Jump to content

Talk:Emery Molyneux/Archive: GA review

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


GA Review

  1. It is well written. Indeed yes. Comments below.

The lead would ideally contain a reference to the celestial globes.

  • Comment: It does: "His terrestrial and celestial globes, first published in 1592, were the first to be made in England..."
Apologies - I meant to convey the idea that the section about the subject would be referred to in brief, but on re-reading it I don't think this is an issue.

Making of the globes

  • "Emery Molyneux is known for being the maker of the first terrestrial and celestial globes in England, and the first Englishman to do so" is slightly clumsy. It implies Molyneux might have been the first Englishman to make globes in England, but I think you mean "for being both the maker of the first terrestrial and celestial globes in England, and the first English globe maker" or similar.
    • Comment: To be honest, I don't really see the difference between the original sentence, "the first Englishman to make globes in England" and "the maker of the first... globes in England, and the first English globemaker".
Reply When I first read the sentence I assumed you meant he was 'the first English globe maker' although the phrasing left open the idea that an English globe maker had created globes somewhere other than in England prior to that. The final "to do so" suggests the intent might be "he was the first Englishman to make terrestrial and celestial globes in England."
      • Fixed: The information was from the source indicated in the footnote at the end of the sentence. I believe what it means is that Molyneux was the person who was the first person to manufacture globes in England (presumably before that globes were imported into England from abroad), and also the first English globe-maker (that is, there were no Englishmen who manufactured globes either in England or elsewhere). I've rephrased the sentence as you suggested.
  • "with a capital investment of £1,000". Like the user above I wondered if there was a modern equivalent available. No matter if not.
    • Comment: I agree, but I'm afraid I don't know how to access this information.
Fair enough.
try http://eh.net/ (non wikied in case a bot removes it)! from memory it used to list a site for comparing English money throughout history. A useful site. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 11:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
old link above dead new link leads to In 2007, £1000 0s 0d from 1570 is worth £231,108.38 using the retail price index. I choose 1570 as a date backwards from his stated death year. The web address is: http://www.measuringworth.com/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmund Patrick (talk • contribs) 15:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Edmund, thanks for the information. 1590 is a more accurate start date since the globes were published in 1592–1593; the figure is then almost £160,000. I've updated the article. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 23:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "A legend placed in the Pacific Ocean on the terrestrial globe states" This reference to the singular baffled me a little at first. You may need to explain the globes plural came from a singular template.
    • Comment: I'm afraid I don't understand this comment. Can you clarify?
Reply You write "In making his terrestrial globes, ....... A legend placed in the Pacific Ocean on the terrestrial globe states," It moves from the plural to the singular and I didn't understand why on first reading.
      • Fixed: Have changed the sentence to read "A legend... on the terrestrial globes states..."
  • "the statement about him on the globe must have been based". Why 'must' - could for example Molyneux not have met him? "Probably' or 'almost certainly' might be better.
    • Fixed.
  • 18 Dec. 1587 hæc terra sub nostris oculis primum obtulit sub latitud 47 cujus seu admodum salubris Incolæ maturi ex parte proceri sunt gigantes et vasti magnitudinis. Why no italics around 'nostris oculis'? Translation please.
    • Comment: I posted a message on the talk page of the Latin Wikipedia but have not received a response. The words "nostris oculis" are not in italics because that's how they appeared in the source referred to.
Reply Seems odd, although the translation may shed some light on this.
      • Comment: I agree, and hope someone will respond.

Celestial

  • A small point, but I prefer footnotes at the end of a sentence if possible and "of the Antarctic sky published[21] in 1550.[22]" looks a bit odd. I'm not sure why this is two different notes.
    • Comment: The first footnote is a reference to the book in which the celestial map was published, while the second footnote provides a source for the whole sentence.
Understood.

Later life

  • "as part of measures to defend the south coast of England from recusants". You may well be correct, but it isn't clear to me why the English coast needed to be defended from attack by the English recusants.
Reply I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that it meets the conditions of WP:V even if it does not seem to make obvious sense?
      • Comment: Well, the information is clearly verifiable. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with that aspect of English history and therefore can't say definitively whether the statement is wrong or not. But I wouldn't regard it as not making obvious sense. On reading the article "Recusancy", I note that it states that "[o]ne infamous Recusant was Guy Fawkes (aka Guido Fawkes), an English soldier, who was arrested while attempting to carry out the Gunpowder Plot to blow up Parliament on 5 November 1605". This was only nine years after the Privy Council considered Molyneux's cannon on 4 November 1596, so it appears that some recusants were involved in open rebellion against the English crown.
The rebellion I understand, its the south coast that baffles me. Were there recusants in France plotting invasion? I'll ask an historian I know to take a peek at it.
  • "centre of globe- and map-making". The first hyphen is redundant.
I am now suitably informed (if not entirely supportive of MOS's approach).

