Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Herbert Maryon/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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 28 March 2020 [1].

Herbert Maryon

edit
Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When the Queen asked him what he did, Herbert Maryon responded that he was a "back room boy at the British Museum." This humble (or, perhaps, deer-in-headlights) comment belied the fact that Maryon, at Buckingham for his appointment to the Order of the British Empire, had only just embarked on his second career; a sculptor, metalsmith, and archaeologist for the first half of the 20th century, Maryon joined the museum's research laboratory at the end of the war and immediately set to work on the treasures from Sutton Hoo, one of Britain's greatest archaeological finds. In other work, he excavated one of Britain's oldest gold artefacts, restored a Roman helmet from Syria, and influenced a painting by Salvador Dalí. When nearly 90 he retired for the second time—then left for an around-the-world museum and lecture tour (where at least two Wikipedians, Peter Knutsen and AJim, heard him speak in 1962).

This exhaustive article has been built over the last three years. It is easily the most comprehensive take on Maryon's life and contributions, collecting information from hundreds of sources, and spawning a number of related articles (e.g., Works of Herbert Maryon). It was reviewed by KJP1 last May and recently given a fresh copyedit by me, and is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • As per Commons, signatures are eligible for copyright protection in the UK
  • This page doesn't reflect an official policy and as far as I can tell, its UK commentary merely reflects one user's opinion from 12 years ago. None of the sources mentioned offer more than a line or two of analysis, and the one court decision mentioned in the UK is significantly mischaracterized, which makes me question the sweeping declaration that UK signatures should not be used on Wikipedia. A better analysis, I think, would ask whether the signature does more (and/or is intended to do more) than fulfill a utilitarian purpose; here, there is no question that it is simply a utilitarian signature.
  • This is a good example of the dangers of taking legal advice from a Wikipedia article—let alone one with three hat notes warning the reader of a lack of sources. After all, that article used to say the complete opposite, and even now, it uses what an edit description refers to as "a book about british law" to say that signatures are also copyrightable in the United States. I'm willing to believe that a signature that is intended as an independent creative expression—and that exhibits a degree of labour, skill or judgement—can be copyrighted. Kurt Vonnegut, for one, may have a case. But there is a reason that courts refer to signatures as "copyright management information" (definition); the vast majority of signatures are essentially nothing other than metadata. Or, as the unquoted next paragraph in the "book about british law" says, "It should be remembered that copyright only subsists in works which are the product of skill, judgment and labour. An everyday signature of a rudimentary nature is unlikely to satisfy these requirements." --Usernameunique (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newcastle Libraries only posts images to Flickr that they understand to be in the public domain (link).
  • Added.
  • Yes. Both were published in 1954, so—assuming life +70 applies—the earliest either of them could enter the public domain is around 2024.

Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

edit
  • "Herbert Maryon studied from 1896 to 1900" I assume his name is repeated in full here to separate him from his siblings mentioned before?
  • Exactly.
  • "Memorial to Bernard Gilpin in St Cuthbert's Church" Could you specify it is by Maryon and when? Perhaps that image should moved a paragraph down to where it is mentioned?
  • Added. I'll probably eventually move it two paragraphs down and add a second photograph (of an earlier work) above, but have left it where it is for now.
  • "The University of Reading War Memorial" Likewise, the caption establishes no context or date.
  • Added. It's now The University of Reading War Memorial, designed by Maryon and dedicated in 1924
  • "Three other commissions in silver—a loving cup, a processional cross, and a challenge shield—were featured in The Studio and its international counterpart." Any dates for these?
  • Added "Three other commissions in silver—a loving cup, a processional cross, and a challenge shield—were completed towards the end of Maryon's tenure and the school and featured in The Studio and its international counterpart". I've left a specific date out since while they were presumably done in 1904—Maryon's last year at the school—they weren't featured in the magazines until 1905 (The Studio) and 1906 (International Studio).
  • "along with an altar cross designed by Maryon for Hexham Abbey" Any of the crosses seen here?[2][3]
  • Yes, right in the middle: it's the one seen here. It might be possible to get a photograph from Hexham Abbey of just the cross, which I need to follow up on.
  • "vade mecum" Could this be explained in parenthesis?
  • Why not full name for Cellini as everyone else?
  • Only because he's frequently referred to by his last name only, but that's not a particularly good reason. Now given as Benvenuto Cellini
  • Why not spell out W. G. Collingwood and G. M. Collinson? All other names are.
  • W. G. Collingwood because he seems to have gone by his initials, but I've changed it for the sake of consistency. I haven't been able to find the full name of G. M. Collinson.
  • "Three years later he witnessed" Could a year be given instead for simplicity? Wouldn't want to break up the flow by making the readers calculate, hehe...
  • Done.
  • "teaching at sculpture at Armstrong College" Is the first "at" needed?
  • Nope, removed.
  • "While there he published his second book, Modern Sculpture: Its Methods and Ideals." Date?
  • 1933, added.
  • "These included at least two plaques, memorialising George Stephenson,[18][127] and Sir Charles Parsons" Dates?
  • "The statue was the subject of "adverse criticism" Why?
  • Because it's ugly? Unfortunately I haven't been able to find the answer to this, despite a fair amount of searching. The footnote I've just added adds some depth; works by Jacob Epstein had recently been tarred and feathered, so the tarring of Maryon's was presumably a copycat event. Yet while that indicates where the students likely got the idea of tarring and feathering, it does not answer why they decided to take it out on Statue of Industry. A librarian at Durham University also found a brief excerpt in the November 1929 issue of the college's magazine The Northerner, but it doesn't shed much light either: "Angry critics of our 'industrious' raggers suggested that they should be punished by being splashed as they splashed the statue. They would then have been 'moist with their own – betarred.' [Tut! Tut! – ED.]". There are a few other ways I’ve been meaning to look into this—by emailing a few more libraries, and by trying to nail down the universe of newspapers/school magazines the statue might have been mentioned in—but so far it’s unclear.
  • "when he was 64 or 65" Maybe bypass this irritating uncertainty by just saying mid-60s?
  • Done.
  • "He spent the World War II years, from 1939 to 1943, engaged in munition work." Any further details on this?
  • Nothing, unfortunately. I've spent some time looking for this, but haven't been able to find anything beyond how Maryon described that time in a later bio, which is "Munition Work, 1939–43".
  • "One of the gold ornaments from the Kirkhaugh cairns" Again, some context? Maybe add "excavated under Maryon in 1935" or similar?
  • Now One of two gold ornaments from the Kirkhaugh cairns, matching the one excavated by Maryon in 1935
  • The paragraph under "British Museum, 1944–61" is a massive wall of text, could it be broken in two?
  • Done.

