16th century section: the last paragraph is unsourced; and Lady Katherine Grey's marriage was not exactly betrayed by the Earl of Leicester, though he told the Queen after Katherine asked him to. The important point is that she was eight months pregnant and didn' t know what to do about her secret marriage and so on. Perhaps the best would be simply to state that Elizabeth was furious when she found out about the marriage and declared the marriage and children (there were two of them) illegitimate. If you need a source, I have one or two. Buchraeumer (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, in this context the ODNB entry should be sufficient; sadly it's not free, but in the U.K. people with any public library card have access, I'm told. Anyway, it's o.k. if you put it along the lines that Elizabeth was furious when she found out etc. Buchraeumer (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Susan Doran, ‘Seymour [Grey], Katherine, countess of Hertford (1540?–1568)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 accessed 15 May 2010 (sunbscription required).
  • Seems to be o.k. now. I'm not sure I can read the whole of the article, good luck! Buchraeumer (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Footnotes
    • Most of the footnotes (at last three-quarters) are uncited. Statements such as "It was probably the largest city in Western Europe for almost all of Hertfordshire's history" need sources. This applies to all footnotes, unless they are minor clarifications of the text.
    • Footnotes should not contain speculative or editorial comment such as "There is an interesting insight into literacy rates in Hertfordshire around this time to be gained here."
      • Still a slight tendency towards editorial comment, e.g. in note 10 which says "this is hotly disputed" without saying by whom. Footnote 8 is an unnecessary side comment, though in the text you should not refer to "Empress Maud". Possibly "Maude", but in the English-speaking world the lady in question is known only as "Matilda". Brianboulton (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations
  • Response: In evaluating WP:RS, you need to consider the nature of the information being sourced as well as the nature of the source itself. In this case it's uncontroversial:- I'm using the school's website as a source for the school's founding date. I could source this information to Robinson (1978), but I did not because I wanted to use a wider variety of sources for the article rather than relying on the relatively few print sources I have.
  • If there is a better source, even for uncontroversial information it is better to use it, rather than introducing a substandard online source. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would you feel about this, which gives the school's founding date as "around 950"? Reliable? I'm a little conscious of the number of references I've made to Robinson.—S Marshall Talk/Cont19:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a great source, but unfortunately it only refers to the foundation of the church in about 950; it doesn't mention the school's founding as far as I can see. Still, you've made the effort. If no other editor objects, should you prefer not to cite Robinson I won't press for the replacement of your original source. Brianboulton (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bell's Cathedrals: This should be formatted as a normal book source, thus:
Perkins, Thomas (1903): Bell's Cathedrals: The Cathedral Church of Saint Albans London. George Bell & Sons. (A page reference is necessary.)
    • Pope Adrian IV: this should not be accessed via Wikisource but should be cited to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, thus:-
Pope Adrian IV 1913. The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York Encyclopedia Press Inc. 1913
    • Ref 72 need s a more informative entry. What is the article being cited? Who is the author?
  • Response: Thank you for reminding me of WP:OBVIOUS. The article cited is, of course, Thomas Walsingham. I've not put the author down because the bibliography already contains all the information I have about authorship of the CBD.
  • You still need to format this properly, notwithstanding that the bibliography contains another CBD reference. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain in what sense it isn't "properly" formatted? I'm not familiar with the arcane and confusing FAC source-citing rules, which is why I've been through all the sources so many times, so I'm afraid I need it explained in words of one syllable. :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 81 needs reformatting as a normal book source (see Perkins, above)
    • Ref 98: No need to show the url within the format
    • Ref 100: Spelling (Beauclerk): The proper title for this article is "Charles Beauclerk, Duke of St. Albans (1670-1726)" Publisher information is Nash Ford Publishing, Berkshire 2003.
    • Ref 102: Publisher is "Office for National Statistics"
    • What makes http://www.notable-quotes.com/c/cowper_william.html a reliable source?
  • Response: Again, consider the information being cited. It is uncontroversial that William Cowper wrote these words, and I'm using a quote-sourcing website as a source for a quote. Diversifying the article's sources was important to me.
  • Diversify away, but to a better quality source - a book of Cowper's verse, Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, etc... Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, it is unpaginated and doesn't have "God moves in a mysterious way". Here is a reference you can use:
Partington, Angela, ed. The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations Oxford University Press, Oxford 1996. ISBN 0-19-860058-5
  • Response: I'm frankly a bit surprised that this question comes from a British editor. Would you object to using the White House website as a source concerning a US president?
  • The principle is as expressed above - use the best available source, rather than, as here, what is essentially a PR website, and a badly written one at that. Incidentally, you should add the words "Second Marquess of Salisbury" to your text, since no one as ever heard of him under his given names of Robert Arthur Gascoyne Talbot Cecil. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: You have still not identified Robert Arthur Gascoyne Talbot Cecil in your text as the Marquess of Salisbury, though the title is used later. On a similar issue, not many people will know of a prime minister called "William Lamb", since he held office as Lord Melbourne.
*Fixed.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will complete my review when the various outstanding sources matters have been addressed. Please contact my talkpage when this is done. Brianboulton (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, references look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: one point outstanding on footnotes) Brianboulton (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nearing support with comments:
    • Proofread done - some minor edits made and wikifying added, otherwise looks very good.
    • Top of article - placement of the quote looks slightly awkward on my screen; I have the leading paragraphs then the table of contents with the quote box facing the contents box... it just seems to dangle a little unhappily somehow. Consider placing it elsewhere; perhaps in the 20th century section since that's where the quote comes from, though I do see why you would like it near the top. It's not a deal-breaker by any means.
    • Section: Early history - No reference in the final paragraph for assertion that Offa was buried in Bedford.
    • Section: Twelfth Century - 2nd parag - Re, Baldock market and fair... says 'last five days in all' but should either be 'lasts' or 'lasted' (I know not which).
    • Section: Twentieth Century - very bizarre to mention Shirley Temple in relation to Graham Greene; surely that's not the best thing to attach to the writer? That's not his legacy. Better to put something less peculiar such as "writer of Brighton Rock" or something equally pedestrian.
    • Examination of article v FAC criteria
    • Prose style - LIMITED - I struggled to remain engaged I have to say. Yet the article has to cover an awful lot of ground, so there isn't any leeway for any kind of narrative to emerge. It is, of necessity, one thing leading on to another unrelated thing. I suppose one could consider whether there's anything that has characterised the county throughout its history and adding something on that (without straying into original research). But reading it as a presentation of facts, I didn't notice any horribly clunky sentences, unwanted alliteration or terrible chiming; so the prose style - given the limitations - was otherwise very good.
    • Comprehensive - NOT QUALIFIED TO JUDGE
    • Well-researched - YES - appears to use a good number of different sources and all are listed wonderfully well.
    • Neutrality - V.GOOD - I can't divine any axes to grind. Article doesn't seem to "cheer lead" for the subject.
    • Stability - EXCELLENT - No sign of any editing strife in the article's several years of history at all.
    • Lead - V.GOOD - A good and concise overview.
    • Appropriate Structure - YES - Takes a chronological approach, which seems the obvious and most well-suited to the subject. It might be nice to see other articles such as Brewing in Hertfordshire and the like to pick up some of the themes running through the article and running with them.
    • Consistent Citations - NOT CHECKED
    • Images - NOT CHECKED - (I am not really familiar with all the necessary policies)
    • Length - comments - I haven't checked for the kb limit, but the article doesn't seem to give undue weight to any particular part of the history; it seems equally balanced throughout. I didn't spot any obvious candidates for things to be hived off to a daughter article.
  • bodnotbod (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for those comments. That quote box placement is something several editors have brought up. I'd like to keep it near the lede if possible, though. The article is 68 kb long.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm a fan of Hertfordshire - parts of my family come from there - and its history is intriguing, but this article isn't ready. Though most sentences are grammatically correct and I don't doubt the cited facts, the overall text is consistently poor.
  • There is a general problem that the article reads (in some, not all, sections) more as a chronology of events that occurred in Hertfordshire, than as a History of same. The text lacks coherence, with frequent isolated "factlets". Two egs from 14century: " Edmund of Langley, the first Duke of York and founder of the House of York, was born in Kings Langley on 5 June 1341 and died there on 1 August 1402." and "Richard of Wallingford, the mathematician and astronomer, became Abbott of St Albans in 1326. He is regarded as the father of modern trigonometry." I'm not suggesting running through and deleting these things indiscriminately, but either giving them a meaningful context - why does it matter that he was born in Hertfordshire? - or integrating them into existing text and themes more carefully. Not easy in some cases, i accept.
  • Sometimes facts do just need to be deleted. Example: "The original guardian of the Norman motte and bailey castle in Hertford was named Peter de Valognes." Just delete. Who cares, unless we are about to be told interesting things about this person as a notable Hertfordian (which we are not).
  • Some paras are truly bad. The first para under "Eleventh century" mentions that a massacre "was thought to have started in" Hertfordshire (truly a tenuous link) - and then the county isn't mentioned again until the last sentence, where it tells us that something has already been mentioned about Hertfordshire.
  • Another example of this lack of focus is the intro sentence to late Middle Ages, which has nothing at all to do with H.
  • Prose issues throughout. Some egs:
  • "She had already burned Londinium (later London), among other places, and would shortly afterwards be killed at the Battle of Watling Street." Unrelated facts in one sentence, as well as extraneous to the history of Herfordshire.
  • "Anglo-Saxon Hertford is an example of town planning as demonstrated by its organised rectangular grid street pattern." Unrelated to the content of the preceding sentences.
  • "St Albans was an especially parliamentary stronghold" - surely an especially strong parliamentary stronghold?
I added "staunch" here, to avoid repetition. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some unreferenced facts, eg "It was at this Synod that the "question of Easter" was settled, with which the church decided how the date of Easter ought to be calculated"
  • "Hitchin likely stayed in royal hands into the tenth century." So many issues - bitty prose, and unrelated to the preceding lines; the following sentences in the para are even worse in this regard.
  • Query re one particular point. One para under "origins of the county" begins "Hertfordshire clearly did not exist in the late ninth century." It then explains that the geographical region was split in two following a war. I'm not sure we should use the word "clearly", unless the sources are explicitly ruling out the possibility that something called Hertford (and different in extent to the present H.) could have existed.
  • Try and avoid organising the account in ways that end up requiring sentences like "During these campaigns he built the two burhs of Hertford as already noted." (emphasis added). It tends to indicate that the chronology of the account has become confused.
  • Lots of muddled chronology. Eg "In 1130, the earliest Pipe Roll shows..." at the end of a para that begins in 1143.

