Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mandell Creighton/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 18:59, 27 October 2009 [1].

Mandell Creighton

edit
Nominator(s):  – iridescent 21:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because... while it may seem that there are lots of bishops at FAC, there are actually very few, and virtually no recent ones. In my opinion, this says as much as anyone would be likely to want to know about this comparatively obscure bishop and historian (best known for prompting one of the most overused quotations thrown into Wikipedia arguments, and I'd wager that 95% of those quoting it don't know where it came from), without going into unnecessary detail. – iridescent 21:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - but a couple of nitpicks from a fellow member of the "obscure bishops" club. (I'll convert you all, just wait and see!)

  • you say Louise was born in Sydenham, and it's linked, but might point out it's in the UK even though her father was German.
  • "In 1886 he was one of the group of historians who founded the English Historical Review,[16] today the oldest historical journal in the English-speaking world,[17] becoming its first editor;[2] he also attended the 250th anniversary celebrations of Harvard University as the official delegate of Cambridge University,[n 6] delivering a well-received lecture in Boston on the role of democratic institutions in the rise of modern universities.[18]" is one LONG sentence, any chance of breaking it up a bit?
  • Give dates for Alexander's papacy either in the lead or in the main article?
  • A wee bit of overlinking going on. Do we really need to link "glove", "tin can", "strike"?
I reviewed the article shortly after it began to take shape, and suggested some additional sources on the talk page. I'm quite pleased with this. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a watcher of my talkpage – and of my personal annoying FAC nitpick – you presumably know my views on the treatment of the difference between Greater London and the City of London, and Sydenham is a perfect example of this problem. Present-day Sydenham is an absolutely nondescript part of (relatively) central London, and to the modern eye describing it as being anything other than part of London looks as incongruous as the (equally accurate) "Chicago in Louisiana" or "Mobile in West Florida". However, it only became part of London in 1889, and Louise left it in 1872 so she can't be described as "from Sydenham in London". The cop-out "Sydenham, England" construction looks fairly grating in a British-English usage, as the ", England" format is never used (only ever the county). If you think it's really necessary to disambiguate it, I'd go with "Sydenham, Kent" as the least misleading option. Bear in mind that pretty much anyone with an interest in Creighton will be coming from either an Anglican Church or an Oxford University perspective, and in either case can reasonably be assumed to know the geography of England.
  • Have split it.
  • Do you think dates for Alexander's papacy are relevant? The pertinent fact here is "accused of being so cosy with the Catholic Church that he wouldn't be rude about any pope, even one devout Catholics found an embarrassing part of their history", not the dates of the pope in question. Including dates for Alexander would imply a need to give dates for figures such as Victoria who had far more of an impact on Creighton.
  • There is a method to what looks like overlinking, even though it's not obvious. "Tin can" is wikilinked because I've intentionally used an Americanism, to avoid the disambiguation problem with the correct British English Tin. (A British reader would understand a "tin factory" to be a cannery; to the rest of the world, it would seem to be the tin equivalent of a steel-mill.) Porcelain is wikilinked because I don't think Giano's hypothetical 14 year old would necessarily understand the difference between porcelain and other ceramics, or the significance of the Midlands pottery industry. With porcelain and tin can linked, the third in that list of Worcester industries, glove, looks peculiar as the only unlinked member of the list (particularly in view of Wikipedia's convention that "unlinked entry in list" means "no article"). Strike is linked because again I'm not sure it passes the 14-year-old test, but I wouldn't object if anyone really wants it removed. – iridescent 19:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't want dates for Alexander, you might say in parenthesis something like Borgia pope or something to distinguish him. There are a lot of popes, and a bit of context will help the historically illiterate understand why it was so odd that Creighton didn't even condemn this pope. Most folks don't know any popes beyond Peter and John Paul II. As for the overlinking, it wasn't horrid, but it was a bit pronounced in that section at least. On Syndeham, how about "Syndeham, in England"? (Remember, this may hit the main page one day... oh, the joys!) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made it "Sydenham, Kent". "Sydenham in England" still looks like an Americanism to me (the equivalent of "Paris, France") - English place names just aren't ever described as being in England in British English. (I would assume because of the cultural presumption that anything important is in England unless it's otherwise specified; this is the place where "the island of Cyprus" really is used to disambiguate from Cyprus, London, and just look at the messy compromise on Washington (disambiguation), where the "real" Washington gets unique emphasis in compensation for allowing a couple of obscure places in some banana-republic near Canada to sit at the top of the list.)