Many thanks, FunkMonk. Responses above. —Usernameunique (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "to T. D. Kendrick" Full name?
  • Done.
  • "in the modern-day city of Homs" Odd phrasing?
  • Now The Roman Emesa helmet had been found in the Syrian city Homs in 1936. I was been trying to indicate that Homs was once called Emesa (without repeating the word Emesa), but it was a bit clunky, and risked making it sound as if "Homs" is a recent name.
Ah, sorry, I misread the text the first time and didn't see the "of" somehow. I actually thought I had removed the comment, but there we go... FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "D. E. L. Haynes" Full name?
  • Done.
  • "Not only the pose, but even the hammered plates of Maryon's theory find [in Dalí's painting] a clear and very powerful expression." Who said this? Long wuotes like that could use in-text attribution.
  • Done: "Not only the pose," wrote de Callataÿ, "but even the hammered plates of Maryon's theory find [in Dalí's painting] a clear and very powerful expression."
  • "W. S. Gilbert" Full name?
  • Done.
  • You mention Toronto twice, only linking it the second time
  • Fixed.
  • I wonder if the intro is a tad too long (a fourth)? The article itself isn't that long in relation.
I'll read the intro once this is answered, then I should be pretty close to support. FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've shortened it by about 12%—does it still look too long? It's a bit hard to chop it down, given how many things Maryon did; each careers seems to have produced at least half a dozen things worth talking about.
  • " J. C. Orelli's" Full?
  • Done.
  • "tin are very brittle,"" Should the quotation mark not be before the comma?
  • Impressed you made it that deep into that footnote. Fixed.
Thanks for the review, FunkMonk. I think I've responded to everything above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last tiny issue, I don't see this specifically stated in the article body: "and began an around-the-world trip lecturing and researching Chinese magic mirrors".
Ah, I read it as if the trip around the world was for researching Chinese magic mirrors and lecturing about them. Maybe the text can be clarified a bit. Anyhow, no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • Avoid having more than three citations in a row, especially in the lead; it's distracting.
  • I've cut down on these considerably, although have left a few places where the citations are independently useful. These are: different types of sources for newly discovered helmet fragments (see below), four sources which together support the general number of Maryon's publications, a variety of contemporaneous death notices, and in footnote 2, where the relevant literature (four articles/chapters) for a particular subject is listed.
  • Footnote 8: The vast number of news sources is completely unnecessary. List one or two per country explicitly stating which country. That's much more useful and better for showing "international attention".
  • How does it look now, with the cites now as external links rather than footnotes? Numerous newspaper articles were published, including in the United Kindom, Canada, and the United States. See § Colossus articles.
  • Is it really necessary to cite five different obituaries? Just one probably suffices for this information. Move others to external links if they are providing unique info not in the article already. (per WP:EL) buidhe 02:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Necessary is perhaps the wrong word, but (I think) they add some interesting color. As I mention below, the five citations are hardly pretty, but it's a collection of all of the immediate notices of Maryon's death: two in The Daily Telegraph two days after his death (likely paid and unpaid notices), two versions of the story picked up by The Canadian Press, and Maryon's probate. It's somewhat interesting to see how his death was dealt with by the papers, and I figured that's the best place to put those particular sources, given that the later obituaries are more detailed retrospectives on his career and are thus included earlier.
  • Per WP:NOT and standard practice, we should not host an exhaustive list of Maryon's articles. Only keep those that are cited in the article or meet some other defined criteria.
  • This might make more sense with someone who has more publications, or whose list of publications is widely accessible online. In Maryon's case, however, the list gives a sense of the breadth of his studies and interests; helpfully provides links to all but nine of his articles; and lists some contributions, such as early articles in obscure journals, that would otherwise be overlooked. The three articles in Goldsmiths Journal, for instance, are not even mentioned online, and are only able to be listed because I found a copy of Maryon's cv in the Penn Museum's archives, and Serial Number 54129 then dug up copies in the British Library.
  • Although personal preferences certainly vary, the list is something that I think adds value, and that (in keeping with my prior practice—see for example Caroline Brady § Publications and D. H. Turner § Publications) I would prefer to add. And though WP:NOT does not appear to say anything about the issue, WP:MOS § list of works actively supports its inclusion: "Complete lists of works ... are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet."

More to come. buidhe 14:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "by 1954 Herbert Maryon had spent 60 years tracing back the history of the family." is cited to a self-published source which doesn't meet WP:SPS. Nominator added this back after it was removed by another user. buidhe 03:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buidhe, I’m sorry if you thought I meant to overlook your thoughts regarding the self-published work that you removed. I realize that undoing an edit is sometimes an overly abrupt maneuver, and I could have been more clear about why I did it. Did you happen to see my edit summary? I agree that it could be problematic to rely on it for whatever genealogical records are recorded within; I only meant to rely on for the discrete fact that Herbert Maryon had, as of 1954, spent some 60 years researching his family’s past. I don’t think it’s a controversial point—he probably just told the author as much in a letter, and the copious amount of material at the Essex Records Office makes clear that Maryon was indeed an amateur genealogist. But please let me know if you see it differently. By the way, I hope to respond to your other points later today. Best, —Usernameunique (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buidhe, one of the explicit exceptions to the general disfavoring of self-published sources is for uncontroversial information about which an author would be expected to have personal knowledge. The spirit of that exception would seem to hold true here. But rather than belabor an exceedingly minor point, I've removed that source and sentence. Hopefully that will allow us to turn to any further comments on the article you may have. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

