Talk:Joseph Priestley/Archive 3

Hello, GA reviewer!

Hello, friendly GA reviewer. A couple of comments on JP. He could have been placed under numerous categories at GAC, but I placed him under "Chemists" specifically hoping to draw the attention of editors with a scientific background to check the science in this article, as that is not my forte. Second, I know the article is long (it is still under the 10,000 word limit!), so please suggest material to delete. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 03:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GA Writer!

I'm not sure if I'm reviewing this for GA or not; if I don't finish the article in this session, I won't have the time. (We know the result, but I know you are more interested in comments.) If not, I hope you will find these comments useful anyway! Some of them are likely idiosyncratic. –Outriggr ₪ 04:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Around the age of one, Priestley was sent to live with his maternal grandfather, but after his mother died during what Priestley later called “the hard winter of 1739," he returned home"--I wondered why he was sent; and had difficulty with the second clause extending from the first with "but", given that it is five years later. (I tried to fix the second part myself.)

In my efforts to rein in the size of the page, I took out that information: his mother was overwhelmed with the care of the family's young children. Do you think I should put that back in? (I like your rewording.) Awadewit | talk 22:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No strong feelings, but it's instructive to know why, centuries removed, a family would send a child to be looked after elsewhere. –Outriggr § 01:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added the detail back in. Awadewit | talk 05:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Needham Market was a small, rural town with a church wedded to tradition and Priestley yearned for urban life and roiling theological debate."--a contrastive instead of "and Priestley"?~~

"and" is now "while" Awadewit | talk 22:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"his parishioners soon discovered how far his theology deviated from their own when he began a lecture series based on his Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion, a text he had started writing at Daventry."--Does the last clause mean he hadn't finished writing it? Probably not, but it weakened the main idea for me. Even a "(year)" might clarify it.

He didn't publish it until 1772, several years after he had left Needham Market. He worked on it for a while. The phrase now reads: a text he started writing at Daventry but did not publish until 1772. Awadewit | talk 22:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Some scholars of education have described Priestley as the "most considerable English writer on educational philosophy" between the seventeenth-century John Locke and the nineteenth-century Herbert Spencer.[25]"--Seems like an attribution of one quote to more than one scholar. Sorry for being so literal.

I'm going to let this one go for now because I hope more research will elicit more specific claims. The quote is from Schofield's book; he is actually quoting someone else making the claim that many scholars say this. Awadewit | talk 22:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Both had accompanying prose descriptions..."--the reader has to go back and figure out why they wouldn't have prose descriptions... oh, I should take "chart" more literally! This is probably just me. (Also, I'm not sure if "supplemental study aides" is redundant.)

Now reads "Both charts..." and "visual study aids". The image was supposed to help convey the idea of a chart as well. :) Awadewit | talk 22:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was very focused on the text at the time. :) –Outriggr § 01:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"He obtained introductions to the major British experimenters—John Canton, William Watson, and Benjamin Franklin—and they encouraged him to perform the experiments he was writing about. Priestley was thus led from replicating others' work to designing and undertaking his own experiments."--I don't follow this. "Obtained" from who, the experimenters? Are "they" the introductions or the experimenters? Put another way, I thought "he was writing about" the experiments of the aforementioned experimenters; the next sentence seems to clarify that he was doing original research. If he wasn't, how was he "thus" led to undertaking his own experiments?

He obtained introductions from tutors at Warrington to Canton, Watson, and Franklin, who had done important work in electricity. He wanted to ask them about the feasibility of writing a history of electricity, for their support in writing the history, and also about their own research. These men encouraged him to replicate all of the experiments he decided to describe in his history, not just their own. Priestley then became so intrigued by the experiments he replicated that he started designing his own experiments (I'm trying to condense a lot, you see!). How best to reword this? Awadewit | talk 22:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I thought the "introductions" were written, as in contributions to the book. I still don't think I see the facts well enough to suggest an alternative. –Outriggr § 01:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - I see. I am using "introductions" in the old-fashioned sense. I revised the section in the article - see if it is clearer now. Awadewit | talk 05:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the more colloquial "was introduced to" helped.