  • Have gone with "the notoriously corrupt Pope Alexander VI", which I don't think anyone would dispute. The idea that "Borgia pope" will mean anything to most of our readers is nice, but I think displays a touchingly misplaced faith. – iridescent 20:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least a number of folks have a hope of connecting "Borgia" with something they heard once that was awful... even American's might manage that! (Although the image of Lucretia Borgia combined with a papal tiara is kinda scary. I also once heard someone equate Lucretia Borgia with Lizzy Borden...which seemed somehow fitting...) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the proposed rewrite, I'm not seeing that much of it is relevant to the subject at hand. It goes into a great deal of detail that isn't relevant to the subject. While details are important to a book-length biography, they aren't for a encyclopedia article. As for the subject being a well-known historian, yes, he was, but he's not had the impact that someone like Maitland or Round has had in medievalist studies. Or Haskins or Pirenne, for that matter. While there may be information in the rewrite that is relevant and might profitably be included, on balance I don't see the whole-sale replacement of the first sections of the current article with the rewrite as being profitable. I maintain my support for the current article as it stands. And as for being sourced to Shepherd instead of Covert, I have read Iri's reason (that Shepherd's in print, and Covert isn't any more) and find that a valid reason to use one source over another. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who says Covert is out of print? You can buy the new book on amazon or Barnes and Nobleand a number of other online stores. Plus it is available in nearly 200 academic libraries. Sheppard, on the other hand, is a vanity publication, about a community service center, which is not even in the Library of Congress or the main British Library collection in London. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact Amazon seems to suggest that it is Sheppard which is out of print (or limited availability); not good for a book that is 2 years old. It is not available on Barnes and Noble either. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
F&F, I take your points and my point above still stands. This isn't a debating society, it's not necessary to score points. I happen to think the article is fine as it is, and you disagree. Let's leave it at that, okay? I merely reposted in order that the FAC delegates would know that I had taken into account the rest of the comments in the FAC that happened after I supported. Let's not make this any more lengthy, please. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not comprehensive Comments:
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have enough time to do a proper review, but I did notice some things in the lead and first section that caught my eye.

  • "gifted child?"
    • Not sure if this is an accurate paraphrasing of the ODNB article (which is cited). In my view, it is best not to use these somewhat vague but loaded terms.
  • "nicknamed 'Homer'"
    • Again, the ODNB article (which is cited) makes no mention of it; the Covert biography does, but gives the reason for the nickname: his ability to construe (presumably Greek and Latin, although I'm not sure what age they were teaching Greek to schoolkids in those days). Without any explanation, "nicknamed 'Homer' by his classmates" is a little confusing: was it because he wrote poetry? was it because he was visually impaired? ...
  • "First in Greats"
    • A first-class is not something you want to mention when the description of an education is so brief, especially for an academic. Compare, for example, other late-Victorian or Edwardian academics: A. N. Whitehead, G. E. Moore, or Bertrand Russel. Notice, in Maynard Keynes, a first is mentioned, but then the discussion of his education is quite leisurely.
  • "Greats"
    • Not sure if at the time Creighton received his BA, "Greats" had that meaning. For much of the 19th century, it simply meant the final exam for a BA; the lit. hum. connotation is 20th century usage. Besides "Greats" is mostly college slang; not sure it belongs in an encyclopedia. Best to simply say, "first class BA degree in Literae Humaniores.
  • General comment: Given the extent of the treatment in Covert, I think the childhood section can be expanded by another paragraph. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gifted child" and "nicknamed Homer" are, in my opinion, an entirely correct brief paraphrase of the original sentence in question ("From a very early age he was marked out as exceptionally bright; his school nickname was 'Homer' and when, with a certain inevitability, he won a scholarship to Merton College, Oxford, he was dubbed 'The Prof' - and this in a town stuffed with professors"). It appears on Sheppard, not the DNB; I agree that the reference to the DNB which is also in that paragraph makes it confusing what is being cited where; the DNB (which I use as a last-resort, as it's often inaccurate) is used solely in that section as a source for which school he attended.
  • I have no idea what you mean by "A first-class is not something you want to mention when the description of an education is so brief". It's his only significant educational achievement, as he went straight on to teaching on graduation; not mentioning it would either mean no mention of his education at all, or a pointless "he studied at Oxford and graduated" with no further comment. I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove by pointing to three relatively poor quality articles (rated C-class, start-class, and a rather dubious B-class despite a prominent maintenance tag) as models for how one should be writing.
  • "Greats" is the commonly used term. I've no strong objection if anyone insists in changing it to Lit Hum, but it would still need the explanation. Sorry, but you're just wrong with "it simply meant the final exam for a BA" in the period in question; the modern division into Mods and Greats was instituted in 1850. Possibly you're thinking of "Modern Greats" (aka PPE) introduced in 1920.
I'm not going to enter into discussion with you, unless you actually have anything concise and valid to say; as per my previous discussions with you, I think your ramblings and "my way or no way" arrogance embody the worst of the FAC process with generally no useful purpose, and the time you waste far outweighs the occasional valid point. If you have brief, sensible points I'm more than willing to consider them, but FAC is, in my opinion, an increasingly meaningless process – thanks in no small part to your attempts to bully anyone who disagrees with you – and I'm happy to see this FAC fail rather than be drawn into wasting my time panning for valid points among one of your streams of consciousness. – iridescent 19:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, you do acknowledge that you made a mistake in citing ODNB for the first two points?
