Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William H. Prescott/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 Karanacs 15:08, 14 September 2010 [1].

William H. Prescott

edit

William H. Prescott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Claritas § 10:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this article pretty much single-handedly since May, and it's gone from a weak start class to GA. I think the coverage and sourcing clearly meets the FA criteria, and I doubt that anything other than minor changes need to be made to other aspects of the article for it to meet the respective criteria. Claritas § 10:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Notes
  • Bibliography
    • Johnson and Brown not a cited work, should be listed as further reading
    • Likewise Lockwood
    • Likewise Ticknor (1861), I think
    • Likewise Palmer
    • Space required between "Peck" and "Harry"
    • Sullivan (2009) missing a forename
    • ISBNs missing from Peck and both Sullivan books
    • No citations to Robert Anderson Wilson. Is there a reason why he is singled out for a redlink?
    • No citations to Winsor

Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all. Claritas § 15:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an issue with it ? I like that template, and some journal articles use the same/similar format. Claritas § 08:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally quite liked the format, but it may be contrary to MOS:ALLCAPS Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine. The MOS seems to be more concerned with all caps in the main text of the work, and I don't think there are any difficulties in reading it, so I'd prefer to ignore that rule and keep the present format. Claritas § 16:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:MOS#Keep_markup_simple and MOS:ALLCAPS is not confined to writing within the body of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the smallcaps, although I did take a fancy to it myself, too :P. Not a big deal, though. —fetch·comms 03:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the Legacy section it says "Prescott himself was the origin of several now common elements of academic writing, including the use of bibliographical citations and critical notes.", cited to Gardiner. Now, I am intrigued by this: Edward Gibbon famously used footnotes/citations/critical notes in the 18th century, and Anthony Grafton seems to think the scholarly footnote originated with German scholars (I have examples of such citations from decades before Prescott on my shelves myself). Buchraeumer (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claritas has informed me that: "Gardiner does explicitly say that Prescott was the first historian to use citations etc. However, Gardiner's work is particularly centred on America, and I therefore think Buchraeumer is probably right - Gibbons did use footnotes/critical notes (although not to the extent which Prescott does)."
The wording has been changed in both the last line of the lede (to "Prescott has become one of the most widely translated American historians, and was an important figure in the development of history as a rigorous academic discipline.") and the first two lines of the "Legacy" section (to "Prescott's work has remained popular and influential to the present day, and his meticulous use of sources, bibliographical citations and critical notes was unprecedented among American historians."). —fetch·comms 03:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am absolutely fine with the new wording as regards this point! While I found the Legacy section very good, I am afraid, some earlier sections are a quite confusing for a reader relatively unfamiliar with the intellectual life of the era. For many personalities I had to use the link. In the Isabella section (for example) passages about the work and other details of his life alternate too much IMO, it's really confusing. My impression is that the article still suffers too much from the problem of organizing the material into a logical (and understandable) overall narrative or structure. Buchraeumer (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Working on this. I've reordered a few things, done more copyediting, etc. in the meantime. For the most part, I think the article reads fine except for bits in the Career sections, especially the early career, as you mentioned. —fetch·comms 04:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Claritas has been blocked and has indicated that he wants this FAC closed, but I am requesting that it please stay open for a bit longer, as I am currently in private correspondence with Claritas and would like to discuss a few things (including the possibility of me finishing this up) first. —fetch·comms 22:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Images are verifiably in the public domain—no issues. Jappalang (talk) 07:59, 14 September 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/William_H._Prescott/archive1&oldid=1086102807"