Jump to content

Talk:Eleanor Glanville

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eccentric can be read as pejorative

[edit]

Currently described as "eccentric". As this was the basis her relatives used to deprive her of liberty and wealth, and the term would not necessarily be used to describe male entomologists of the same period, it seems sexist & unnecessarily pejorative. There is a good account of her in The Aurelians. Semudobia (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! I've expanded/rewritten the article with content from The Aurelian Legacy, among other sources, and it should be clearer that Glanville's perceived "eccentricity" was primarily a weapon used in the legal overturning of her will. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead length

[edit]

@Kj cheetham: Can you provide some insight into how you think the lead should be adjusted? I'm aware it's longer than some leads, but MOS:LEADLENGTH offers only suggestions for lead length (not hard rules), and MOS:DONTTEASE states the lead's purpose "is to summarize the article, not just introduce it". I've done my best to summarize the main points of the article. Thanks, Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, It's quite subjective, but I was going by MOS:LEADLENGTH saying 1 or 2 paragraphs as it's under 15000 characters overall. Also based on the overall length of the lede compared to the rest of the article down to "See also". I can't offer advice on what to take out of it though really. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kj cheetham I see where you're coming from, but I would have to note again that those MOS:LEADLENGTH guidelines are quite explicitly presented as suggestions, not rules. The lead has to serve as a clear, concise summary of the article's main text, regardless of how long the article is. If you don't currently have specific concerns about the lead (e.g., unnecessary content or really wordy writing), then I don't think the cleanup tag is serving much of a purpose here (I can't fix a problem if there's no clear problem). Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my delay on responding. I still think it *might* be *slightly* long, but it's not excessively long and given I can't suggest ways to shorten it myself I've removed the tag. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Kj cheetham -- I appreciate it. I've condensed the lead's wordcount by about 10%, so it's a little bit shorter now, at least. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Eleanor Glanville/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 22:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, my review comments. I see there's some open discussion about the lead, which I'll take into account when reviewing. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images are appropriate, with CC licences. Captioning and positioning are fine. It's a shame that no image of Glanville is available. Alt text could be added for Glanville fritillary.
Alt text added. I agree about the lack of portrait! It's possible there's one out there somewhere, but none that I can currently locate/access. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio Check - I reviewed the single match above 0% from Earwig's Copyvio Detector. "central department for diversity and inclusion" doesn't seem like a seems a phrase that would rate as a copyvio.

General

  • Shouldn't Glanville Fritillary, Green Hairstreak etc. be Glanville fritillary, Green hairstreak, etc. according to MOS:COMMONNAMECAPS?
Nice catch -- corrected. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and family

  • No issues.

Entomology work

  • Larvae could be wikilinked to Larva.
Done. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It would later be renamed the Glanville Fritillary in the decades after Glanville's death". This source is a blog, but it's hosted by UCL and is by a Curatorial Assistant at the Grant Museum of Zoology. It says that "it was Petiver who proposed that this species be called the Glanville Fritillary in honour of its discoverer." It's an incidental detail but optionally, if you think it's relevant and supported by reliable sources, you could consider adding this in. Same for the claim in the blog that "This specimen ... was the type specimen used by Carl Linnaeus when he described Melitaea cinxia in 1758".
I've added the Carl Linnaeus factoid (seems solid), but I'm skeptical about knowing whether Petiver proposed the Glanville fritillary name. Everything else I've read suggests no one knows precisely who proposed it. I checked 3/4 sources listed by the UCL blog, and none confirm where that information comes from, so I've left it out for now. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That seems suitable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death and legacy

  • Seems fine. The length of this section compared to Entomology work seems appropriate given the relative coverage I've seen in sources.

SourcesI

  • All look appropriate. A search of the Wikipedia Library and online did not identify any significant omissions from the list of sources.
  • Spotchecks (ODNB and Eleanor Glanville Centre) were all good.

Infobox and Lead

  • See below.

@Alanna the Brave: Thanks for your work on the article. I really didn't have much to comment on: it reads well and, from what I've seen in sources, gives a balanced and rounded overview that is well cited. I'm inclined to agree with you, as per the talk page discussion, that the lead does comply with MOS. I might remove the tag, but I'll probably wait a little longer in case the talk page discussion develops further. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: Thank you for the review! I've responded to your items above -- let me know if you spot anything else that needs addressing. It sounds fair to wait a few days to resolve the lead length discussion; I still feel the same way about it, and while I might be able to trim a few words here and there, I'm just not sure it would make sense to remove whole paragraphs of info to match the suggested 1-2 para length. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having re-read the article again today, I'm still satisfied that the lead satisfies "The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic" per MOS:LEADLENGTH. Apart from that section, the MOS:LEAD lead says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents" and per MOS:LEADBIO has "the lead must correctly summarize the article as a whole." These need to be balanced against the "suggestions about lead length [that] may be useful" from MOS:LEADLENGTH. Everthing looks fine but I'll give it another day to give an opportunity for further comment. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanna the Brave: Looking at the update on the "Lead length" section on the talk page, I'm now happy to pass the article for GA. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that 17th-century entomologist Eleanor Glanville raised her own moths and butterflies and wrote some of the earliest detailed descriptions of butterfly rearing? Source: "Glanville also reared butterflies and moths... Glanville herself described the early stages of the High Brown Fritillary and Green-veined White in one of the first detailed references to rearing butterflies." p107 [1]

Improved to Good Article status by Alanna the Brave (talk). Self-nominated at 20:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Interesting life and work, good article on fine sources, subscription source accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. Suggestion for the article: about her children in the lead, I'd drop "only" - at the time 4 surviving to be adult out of 7 wasn't unusual, perhaps even above average. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eleanor_Glanville&oldid=1196660225"