As for "Greats," here is the OED: greats (Oxford Univ. colloq.). The final examination for the degree of B.A.; now applied esp. to the examination for Honours in Literæ Humaniores. The earlier name was GREAT GO. (Cf. smalls.) 1853 ‘C. BEDE’ Verdant Green II. xi, The little gentleman was going in for his Degree, alias Great-go, alias Greats. 1861 HUGHES Tom Brown at Oxf. I. x. 163 In our second term we..begin to feel ourselves at home, while both ‘smalls’ and ‘greats’ are sufficiently distant to be altogether ignored if we are that way inclined. 1884 G. ALLEN Strange Stories 175 Since I have begun reading philosophy for my Greats. 1897 Westm. Gaz. 12 June 1/3 There are..more entries for Modern History than for Classical Greats.
As you see, there is no evidence that it was applied to the Classical Greats before 1897. Thomas Hughes in Tom Brown at Oxford (published in 1861) was clearly using it to distinguish it from the "smalls" that were held after the second year. And clearly the OED considers it colloquial language.
  • In the very next sentence, you say, "On his graduation he was elected a Fellow of Merton, and began teaching duties immediately."
    • That seems to be a little different from the ODNB text, which says, "He took a first class in literae humaniores in 1866 and was elected as probationer for a Merton fellowship in December that year. After a mere few months of preparation he was tutoring undergraduates in modern history in 1867." Why add immediately? Doesn't seem to be entirely correct in light of the DNB quote.
As for your other remarks, best to stick to my points. I have never had "discussions" with you before. I made a single post on your talk page correcting an incorrect characterization of me after someone emailed about it. That was it. Never went back. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Literae Humaniores; a course of classical studies which, in its modern two-part form of Mods and Greats, dates from 1850". From Oxford University's philosophy department's own official history.
I am not going to waste any more time reading or replying to your ramblings. Sandy, feel free to close this if you think I'm being unfair. – iridescent 20:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those terms were not exclusively applied to lit. hum. in 1850, when they were used more generally. Here's, btw, is OED on mods: At the University of Oxford: Moderations. See MODERATION n. 4a.: 4. a. In pl. (usu. in form Moderations). The first public examination taken in certain faculties of the University of Oxford for the degree of B.A., and conducted by the moderators (see MODERATOR n. 6a). Abbreviated Mods. You are only supporting my point. Not sure who is rambling here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing question: John Sheppard's book Bishop Creighton House 1909–2008 seems to be about Bishop Creighton House. I am assuming it has a brief biography of Creighton in the beginning. (The page numbers cited are between 2 and 19.) This book has been cited 47 times in the article. The Sheppard book has not been reviewed in any scholarly publication. Why is this a better source than James Covert's book (cited only 4 times in the article). Covert's book, A Victorian Marriage: Mandell and Louise Creighton has been reviewed extensively in the literature. It has a 14-page chapter on Creighton's childhood, including the years at Durham School. Yet, we only have a sentence or two about his childhood here. It has a 12-page chapter on Creighton's student years at Oxford. Yet, we have only two or three lines here. It has a 17-page chapter on Creighton's Fellow-years at Merton, yet we have a line or two here. Why? I'm afraid this article is not comprehensive. I am now changing my comment to an oppose. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primary Sources: A large number of references (11 or 12) are to primary sources. They are, in this afternoon's versions of the article, number 15 (1885), number 18 (1886), 26 (1889), 30 (1896), 33 (1891), 36 (1899), 37 a,b (1902), 38 (1901), 40 (1898), 42 (1897). In addition, Louise Creighton's 1904 biography of her husband has been cited 6 times. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the primary sources -
  • Ref 9 sources "The Creightons were shocked by the poverty of the area, and what they saw as a lack of morals among the locals..." Which is a legitimate use, it's saying what they thought.
  • Ref 10 sources the rest of the above sentence "... particularly the high level of illegitimate births among agricultural labourers." also a legit use of the primary source, as it's saying what the Creighton's themselves thought.
  • Ref 11 is used twice - once for a direct quote (which is of course required), and another time to back up another source.
  • Ref 15 is used for a simple statement of fact "In July 1885 he was appointed Canon of Worcester Cathedral in addition to his existing post at Cambridge, and alternated between Cambridge and Worcester."
  • Ref 18 is used to source "... delivering a well-received lecture in Boston on the role of democratic institutions in the rise of modern universities." rather uncontroversial usage here.
  • Ref 19 is used once for another direct quote.
  • Ref 26 is used once for another direct quote.
  • Ref 28 is used once for another direct quote.
  • Ref 30 is used once for a fact in the footnotes "The see of Peterborough had become vacant upon the elevation of the incumbent, William Connor Magee, to Archbishop of York in January 1891. Magee died on 5 May 1891 after less than four months in the post."
  • Ref 33 is used to back up another source for the statement "... and was nominated as Bishop of Peterborough on 2 March 1891, the Conge d'Élire directing the Dean and Chapter of Peterborough to elect him followed on 5 March, and he was consecrated on 25 April 1891."
  • Ref 36 is used to back up another source for the statemetn "Louise Creighton, meanwhile, had become a leading figure in the National Union of Working Women, as well as the author of eight popular history books..."