"Like many other middle-class Dissenters at the time, Priestley engaged in commercial endeavors;"--this aside seems like it could as well introduce a new paragraph; it leads the reader down a new path, expecting more on the subject. Could you just remove it in the interest of your goal of shortening the text? (saving now)

It is mentioned quite frequently in the literature on Priestley, so I feel that it should be included. Can you see a better place to put it? Awadewit | talk 22:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's ok. –Outriggr § 01:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~The para beginning "Leeds (1767–73)" is kind of choppy.~~

See if you think the revision is better. Awadewit | talk 03:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do. (Except "family connections" don't communicate, family does. :) –Outriggr § 01:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How embarrassing. Fixed. Now reads "extended family". Awadewit | talk 05:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~"The Unitarian fiend expel..."--I think it's preferable to put two lines of verse inline.~~

Done. Awadewit | talk 03:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"He was therefore forced to provide much of the journal's content himself; however, this material became the basis for many of his later theological and metaphysical works. After only a few years, due to a lack of funds, he was forced to cease publishing the journal."--A lot of "forcing".

First "forced" replaced with "obliged". Awadewit | talk 03:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the cost of researching, writing, and publishing the Optics convinced Priestley"--the article was discussing The History and Present State of Discoveries Relating to Vision, Light and Colours and seems to have changed it to the Optics?

History and Present State of Discoveries Relating to Vision... is referred to as the Optics for short (you can see why). I have added an explanation in the text. Awadewit | talk 03:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Schofield attributes the entire disaster to Joseph Banks's highhandedness"--informality of "entire disaster" (also, "high-handedness").~~

I have struggled over how to describe this affair. The drastic reduction in space has led to this language - I no longer include the long story. I don't think "high-handedness" is such a problem, but I have replaced "entire disaster" with "debacle". Awadewit | talk 03:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just meant that "highhandedness" needed a hyphen, which I ended up adding. –Outriggr § 01:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"His philosophy was based on his theological interpretation of the natural world; like the rest of nature, man's mind is subject to the laws of causation, but because a benevolent God created these laws, Priestley argued, the world and the men in it will eventually be perfected." Great explanation!

Thanks! I'm glad someone appreciates it! Awadewit | talk 03:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The text addresses those whose faith is shaped by books and fashion; Priestley draws an analogy between the skepticism of educated men and the credulity of the masses."--books and fashion--I don't quite get it. Is this two poles or the same pole?

They are two different groups, but they fall prey to the same sin: they accept doctrines because they are popular. (It's not the best analogy, unfortunately.) How could I explain this better? Awadewit | talk 03:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The text addresses those whose faith is shaped by popular books or fashions; Priestley draws an analogy between the skepticism of educated men and the credulity of the masses"?–Outriggr § 01:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except the sources I read don't support the idea of only "popular books". Priestley really is drawing an analogy between people relying on books (popular or not) and fashion to determine religion rather than reason and study of the natural world. I'll check on this again. Awadewit | talk 05:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the main section titles can weave in some topical highlight of his biography from the respective period. The section titled "Calne" does not actually mention Calne until the eighth paragraph (nor link it at all).

Could you tell me which titles need to be improved? Awadewit | talk 03:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I retract that. –Outriggr § 01:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calne is now mentioned in the first sentence of that section. That is an artifact of overly aggressive deleting. Oops. Awadewit | talk 03:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shortening: "these experiments, some of which were performed before he moved to Calne and some after," (saving now) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outriggr (talk • contribs) 06:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think historians of science like to know these things. Awadewit | talk 03:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(But that's why they write book-length biographies.)–Outriggr § 01:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or two-volume biographies, as is the case here. Removed. Awadewit | talk 05:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Although Priestley considered moving to America, he eventually accepted Birmingham New Meeting's offer to be their minister. {section break} Birmingham (1780–91) In 1780 the Priestleys moved to Birmingham and spent a happy decade surrounded by old friends, until they were forced to flee in 1791 by mob violence. Priestley accepted the position at New Meeting..."--this method of foreshadowing the next section sometimes leaves out an important development from the new section (here, "accepted Birmingham['s]...offer to be their minister". I think the intro paragraph of a new top-level section should be more independent of the previous, section-closing para.

