Jump to content

Talk:John Ogilby/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:39, 1 September 2023 (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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 23:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this one. Comments to follow. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
  • Beginning with the sources:
    Do you need the 1615 source? Surely the text it's used for can be supported by others?
    • I think it is important to explain that a "dancing master" didn't just teach dance but also a variety of the skills required of gentlefolk. It explains why the 'trade' was limited by license, why Wentworth included Ogilby in his entourage bound for Dublin. I could have given the citation as Ereira p36, who goes on to write that This catalogue of studies associated with dance was written by Sir George Buck of the Middle Temple at exactly the time Ogilby his indentures. Buck was arguing that the Inns of Court were as much a university as Oxford or Cambridge, and it was dancing masters who were playing the part of dons. Buck w the Master of the Revels. The Revels were serious stuff. Tempting though it is, I thought it too off-topic to include that detail. But I thought it might interest readers to see the original but it's not a showstopper if you consider it undue.
      • Ah, I think I've realised what you meant: Buck is a primary source. I have changed to use Ereira.  Done
    I don't love the use of the primary maps for a summary of his works; as he was known for this activity, surely it's recorded in his biography?
    • Sorry, I don't follow? Do you mean in the infobox?
      • Yes, in retrospect this wasn't clear. I was referring to FNs53-55. Upon closer examination, the source seems to include secondary commentary; so this may be okay, but I think you need to make it clear you're not merely referring to an actual map there. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's the primary sources problem again. I have replaced those citations with secondaries (though the Ereira one just reprints Ogilby's text regarding the £14k). So  Done, I think?
    Suggest formatting SLC Clapp the same way as the other authors, though this isn't a GA requirement.
      • I used harvard referencing for the sources used multiple times but not for ones used just once or twice. If you consider it best to use Harvard throughout, I can do that?
      • Also unclear, my apologies. I was referring only to the formatting of the name (that is, spell it out). Citation formatting is not a GA requirement, and in any case I wouldn't ask you to change a citation style. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done
    Uncited sentence at the end of "Death".
    • Fourth wall failure. It means that I couldn't find any evidence. I will delete.  Done
    The Pepys source comes close to interpretation of a primary text: though I think in this specific instance it's allowable, an alternative would be preferable.
    • I will delete this. It is another one cited by Ereira and it seemed important because Ereira implies (strongly) that Ogilby managed the entire grand procession. The Pepys reference was in support of earlier text that I revised after reading Van Eerde, who is more circumspect about his role.  Done
    No other concerns as to reliability.