  • Ref 37 is used twice, once for a fact in the footnotes "John Kensit was an Evangelical agitator against what he saw as attempts by the Roman Catholic Church to influence the Church of England. Kensit and his followers became famous in the late 19th century for disrupting services by priests he considered "ritualist", to the extent that some churches felt it necessary to have guards in place during services." and again in the same footnote for the fact ".... and Kensit died in October 1902 of wounds sustained after being attacked with a chisel by an opponent while addressing a meeting in Birkenhead on 25 September."
  • Ref 38 is used for a statement in the footnotes "Following Creighton's death Kensit began shouting abuse during Arthur Winnington-Ingram's enthronement as Creighton's successor, and had to be escorted from the service under police protection."
  • Ref 40 is used for this "Despite opposition from John Kensit and the Protestant Truth Society,[n 9] who saw Creighton's Anglo-Catholicism as an attempt to reverse the English Reformation,..." and possibly earlier information in that. THis is the one example of primary source usage I might be uncomfortable with.
  • Ref 42 is used to back up another source for "... Creighton was nominated to succeed replace Temple at London at the end of 1897, and took up the post on 15 January 1897,...."
I am myself uncomfortable with so much primary source use, but I'll defer to what user:Fifelfoo, user:John Kenney, user:Karanacs, and user:Awadewit say about it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - long read, and not in the best mood so I might have missed a few things. But yeah, sources seem fine. I didn't like the two different block quoting styles and the Anglican Portal tag seemed to be located in a bad spot. The notes could have been dropped or cut, but yeah, nothing major. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point regarding the two block quote styles! In all the re-readings, that had somehow slipped right by. Standardized. I know the Anglican Portal looks messy and I'm not really happy having it there, but looking at similar articles that seems to be the standard place for it, and in the absence of a See Also section, there's no obvious place to which to move it. I agree about the long notes, but in this case I think it's necessary as there are too many non-intuitive things (the links between Emmanuel and Harvard, the role of the Protestant Truth Society, the dispute over women serving on parish councils...) which need to be explained for the article to make sense but would be inappropriate in the body text. – iridescent 21:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How's that? We are given as much information about Worcestor's porcelain, glove industry, railway, and tin can factory (see second paragraph here) as we are about Creighton's entire childhood, his student years, and his teaching years at Oxford. Covert, in contrast, has some 45 pages devoted to that period. Moreover, the paragraph on Worcestor involves (borderline) synthesis of facts cited to different web sites. Don't you think it is odd that a major biography (by Covert) has been cited only 4 times, whereas the book (by Sheppard) on a community service center (with a short introduction devoted to Creighton) has been cited 47 times? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it's odd at all, and neither do I intend to debate the question. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to support I'm completely bereft of any inherent knowledge of the workings of the Anglican Church or its local vicars. Some of what may be obvious to you is not particularly obvious to me.
  • Jargon: Merton College held the advowson of the church of Embleton, Northumberland, and in 1875 Creighton was appointed its vicar, but would help if that note (4), were incorporated with emdashes or parentheses.
  • With six kids it sounds as if Creighton himself was rather unchaste.
  • It's not quite clear how History of the Papacy was received. Was it automatically considered brilliant and groundbreaking? I see in the next section some discussion of his Wikipedia beliefs in AGF and neutrality, but it is not clear if this tome or series got him into larger offices and promotions.
  • The town had traditionally been a centre for the production of Royal Worcester porcelain and of the British glove industry, but in 1826 import duties on foreign-made gloves were abolished, devastating the local glove industry To avoid the repetition in the sentence, can you accurately say "devastating local manufacturing companies"? Does glove need a link?
  • This guy gets shocked a lot. How sheltered was he for being so intelligent as a child?
  • The Cambridge and Worcester section seems choppy: a paragraph about his books, one about the crushing poverty in Worcester, and a large quote about what seems to be environmental concerns in the Industrial Revolution. These are linked concepts, but the article does not really do that. Can you insert a sentence to help the reader connect these issues? Can you connect his faith to socialism?

Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • My original wording was the intentionally vaguer "Merton College had close ties with the church of Embleton", as I'm not convinced people need to know about the technical mechanism of advowson, but when it was changed I didn't think it warranted changing back. I've hopefully solved it by piping "right to appoint the vicar" to advowson which avoids any need for explanation.
  • In the sense in which he was using it, I'm guessing he meant "unchaste" as "out of wedlock". ("Chastity is sexual behavior of a man or woman acceptable to the ethical norms and guidelines of a culture, civilization, or religion" and, to a devout Christian, In Wedlock Good, Out Of Wedlock Bad.)