I have added "ministerial position" so that it is clear what position he is accepting. I like the flow that these paragraphs offer the biography. I have to find some way to keep people reading such a long article! Awadewit | talk 03:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~"...even though Priestley had received an appointment at the Gravel Pit Meeting."--the what? (Later, "Fast" link goes to disambig page.)~~

added "congregation"; fixed link (I thought I had checked all of them!) Awadewit | talk 03:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...the second portrays him as innocent as well as "warped" for not better understanding the implications of his discoveries."--could this viewpoint be elaborated/formalized a bit more?

Unfortunately, not much. I'll look again; I remember thinking that the description was a little weak in the original source. Awadewit | talk 03:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I've reviewed the whole article. It is no doubt going to become one of the best biographies on Wikipedia. Very interesting bio. If you like, I won't "GA pass" it so that someone with a chemistry background becomes interested. –Outriggr ₪ 07:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you thought it was interesting. I think Priestley is fascinating, but I was worried that others would think the article dragged on and on and on... Awadewit | talk 03:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would have to re-read it to suggest how it could be shortened. Does it run afoul of WP length guidelines? If not, is the length necessarily a problem? It is describing a fellow who seems to have had three careers. –Outriggr § 01:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have hit on the problem precisely - Priestley wasn't just a theologian or a scientist or a political writer or an educator. Trying to cover all of that is very difficult. The article is currently just shy of 10,000 words (under the limit) but is over the kb limit (it is 63kb). Awadewit | talk 05:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about the kb size (within reason) if the "prose size" is within the guideline. This is my reading of the de facto, um, stuff. –Outriggr § 05:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do you mind if I strikeout the concerns that have been addressed? Awadewit | talk 05:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Strike away! (Though sometimes I wonder why we don't "grey out" instead - easier for Posterity to read. –Outriggr § 05:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passed for GA per original review. –Outriggr § 04:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Wood

I wonder why the reference to Priestley recommending William Wood as his successor at Mill Hill was deleted. I would have thought that Priestley's associates and whom he thought worthy to follow him were material to his personality.Cutler 09:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed such information is material to his personality, but as you can tell from the length of this article, it is difficult to condense Priestley's life into a single article (we already have two spin-offs), so what we include in the article has to be chosen carefully. Since Wood and Priestley weren't close friends, as far as I am aware, and none of the six Priestley biographies I have read mentioned Wood in any significant way, if at all, it seemed that the fact would have to be sacrificed. (The most recent, two-volume biography of Priestley by Schofield does not even have Wood in the index - I just checked). Even more is going to have to be sacrificed from this article, sadly. Awadewit | talk 09:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nitrous air test

I don't know if you want to use it, but I found this image of a "pneumatic trough", that of Stephen Hales. Priestley used a modified pneumatic trough to perform the nitrous air test, so this might a more informative replacement for the title page in the natural philosopher of air section.--ragesoss 15:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure Priestley modified Hales' trough specifically. Let's include this picture. We have too many title pages anyway. Awadewit | talk 19:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting suggestions

In the natural philosopher of air section, from "Always the historian" to the end of the paragraph, most of this could be cut. The but about cheap apparatus and reproducibility should kept (but maybe trimmed), but the writing style and history bits are less valuable.--ragesoss 15:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But all the biographers made such a big deal about that! :) Let's try and trim or perhaps this is where the Joseph Priestley and science page will have to be utilized. Awadewit | talk 19:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death

Fruton (Methods and Styles, p. 30) says "It has been suggested that Priestley death may have been hastened by his repeated exposure to the carbon monoxide generated in his last experiments." The footnote points to several papers, the most recent of which is: Conlin, Michael F. “Joseph Priestley’s American Defense of Phlogiston Reconsidered,” Ambix Vol. 43, Part 3, November 1996: 129-145. I'm not sure if this bears mentioning, but it's interesting, in the least.--ragesoss 17:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? I'm inclined to leave it out for the moment unless the authors explain the connections between his symptoms and his work with CO. Awadewit | talk 19:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Priestley and science

