Talk:Nigel Williams (conservator)/GA1

GA Review

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.

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

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 07:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased to pick this one up. Will complete within 3 days. KJP1 (talk) 07:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Article passes quick-fail assessment. Main review to follow.

Main review

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose):

The prose is of a very high standard and I will certainly Pass here. I've put it on hold for now, and made some suggestions/raised some queries below for the nominator to consider.

Lead

"taking the position of Chief Conservator of Ceramics and Glass" - does one "take" a position, or "take up" a position?

Changed to "became."

"There his work notably included the successful restorations..." - the positioning of "notably" reads a little oddly to me. Perhaps, "There his most notable work included the successful restorations..."

Removed "notably."

"the successful restorations of the Sutton Hoo helmet and Portland Vase,..." - perhaps, "the successful restorations of the Sutton Hoo helmet and the Portland Vase,..."? If you agree, I'd also put a "the" before Portland Vase at the end of the infobox.

Done.

"in his early- to mid-twenties he conserved many of the objects" - is the hyphen after early required?

I'm not sure if it's required, but it seems supported by this: Suspended hyphens.

"After nearly 31,000 fragments of shattered Greek vessels" - given that "vessels" can mean "vases", as here, but also "ships", as in HMS Colossus, I wonder if readers may get a little confused. I don't know what was aboard Colossus, but is there another word that could be used? I see you use "vases" later.

Changed to "vases."

"his significant contributions to the field of conservation." - perhaps, "his significant contributions in the field of conservation."?

Changed to "in."

Early years

"Nigel Williams was born on 15 July 1944 in Surrey, England" - not a prose point, but Surrey, although not the largest of English counties, is still quite large. Do we know where in Surrey he was born?

Unfortunately no, his obituaries just say Surrey.

""Conservation" was not a recognized profession at the time" - I'm not sure it needs the quotes, which it doesn't have in the lead.

Removed quotation marks.

"the London University of Archaeology" - again, more a factual than a prose query, but I don't know this institution and it doesn't sound quite right. Nor can I find it on Google, and I don't have access to the source. The University has a complex, collegiate, structure with some central academic institutes. Are we certain it is not part of one of the colleges, such as this[1]?

I think you're right that it's the UCL Institute of Archaeology, and I have linked it accordingly. His obituaries refer to it as the "University of Archaeology," and he himself referred to it that way when citing his thesis in one of his works. UCL did indicate that they have a copy of his thesis, which suggests that it is one and the same with the so-called University of Archaeology.

At the British Museum

"the lifting of a Roman mosaic and a medieval tile kiln from the ground". - not sure what ground? Presumably at one, or more than one, archaeological site. Is it possible to be clearer?

Changed to "from the earth." The source says "His tasks ranged from the conservation of metals (including clocks and watches!) and ceramics and all forms of organic material to the lifting from the ground of a Roman mosaic and a medieval tile kiln, both of which are part of the permanent exhibition in the British Museum." I assume it means the removal from their locations in situ after they were uncovered.

Sutton Hoo

"it had previously been restored in 1945–46 by Herbert Maryon" - elsewhere you use full dates, i.e. 1945-1946. It should certainly be consistent, and I think full dates is the preferred style.

Changed to full dates there, and one other place that had the shortened version.

HMS Colossus

"He worked as if he were alone, and many people remember the moment in the resulting Chronicle programme" - Not prose, but you could bluelink "Chronicle".

Done.

Portland Vase

"First known to have been sighted in 1600–1601" - this makes it sound like a dodo, or an elephant. Perhaps, "First recorded in 1600–1601"?

Done, that's much better.

"After being on display in the British Museum since 1810" - not sure the "After being" is required?

Changed to "It was placed on display in the British Museum in 1810."

"By 1988 the adhesive used was "very yellow and brittle, with poor adhesion" - to avoid the, near, repetition, could you use "glue" rather than adhesive?

Changed to "By 1988 the adhesive used had yellowed and weakened."

Death and legacy

"comes a "virtual" copy of a gilded replica of the vase" - I'm afraid I don't understand what this is, although I agree the source is no more clear. I first thought it meant an image of the replica, but, on re-reading the source, I think it means that the presentation is virtual, i.e. they hand the copy out at a ceremony, and then take it away again. I think it needs clarification.

Changed to "comes a 'virtual' image." From an email with someone who coordinates the prize: "The trophy is at the Wedgwood Museum; sometimes on display but mostly in storage. It did travel to where the Prize was given once but it was such a big issue with insurance that it never happened again. So the winner receives a 'virtual' trophy."

b (MoS):

I should start by saying that MoS is not my area of greatest strength. Broadly, I think the article is compliant, but I make a few suggestions below. Have left this section On Hold, to allow the nominator to consider, but not necessarily accept, the suggestions.

Citations in the lead - Given that material in the lead is repeated in the body of the article, I think the preferred style is not to use citations in the lead, unless they support direct quotes, [2]. Here, some do, but some don’t. An example:

"his work notably included the successful restorations of the Sutton Hoo helmet[4][5]" - given we are told this, with cites, in the Sutton Hoo section, do we need the cites here?