edit

I have to head off imminently, but a few quick comments to start with... Josh Milburn (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry to be a bore, but... Could you say a little more about the Life Archive from which the lead image is taken? Are the images for sale? I'm just thinking about the not-often-mentioned non-free content criterion 2.
  • I would hardly expect you to forget one of the NFC criteria! In 2008, Life and Google partnered to digitize the magazine's photograph archive, which Google published online. Google did the same for each issue of Life. Although copyright of the photographs remained with Time Warner, rights were made entirely "free for personal and research purposes" (see press release). The images are also available for purchase (see the image's page, which has a "Buy framed image" link); as one article mentioned at the time (link), the commercial benefit to Time Warner is that the photographs, by being made widely available, are now widely monetizable.
What you are presumably getting at is that the best way to uphold NFCC #2, "Respect for commercial opportunities," appears to be to use the photograph at its full resolution as available via Google. That way it can be given greater visibility, and those interested in purchasing the image—in original resolution and/or for commercial use—are more likely to see it. I'm glad you noticed that; it means that we can find synergy between the interests of readers and of the copyright holder, by using the image at its higher resolution.
  • In the lead, you refer to him as a "teacher" - given that he's publishing books as well, and some of his positions were at major research universities, would "academic" or "lecturer" not be preferable?
  • Changed "while a teacher" to "while teaching," although he is still referred to as a "teacher" elsewhere. In his own 1960 bio (link), he is referred to as "Teacher of Modelling and Crafts, University of Reading, 1908-27; ... Master of Sculpture and Lecturer in Anatomy and the History of Sculpture, King's College." I chose teacher partly because of that description, and partly because it is the most general; considering the many, frequently overlapping corners of Maryon's career, it seems incorrect to pin him down as an "academic" or a "lecturer." Meanwhile, I just realized that among all the many descriptions in the first sentence, teacher is not one of them. Might have to add a seventh...
  • "coined the term pattern welding to" Words as words; you should use italics.
  • Done; good catch, I had no idea that was a thing.
  • Added. I've considered that one for a while, especially as it is singled out in the article, although hadn't until now because a) it doesn't come out all that well at small size, and b) I have my eyes set on another piece that I would like to get a photograph of. But this should do the trick for now.

Ok, more:

  • Is "The Jewelers' Circular" a periodical? If so, italics? And one of what? The critical notes?
  • italicized, and changed to One such note.
  • "led the one-time secretary of the Metropolitan Museum of Art to label Maryon not" If you're not naming the secretary, shouldn't that be a one-time secretary? Surely there's more than one.
  • Yep, done.
  • "teaching at sculpture at Armstrong College" ??
  • Fixed.
  • "The book received mixed reviews.[115]" Can you say that while citing one source? Or is that a source that specifically says that the book received mixed reviews?
  • It's a bit of a mixed review itself, so is being used more as an example than as support. I figured it's as good a place as any to cite that review.
  • "with brown umber, this was also used to fill the in-between areas" Comma splice - also, what does the this refer to, here? Brown umber, or the mix?
  • The plaster, actually, which leaves us with (I think) a grammatically correct but confusing sentence. How does it sound as: Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster; this was mixed with brown umber, this was also used to fill the in-between areas.
  • Meant to say "which was also" there but edited too quickly, but that is also problematic. How does Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster mixed with brown umber; this was also used to fill the in-between areas. sound?
  • Does this mixture was also used to fill the in-between areas do the trick?
  • Yes, sorry. Have been busy and edited too quickly. Meanwhile, that that also proves your point about it being unclear! I've changed it to Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster mixed with brown umber; plaster was also used to fill the in-between areas.
  • "Yet as Bruce-Mitford wrote" Is it fair to present this in Wikipedia's neutral voice? It reads like editorialising.
  • No, that's a good point. Changed to Yet "[m]uch of Maryon's work is valid", Bruce-Mitford wrote. "The general character of the helmet was made plain."
  • "while a 1948 paper introduced the term pattern welding to describe a method, employed on the Sutton Hoo sword and others,[27] of strengthening and decorating iron and steel by welding into them twisted strips of metal." I understand your desire to have references following punctuation, but I'm struggling with the commas here
  • The awkward phrasing is more an attempt to keep the subject matter consistent, with Sutton Hoo mentioned in the prior sentence. How does Several of Maryon's earlier papers, in 1946 and 1947, described his restorations of the shield and helmet from the Sutton Hoo burial.[181][215] In 1948 another paper introduced the term pattern welding to describe a method of strengthening and decorating iron and steel by welding into them twisted strips of metal;[29][216][217] the method was employed on the Sutton Hoo sword among others, giving them a distinctive pattern. sound?
  • Could you perhaps make clear who claims that the hollow statue ideas were "great"?
  • Clarified: Although "great ideas" according to the scholar Godefroid de Callataÿ. We could get more specific, although "according to the professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the Oriental Institute of the University of Louvain Godefroid de Callataÿ" is a mouthful.
  • This is only a half thought, but it seems strange to talk about marriages and children only at the end when wives and sons have been alluded to earlier.
  • Let me know if you have a better suggestion, but I've spent some time thinking about this and I'm not sure how else to put it. There isn't a particularly logical place to put the 1903 marriage in the Keswick section (although "Mrs. Herbert J. Maryon" is mentioned there, and is presumably said wife, that relates to something that happened in 1906). And his son John is mentioned earlier—but in the last sentence of the preceding section. I think it might be easier to integrate the personal details into the rest of the article if we had better information, but all I've really found is names and dates.
  • At least some of your footnote references probably need some italics without them being there.
  • Is there a type of citation that you're noticing that needs them? I've italicized all of the newspaper and journal titles; are you thinking of things like "Mapping England" and "Historic England"?

Great read - I'm seeing very few issues. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you've come to expect this comment from me, but, for the record... Per WP:LEADLENGTH, the article's lead is too long. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Milburn, yes, I was surprised to see your initial comments touch on only two thirds of the fair use/logical quotation/lead length trifecta! I’ve taken some more out of the first paragraph, although as noted above, I’ve had some difficulty in shortening it further; the guy did a lot of things in his 91 years & 2 careers, and a lot of it is noteworthy. Is there anything In particular you would consider removing from the lead? —Usernameunique (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images (again, sorry): Josh Milburn (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm happy with your explanation for the lead image. If we've definitely no free image, that one's probably usable.
  • File:University of Reading War Memorial.jpg: If this is a Maryon-designed building, we probably need a FOP tag. I think there's some confusion about "Andrew Smith" on the image page.
  • Done. And removed the "Andrew Smith" link; looks like a bot put that in 2012.
  • Done.