I think the science in this article is handled well; it's clear and I don't notice any remaining problems. One thing that I don't like is using an article from 1984 (Schaffer) to make present tense historiographical statements, especially since there are a substantial number of sources on Priestley's science (many used in the article) that have been published since. Other than that, I think the article is ready for FA.--ragesoss 16:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still planning to read more secondary material - the long list of articles you see on the page. Hopefully that will eliminate things like the Schaffer problem. I am also hoping that the articles will help clarify the most important points to include in the page so that it can be cut even more. I am uncomfortable basing the article almost entirely on biographies. They have their limits. Awadewit | talk 23:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate

I noticed that an IP editor has added the "new style" birthdate for JP - is it customary to include both old and new? I thought not, but I can't really find any policy on that. WP:DATE does not seem to be clear. Anyone? Awadewit | talk 09:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that now both dates are the "new style". Is that what we do? Awadewit | talk 05:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations for FAC

~~Request a scientific peer review.~~
~~Request peer review from WikiProject Biography~~
~~Solicit peer reviews from individual editors~~
~~Cut down the article more~~
~~Keep copy editing and copy editing and copy editing and copy editing~~
Get rid of the literary present - it doesn't work in this article. Try to make everything in the past tense as much as possible for the sake of uniformity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awadewit (talk • contribs) 04:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]
~~Make sure that lead matches article~~
~~Check for any changes that have been made to the MOS~~
~~Proofread Awadewit | talk 01:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
~~I'm going to be proofreading today. Awadewit | talk 18:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
~~Check citations one last time~~
~~Check all links one last time~~
~~Read article aloud one last time~~
~~Optional: Find a BE translator~~
~~Just a few remaining items from the peer review need to be cleared up before nomination.~~

Nominate for FAC!

Did I miss anything? Awadewit | talk 06:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Find a BE translator". Do you want the article to be written in British English? Colin°^Talk 12:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Do you think a change is necessary? Awadewit | talk 18:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly, as long as you are consistent. Colin°^Talk 22:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after this, I was beginning to wonder. I didn't really think it was necessary either, but I thought I should bring it up. Awadewit | talk 22:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of what you said, especially as this is heading for FAC, it would be best if this were in BrEng. Strong national ties and all that. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 07:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are going to maintain the page in BrEng, then? Watch over and protect it? Awadewit | talk 16:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, add it to my watch list. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 17:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Change it to BE, then. By the way, I spelled out all of the centuries again, as writing and style handbooks dictate this, making it "professional". Why our MOS doesn't anymore, I don't know (it used to). However, I don't think one can have brilliant and professional prose with those grating little numbers there. :) Awadewit | talk 17:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, centuries do look more, um, more expansive spelled out. I looked it up when I noticed it changed; numbers are used by some august institutions: Washington Post, Vanity Fair, New York Times, Times (of London), Times of India (largest circulation newspaper in the world) as well as the university presses of Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, and Yale etc. Perhaps an Official Letter in green ink complaining about Slipping Standards is called for? :)))

Incidentally, "Joseph Jr" looked odd; perhaps in full?--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 18:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the books I have by those university presses have spelled out centuries, so perhaps they aren't really slipping. The latest edition of the Chicago Manual of Style recommends that such centuries be spelled out, so at least they aren't slipping. :) Feel free to spell out JP, Jr. Awadewit | talk 19:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I have removed the infobox and placed the right-facing portrait on the left (per WP:MOS). The current layout of the lead was a consensus achieved a few months ago. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 18:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which has the effect of pushing the ToC lower than it would otherwise need to be, introducing more white space than there needs to be. Could you link to the consensus of which you speak, please. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you'll find it in Archive 2 above. While I'm a big fan of infoboxes, adding one here would also force the use of another portrait, as all but this one are right-facing. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image