This is largely a thing of personal preference. I'd rather cite material than not cite it, and, given that Wikipedia is dynamic, citing material in the lead helps ensure that it stays supported even if material further down the article is later changed. On second thought, as only one sentence other than those with quotations is cited, I've removed the citations from that one sentence.

Punctuation inside or outside of quotes - The guidance, here, [3], suggests, "For the most part, this means treating periods and commas in the same way as question marks: Keep them inside the quotation marks if they apply only to the quoted material and outside if they apply to the whole sentence." So, as an example, but there are more:

"The process was televised, "transform[ing] him into a television personality." - Given that the full stop pertains to the whole sentence, not just the quoted clause, I would suggest it should be outside of the quotes? This is how you do it in this example:

"After joining the British Museum in 1961 and studying conservation, Williams worked on "all types of antiquities". Even if I am wrong, I would suggest we need consistency.

The common nexus here is logical quotation, which puts punctuation marks inside quotation marks when they are part of the quotation, and outside when they are not part of the quotation. You're right though that it does look odd without knowing that; I hadn't even realized logical quotation was even a thing until someone on WP pointed it out. Another way of dealing with it might be to cut down on the use of direct quotations (as per FunkMonk's good advice here), which I will start doing later today.

Over citing - I wonder if there are a few instances of over citing. Guidance is given here, Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Two examples:

"in the summer of 1967 he helped with the moulding of the ship impression.[6][9][13][14] - do we really need four cites for this short clause?

"For 20 years Williams lived with his partner Myrtle Bruce-Mitford,[46][47][48]" - and three for this one?

Removed one of those from the the first example. Otherwise I think each source tends to contain slightly different information. In the first example, for instance, one speaks of Williams's role, one is a technical report, and one adds a bit of color and a photograph of Williams during the process. In the second example, one speaks to how long they were together, the second (and third) refer to Bruce-Mitford as Williams's "partner" (it's unclear in the first one), and the third again adds a photograph. So maybe a little indulgent, but I don't think complete overkill.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references):

Just a few points/queries here.

I've not encountered Digital object identifier references before. Should they indicate that they are behind paywalls, if one doesn't have institution access? I see, conversely, you do indicate Open Access for the James Davis article.

Done.

Page numbers. Some of the references don't indicate page numbers in the body of the article, but have them in the Bibliography. An example is Citation 45. As you're using sfn, and do have in-line page numbers elsewhere, would it not be easier for the reader, and more consistent, to have them in-line throughout? As an aside, related to the above, Cite 45 takes me to a Columbia University sign-in page.

When there isn't a page number in the citation, it's because a) the source doesn't have page numbers, b) the citation is to the whole work, or c) the source is only one page. the latter is the reason for citation 45: it feels redundant to pinpoint page 45 as the page from which the information is derived, when the entire source only takes up one page. I've corrected citation 24, however, which incorrectly lacked a page number.

Daily Mail - Cite 46 takes me to the same, closed, Columbia University site mentioned above. I can't find the article online. Perfectly happy to AGF, as the sources I can check, check out, but you may have problems with the DM as a source at FAC.

Thanks for pointing this out. I haven't been able to find links that aren't institution specific, so for the time being I've just marked them as {{closed access}}. I'll try reaching out to Gale Group to see if they might be able to help.

In terms of factual accuracy, my only concern relates to "the London University of Archaeology" covered in Prose above.

Addressed above.

b (citations to reliable sources):

The sources all look completely reliable.

c (OR):

I do not see any evidence of OR.

d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations):

The Copyvio Detector gives 39.4% on the Icon article but this is accounted for by the titles and the quotes. No issues with plagiarism that I can see.

3. It is broad in its scope.

a (major aspects):

The major aspects of his, sadly short, life are all well covered.

b (focused):

The article focuses on his life and works and doesn't digress.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy The article's impeccably neutral.

5. It is stable The article's stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

Again, image rights are not my strong suit and you may have problems with the Fair Use rationale for the Williams image if you're heading to FAC, but it seems reasonable to me, and the article would indeed be diminished without it.

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

No reason not to Pass, but personally I'd put in an image of the Portland Vase. At two, the article's hardly over-burdened currently and Commons has many nice images. I see it also has the Doubleday image, which the Williams image mimics. A possibility? I've Passed on this but I would urge you to think about including the Vase.

Added the Portland Vase photo. I'm not really sure where the Doubleday photo would go except in place of the vase photo, so have not added that one.

7. Overall:

Pass/Fail:

Right, I think I'm done. It is a great article and was a pleasure to read and to review. I'll now put it on hold to give the nominator opportunity to review the comments. KJP1 (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your careful read and good suggestions, KJP1. I've incorporated almost everything that you suggest, and responded to your comments above. Please let me know if there's anything else you recommend! --Usernameunique (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was my pleasure. And thank you for producing such a well-written and well-organised article that taught me a lot about a significant individual of whom I'd never heard. I have made a small tweak to the University of London wording, with which I hope you are happy. Very pleased to Pass. KJP1 (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2017 (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.