Hey J Milburn, just wanted to see if you have any further comments on this. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: The Winged Victory image will need a FOP tag - as well as some details about its location! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn, I'm not sure we'll need a FOP tag for that one, as any copyright appears to have lapsed through publication. Its style—taken from Maryon's teacher Alexander Fisher—was published at least as early as 1900, and the one distinguishing characteristic of Maryon's design—the cast of Nike—was published in 1904. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the work is PD, that's fine - you're right that no FOP tag would be required. But perhaps you could explain that on the image page? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn, done. —Usernameunique (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support on prose and images. I still think the leads too long (and by the letter of WP:LEADLENGTH, it is) but that concern doesn't seem to hold as much water at FAC as some others. I've not looked into the lengthy bibliography, further reading, etc. sections, so this support is basically conditional on checks there coming back OK. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
Interesting reading. A few things.
  • The word "memorial" is used three times in a short span in the second paragraph's final sentence, once as a proper noun, once as a common noun and once as an adjective. Suggest avoiding one of them.
  • I've cut and moved this sentence significantly, and it now only contains one use of the word "memorial."
  • "At the end of 1899 he displayed a silver cup and a shield of arms with silver cloisonné at the sixth exhibition of the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society, an event held at the New Gallery that also included a work by Maryon's sister Edith.[51]" Unless there is some reason not to, I would move up the Maryon to before "displayed" and substitute "his" before "sister".
  • Reworded.
  • "At the following year's exhibition the Manchester School of Art purchased a copper jug he designed for its Arts and Crafts Museum.[78]" Slight ambiguity, since it could be read to say he designed the jug for the museum, something which seems unlikely.
  • Reworded: At the following year's exhibition a copper jug he designed was purchased by the Manchester School of Art for its Arts and Crafts Museum.
  • "He was also the warden of Wantage Hall from 1920 to 1922.[9][10] " A link to the intended use of warden might be useful for American readers.
  • "and more helmet fragments were discovered during the 1965–69 re-excavation of Sutton Hoo;[190][155][191][192]" I note the refs out of order, if you are doing them in numerical order, but also are four refs needed for such a short passage?
  • I've cut down on the use of four refs as commented on above, although here I think there is some value to them here. [190] is a report of the 1965–69 excavations while they were still in progress; [155] is an article (technically, a chapter) published after the excavations; [191] is the finalized report; and [192] discusses the new fragments in the context of the helmet reconstruction.
  • "royal bronze effigies.[212]" I might reverse the adjectives.
  • Done.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Wehwalt. Responses above.

Support from Comments by Tim riley

edit

Just booking my place. I'll be back with detailed comments after a proper read-through. (I happen to be working on an overhaul of Canon Rawnsley's article at present, and so this article is of particular interest.) Tim riley talk 08:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is a splendidly researched article, focused on the subject with no excessive digression. The sourcing is wide and looks impressive. The illustrations are spot-on. I read the text with pleasure. A few very minor quibbles, which don't affect my support but you may like to consider:

  • I might prune the formulaic "tendered her resignation" to plain "resigned".
  • Done.
  • I wonder why in the same sentence The Bookman and The Spectator have a capitalised definite article but the Staggers doesn't.
  • Fixed.
  • "Maryon's time at Armstrong coincided with an interest in archaeology" – it isn't immediately obvious that the interest was on Maryon's part rather than that of the world in general.
  • Reworded: Maryon's expressed an interest in archaeology while at Armstrong.
  • "He spent the World War II years, from 1939 to 1943" – given that the World War II years were from 1939 to 1945 it might be smoother to redraw on the lines of "During WW2 he spent the years 1939 to 1943" or some such.
  • "Trustees of the British Museum to serve as a Technical Attaché" – rather a lot of capital letters there. Not sure trustees, technical and attaché need capitalising. There are a few other (over-reverential?) capitalisations elsewhere, such as "Director" in footnote 4. I do not press the point.
  • It's a valid point—I generally kept the capitals from the sources, but that—if not over-reverential—preserves what is probably overly self-important. I've changed them except for "Technical Attaché," which perhaps(?) makes clear that it was his title, rather than a description. But I'm not wedded to that, and if you don't think it adds anything am happy to change it.
  • "Harbor" – surely "harbour" in a BrE article?
  • Fixed.
  • As a G&S buff I really, really wouldn't refer to Frampton's subject as "Sir William Gilbert". "W. S. Gilbert" is what is wanted here, I am quite sure.
  • Done. I changed a few of these due to FunkMonk's point about consistency (either initials or full names), but if people went by their initials, that makes sense to me.
  • Removed.

Those are my meagre gleanings. Nothing there to stop me adding my support. A fine article, fully meeting the FA criteria in my view. An interesting and remarkable man, and the nominator has done him justice. Tim riley talk 22:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review and support, Tim riley. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I look forward to seeing Maryon on the front page in due course. Tim riley talk 23:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit

I won't pretend I checked every one of the numerous works, but here are my comments. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't much like links that don't go to any viewable content, eg "The Bernard Gilpin Memorial in Kentmere Church". Personally I only link to text that is either free to read or paywalled, but not to non-pages
  • This may depend on one's location. In the US, where that source has spent decades in the public domain, Google Books allows one to view that content.
  • As far as I can see, all the sources are appropriate, I looked at a few and they were correctly used.
  • Two refs read identically as "statue". The British Museum Collection Online. The British Museum. Retrieved 8 January 2020. but link to different pages, perhaps add the museum number to differentiate
  • I've changed to "Statue (Comedy)" and "Statue (Tragedy)".
  • Arwidsson 1942, p. Taf. 1. I don't know what Taf means and I can't see the content, perhaps write in full/translate or whatever
  • It's the German abbreviation for "Tafel", i.e., "Plate". In English, it would be "Pl." Here, given that the citation is in a photo caption, and the photo itself shows the abbreviation ("Taf. 1"), I think it's probably fine as is.
  • p. 312 & n.4. elsewhere you have separated non-consecutive pages with commas
  • This cites to content in both page 312, and footnote 4 on page 312.
  • There seems to be massive overlinking of people like Rupert Bruce-Mitford, and titles like "Studio Talk: Keswick" and The Studio. . Not clear why you aren't linking just once, per MOS
  • Links seem to be treated differently in an article body, and in a bibliography; in the latter case, hardly any people read straight through, but rather look at sources selectively based on which citation brought them there. The long line of Bruce-Mitford citations does stand out, although I'd be hesitant to change the overall style based on one outlier.
  • Review of Der Überfangguss. Ein Beitrag zur vergeschichtlichen Metalltechnik perhaps add translation of the German, but your call
  • No objection to doing so, although I wouldn't trust my own translation of this. It also looks as if "vergeschichtlichen" might be a typo (for "vorgeschichtlichen"). Gerda Arendt, do you have any idea how this would be translated?
  • Check title case, eg "Colossus of Rhodes Is Described As Hollow Sham". which has of...Is...As. In fact, several of the Colossus titles are incorrectly title cased, best check them all, need changing even if you have followed the original formatting
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Schoolboys unearth golden hair tress more than 4,000 years old". other titles use title case
  • Done.
  • I may have another run through later, easy to miss something with so many