  • The reception for History of the Papacy is a hard one to cover; so much of the response to it is shaped by the climate of the times, in which Catholicism was only just becoming socially acceptable. The significance at the time was that it was the first significant English attempt to write about a period in which the Catholic Church was notoriously corrupt, with what we'd now call NPOV. Up to that point, religious history had been either "glory to the Church" hagiography or "Catholics are evil and the Reformation saved civilization" propaganda; remember, Creighton held office in a church which sees itself as the only true Catholic church, and has hostility to the papacy as a basic article of faith. The problem is, HotP today is now only really remembered for the reaction to it, in particular Acton's "absolute power corrupts absolutely" jibe. Of the four Creighton biographies, Mandell Creighton and the English Church is virtually content-free (I haven't cited it once), A Victorian Marriage is (as the title suggests) primarily about his relationship with Louise and doesn't go into great detail about HotP, Life and Letters is written by his wife and can't be considered neutral, leaving only Sheppard. The best summary of the contemporary response to it is probably Louise Creighton's recollection: "All critics alike agreed in recognising his absolute impartiality, some blamed him in consequence for being colourless. He was criticised both for not praising enough, and for not blaming enough" – but using his wife as a source for a value-judgement on her husband's merits is stretching things. HotP is certainly a major work and still in print today, but there doesn't seem to be much discussion of its impact which I can find. Ottava may have more to add here.
  • See my reply to Ealdgyth above for why glove is linked. There is a logic there. Have reworded it to avoid repeating the word.
  • Although he was a scholarship boy rather than an ivory-tower rich kid, my guess would be he led a fairly sheltered childhood, going straight from boarding school to university. Remember, Victorian industrial cities were more akin to present-day third world shanty towns than to modern industrial cities, so I'd imagine the transition from rural Cumbria and leafy Oxford into the smoke-and-fumes hell of the Victorian West Midlands would have been jarring. All OR, though. Regarding his jump from arch-conservatism to socialism, that's why I included that long quote on the environment; he never came out and said "government intervention is the only way to correct the social imbalance caused by an unrestrained market and thus in the long term is a rational conservative position", and it would be OR to claim it, but that long excerpt (from a much longer original) hopefully shows how and why he managed to reconcile small-c conservatism with the need for socialist intervention. – iridescent 14:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Iridescent, I still think the prose is choppy in the Cambridge and Worcester section. I think inserting a few sentences to connect all these ideas would fix it, though. I can expand on this on the article talk page if you wish. This FAC may be running off into the horizon while I stand here. Let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(To Moni3) Are you suggesting that this is a comprehensive history? If so, why does it neglect a major 412-page biography reviewed in Creighton's own English Historical Review, in Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Victorian Studies, Women's History Review, and History of European Ideas. Instead we have 45 citations to a little-known book on a community service center, "Bishop Creighton House," which has a short introduction of a few pages on Creighton's life. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Support
Just a few points, really. Firstly, the 'Works' section. Does that need to be cited? I'm honestly not sure; it does seem to be obvious and not needing one, but on the other hand it seems odd not to have one. At any rate, the single-sentence paragraph at the end might need merging with the above bit so it doesn't stick out.
I agree with the above that the Cambridge and Worcester section might need a bit of linking to make it a bit easier to read. After reading it through a few times I saw how the text flows into the quote, but it does seem a tad abrupt.
For this comment, please don't associate me with Folwer and Fowler's voluminous wittering above; most of it doesn't make sense to me. The only point he brought up that seemed to have any merit was his point about Creighton's bibliography versus the book on Creighton's House. I was wondering - what was your rational behind using the text about the house more than the bibliography? This is merely a question, and not really anything for me to oppose you on; looking at your previous work, you always seem to write comprehensively, and am sure you had some kind of reasoning behind this decision.
Otherwise, an interesting and intriguing article, which en.wikipedia is the better for having. Skinny87 (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about the Works section; this is the first article I've written to include one and I'm not familiar with convention, so I kept it as it was on the earlier article. To me, it doesn't need to be cited since the books listed are themselves the citations.
  • To me, the current formatting of the Worcester section (He was shocked → quotation demonstrating his shock → change in his attitude caused by this shock) it the most logical progression, but it may only make sense to me because I've read it so many times. Which part do you (or Moni) find jarring - I'll try to rewrite it.
