Talk:Ted Heaton

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ted Heaton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 09:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Links

Prose

Lede

• did duty as a prisoner - typo? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Good catch, should be "at a prisoner camp". Will correct on next edit. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• grounds of disability - what disability? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure, as I only have the ancestry overview of the document which details the type as "disability". However, I only just realised that the platform holding the original document, fold3, is also part of the wikipedia library so I will request access to this in order to see if further information can be extracted. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I am still waiting for the fold3 application to be looked at, so when that's done I can hopefully update on this. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I now have access to fold3 and can see that the disability was noted as gallstones, which I have been able to clarify within the article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• favourably by Poland's Director of Education - how did we get to Poland? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely understand the question being asked? I have rephrased closer to how it's conveyed in the main prose, but without fully understanding the concern, I can't be convinced it's a sufficient response. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

General

• Attempts to cross the channel - section seems superfluous Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, so I have removed. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Ancestry is an unreliable source. What makes it ok to use in this circumstance? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, just to pick up on this comment directly, Ancestry includes many official documents (birth & death certificates, passenger lists when travelling between countries, census records etc), all of which validate the information they are citing. I do not believe I have referenced ancestry for user-generated data, which is of course unreliable. I am unsure if you have an ancestry subscription via the wikipedia library, but if you do, this can be validated. Happy to for this to be scrutinsed further if needs be, but the article you linked to concurs with this consensus. Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• 1,100 mm - any reason why we aren't using cm, or m? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess because the convert template in this instance defaults ft to mm, so I have overridden the parameter to specify metres. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• "amid an outburst of cheering", with fine weather conditions and a "scorching sun" - I feel like these quotes don't add anything. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I can somewhat see your point. My thoughts when adding was to convey how the source had described the event(s) at the time, however it may be some are unnecessary so will take another look. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'd say there's a lot of quotes that aren't pertainant in this article Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd say I think you make a fair point and I have made efforts to reword or simply remove the quotes if it's making a statement without necessarily needing to be attributed to an individual. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Review meta comments

• I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Lee Vilenski: Thanks. As you have put on hold, can I assume here that you have completed the review and the entire extent of your review comments have now been published? I observe you didn't acknowledge the ancestry response so will work on the basis you accept my comment there. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  • • Sorry, yeah, I'm happy with that response. I don't think I have anything else, although I do a sweep once the original items have been addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: I feel like I have responded to all your points now, so would appreciate if you could give you assessment or any further suggestions that may be required for the article to have a good designation. Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Ted Heaton advertised himself as "Liverpool's famous swimming master"? Source: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/99273537/liverpool-echo/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Leicester City F.C.

Improved to Good Article status by Bungle (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 19:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC). @Onegreatjoke: You beat me to this, as I was going to raise a DYK on this article soon too :) Not to worry, although i'd have probably been looking at going something along the lines of:

• ALT1: ... that Ted Heaton made seven unsuccessful attempts during the early 1900s to swim the English channel? Cite: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/99394172/the-merthyr-express-aberdare-and-east/

I was more thinking that his notability and the basis for the article was predominantly due to his channel swimming attempts, which was widely reported at the time, rather than a self-proclaimed status (although he seemed locally notable for his swim training endeavours too). What do you think? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

That's fine honestly. Any hooks available are good hooks. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Interesting life, GA on fine sources, no copyvio obvious. I like the ALT much better, giving him a place in time, and showing determination. I wonder why no pic, possibly the lead image, because the one of him fed during an attempt wouldn't show well so small? - I suggest a few things for the article which have nothing to do with approval:

• If personal life in the lead at all (not needed if you ask me) please let the poor second wife first have children and then die. I don't like the phrase "commit suicide" - as if it was a crime.
• In the handshake image, please indicate (l.) who the left person is.
• The personal life section could be in a somewhat more chronological order: first father and brother, then wives. Again the phrase about the second wife's suicide reads strange to me: commit after swallowing? Really? Perhaps rephrase completely. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for looking over this. I think personal life adds value in the lead (itself an overview of the entire article), but concur that the ordering of some elements could be enhanced. I don't think there is an issue with the expression "committed suicide" as it has no connotations from a legal standpoint (crime). With the handshake image, I am not totally certain about this, but the left chap looks more like the subject Ted Heaton, based on the infobox portrait. On the suggestion of a photo, if using any i'd have wanted it to be an action shot, but wasn't convinced by the quality or writings on the photo if proposing this for a main page image. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

, ALT1 preferred. - I believe that action shots were scarce at the time, and the portrait shows his style well, but up to you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)