Needs a broad-scale overhaul, sorry. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some of those issues are fixable, but some are simply too vague to respond to. Yes, the article's essentially a chronology:- a list of things that happened in, or are related to, Hertfordshire, rendered in prose. And that's what it ought to be. There should be no speculation, no "angle", no point of view, and no amateur analysis bolted onto the facts. Not least because this article needs to cover well over a thousand years in summary style, and it's already seven thousand words and 68kb long, and reviewers are already concerned about length.

    Hamiltonstone's critique complains when I introduce simple facts and leave it there, but also complains when I give context that isn't specifically about Hertfordshire.

    I do agree that paragraphs are unfocused. If I had my way, this article would contain one topic per paragraph and one paragraph per topic. There is a feeling among other editors that this makes my paragraphs "too short", a point which I feel is ridiculous but on Wikipedia one submits to the consensus. Thus others, and I, have gone through it stitching totally unrelated subjects together into the same paragraph.

    Yes, the sources explicitly rule out the possibility that Hertfordshire as an administrative or governmental unit could have existed. Partly in Essex, partly in Mercia, with a dividing line along Watling Street and the River Lea. There's no evidence that the word was used as a geographical term, and while we can't explicitly rule that out, it's highly unlikely. Hertfordshire's geographically disparate and there's no feature or aspect that unites it.

    Generally, my response to Hamiltonstone is, give me specific criticisms and I'll address them.—S Marshall T/C 08:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object mostly per Hamiltonstone's comments about the content. Things such as a royal lady or famous novelist who happened to be born there fill the article, when it is supposed to be the big picture development and trends of the area eg, increase/decreases in settlement, wars, farming and industry, legal reform, recessions etc. Instead there is a paragraph about the Prime Minister having his seat there, but nothing about what he did for the region. Also, has there not been any immigration into the area? Becuase it is not mentioned. In short, the content doesn't match the topic YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose does not appear comprehensive, and I believe the prose is substandard, jumping around as it does. We have an episode from the 10th century, then jumps a century, as if a factlet a century is the way to go. Didn't Domesday Book say anything more about Hertfordshire than 168 settlements, which gives no idea of its 11th century state to anyone? I am very much afraid that this seems a collection of anecdotes and episodes, with no common thread.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have to agree with the last three opposes. There is a balance to be struck between events and trends, and what happened to the whole country or area and what happened to Herts in particular, but this clearly hasn't got it right yet. No mention of the M1 and M25 motorways, surely crucial to the contemporary economy of the county. How much of the working population commutes to London? I have seen the discussion on the talk page, but frankly find it difficult to believe that no sources exist for a less episodic treatment. A small example - which is more important to the subject here? Your text:"King Offa of Mercia (died 796) gave his name to the village of Offley in Hertfordshire.[22] Some sources suggest he died there,[22] though he was buried in Bedford.[23]" or my addition: "He founded St Albans Abbey in 793"? Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn, with thanks to those who made an effort to improve the article.—S Marshall T/C 15:23, 24 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/History_of_Hertfordshire/archive1&oldid=1142499680"