Globes today

  • incorporated Raleigh's discoveries in Guiana. I note the dialogue above. It might be useful to have quote marks around "Guiana"?
That's good.

2. References etc.

Notes

  • Three general points: Arguably, all the web-based references would have retrieval dates. My understanding is that e.g. "Wallis, "Further light on the Molyneux globes", above, p. 307." should simply be "Wallis, (1955) p. 307." However, the quality of the references is generally excellent and I do not think either of these issues needs fixed for a GA. The "above" is puzzling though. I think you might mean "below" - but if so this can be fixed easily by moving the 'References' up.
    • Comment: The use of "above" refers to the first full citation of each source earlier in the footnotes.
Reply Ah - for a GA I believe this is quite acceptable. If you take this to FA (and I hope you will) you may find there are grumbles. I made extensive use of op. cit. in an FAC and was asked to change them all. There is a brief reference to the reasoning behind this at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#op.cit..
      • Comment: Yes, I once used op. cit. and was advised by a GA reviewer against the practice. I've removed the word "above" because, according to "Wikipedia:Citing sources#Shortened notes" it's sufficient just to refer to an author's surname and the title of the article or book if the work is referred to in a "References" section.
  • Citation 8 She-philosopher.com: - has an extra set of square brackets.
    • Comment: I added the square brackets because the words in the brackets were not actually the title of the web page (it was simply "Portraits"), but I thought the extra information was useful.
Reply Understood. I think you could use "Sir Walter Ralegh, also Raleigh (1552–1618)]: Portraits" myself. but its up to you.
      • Comment: Think I'll just leave it as it is.
  • Citation 13 'Printed by Iohn Windet' might be a typo.
    • Comment: No, it's not. It's an old-fashioned way of writing "John" (see "J#History").
OK

Further reading

  • Lesser, Zachary. I think [book review] is redundant.
    • Comment: I thought adding it would make it clearer that Zachary Lesser had written a review of the book by Adam Max Cohen.
OK
  • Did Thomas Hood publish in 1592 and 1971 or is the latter a reprint?
    • Comment: The 1971 book is a reprint, I believe. I put "Later versions" before the citation of that book.
OK

Having two 'Notes' sections is not ideal. WP:MOS seems silent on the matter, but I suggest it could be called "Notes on further reading" unless you are aware of a suitable precedent.

    • Fixed: Changed the heading to "Notes for the 'Further reading' section". [updated comment on 19:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC).]

The article is

3. broad in its coverage
4. stable and
5. neutral.

6. Images etc

Minor comments:
  • Why italics Unknown in infobox?
    • Comment: It's a habit of mine to use italics for terms which are used as "signals", but if you think it's unnecessary I'll remove it.
Reply I had a look at other uses of the template, but I couldn't find another example. Its fine.
  • Portrait of Sir Walter: (c. 1542/1543–1609)" I don't think you need both 'c.' and two dates for possible birth. One or other would suffice.
    • Fixed.
  • "Petworth House in Petworth, West Sussex – photographed on 5 March 1986." Very minor but as Petworth is already in the article and the precise date is irrelevant, "Petworth House, West Sussex in 1986" might be more elegant.
    • Fixed.

The images are excellent and free. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 20:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: Thanks! I'd love to have free, colour photographs of the Middle Temple's Molyneux globes but haven't located any yet.

Reply They look great and would be a real bonus.

  • Comment: What got me started on this article was seeing the Molyneux globes at Middle Temple during the Temple Open Weekend in January. It didn't occur to me to take any photographs then (darn!), and in fact I'm not sure whether I would have been allowed to. Subsequently, I noticed there wasn't an article on Molyneux in Wikipedia and thought it would be interesting to write one.
Hi, thanks for taking the time to review this article. My comments are above. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 01:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Replies above. Nearly there. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 22:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, have made further changes and responded to your comments above. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 23:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You've done a great job and I will promote it with pleasure. Hopefully the Latin translation will turn up soon. I will watch out for Mr. Molyneux at FAC if you have the time for that. I am not in Abhainn an t-Sluaigh very often, but if there is another open day at the Temple I'd appreciate hearing about it. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 09:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Yes, I think I will nominate the article for FAC at some stage. Not sure when the next Temple open day will be, but isn't there a weekend every year in spring or summer when many historic buildings are open to the public? It might be open then. Also, I think the Middle Temple website states that the Molyneux globes may be viewed by appointment. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 02:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emery_Molyneux/Archive:_GA_review&oldid=1257388655"