Spotchecks

[edit]
  • Spotchecks, necessarily somewhat limited as most sources aren't available online:
    FN13 checks out as to content, though as above I think it should be swapped out  Done (Buck was primary source)
    FN26a says nothing about a shipwreck, though it verifies the date of return to England.
    • Source is Ereira p119, who cites Aubrey's Brief Lives. I don't know what happened here but I will rectify forthwith. Done
    FN26b verifies date of death but not place of burial; FN57 says "in and around St. Bride", which is a little imprecise. I would suggest a better source be found.
    • Yes, Van Eerde p139 says "in the vault" so I will revise.  Done
    FN30 checks out.
    FN31a checks out.
    FN31b checks out except for "renowned", which I suggest omitting.
    • Will do.  Done
    FN39 checks out.
    FN44a checks out.
    FN44b checks out.
    FN59 checks out as to content, and I think it's an acceptable use of a primary source.
    FN4a checks out.
    FN4b: I won't say this is a verifiability issue as such, but I think you're veering into analyses; the source doesn't actually say anything about handwriting, and I would just paraphrase by saying Ashmole read the horoscope as saying Kellemeane, but was unable to locate a town by that name on the maps.
    I have rewritten this footnote. It now reads Van Eerde reads the location given on the horoscope as "Kellemeane" and is unable to identify any place of that or similar name on any maps of the time So,  Done
    FN7a: p16 makes no mention of "Kirriemuir" that I can see...
    I don't understand the question? Van Eerde never mentions Kirriemuir anywhere? When I wrote "Van Eerde (writing in 1975) was unable to find any evidence of a direct family connection.", I may have over-interpreted her "he never claimed such a connection". Ereira makes a big deal of the fact that Ogilby used a coat of arms that asserted that we was the third son of the Lord of Airlee and did so in the frontispiece of a book dedicated to the Lord Lyon King of Arms of Scotland – well aware that it was a criminal offence in Scotland to use such a design without being so entitled. Caution: Ereira's book does a lot of inference from collected circumstantial evidence so I'm diffident about using it without a good filter.
    In the version I was checking, Van Eerde p.16 was the source for "Kirriemuir is near a seat of the lairds of Airlie.[7]". See this revision. I think you've taken care of it with the various revisions. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FN7b checks out, except you cite Eerde as 1976, and the text says 1975?
    I may have been excessively pedantic here. She wrote the book in 1975, her preface is dated December 1975, but it was published in 1976. Advice?
    FN21 checks out.
    FN29 checks out.
    FN36 talks about the restoration, but not the printer business; however, this is covered on page 91, so adding that to the footnote would fix it.
    TYVM,  Done
    FN37 checks out as to content, but I cannot find the quote "compose speeches, songs and inscriptions" in it; what am I missing?
    Are you looking at Van Eerde page 49? It's in the section in italic that reads "You are desired to pay unto Mr John Ogleby"
    I see, I think I skipped the quoted text. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FN38 checks out.
    FN46 checks out.
    FN56 checks out.
    FN57 checks out.
    FN58 checks out.
    Van Eerde checks are generally clean, so I will proceed to prose matters.
    FN2 mostly checks out, but you only sent me p6; could you p5?
    Will do today.
    Just looked, this is fine.
    FN9 is clearly referring to the events that are discussed in the text, but I think you may have a page range problem, I'm seeing nothing about the Lindsay clan
    The Lindsay text is on p158 (my mistake: I wrote pages= but only gave one page. I had best verify all the citations in the article.) I'll send you a pic while I'm doing P5.
    With 158, this is okay.
    FN28 doesn't mention the waterproof cloth; I know it's in Ereira somewhere, because of the discussion below, but perhaps another page range issue?
    Yes, it was a few pages earlier (121, to be precise). I've given it its own citation but you may think that pages=119–126 for the whole paragraph would read better?  Done
    Overall, I think there is no OR here, but you have page range issues. Checking through on Ereira citation is probably a good idea.
    There are two Earwig's tool results that are concerning; [1] and [2]. In each case there are similarities of phrase that are more than just common expressions. These require rephrasing (please note close paraphrasing concerns are not limited to the highlighted text).
    • This is a concern as I certainly didn't copy anything. Will check urgently.
      • Panic over: these two sources are reviews of Ereira's book [and listed at External links] so inevitably there are some short phrases in common, mostly titles like "Master of the Kings Revels". I don't believe I have overstepped the mark but will take your guidance if there is anything you feel would be best rewritten.
        • I trust you did not copy, and am not suggesting malpractice on your part; however, as best as I can tell the reviews did predate your version of the text, and as such I think you cannot use the same phrase even if you came upon it independently. I would look at the flagged sections in the two links I provided, and rephrase anything you can that wouldn't destroy the prose (see "translation in manuscript, which was wrapped in a waterproof cloth" and "given away to foster parents at birth" for examples).
          • Yes, it is certainly true that I read The Guardian review first (and indeed cited it a few weeks ago before I decided to hunt down the Ereira text and just do it properly. So "cross-contamination" must be a credible hypothesis. I will look at it tomorrow.  Done
    Overall I'd say this is only just okay for verifiability and copyright, and I would like to perform spotchecks on the print sources: however, I lack access, and you don't appear to have Wikipedia email enabled. Would you be able to enable email, and reply to a subsequent email of mine with photographs of a couple of pages? If not, do you have an alternate means of enabling me to spotcheck 4-6 pages?
  • @Vanamonde93: Thank you for this analysis. I will work to resolve or respond individually later today. Meanwhile,

Primary sources

[edit]