I've uploaded Image:Priestley2.jpg. It think the lead would be a bit better with the image on the right, and I've flipped the image so it looks better. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 17:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts, but I was under the impression that we were not supposed to alter paintings in any way. Flipping it is not an accurate representation of the work and may violate copyright, since it doesn't attempt to reproduce the work exactly. Awadewit | talk 18:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not really into using a flipped version of the portrait either. This July, there was some (IMHO warranted) opposition to using a cropped version of David's The Death of Marat on the Main Page; this isn't much different. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say – without trying to get into the flipping debate – that it's very odd for me to see a left-aligned image at the start of the article. (Or "starticle", as we say Back East.) – Scartol · Talk 17:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it looks unaesthetic? I don't think we should force all articles into one layout - atypical is not necessarily wrong or bad and change is sometimes a nice surprise. I am more concerned about aesthetics, violating copyright, and generally respecting artistic integrity here. Awadewit | talk 18:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the large area of white space created by this arrangement awkward. Personally, I think the white space is a bigger flaw than having the portrait face outward, but it's not that big a deal either way.--ragesoss 01:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the white space a result of the TOC, which wouldn't be affected by changing the portrait? Awadewit | talk 01:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly, but if the div tag is removed as well as moving the image, then the several lines of space between the text and the TOC disappear and the image dips below the top of the TOC, making the total white space about a third less and making it more seem balanced and contained (at least on my screen and default image size). But maybe I'm just used to the way things are normally done.--ragesoss 01:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Ah, I see. I guess I care more about the facing business. It is just so wrong to have a portrait facing off of the page. But perhaps this is just my art history training coming out. They are dogmatists about that, you know. Awadewit | talk 01:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know. I only recently learned of this convention. But when I did, I thought, yeah!, what a good idea. Still, there's a solution: buy another monitor and only read the Priestley article on the left screen.--ragesoss 02:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a face on one edge of a page (or painting) should face toward the center; the opposite immediately looks wrong and unsettling. The rare exception in art (which should never apply to an encyclopedia) is where the artist intends the subject to appear to be disconnected, alienated, unbalanced, or the like. Finell (Talk) 07:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three different options with the left-facing portrait.
1 - I don't like this at all. The white space right in the center of the screen looks bad, I think.
2 - This is another version of something we tried earlier, just with a smaller TOC. It looks a little cluttered, but it has the advantage of no big swaths of white space.
3 - This is what we have had for a while. It works.
What do people think? Awadewit | talk 04:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter in anyway what way that man is facing that picture needs to be on the right side. How it got through FAC with such a style issue is beyond me. It looks terrible as it is, with the left side overly crowded. The aesthetic and usefulness of reading what the subject is on the left and seeing what it is on the right has been time tested. I can't stress this enough, it does not matter what way he's facing, the image goes on the right. Thats the only reason I've seen for this, because his body is facing to left. The image on the left does not work like this, it is jarring, confusing and ugly. Medvedenko (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Word count

We are now at 9009 words, well below the 10,000 max. Awadewit | talk 20:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The body text size (81 kB) is also more manageable, and (not much of a criterion, but still) larger articles have been promoted to FA. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did some trimming because I thought you wanted more of that, but feel free to change all that back. In other news, this quote is pretty bad: "as one early biographer writes: "taken collectively, [Priestley] did more than those of any one of his contemporaries to uproot and destroy the only generalisation by which his immediate predecessors had sought to group and connect the phenomena of chemistry", however "he was wholly unable to perceive this fact"." I'm not sure it's even necessary; the first part of that sentence is enough.--ragesoss 00:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ragesoss, I trust your instincts - please change whatever you think is necessary. Besides, you are the only other person who has read anything about Priestley who is working on this! Awadewit | talk 01:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to keep trimming a bit more. The peer reviewers have had pretty strong reactions to the page's length. Awadewit | talk 06:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have now hit about 8,000 words and 50kb of prose - still at the outside limit. I don't think there can be a substantial reduction beyond that without a wholesale rewriting of the page, which I am not prepared to do at the time. I think the page works well as it is, so I am going to proceed with the FAC preparations unless I hear otherwise. I know that User:Qp10qp thought I should rewrite the whole thing, but I guess I am prepared to try FAC and if there is a consensus that the article is too long, I will return to it in a few months. Or perhaps some other brave soul can attempt to transform it. :) Awadewit | talk 02:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

