Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Anning/archive2

< 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 Karanacs 16:14, 15 June 2011 [1].

Mary Anning

edit

Mary Anning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has improved greatly since the previous FAC attempt back in September 2010, thanks to the efforts of some of the reviewers, especially SlimVirgin, who continued to work on it after the FAC, some advice from anonymous IP users, and some new sources. I now believe it is ready to pass this time through. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – a few quibbles so small as to be barely visible with the naked eye:

  • "The source of the fossils were" – singular noun with plural verb – needs to be made consistent
  • "Charlotte, who traveled" – unexpected American spelling of "travelled"
  • …" Anningella were named in her honor after her death" – ditto
  • A few references (e.g. 32, 66 and 67) look rather odd, breaking into semi-detached sections

A fine article, most readable, well balanced and respectably referenced. Tim riley (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the first three problems. I don't see a problem with putting more than one citation in a single footnote as it makes the text less cluttered than having multiple footnotes for the same sentence, but I did fix note 32 to have the same format as the other 2 multiple reference footnotes. Thank you for the kind comments. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Page(s) for Dickens?
  • FN 19: why the different formatting here?
  • FN 2, 25: why are these shortened citations not linked to their respective reference entries, as the others are?
  • Check for consistency on small formatting details, for example whether a period is included in page notations, whether initials are spaced or unspaced, whether periods are included before semicolons in author listings, etc
  • Page(s) for De la Beche & Conybeare? Conybeare?
  • McGowan or McGowen?
  • What is the significance of the indentation in certain footnotes?
  • When there are multiple references in a single footnote a bullet is used to mark the start of each ref after the first. One of the FAC reviewers last time introduced the convention. I liked it better than just a line break because it made it easier to see where each ref in the footnote started so I standardized on it. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use a consistent format for retrieval dates. Also, these are required for web-only sources, but not for convenience links to print-based sources
  • FN 27: page(s)? Also, formatting is inconsistent with others on the page
  • FN 63: page(s)? Volume and issue numbers?
  • FN 64: should note that subscription is required for access. Also, check formatting
  • FN 67 part 1: name doesn't match source
  • FN 67 part 2: newspaper name needs "The" and italicization
  • Don't mix untemplated and templated citations, as this causes inconsistent formatting. Overall, reference formatting needs to be much more consistent
  • No footnotes to Anonymous 1828, Lewis & Knell 2009
  • Journal names should be italicized
  • Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations
  • Be consistent in how you notate multiple authors/editors in both Notes and References
  • Why the repeated title in Home 1819?
  • Torrens 2008: note subscription required
  • Further reading formatting should match that of References
  • iUniverse appears to be a vanity press
  • True, but the book is available through Amazon, and has been reviewed by Kirkus and School Library Journal. I wouldn't use it for a source (it is a children's book for one thing) but it is Ok for further reading. I do plan to purge a bunch of stuff from further reading presently per your comment below, but I think this one should be Ok. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I looked into it further and this is NOT a case of a book originally published by a vanity press. Rather in 2005 it was picked up by iUniverse's backinprint program which republishes out of print books. The book was originally published by Lothrop, Lee & Shepard in 1991. It is currently in stock in both Amazon and Barnes and Noble, and excerpts are available on Google books. I have been reading some of the excerpts and it is actually pretty good for a kids book. It also seems to be one of the more substantial of the many books written about Anning for Children. It seems like a good candidate for a further reading section. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I found it. One of the reasons I have been so reluctant to remove the book from the further reading list is because the title rang a bell with me and I knew I had read about it in one of the sources for the article, but I just couldn't remember where, but now I know. The book is discussed by Hugh Torrens in one of the more important references for the article, Torrens (1995), in his overview of the literature on Anning. That is enough for me to strongly resist removing it from the further reading list without a good reason to do so. I would have checked Torrens earlier, but I when the question first arose I thought the book had been published in 2005 not 1991 so I didn't expect to find a reference to it in a 1995 source. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publisher for Goodhue 2002?
  • Why the doubled date in Norman 1999?
  • Foreign-language sources should be notated as such
  • Further reading/External links section as a whole could stand to be culled slightly.

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have addressed all of the issues you raised. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

remarks

  • for the sentence, "Taken together, Anning's discoveries became key pieces of evidence for extinction." -- why do you need "taken together" -- "Anning's discoveries" already express and imply this. if there's a simple mistake like this, the rest of the article likely needs cleaning up also.rm2dance (talk)
    • I disagree. "Taken together" is a phrase commonly understood to mean "No one piece of evidence was persuasive, but it's generally agreed that together, they shift the interpretation." A good example of "tight" writing. Even if I agreed with the objection, I wouldn't agree that an objection to one piece of prose proves anything about the article in general. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: An impressive and interesting article, with much substance. However, the prose in the early stages has a few problems. Here are some issues I have picked up from the lead and Childhood sections:-