Thanks for the review, Jimfbleak. I've now responded to all your points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All looks OK now, I'll leave the translation with you, since that's your call anyway, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG

edit

Not ready; the overcitation in the lead needs attention, as does the WP:NOT list of works at the bottom of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I've already responded to these specific points above. If you have any further comments about the content of this article, I would be happy to address them. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, but I don't agree on either point. The lead is overcited (does it not properly summarize the article?) and WP:NOT should be respected. Wikipedia isn't a webhost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, the MOS says that "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Do you take issue with that, or is there another section you think is more relevant? Likewise, could you please point to the section of WP:NOT that you think guides against a comprehensive list of a subject's publications? --Usernameunique (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see the overcitation is throughout the article, not just the lead, and there are prose issues ... I will review further tomorrow as this will take more time than I have now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the delay; starting over now, as there is more to address here than I realized on my first pass. My usual procedure is to start review at the bottom of the article first, since some reviewers never make it down there. I also prefer to address the lead last. In process now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Citations
  • There are two Harvard Ref errors (at Bruce-Mitford1983b and Pudney2000). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.
  • Could you please explain the citation style? Perhaps I am just missing it, but here are just a few samples from only a few of the citations (please review throughout, this is only a sample list): SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is inconsistent use of last retrieval dates. Journals do not require a last access date, but some newspapers have them while others don't?
      • I've removed about half of these, for the ones that have a stable underlying source (primarily a piece of paper such as a newspaper which will never change). I've left them for the other sources—mostly websites, including a few newspaper websites where I'm not sure what the print version (if it existed) looks like.
    • There is inconsistency on Volumes/Issues in the citations: most citations include volume when available, while the first citation for example (Annual report on Royal Ontario Museum) leaves it off.
      • Added. I think that one was missing due to unfamiliarity with using the {{cite report}} template. I didn't see another journal/report/similar missing volume information, but I've added volume/issue information for a number of newspaper articles.
    • Some citations use roman numerals for volume, even when the source does not: example https://www.jstor.org/stable/865852?seq=1
      • I use what the actual journal used. So if you look at the title page for that one, it uses Roman numerals. I've actually put a fair amount of time in trying to figure out how each journal numbers itself; every so often I'm unable to find the answer for a particular journal/date (some change over time), and in those cases I default to Arabic numerals.
  • See WP:NOTCATALOG on this source. Since this is only covered in a Note (not in text), and there is independent coverage, the sales catalogue is not overly problematic, but you might consider whether to remove that link and stick with the independent source. I'm not fussed either way on this, other than noting external criticism that FAC needs to keep a better eye on WP:NOT, which we have historically neglected.
    • It's not a big deal, but the main add for that source is that it gives a color photograph of the casket. Theoretically it could also serve to give the sale price, but I've been unable to retrieve that information so far as I don't have a subscription to the website.
  • What makes K Simon a reliable source? [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also not a big deal, but it adds another work by Maryon, with a nice photograph to boot. The fact that the citation is being used for ('Maryon made this work') is also uncontroversial, especially since "H Maryon" is visible at the bottom right of the photograph. But feel free to push back if you disagree.
    • On second thought I've taken this out. Given that the date of the plaque isn't known, it's too speculative to group it in with the 1929/1932 plaques; it's better suited in Works of Herbert Maryon for now.
  • A large amount of the citations are to Maryon himself: it might be helpful to have Ealdgyth or Johnbod review that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is discussed more directly below, but what are you suggesting the review look for?
Works and Layout
  • See MOS:BIB. One expects to find a list of works in the article, before See also, Notes and References, per WP:LAYOUT and MOS:ORDER. MOS:WORKS discusses books, but never mentions journal articles (curiously), but it does say "Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged". There are instances in the article where the relevance of his publications are mentioned, and others that are sourced to himself (example, and in 1939 he wrote articles about an ancient hand-anvil discovered in Thomastown,[145]; Maryon published the finished reconstruction in a 1947 issue of Antiquity.[180])
    The article says, "He also wrote some thirty archaeological and technical papers.[2][4][9][10]" so although I cannot access those sources, there is apparently some reliably sourced scholarship about his list of Works. Considering his theory on the Colussus was rejected by others, I am unsure if the entire list of his publications is warranted, but at minimum, could you follow LAYOUT and move it all to a Works section (as it initially read to me as a long WP:NOT list of External links). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any suggestions for how to structure this? The reason it's at the bottom is so that the "Maryon 19##" references link down (like everything else), not up. But a few upward links may be worth it, especially here, where his works are somewhat hidden. One possibility would be to move "Publications" to after "Personal life", with books/articles/other becoming subsections of "Publications". Another possibility would be to make "Works by Maryon" a standalone section after "Personal life"; that would create a bit of redundancy in section titles, but be more in line with what you are suggesting.
Taking your other points in order, most of not all of the cites to Maryon's articles could be supplemented with another cite saying he did, indeed, write them. But they are uncontroversial points, the main utility of the cites is to give an interested reader a way to find the article, and there are certainly enough citations as it is. Paraphrased, sources [2][4][9][10] just say 'he wrote approximately # papers', sometimes mentioning one or two of them; they don't list them, giving extra utility to the list in the article. And it may be more fair to say that the Colossus article didn't catch on, than that it was rejected (see the bottom of footnote 9), but in any event, I'm not sure why scholarly disagreement over a nonetheless-influential paper would be a reason to not list an author's other publications.
MOS
  • Please have a look at MOS:OVERLINK and review throughout. For example, San Francisco, World War (either; probably the most overlinked terms on Wikipedia-- everyone knows what World War I, and no one is likely to click on that article from this one) are low-value links that are not likely to be clicked on. Tailor is probably understood to most English speakers, as is a world fair. This is not a big deal or something I would oppose over, but it should be reviewed; please doublecheck throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checking image captions, which look fine, but I encountered "The Valsgärde 6 helmet was one of the few published exemplar helmets at the time of Maryon's reconstruction." It is confusing that this helmet is never mentioned in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a subtle point, but compare it with the image and caption in the infobox; it's the same helmet (in fact the very same photograph in the very same book) that Maryon has open in front of him.
  • I added samples of WP:NBSP; please review throughout.
    • I assume links are automatically non-breaking, so no need to do so for WWI/II/Elizabeth II? "25 workers" now has one, as do "350 odd", "356 plates", "1300 years", "500 pieces", and "526 examples". There are probably some other places they could be added (e.g., dates), although personally, breaking spaces have never annoyed me; the occasional break where there shouldn't be a space (e.g., when a quotation mark and the bracket that leads off the quotation find themselves are separate lines) are more of an issue.
  • MOS:LQ generally looks fine, but could you check this one: yet added that "[b]y a system of grouping, however, according to some primarily aesthetic aim ... their inclusion is justified."
    • Will do, although it might take me a day or two to pull the source. What looks off about it?
    • Well spotted; what caused you to catch that? With the sentence before and after added, it reads in full: Apart from similar wise sayings his book is remarkable for its extraordinary catholicity, admitting works which we should find it hard to defend, often cheek by jowl, in the illustrations, with works of great merit. By a system of grouping, however, according to some primary aesthetic aim—as unity of line, on the one hand, or by historical or literary connexion, on the other—their inclusion is justified; and we agree with Mr. Maryon when he says that, though literary qualities alone cannot make great sculpture, they can make a work of sculpture more widely understood and appreciated. As he says, in conclusion, "The strongest roots of art are to be found, not in technical problems, but in life itself."
      • Ha, you think I can remember how I spotted something five days ago ?  :) :) Generally, at this stage, I am just scanning the page for the standard stuff I check. Are you all caught up and should I kick up the speed here? My plate is full today, but I should be able to step up the pace tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue in a bit with prose and citations, then to the lead; out of time for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