  • Regarding the sourcing, there are only four published biographies of Creighton. Life and Letters is written by his wife, and thus by definition can't be considered neutral, so I've only used it as a source for quotations and so forth; Mandell Creighton and the English Church is very slim (effectively a big pamphlet), doesn't say anything that isn't said elsewhere, and I haven't cited it once; A Victorian Marriage is (as the title suggests) primarily about his relationship with Louise, and while I've used it occasionally it's not particularly good on the "bishop and historian" side of his life. Sheppard's Bishop Creighton House is about the house, but also covers both Mandell and Louise in significant detail. Because Bishop Creighton House is an Anglican institution, although Creighton's not the primary subject the book actually goes into more detail on Creighton as a figure in Anglicanism than any other, and it's "Creighton as reforming bishop", not "Creighton as husband of Louise" that's the primary thrust of this article. Also, it's the only one of the latter three that's still in print, and wherever possible I always try to use in-print material for citations, as it makes reference checking or later expansion far easier for anyone else. If there's anything cited to Sheppard that you don't feel it's appropriate to use it as a source for, let me know and I can almost certainly find an alternative source for you. – iridescent 15:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, well since you've read the biographies and I haven't, I'll take your word for it; I've no reason to doubt you. I guess for the Worcester section...hmmm. Would it be too simplified to ask for something like a 'This is illustrated by...[Quote]' or somesuch, or does that stray into OR? If so, then I'm happy to leave it be and let Moni3 look into it further. Skinny87 (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That, I'm afraid, is plain nonsense. Covert's book, A Victorian Marriage: Mandell and Louise Creighton, is a 412-page major joint biography of both Creighton and his wife. Helen Mathers in her review of the book in the Journal of Ecclesiastical History says, "The title of this book under-represents its content. It does indeed contain the portrait of a marriage but, after a short-lived attempt at the style of a romantic novel in the opening pages, it quickly becomes an excellent joint biography of two people of high capability and achievement." As for you, Skinny87, before you use the word "wittering" again as a verbal noun, please be aware that it is only a verb or adjective in the way you have used it; as a verbal noun, it means hint or sign. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(To SandyGeorgia/Karnacs) This is the usual case of buddies lining up to offer easy support. Until I commented, there was only the one thoughtful support of Ealdgyth. Since then a number of quick supports have been offered. Of these, at least two half-hearted suports (Ottava Rima and Malleus F) are from people who have worked on the article before. I have some serious sourcing concerns. I have left some posts on the pages of two European historians user:Fifelfoo and user:John Kenney, as well as one on the talk page of the WikiProject History page. I would like to request that no quick "restart," "promote," or "archive" decision be made until we've heard from them. I would also like to hear what user:Karanacs and user:Awadewit have to say about this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will thank you to keep your insulting and patronising comments to yourself F&f. I'm quite sure I'm not the only one who's thoroughly sick and tired of your "my way or the highway" approach. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Please keep comments focused on the article, not editors or allegations about their motives, or discussions of editor's grammar on the FAC. Thank you. Any further such commentary will be moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Great article that adheres to WIAFA. As a side-note, this FAC suffers the same problem that many others have had to deal with lately; reviewers incorrectly submit that comprehensiveness concerns are present without addressing specific issues. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline 1c, 1d, 4. Not reliably sourced from high quality reliable sources. 02:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC) I worked off This version. Extensive to follow, though the footnote issues are secondary to the fact that only one HQ RS is in the bibliography. I suspect extensive OR due to the large number of cited primary sources, but that will have to wait until I get into the entrails of the sourcing. Primary use is fine. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Disclosure: User_talk:Fifelfoo#Sourcing I have no wikipedia relationship to Fowler&Fowler other than tearing the hell out of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760)/archive1 over sourcing issues.
    1c
    One High quality RS in bibliography (Covert2000Victorian). Creighton is a Primary. Fryde is Tertiary. Sheppard is SELF (Fulham & Hammersmith Historical Society has no editorial policy, and does not publish books on a commercial basis FHHS about).
    Covert2000Victorian, and Peterson1989Family are underused to the point of deep concern at 1c. The preferential use of Sheppard2008Bishop is concerning for FA status due to F&H Historical Society's status as a publisher. The under use of Covert2000Victorian, sketchy use of ODNB, and reliance on a non-academic publisher I suspect of having such low standards as to be SELF (Vanity), means that I doubt that the narrative as a whole reflects the scholarly community's weighting of the importance of sections of Creighton's life and its structuring of narrative. This suspicion is sufficiently concerning given the underuse of Covert2000Victorian.
    Section #London contains no sources I consider High Quality Reliable Sources
    No detailed discussion of work reception, which I would expect, for someone "best remembered as a historian."
    ODNB Tertiaries are signed tertiaries. Miscited. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is a Tertiary source as a Dictionary (or Encyclopedia) or Biography. Its articles are signed by scholars, making it one of the few examples of a Tertiary source being appropriate to cite in another Tertiary source, and, as signed articles the Author should be listed (which was done so, and I was blind to this).
    ODNB Not in Bibliography. Its one of your few High Quality Reliable Sources in use.
    Quotes within Sheppard 2008 (fn 3 47) or any other source require full provenance information for the item quoted, even if quoted from a verbal record, "Last, First "Title" in Contained Work Place: Publisher Year quoted in Sheppard 2008"
    Footnote 20 is inadequate for verification purposes for a FA. Cite from the work, not the review.
    Is Creighton1904Life in two volumes sequentially numbered? Which edition are you using? The 2007 edition? If so, fix the bibliography for Creighton1904 to indicate that its a work in two volumes and that you're using a particular edition for the page numbering (even if facsimile of 1904).
    I am concerned with the Primary source use in the
    1d.
    Dubious that Anglo-Catholicism was the "traditional teaching" of the Church of England (it strikes an immediate worry some thought). Checked article for discussion of this lede claim, no discussion. Appears to conflict with claim regarding the Oxford Movement being an active movement. I'm confused about faction status in the mid 19th century church, who was on top, who was on the bottom, which was ascendant, descendant. Para Early Life could characterise this much better, and use high quality RS to appease my concerns. (The statement may of course be correct, but if I can't follow the article in Early Life to determine that the lede statement is correct, then I can't see that the npov is infact npov).