May I suggest using smaller font (i.e. as the notes) for the Bibliography section, by adding {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} before and after the subsections' content? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Awadewit | talk 01:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Place of birth

Shouldn't his this be mentioned somewhere at the beginning, with a reference? -Kez 00:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the caption under the picture of his birthplace. I will be adding a reference soon. I have recently moved a lot of information to the captions to try and cut down the size of the article. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 00:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikify number ranges

I started to Wikify the number ranges (years and page numbers in references) yesterday, but I don't have time to finish the job now (Awadewit fixed more of them today, but there are still more to fix). Some of the ranges are contrary to the MoS and also inconsistent throughout the article. First, in numeric ranges of 2 digits or more, the end of the range should be 2 digits, not 1 or 3, provided the 100s place of the beginning and end of the range is he same. Correct: 75–78, 875–78, 1875–78; but: 895–908. Incorrect: 75–8, 875–878. Second, the majority of number ranges use en-dashes, which is preferred; a minority use hyphens, which is discouraged. Also multiple pages and page ranges in a single citation should be separated by commas, not semicolons. Correct: Smith Vol. 1, 286–89, 293, 301–12, 450, 622–25. Correcting and making these consistent throughout the should be part of the fine-tuning this outstanding article in preparation for FA review. Finell (Talk) 07:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had fixed all of the page ranges just now.
I use hyphens when I'm typing because it is so much easier than clicking on that *tiny* icon for the en-dash. As I understand there is a bot to fix this later, I didn't think it was a problem.
If you want to fix the semicolon problem, be my guest! I would appreciate the help. I have spent hours doing this stuff and I don't really want to do any more, frankly. As the semicolons are all consistent, I am resigned to their use. You can barely see the dot. :) Awadewit | talk 07:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I caught a few more. I made it through the "Defender of Dissenters and political philosopher" section. If there were a WP status above FA, your article would be in it! As for the semicolons, they were not all consistent, and some of us have better eyesight than others. :) Finell (Talk) 16:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for ferreting out those semicolons! But really there is no need to manually correct all of the hyphens. User:Brighterorange has written a script that does this automatically. It far less tedious and you might go blind! Awadewit | talk 21:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I've never learned how to use bots or scripts, but I'll lay off the hyphens if you have an easier way of having them fixed (it isn't my idea of fun, either, but I do like the result). Can you run the script, or do you ask User:Brighterorange to do it? I wish I could distingjish hyphens and en-dashes in the edit box; that is what makes fixing them manually such a chore. Sorry about the See also → Main. I also just came across {Further}, which might be appropriate for some of them, but I'll leave that to you. Finell (Talk) 01:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just ask Brighterorange. By the way, I thought ranges like 205-207 were not done 205-07 because beginning with a zero is confusing to most readers. That is why all of the ranges that I did with zeros in the tens column repeat the first digit (205-207). (Of course, I am most familiar with the 205-7 style.) Am I wrong to repeat the hundreds digit when the tens digit is a zero? Awadewit | talk 02:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that 205–07 is standard and is prescribed by the MoS. Some style guides to not drop the first digits of a range of years, but our MoS does rejects this distinction. Years 1795–802 may be correct according to some style guides, but I cannot abide it; pages 1,795–802, on the other hand, doesn't bother me Finell (Talk) 07:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about page ranges, because I noticed you changed all of them. Where is that in the MOS? It is a sprawling mess, I can't find anything these days. Thanks for all of the MOS help - it should make FAC much easier! Awadewit | talk 04:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SEASON Finell (Talk) 19:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the bot did the "final" hyphen to en-dash conversion in number ranges, we should be careful to use en-dashes. A recent proofreading change inadvertently changed a fixed en-dash back to a hyphen. Also, I thought I cleaned out semicolons in the lists of multiple pages or page ranges, but I see more today. Either I missed some, or there are new additions. I hope that others will look for and fix these. This article, by the way, will be a FA, and very deservedly so, despite all this persnickety stuff. Finell (Talk) 19:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this bot nuked the last hyphens today :) I don't see any recent contributions by Brighterorange to the article; did anyone ask him to run the script? I can check every day on the semi-colon issue until FAC, if you like. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Well, the hyphens are inexplicably back (working from an old revision perhaps?). I'll run through again. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These eyes don't see any hyphens where en-dashes belong. I just got rid of a lot of semicolons in the page ranges. Did I really leave this many unfixed last time, or is someone restoring them? Finell (Talk) 21:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you'd only missed eight of them. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial issues

