Talk:James Sheridan Knowles

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Observation - the danger of relying uncritically on the 1911 Encylopædia Britannica

Using the 1911 Encylopædia Britannica as the basis for many biographical and other Wikipedia articles has since nearly the beginning of Wikipedia been common practice. It's a good start. But the present article shows the perils of relying on it uncritically. Before I changed it, this article, copying from Britannica, asserted "and his Virginius, written for Edmund Kean, was first performed in 1820 at Covent Garden." Not so. As confirmed by other reliable sources as well as the very Google Books edition cited in the article, there were two plays named Virginius being performed in London around the same time in 1820. The one not written by Knowles starred Kean in the title role. Knowles' Virginius was written to highlight the talents of William Macready. So the casual assertion in Britannica is clearly a mistake. And this mistake was carried forward, nearly a century later, into Wikipedia, where it went unchallenged on this page for 13 years.

Not sure what specific, practical lessons this affords us here. The current correction is of course better late than never. And in making it I thought it wouldn't hurt to post my musings about this situation here for whoever might be interested.

Finally, this page contains much that relates to this topic, and it couldn't hurt to refer to it periodically as a reminder. A particularly relevant sentence: "The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica can continue to be a resource for readers well into the 21st century, as long as editors use it with care and discretion." Enough said for now. --Alan W (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]