    4.
    Note 9: John Kensit should be spun into an article, its a stub (larger than John Kensit) within the body of the article.
    Section #Cambridge and Worcester paragraph 2 wanders off topic into industrial / social history before resuming the narrative.
    Non decline issues (Thanks for reminding me to separate this from decline issues Ealdyth)
    Footnote 46 incorrectly titled, article contains a subtitle.
    A number of notes should be worked into the body, or removed.
    Does the London Gazette in the late 19th century not contain article titles?
    Checked use of Primaries and low grade Tertiaries. Uses check out as illustrative (the block quotes), or direct draws, or otherwise reasonable and within bounds. Agree with Ealdgyth on the primary uses being fine.
    (Notes for readers, Ealdgyth and I began discussing on an earlier version of my text, and the text has changed, please check the history for what Ealdgyth was responding to, the intention was not to modify my comments to impugn them, but to respond to their commentary) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fifelfoo, you might read above where I pointed out how the Creighton is used, either for direct quotations of the subjects own words or for how the subject felt about something, both of which are legitimate uses of primary sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I shall be checking that for myself, but I am deeply suspicious when quotes within secondary sources are extensively used without provenance information, there are a number of glaring citation errors immediately visible, and the NZ national repository is being used extensively for primaries. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, might I ask for those nominators in the future that are new to FAC that you not post in some sort of shorthand of your own making but try to explain exactly what you mean. "ODNB Tertiaries are signed tertiaries. Miscited" doesn't really tell someone new to your methods what the heck is going on. I believe what you mean is that the ODNB entries are tertiary sources (which is sometimes true, sometimes not, as many of the medieval articles are often the only modern biographies of some people, and are worked up by specialists in the field from the original primary sources) which have authors but that the entries given in this article lack the author listed. And quite honestly, there is NOTHING in the FA criteria that requires that a subtitle be given for an article. Yes, it's nice and makes the bibliography fuller, but requiring it is not something you can make the nominator do in order to fulfill the FA criteria. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The citation in question is Levy, Paul "A string quartet in four movements" Guardian 20 July 2002 (no page given, web citation). There is a very very good reason to request the subtitle for this work other than pure pedantry, as the subtitle indicates the importance of the cited work to the article in question, as the subtitle contains the indicative content of the article, "Paul Levy on Lytton Strachey's masterwork, Eminent Victorians". Fifelfoo (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It still isn't required by the various citation policies, you may ask nicely for it and explain why you want it, or you could add it yourself, but the terse manner in which you have placed it under a "decline" implies (especially to newer nominators) that unless everything listed is fixed you will continue to decline. This can be very intimidating to new nominators, who often will not return. We all need to work on encouraging people to nominate articles for FAC, and one way to do that is to explain what is absolutely must-fix items and what are "would be nice". If you explain initially why you want it, especially when you start out with a "decline", you're more likely to get what you want. Flies, honey, all that. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder. Clearly indicated the concerns causing decline, versus the concerns unrelated. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Splendid article, very informative and well balanced. After carefully reading it 3 times, I could only find one little redundancy which I fixed. Good work. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just one: I can see that it's in the ONDB article but the "he walked from Oxford to Durham in 3 days" seems somewhat incredible. Over a distance of 230 miles that works out at a virtually quick march pace, all day and night. Have you seen anything else that might shed some light on this perambulatory feat? --DavidCane (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I question that as well, but verifiability not truth and all that and it's undoubtedly what the sources say. Given the "in his youth", my guess would be that it was actually the far more likely Carlisle to Durham in three days and stories have been conflated over time. (Mandell Creighton and the English Church also mentions him walking from Oxford to Durham, but doesn't give a timescale.) – iridescent 2 13:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There have been a couple of queries/comments about the London Gazette. Fifelfoo asks about titles - I don't think it's ever used titles/headlines in any conventional sense. The most you get is some sort of indication of where the information came from (i.e. Government department or similar) in general, or for notices that private persons are required to submit, usually relating to bankruptcy, death intestate and similar, a very general header. In the types of notices relevant to Creighton, which are letters patent for appointemnt to the Crown canonry at Worcester, and the Congés for his election as Bishop, all you get is Whitehall, and a date, nothing that's obviously indicative of the precise content, though it's easy enough to discover that the Gazette prints official notices, rather than being a conventional newspaper, so it's fairly obvious, given the Established nature of the CofE what the notices are going to relate to in this case. I was also slightly surprised to see the Gazette's status as a source being queried, it seems to me that it is the highest possible quality source for such apopintments, which could not legally have occurred without such a notice exisitng. David Underdown (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For me, because its a primary. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't see that at all. As the source for appointment dates I can't see any issue at all with using the official announcement as the source. Any secondary coverage is simply repeating the official announcement but with potential scope for errors; as David Underdown says, in this context the London Gazette is by definition the most reliable source. – iridescent 2 13:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Instead of remaining in this impasse, I would like to request that I be given a chance to improve the article. I am busy for the rest of the working day, but will attend to it in the evening and then again tomorrow evening. I'd be grateful if I could be given a couple of days to do this. I feel I can take care of most of the objections. If people don't like my version, they can always revert to the current one. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not put your version in a sandbox, so both versions can be shown next to each other, in essence? Skinny87 (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. Will do. If I don't get around to the first few sections tonight, I'll most certainly do them early tomorrow morning. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a subpage, User:Fowler&fowler/Mandell Creighton, where I've written the first two sections. Since the entire content is sourced to Covert's book, which I might add is both detailed and delightful to read, I have not added any footnotes. My version of the article necessarily will be longer, but I believe, it is impossible to get a reasonable feeling for Mandell Creighton's life and career unless one is provided some details of his childhood. The current FAC article, moreover, is on the short side, with extended quotes that are not really needed. Hopefully, I will also have cleared up the questions about his walk from Oxford to Durham! I will add some more sections (Oxford, Marriage and teaching) later today. I would like to hear what people think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"His father, a carpenter, had built a successful cabinet-making and decorating shop on Castle Street". His father built the shop? Where do you want comments? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:) I had "business," but noticing another "business" in the vicinity changed it to "shop" at the last minute. Will correct. General comments here. Textual (grammar, etc) comments on the talk page of subpage. Will be busy until the late afternoon. Will look at comments then. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I have now written four sections, all quite detailed, and all sourced to Covert's book. I can add the page numbers easily, but don't want to do it now, in case the text needs revision or reduction. Mainly, I need feedback from the reviewers on how to proceed. This can be done in a variety of ways:

  1. Add the four sections to the current article and reduce them if reduction is required. Since user:Iridescent has already written the remaining sections, there is less work to be done there. We will still need to source that portion to Covert's book, which is the most reliable source available. (It has 50 pages of notes, and 20 of bibliography.) Promote the article and then continue to work on expanding the other sections.
  2. Restart the nomination and continue to edit the remaining sections and source them to Covert.
  3. Archive the nomination. Struck Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know what you think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I have added an up to date bibliography to my subpage. I have not added journal articles from academic databases yet. As you can see, there is already a big gap with the bibliography (of four) in the current article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell you what I think. I have never heard of such a vulgar hijacking breach or wiki-etiquette in my life, to start re-writing another editor's work that's an FAC while it is still here on FAC is disgusting and disgraceful behaviour. You should just vote "oppose" if you don't like it and then re-write when it has failed. If you are so clever, and want a FA find a subject of your own, but don't demoralise those that are trying their best here. while they are still here. Giano (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat agree with what Giano says. This is about the worst case of "Oppose! I wouldn't have written the article that way" that I've ever seen. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:) Remember, I asked everyone permission to do this (upstairs), and I'm doing it on a subpage of my user page, not in mainspace. Why didn't you say something earlier, especially you Malleus, you even made comments on my text and asked where you could leave more comments? Anyway, best not to complain about me here. Please take it to ANI or wherever it is people complain. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am objecting specifically to your presumptuous "this can be done in a variety of ways" comment, which appears to exclude the possibility that you may in a minority of one in your love affair with the Covert book, and its apparent emphasis on Creighton's early life. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Covert being a comprehensive biography doesn't just emphasize early life. (He has some 70 pages on Embleton, 100 on Cambridge, ...) I offered to add the early life portion only because that is obviously missing. Clearly, both Fifelfoo and I think that the article is poorly sourced (mostly to a book on a community service center). After reading more than half of Covert (at this point) and rereading the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article (which cites many publications by Covert), I now also happen to think that the Wikipedia article is biased, emphasizing the not so notable things about Creighton. Creighton might be obscure bishop today, but he is certainly not an obscure historian. The Lord Acton remark is not what Creighton is most known about today, as the nominator's note makes it out to be. Creighton's sympathy for "socialism" doesn't belong in the article, much less in the lead: his overall political views were moderate liberal to moderate conservative. (And so forth.) You are right though, I shouldn't have offered the different options. I've scratched them. I now don't think the article can be repaired with any quick fixes. The FAC directors are free to promote the article if they so wish. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So now you're complaining about the nominator's note. Don't you think it's about time that you stopped with your vendettas? --Malleus Fatuorum 06:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't distort what I'm saying. The Acton quote and socialism are mentioned in the lead as well. The main point is that the book is overwhelmingly sourced to an obscure book, which is available in only one library in the UK, the British Library branch in Wetherby, West Yorkshire and no library in the US (including the Library of Congress) or any other country. Covert's book, by contrast, is available in dozens of libraries. Besides, Covert is one of the world's experts on the Creightons. His views are important. Its time to archive this nomination and let everyone get on with their work. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued reminder: I'm sorry that I was very busy yesterday and wasn't following here diff by diff. This is my second reminder to editors to keep commentary focused on the article, and refrain from discussing editors. The cage match is over there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Very nice page, very informative and meets all criteria. I'm not keen on the info-box, but one can't have everything, I suppose. Giano (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2009 (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/Mandell_Creighton/archive1&oldid=1138466359"