A bit more time now for some prose redundancy checking.

  • There are 20 instances of the word also (almost always redundant), including one paragraph with three instances of the word. Some are useful/necessary, but many are redundant. (Watch for "in addition", too.) Some samples only:
  • Now down to only 10 uses of the word. The remainder are predominantly used to try to maintain flow, although I'm open to any suggestions you may have on rewording those.
  • Maryon's four-year tenure at Keswick was assisted by four designers who also taught drawing:
  • four other drawing designers?
  • Designing and teaching are distinct roles here: the former was about creating designs for the school to produce en masse, and the latter about teaching others how to draw. How about Maryon's four-year tenure at Keswick was assisted by four employees who created designs and taught drawing:?
  • He also had the help of his sisters:
  • Removing this one seems to interrupt the flow; the "also" is used to provide continuity with the preceding sentencing, which also discuss the role of assistants at the school.
  • Maryon was also frequently in conflict with the school's management committee,
  • Reworded: Maryon was often in conflict with the school's management committee
  • The word subsequently. The article has nothing like the dreaded "He was mortally wounded and subsequently died" (d'oh), but not all of the uses are needed:
  • Perhaps not, although "subsequent papers ... followed" isn't much better! --Usernameunique (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has subsequently been termed "[o]ne of the finest exemplars" of a conservator with a deep technical, as well as artistic and historical, understanding of the objects he worked with. (also, passive voice in the lead)
  • Reworded: He has been remembered as. In my mind the passive voice helps focus on the point of the sentence (Maryon), rather than the less important part of who's doing the remembering (which is specified lower down).
  • Maryon's account of the excavation was published in 1936, and subsequent papers on archaeology and prehistoric metalworking followed. … subsequent … followed, redundant.
  • Removed.
  • Much of his work has seen subsequent revision, … revision has to be subsequent, it can't be prior.
  • Removed.
  • … in 1951 a young Larry Burrows was dispatched to the British Museum by Life, which subsequently published a full page photograph of the helmet alongside a photo of Maryon. Subsequently adds nothing here.
  • Removed.
  • Its importance had not been realized during excavation, however, and no photographs of it were taken in situ …
  • Changed to "Yet its importance..."
  • Other opportunities to vary the prose:
  • frequently … frequently: Maryon was also frequently in conflict with the school's management committee, which was chaired by Edith Rawnsley and frequently made decisions without his knowledge.
  • Now "often ... frequently".
  • exhibited … exhibition: Maryon exhibited a child's bowl with signs of the zodiac at the ninth Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society exhibition in 1910
  • Now "displayed ... exhibition". "Exhibition Society exhibition" remains a bit ugly, but perhaps unavoidable.

These are samples, to be checked throughout. More as I have time, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overcitation

Starting at the bottom of the article, with one sample, so we can work up to the lead. The "Personal life" section has five sentences of what appear to be basic fact, and fifteen citations:

In July 1903 Maryon married Annie Elizabeth Maryon (née Stones).[278][279][2] They had a daughter, Kathleen Rotha Maryon.[280][281][282] Annie Maryon died on 8 February 1908. A second marriage, to Muriel Dore Wood in September 1920,[2][283] produced two children, son John and daughter Margaret.[34][284] Maryon lived the majority of his life in London, and died in his 92nd year at a nursing home in Edinburgh.[34][285][286][287][288]