Xref the notes above the 1615 source, there are a few other cases (such as the Ashmole horoscope) where I have cited the original MS or publication. Should I (a) let them stand (b) give as "original source, cited in Van Eerde (1976) p=12345" or (c) just Van Eerde (1976) p=12345? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would recommend option B as the most complete, but C is okay; I would avoid A, because it implies you're drawing conclusions from the primary text alone, and you shouldn't be doing that. The issue with primary sources is the potential for cherry-picking, and for original research; when you're using a secondary source that's doing the analysis, this isn't an issue. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

[edit]
  • For an article this long, I think the lead is too short. You could comfortably double it without length issues, and I would suggest including biographical information in particular.
    •  Done
  • I don't like the "best known for" construction in the lead unless it's specifically sourceable; you can omit it, describe the activity he was supposedly best known for, and achieve the same effect.
    •  Done
  • The first paragraph of early life is written fine, but I think it needs a clearer topic sentence. I think you can summarize "Ogilby's birthplace was historically a matter of uncertainty" or equivalent.
    •  Done
  • "Information about this period of his life is sketchy" odd phrasing for two reasons; information about his early life is also obviously sketchy, and referring to a section title (the "this period") is odd stylistically. Suggest rephrasing.
    •  Done
  • "a lieutenant in a Scottish company in the service of Count Mansfield" seems like an unnecessary quote; can you paraphrase?
    •  Done, now reads In May 1626, he is recorded as holding the rank of lieutenant in the army of Count Mansfield,
  • Find a link for Royalist.
    •  Done, citing Van E With his known Royalist sympathies,[41] he was a risk to potential patrons who needed to avoid offending the Puritan Commonwealth government.[42]
  • "The Restoration of Charles II brought favour back to Ogilby" it's unclear that he was out of favor...
    •  Done, see last reply
  • "Thus, at the age of 70, he began work on the project for which is perhaps best known, Britannia." very poetic, but uncited.
    •  Done, Thus, at about the age of 70 and with the scientific advice of Robert Hooke,[58] he began work on the project for which he is perhaps best known among cartographers, Britannia. ["Among cartographers" is now cited, added to the Britannia section.]
      • This is better, but still needs a citation at the end of the sentence for the entirety of it. It's not a controversial statement, so I'm going to pass this in the meantime, but please add such. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you link or explain "strip map"? I haven't the faintest idea what it means.
  • "an Ogilby innovation" isn't clear; what was the innovation? The specific scale used? Surely people had made scale maps before?
    •  Done. The lead now says His Britannia, the first road atlas of England and Wales to be based on actual surveys and measurements and drawn to scale, is noted among cartographers for these innovations. and added a supporting citation sfnp
  • "Both Dryden and Pope were as indebted to him in this as Dryden was for certain lines in his own translation of the Aeneid." I'm sorry, but I'm unable to understand this sentence.
    • Me neither. So I went to the source cited and it says nothing like that, so I have deleted. In effect,  Done
  • If Ogilby was primarily known for his atlas of Britain, it seems appropriate to include some material about its impact, and perhaps of that of all of his atlases. As is your legacy material is just about his literature, but he was known better as a cartographer?
  • That's about all I have, aside from the Ereira spotchecks; if you will ping me when you're done we can wrap this up. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The Road From London to the Lands End", a strip map from Britannia
This is really helpful, I will work to resolve these points over the next few days. Just to satisfy your curiosity in the meantime

:* A lieutenant etc is not a quote, the deathly prose is all mine. (no, it is Ereira's quote from the State Papers)

  • Out of favour: just a little detail called Oliver Cromwell and the Roundheads intervened but yes, nowhere have I said so. That's quite a hole I will need to fill.
  • Map scales – no, they really didn't because they never measured anything. Maps were schematic like a transit map, about relationships between places – it was the destination not the journey. Perhaps since you looked at it, I added FN53: Ereira (2016), p. 346 "These pages established the 8-furlong mile as the national unit of distance and the one-inch-to-a-mile mapping standard, which was used by the British Ordnance Survey until the 1970s".
  • Best known - well, among mapping geeks like me.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Ogilby/GA1&oldid=1173312393"