Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edward Thomas Daniell/archive2

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) 23 September 2020 [1].

Edward Thomas Daniell

Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a young watercolorist and etcher from Norfolk, Edward Daniell, whose career as an amateur artist was cut short when he succumbed to malaria in Turkey in 1842. The article was a FAC In July 2020, but failed to be promoted. It was then peer reviewed in August. I'm hoping that the article is now nearer the point where it can be promoted to FA. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edward Thomas Daniell/archive1. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Per previous FAC (t · c) buidhe 06:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I supported at the previous FAC, and it has noticeably improved since then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I also supported the first nomination, and don't see a reason to change my stance. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my read through and comments at PR. The article was in decent shape at the previous FAC and the PR led to some immense prose improvements, fulfilling the only FAC criteria it may have been lacking. Aza24 (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I engaged at the peer review, and am satisfied! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This looks great. I read this article in the previous FAC, which I was happy with, but it now appears significant improvements have been made to the prose. Let's give the star it rightly deserves! L150 17:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Having participated in both the first FAC and subsequent PR. This can be held up as one of our best. Ceoil (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lee Vilenski

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~:To note this comment is neither actionable or likely to be. Ceoil (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Are we still missing spotchecks for first-time nominator looking at source-to-text integrity and absence of close paraphrasing or copyvio? Elsewise, this presents a fine example of how peer review should be used, so FACs do not have to languish on the page for months. (As does Squirm, to get us back to good practices.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note I have a featured article and a featured list (listed here) to my credit. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we change landscape paintings to landscape paintings to avoid the redirect? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same for etching. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

mainly sepia, ultramarine, brown pink - missing a comma unless "brown pink" is a technical term. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted (not a typo, template added). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a citation in the lede (which is fine), but is this not something we could specifically mention in the body? (and cite there instead?) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is already incorporated in and cited in the body, but since it makes a surprising claim (unsurpassed), there is nothing wrong with citing it in the lead. See WP:CITELEAD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main image - do we know if this was definately painted in 1835? or should this be a circa? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation added. Beecheno writes (link to Google Books here) that his painting of Daniell was started in January 1935. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the subjects' date of birth cited? this source is given in the body as far as I can tell, but only gives years of life, not specific dates (unless it's on a different page - I couldn't get the search to work). Even though this isn't a BLP, I'd want the dates of life to be verifiable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The citation at the end of the sentence ending ...of Rudham Grange, Norfolk.—Dickes p 543—provides gives Daniell's date of birth. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quick chuck through AWB (with gen fixes) would fix a few links like the first two points in the body as well. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide specifics for what needs to be improved? I can edit the article quite easily without AWB if you give me some idea of what you mean. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Duplinks, good job. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

familysearch.com is a generally unreliable source - is there a specific reason we should expect it to be reliable in this context? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski I have used this website with caution. All the links contain both secondary and primary information (both the transcripts and the facsimiles of the relevant pages can be viewed). The Snettisham records (references 19 & 26) provide information about specific facts, and can I believe be used as such as citations (WP:WPNOTRS). The information on Anne Daniell's marriage can be found in print (Phillimore, vol. 2, pp. 105–120 (1936)), so I'll include a reference to that. The inclusion in the External links section shouldn't be of concern as it provides access to a useful and reliable primary source, but is outside the text of the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

Source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth I believe it was done in last months' archived FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was the spot check that was suggested done in the PR? --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

Beginning spot checks based on this version of the article

Do you have a access to a copy of Beecheno (1889), published as a limited edition of 50 copies

This is a snippet view version, which I didn't use. The book I consulted is in the archive collection at Norwich's main library, now totally off limits for me because of Covid-19 restrictions. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grand, I take this in good faith, but would remove the GB link in the sources section, which unhelpfully, and perhaps unfairly points to a queried snippet view. Ceoil (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checked:
Ref 44 OK (as in backs claims, no close paraphrasing etc)
Refs 53abc OK
Ref 64a: p214 does not mention malaria

Reference added. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 58ab OK
More later Ceoil (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ceoil, I can scan and email the offline citations—except Beecheno— if needed. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 68 OK
Ref 71 OK
Ref 241 OK
To note, a lot of the sources are very old, and skew towards the late 19th century. Has there not been more recent scholarship, even if they are confirming some of these basic facts/timelines.

Moore, Searle, Smail and Walpole are the only recent sources (1985 to 2015), I'll take a look at replacing any older refs using these authors if it's possible. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My research is backing this that there is very little recent scholarship. I would however, replace older refs where possible. Ceoil (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've now weeded out several pre-1960s citations. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you email a copy of Thistlethwaite 1974, p.1 pls, as is used five times, tks Ceoil (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, these spot checks indicate that sources back claims, and there is no close paraphrasing or copy-vio. Ceoil (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot checks seem good, promoting. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.