I don't understand this statement, inasmuch as phlogiston was believed to cause burning: "(Priestley believed that the reason the gas burned so well was because it lacked phlogiston—what he believed was the essence of flammability)". Do you perhaps mean that oxygen enabled flamable substances (i.e., substances that contain phlogiston) to burn because oxygen itself lacked phlogiston?

Sorry I mucked up some things. Finell (Talk) 07:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining phlogiston theory is quite difficult (especially in a sentence or two). This was my best effort I'm afraid. Perhaps I should just remove these sentences until someone more eloquent comes along? Awadewit | talk 18:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How's this as a draft: Phlogiston was a hypothetical substance which gave form to all flammable substances and was the thing that caused them to burn. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 07:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that sentence for now - I'm going to try to come up with something better. This version is not accurate. Awadewit | talk 16:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent} This slightly clumsy bit seems to have fallen through the net:

His colleagues therefore believed that they could easily reproduce his experiments in order to verify them or to answer the questions that had puzzled him.

Although many of his results puzzled him, Priestley used phlogiston theory to resolve the difficulties.

--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 05:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What don't you understand? Awadewit | talk 06:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it. It's the syntax I dislike :) --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 06:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would you propose instead? Seriously, at this point, I have lost all perspective. Everything looks incredibly truncated and impenetrable to me. I don't know how anyone can understand the article after the massive amount of material I have cut out of it. So suggest away, and I'll let you know if I think the meaning has changed significantly, which it can with this old scientific stuff. Awadewit | talk 06:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already changed it. From to answer the questions that had puzzled him to to provide the answers he sought. The article reads rather well; I'm sure you'll think the same after you've set it down for a week or so. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 06:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Yes, you are getting too close to this. It's the repetition of "puzzled" that's causing the flow problem because the two statements do not appear to be in logical order. They're closely linked but separated by a paragraph break. You need either to break the link (by removing one of the puzzleds) or tighten it (by reparagraphing).--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 06:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about perplexed? I think the whole thing should be one paragraph anyway. I'm not sure when the paragraph break happened. See how it flows now. Awadewit | talk 06:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much better as one par and it's starting to flow. I've pulled it around a bit as the cart still seemed to be before the horse. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 07:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted more material - the whole thing was starting to sound like modern science. I can't emphasize enough that neither Priestley nor his colleagues were scientists the way we think of them. Awadewit | talk 07:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scruffy, absent-minded, white coats, you mean? --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 10:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two of you finally nailed this one. Congratulations! Finell (Talk) 08:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image captions

Normally, an image caption simply identifies the image. If other text is added to the caption box (which is done to very good effect in this article), the image description should end with a period, to separate it clearly from the other text. I did this awhile back, but it appears that most of these changes were reverted. Since the image ID and the other text do not form a single sentence, a stronger separation than a semicolon is called for. If others don't like using a period (I acknowledge that the image ID usually is not a sentence), consider a colon or a dash, or perhaps something else. Finell (Talk) 20:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that no phrases in the caption should end with a period unless they are full sentences. Long ago I was chastised at FAC for doing this and have avoided it ever since. Has the MOS changed again? I simply cannot keep up! (This is why I changed them.) Awadewit | talk 00:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of the MOS on this. However, there is no grammatical justification for a full sentence to begin after the semicolon, nor is there grammatical justification for the image description and what follows it to be in the same sentence even with a semicolon. So, as I suggested, perhaps there is a more satisfactory solution. Finell (Talk) 01:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at Captions. It does state, as you understood, that a non-sentence caption should not end with a period (ending a non-sentence with a period is wrong anywhere, I must admit). It does not specifically address the situation here. It discourages long captions, but encourages captions that show relevance rather than just describe the image itself; yours do this beautifully. In some instances, like the title page images, you may be able to dispense with the descriptive part of the caption or make what is depicted obvious from the text that accompanies it. Consider the em-dash to separate a non-sentence description from additional text. Finell (Talk) 01:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at the captions again, but I have a feeling the dash would be discouraged. Awadewit | talk 01:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captions have been refined; not all semi-colons have been avoided, I'm afraid. Awadewit | talk 02:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that limiting the TOC to L2 headings eliminates unsightly white space. However, especially in such a (necessarily) long and well-sectioned article, a full TOC is all the more important, both as an outline and as a navigational aid. I have not looked into TOC layouts, but does the Wikimedia software offer another TOC layout that would use more of the page's width to minimize white space but still permit all heading levels to display? Or to flow text around the TOC? Or, worst case, to place images beside the TOC to use some of the white space? Even if there is no formatting solution to minimize white space, I would still favor a full TOC.