  • Close repetition of "based" in last line of second lead paragraph
  • Lead third paragraph: "She struggled financially for much of her life—her family were poor, religious dissenters and her father, a cabinetmaker, died when she was eleven." The words "religious dissenters" fit oddly in this sentence. Religious dissension did not automatically equate with poverty, though it may have held her back in other ways. I suggest some rephrasing here.
  • The sentence beginning "Although she became well known..." is overlong even before its subdivision by a semicolon. The word "indeed" is intrusive and carries some POV baggage.
  • "was an extract" → "is an extract". Slight confusion here. Did Magazine of Natural History publish the whole letter, an extract from which was later published in another journal? If so, what journal? Or did the M of NH only publish an extract?
  • The chronology is odd at the start of the Childhood section. Richard's move from Colyton to Lyme precedes Mary's birth, and I am unclear about "Returning to Lyme..."
  • "the first Mary" is confusing until we have read further down the paragraph
  • "At least four more were born..." → "At least four more children were born..." - the previous sentence is about daughters.
  • "On 19 August 1800, when she was 15 months old..." First mention of the subject in a paragraph should be by name, not pronoun
  • I would delete the POVish "Fortunately for her"

The article could do with a general prose check, to pick up similar instances later in the text. This shoudn't take too long. Brianboulton (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have fixed all the problems you listed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. Rusty Cashman (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Today is a mad scramble for me. I will address as many of these as I can tomorrow.Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I found some time. Here are some responses. I supplied artist death dates for File:Duria Antiquior Scharf.jpg, and File:Anning plesiosaur 1823.jpg, but I was unable to do so for File:Mary Anning by B. J. Donne.jpg because I was unable to locate any biographical information at all on B. J. Donne. I fixed the author information for the house image (but before you ask I don't have death dates for either author), and I added and information template to the scharf image page. I think that is about all I can do to address your comments. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I waited until the below were done - is Blandford Blandford Forum?
Yes, and I have now wiki-linked it. Thanks for the reminder. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I copyedited as I went - only one minor query which is straightforward and not a dealbreaker. I am happy with prose and comprehensiveness, and I can see the depth of discussion and review of sourcing on the talk page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: Overall, a very good article. However, there are a few issues that need to be addressed.
  • "Her discoveries included the first ichthyosaur skeleton to be correctly identified, which she and her brother Joseph found when she was just twelve years old, the first two plesiosaur skeletons ever found, the first pterosaur skeleton located outside Germany, and some important fish fossils." This sentence mixes a list of items with a parenthetical. A serial semicolon should be used instead of commas after each of the items in this list.
  • "Her family were poor" sounds strange to an American ear. Is this correct British usage?
  • "Her family were poor, and as religious dissenters were subject to legal discrimination, and her father, a cabinetmaker, died when she was eleven." Snake-like sentence that probably should be broken in half.
  • "...attended the Independent Chapel on Coombe Street, later called the Congregational church." If the church was specifically named the "Congregational Church", the full name should be capitalized, and it probably shouldn't link to an article on general congregational churches.
  • I have clarified the sentence. None of it referred to the proper name of a particular church. It was a Dissenter's chapel whose worshippers originally called themselves Independents but came to be known as Congregationalists over time (same as with many other early English Congregationalist churches).Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They had ten children in all." The previous two sentences are about the family, not the parents, so this sentence seems to come out of the blue. I recommend it be modified to "Richard and Molly had..."
  • "She was followed by Martha, who died almost at once, Joseph in 1796, and Henry in 1798, who died in infancy." Again the sentence mixes parentheticals with a series of items. Here the serial semicolon should be used (a very good example of correct serial semicolon use appears at the end of that paragraph).
  • "1842 sketch shows the house 16 years after Anning left it." Needs 'An' in front of it to complete the sentence.
  • "in vogue in the late-18th and early-19th century" are these hyphens necessary?
  • "On 10 December 1823, she found the first complete Plesiosaurus, and in 1828 the first British example of the flying reptiles then known as Pterodactylus, called a flying dragon when it was displayed at the British Museum, followed by a Squaloraja fish skeleton in 1829." Why is Pterodactylus referred to as "then known"? It's still a valid genus. Has the skeleton been reassigned? Why no wikilink on Pterodactylus or Squaloraja, when Plesiosaurus is wikilinked in the same sentence?
  • "Christopher McGowan examined..." Who is Christopher McGowan? No wikilink or explanation is provided in the article.
  • "In 1826, at the age of 27, she managed..." This is the first sentence in a new paragraph, but the previous paragraph ends with a quote by Lady Harriet Silvester, so it's not immediately clear to the reader that the sentence is about Mary Anning.
  • "Though some personal letters written by her, such as her correspondence with Frances Augusta Bell, were published while she was alive." Sentence fragment. Combine with previous sentence.

I believe I have addressed all of your comments above. I look forward to more. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2011 (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/Mary_Anning/archive2&oldid=1047032037"