None of that looks controversial or difficult to source; is it? What are the excess citations adding? I cannot access many of the sources, but why add primary sources-- or multiple sources-- when secondary sources are available? Independently, is there a source for Annie's death date? Also, I can't find any mention of either her father's name or mother's name in Margaret Sawatksky's obit to verify who she is; possibly it's there and I'm just not seeing it, but that source doesn't seem to verify the text. Why does the final sentence need five sources? Several of the sources seem to say the same thing. If I can understand the citation here it might be a time-saver before digging in to other sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is controversial; rather, the different citations combine to provide extra information. The recurring theme here and elsewhere is citations used not just to support the facts in the article, but to provide a gateway to further information. See WP:CITE (noting the benefit of using citations to "help users find additional information on the subject").
Here, in the first string ("[278][279][2]") the first two citations are closer to the event in question, and (though there are no discrepancies), probably generally more reliable than the third, Who Was Who. The third nevertheless gives the imprimatur of a secondary source. In the second string ("[280][281][282]"), each citation provides different information; the first gives familial/occupation information, the second gives background information, and the third is a good secondary source with some added details. I've added the best source I can find (so far) for Annie Maryon's death. The third string ("[2][283]") is controlled by the same logic as the first. In the fourth string, ("[34][284]") 34 sustains the facts in the clause and 284 is background information on Margaret Sawatksky; among other details both sources mention her first husband's name (George Bowman), demonstrating that Margaret Sawatksky was the daughter of Maryon. The five-citation fifth string is hardly pretty, but it's a collection of all of the immediate notices of Maryon's death: two in The Daily Telegraph two days after his death (likely paid and unpaid notices), two versions of the story picked up by The Canadian Press, and Maryon's probate. It's somewhat interesting to see how his death was dealt with by the papers, and I figured that's the best place to put those particular sources, given that the later obituaries are more detailed retrospectives on his career and are thus included earlier. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources

I have just come across this post, which leads to this chart, which calls into question whether ancestry.com should be used here. Are all uses of ancestry.com backed by a secondary source where appropriate, or can their use be minimized? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're lucky with Maryon that much of the information available in primary sources is also reflected in secondary sources. A prominent example of this from the article is the phrase Mildred Maryon, who the 1901 census listed as living with her sister [Edith],[77][78]; the second citation is to the census, and the first is to a secondary source which states Edith's sister, Mildred (born c.1881) is listed as an art student, designer and living at the same address in the Census of 1901. The half-dozen ancestry.com sources thus do little independent work, but serve to confirm secondary sources, show their work, and provide launching pads for interested readers. That is to say, the article would be substantially the same without them, but is marginally better with them. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1

edit

Not entirely sure where this has got to, but I wanted to add my Support. It's beautifully written, comprehensive and immaculately sourced. I shared my concern regarding the over-citation, and the over-listing of articles particularly in relation to the Colossus, at the GA, which I did, and I think the adjustments that have been made subsequently have much improved it. There may still be a few instances where there are more than I'd personally use but, for me, that's not a deal-breaker. KJP1 (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review, KJP1, and the support. Though it’s steadily worked its way down the page—which I assume is what you mean by not being sure where this nomination has got to—I think it’s in fairly good shape overall. All the comments so far have been addressed; fingers crossed, but I think the only open issue is whether SandyGeorgia has further thoughts. —Usernameunique (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the lead and overcitation

edit
The Coords may consider all of my other nitpicks in my section above to be well enough addressed; I have procrastinated on returning to this FAC because I have not found the words to express my discomfort and confusion about why the lead is written as it is. My discomfort would be much easier to express if Usernameunique weren't such a nice person and fine writer :) It would be so much easier to be opposed to a FAC if the nominator were a poor writer and an uncooperative person, but such is not the case here. Nonetheless, I feel I must go on record as being dissatisifed with the lead here.
Usernameunique, one of the main reasons I engaged this FAC was what you wrote in the FAC introduction:

When the Queen asked him what he did, Herbert Maryon responded that he was a "back room boy at the British Museum." This humble (or, perhaps, deer-in-headlights) comment belied the fact that Maryon, at Buckingham for his appointment to the Order of the British Empire, had only just embarked on his second career; a sculptor, metalsmith, and archaeologist for the first half of the 20th century, Maryon joined the museum's research laboratory at the end of the war and immediately set to work on the treasures from Sutton Hoo, one of Britain's greatest archaeological finds. In other work, he excavated one of Britain's oldest gold artefacts, restored a Roman helmet from Syria, and influenced a painting by Salvador Dalí. When nearly 90 he retired for the second time—then left for an around-the-world museum and lecture tour (where at least two Wikipedians, Peter Knutsen and AJim, heard him speak in 1962).

That-- written free-form by you without the need to carefully cite and overcite each clause-- drew me in. It did the main thing a lead is supposed to do; it summarized to me why this fellow was interesting and worth knowing about and cultivated my interest in reading on.
But then, I hit the article and found a lead that did no such thing, and forced me to read around boatloads of little numbers, making me wonder why this fellow was so controversial and what the problem was. LEAD neither requires nor discourages citation, but it does tell us to "balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". No balance has been struck here, we go the opposite direction in helping the reader when we give them too much, and the result is text that is a chore to read, compared to the brilliant introduction to this FAC. By writing it that way, it feels like you (the writer) have been constrained, and could not deliver the compelling introduction that you have at the top of the FAC. I visited all of your older FAs, and found this is atypical for your style-- the other leads were excellent-- and I cannot understand why you have chosen to do this here.
I have procrastinated to the point of rudeness in returning to this FAC, but I feel that I must oppose on the spirit of WIAFA: "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. A lead like this does not exemplify Usernameunique's best work, or Wikipedia's best work. I am concerned that the Coords will see that as a non-actionable oppose, but the overriding principle of WIAFA should count as much as any individual point. If this overcited lead passes FAC, FA writers in the future will point to this citation as acceptable and hold it up as an example and think they should write this way. And after all this time, I still can't discern what it is accomplishing. I can't see why this is necessary and why we would want to encourage others to write a lead like this. It would be such a pleasing article if the lead read more like what you wrote freeform at the top of this FAC. I wish you all the best, and leave it to the Coords to decide what to make of this comment vis-a-vis WIAFA. (This is the hardest thing I have ever had to write at FAC.) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with the list of Works is similar; what does this mean an an example for future FA writers? We have a guideline page that tells us about how to list Works (and the writers of that guideline probably had books in mind, not every single thing ever written by a given author). On the other hand we have a policy page at WP:NOT that tells us Wikipedia "does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere". I have two highly reliable sources indicating that James F. Leckman took the reigns of Tourette syndrome research and is one of the most highly published authors ever on TS:

  • Robertson MM, Eapen V (October 2014). "Tourette's: syndrome, disorder or spectrum? Classificatory challenges and an appraisal of the DSM criteria" (PDF). Asian J Psychiatr (Review). 11: 106–13. doi:10.1016/j.ajp.2014.05.010 PMID 25453712.
  • Mariam N, Cavanna AE (October 2012). "The most cited works in Tourette syndrome". J. Child Neurol. 27 (10): 1250–9. doi:10.1177/0883073811432887 PMID 23007298.

so should I add all 473 papers written by James Leckman to his article?[5] I have a clear case, backed by highest quality sources from experts in the field, about how significant James Leckman's body of work is. If I interpret the guideline pages as is being done here, I can create a web directory of all of Leckman's work. If I do that on an FA, everyone will then do that. I am still unclear what is being accomplished by listing all of those works, particularly when the premise behind a huge bunch of them was ultimately rejected. I don't want to stand in the way of the promotion of this article, but I just do not understand what is being accomplished here, and worry what it will mean as an example for future FAs. If an overwhelming reason for the need to do this were explained, perhaps I could get on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, again I have to concur with SG (also see my comments above). I also think that NOTDIR should usually trump the MOS in cases like these. buidhe 14:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • SandyGeorgia, if I'm reading you correctly, your advice is to write worse FAC blurbs so as to lessen the expectations of reviewers? Joking aside, the reason that most of my other featured articles don't have citations in the lead (if not all) is because this isn't a hill I have much interest in dying on; so please see this edit.
I'm more surprised to see your renewed comments regarding the list of Maryon's works, which I had thought covered in your line above that The Coords may consider all of my other nitpicks in my section above to be well enough addressed. Maryon, of course, does not have 473 publications; nor does he have 400, or 300, or 200, or 100, or even 50. If he did have as many publications as Leckman, handling them would require some thought. But his 48 books, chapters, and articles represent barely a tenth of that output, and while there are two handy non-Wikipedia articles cluing one in to all of Leckman's works, there is no such list for Maryon absent the one here. On a broader level I understand the reluctance to have citations in the lead, as it is the first thing a reader sees. Yet there is no such danger that a reader is going to make it down nine sections in the article, then suddenly be turned away because the publications section lists 48 works, not 35. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most happy to see the overcitation gone from the lead: I would offer you my first-born, but I think I have already given him to about three other editors :) OK, on the remaining issue (the list of Works), how will we answer the medical bio editors who do attempt to add every published paper from a researcher if they can then point to this FA as an example? This is a serious problem in POV-pushing medical bios. Give me a compelling reason that will work across the board for this not to become an example that others might follow? Why not make it just the books and the most significant publications? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, phew—I hear those things are expensive. I think the way we answer it is easy: this article stands only for the proposition that when a) a subject has fewer than 50 works, b) a list of those works is not available elsewhere, and c) there are no concerns that a list of works is behind used to advance a particular point of view, then including a complete list may be acceptable. If one of those factors is not met, then an alternative may be appropriate. Taking Leckman as an example, he fails the first two (and perhaps third) factors; an easy solution would be to include a curated list of significant works and link to his cv for the remainder. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, having something like that on record would satisfy me, so we would have a place to point if someone tries to do same in the future for someone with hundreds of entries. Now, we need to ask @FAC coordinators: how to get more feedback to this aspect of this FAC, or if this is enough to satisfy them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil

edit

Nearing support and enjoying reading up enormously. This seems odd -

  • He had both an older brother, John Ernest, and an older sister, Louisa Edith, the latter of whom preceded him in his vocation as a sculptor. One brother and three sisters would follow—in order, George Christian, Flora Mabel, Mildred Jessie, and Violet Mary—although Flora Maryon, born in 1878, would die in her second year. - "both" and then "the latter" only explained...and then we say four others followed into sculpture? Or were they just younger? "follow—in order" is a bit vague. Ceoil (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have read through it all now, and made trivial edits along the way. Very impressed. My only remaining comment is re over citing, similar to Sandy above. I see why you are dong it (to direct readers to relevant sources), but it hampers readability, sets a poor precident, and per Johnbod's Law, undermines the claims. To take a random eg "Maryon scheduled the trip to end in Toronto, where his son John Maryon, a civil engineer, lived.[156][227]". Could not be less contentious, but as stated I auto think, hmm. Your assembled sources already stand as an excellent biblography for those that want to read deeper. Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also I would seriously trim the external links, especially on the colossus. Separating the wheat from chaff is a worthwhile editorial activity. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the praise, Ceoil. Fair point re: citations. I've gone through again and taken a look at each time three or more refs are stacked. I've been able to cut back on a decent number of these, and certainly some of the uglier ones. Two citations, on the other hand, doesn't bother me; in the example you give above, [156] is the primary driver of the sentence but [227] is needed for the name of Maryon's son. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ps I agree with Josh above that the lead is a little long. Not because it contains too many claims, but that they are a bit wordy (eg "Maryon published two books while teaching, including the standard Metalwork and Enamelling"...you cant say "two" and then say "including X & Y"), and "numerous utilitarian and decorative Arts and Crafts works, etc
  • Removed the second part, and some other pieces. "Metalwork and Enamelling" is actually one book (despite the "and"); the other book is "Modern Sculpture," which is not mentioned in the lead. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article size is 139,086 bytes, but contains only 4,500 words...mostly due I guess to the large biblio and ext links sections. Recommend that you spin there out to a separate article. Ceoil (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to coordinators

edit

@FAC coordinators: Not to unduly push this along, but I think there has been a consensus for some time in favor of promotion. Is there anything else you would like to see? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Time that isn't buried in stuff that HAS to be done? I'll try to get to this either late tonight or (more likely) tomorrow. --Ealdgyth (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ealdgyth. Not sure what you mean by the first sentence, but let me know if there's anything I can do. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It means life outside wiki is being very busy and very very demanding of me. --Ealdgyth (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, got it. But the real world is so peaceful and relaxing right now... Kidding aside, no rush in taking a look here if you're tied up; I mostly just wanted to ensure this nomination is not languishing for want of some sort of action on my part. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique is entitled to ask, the last support was registered 10 days ago, understand that the world has changed, but it has for all of us; as a general call, can we be less bighty. If there is shut down, just say it. Ceoil (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi, there's a bit to go through above so I won't promise closure soon, but I wouldn't have an objection to you kicking off a new nom if have one ready. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ian Rose and Ealdgyth. Much appreciated. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2020 (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/Herbert_Maryon/archive1&oldid=947875426"