To be clear, I have no criticism of the article's length. I would not sacrifice content or thoroughness for brevity. In my opinion, even a severe copy edit could not wring more than 2–3% out of the text, if that much, without losing meaning. This article is extraordinarily well written and admirably concise. Finell (Talk) 22:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look above under "image", you will see a discussion of the layout of the lead, which we have had several times on this page. What we have now is currently a consensus. I have offered three more options above, if you would like to comment. I don't think that stretching out the TOC would help this page at all. We can put the TOC all of the way on the right and eliminate the picture of Priestley's home, for example, but it is just so cluttered. I don't think that it is really necessary to have the entire TOC laid out.

For your information, there has already been a severe copy edit of this text. The pain. We managed to cut 1000 words. No more can be done. Much information has already been lost - at least some of it is in the subpages. Awadewit | talk 00:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above (with emphasis added), "In my opinion, even a severe copy edit could not wring more than 2–3% out of the text, if that much, without losing meaning. This article is extraordinarily well written and admirably concise." Most writing, even decent writing, can be profitably reduced by 20–40%. Finell (Talk) 01:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know we tried, as I know the article is long. Awadewit | talk 01:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British English?

Is it really necessary, or desirable, to translate this well-written piece into British English, as discussed above? Finell (Talk) 01:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the previous debate/bloodbath between Roger Davies, myself, and others here over just this very issue. I am not prepared to go through such a debate again, particularly since there are multiple contributors to this page (not the case previously) and since Roger has agreed to keep this page consistent. If you would like to start up the whole thing again, obviously you are welcome to, but I would encourage you to read the long debate, which also managed to spill onto other pages and other FACs, before doing so. Awadewit | talk 02:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't reopen something that was settled. Finell (Talk) 06:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Insert caustic sarcastic joke about how it's the duty of every Wikipedian to constantly squabble over minor things that have long been settled.] – Scartol · Talk 13:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree! I DEMAND that you cite a reliable source for this alleged duty. Your allegation that I am derelict in my duty as a Wikipedian is a really, really nasty thing to say and grounds for your being run out of town on a rail. Am I doing better now? Finell (Talk) 08:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are, if I may be so bold as to say so, completely missing the point. No real progress on this can be made until the Lilliputian -v- Blefuscan dispute is resolved. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 09:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small queries

(anhydrous hydrochloric acid, HCl) What is this a parenthetical of? The brackets between semicolons look wrong to me.

There was an extra semi-colon. I have removed it. Awadewit | talk 22:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Priestley attended the church regularly in the 1770s and occasionally preached there. This sounds like one particular church: but where was it?

Now reads "attended Lindsey's church". It was on Essex Street, if you care to know. :) Awadewit | talk 22:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Priestley medal: a date would give some context to the image.

Added "in 1922". Awadewit | talk 22:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

associationist: I don't know what this means, without looking it up (may just be my ignorance, I admit).

Linked to Association of Ideas. Awadewit | talk 22:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

he was eventually forced to flee to the United States after a mob burned down his home and church in 1791. In my opinion, this rather gives the impression that he fled immediately after the fire, whereas he left in 1794. (I think the "eventually" may be intended to cover this, but it can be taken to refer to what went before.)

Suggestions? Awadewit | talk 22:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- qp10qp (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]