Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Richard Clark Hall/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 May 2021 [1].

John Richard Clark Hall

[edit]
Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Richard Clark Hall was a barrister who once wrote an article on the recent effects of sanitary legislation. Thankfully, however, that's not why we're here. For when he wasn't doing whatever it is that the principal clerk of the Local Government Board does, Hall, apparently as a project of passion, became one of the preeminent Old English scholars of his time. His translation of Beowulf spent more than five decades as the standard introduction to this epic poem, and his A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary remains in print more than a century after its initial publication.

While every student of classics at Oxford may once have been familiar with what was simply called "Clark Hall", its namesake remains far less known. This article's main accomplishment is in finding the sources that tie together Hall the barrister, with Hall the scholar, with even the Hall who, in a third act shortly before his death, took to a Christian theme, with tracts such as Birth Control and Self-Control—as enlightening, no doubt, as his treatise on sanitary legislation. This article was given a thorough review by Chiswick Chap last year; since then, I've polished the article further, and tracked down some of Hall's more obscure works. There is little more to be said about Hall that is not already said here, which is why I am now nominating it to be a featured article. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New English Dictionary Comments

  • "Other work on Beowulf included a metrical translation in 1912" - text says 1914, which is correct?
  • "Even after Bosworth's work was revised by Thomas Northcote Toller's in 1898, A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary continued to serve prominently as an introductory resource" is cited to an 1898 source, which seems too early to draw that conclusion
  • "Tingle's father, an accountant, was in Drammen (before the rest of the family arrived) during the great fire in 1866, and published an article about it, "A Town in Ashes", in All the Year Round." What is the relevance of this here?
  • "A Town in Ashes" isn't attributed to Tingle in All the Year Round, so I was trying to find a place (that's not an obscure, century-old and out-of-print book held by only seven libraries) to attach his name to it. But you're right, it's a stretch here. I moved it to Drammen. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Hall spent parts of his childhood (perhaps weekends)" - is the weekends bit in the source, or is this speculation?
  • The first page of the source (visible here) says that "I first made [Herbert Tingle's] acquaintance ... when his family came to live in the road in which mine were then residing, on the outskirts of Peckham. ... The road has long since lost its mild air of suburban gentility, and the houses it contains have become 'weekly property'." This suggests, without stating definitively, that Hall's house was "weekend property," so to speak. It's a borderline case though, and I can take it out if you think it's too close to speculation. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An uncle, Joseph Hall, lived in Golcar Hill." Significance?
  • "Hall's obituary termed him a "protestant reformer"" - this need not appear twice

Thanks for your comments, Nikkimaria. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, just touching base to see if you have further comments, or would be interested in weighing in on the nomination. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not at this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]
  • This has been nominated for over three weeks and has yet to attract much interest. If it hits the four week mark without a further detailed review or two I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support fromComments by Chiswick Chap

[edit]

I reviewed this article to GA in June 2020. Since then the citations have been tidied, and some detail has been added, mainly on his early life; having written Translating Beowulf, I added a mention and example of that topic. A few small corrections have been made. I have accordingly not much to add to the earlier review, and I think it a fine article deserving of FA status. However, the following little details may be worth a moment's attention.

  • The article should, given Clark Hall's nationality and his work on Old English, be in British English (and the appropriate invisible tag be added at the top of the article). This will make little immediate difference as the article is mostly in that form of English already, but I notice that "as Bishop of Oxford Hubert Burge wrote" would be "as the Bishop of Oxford Hubert Burge wrote" in BE; and "spelled" would be "spelt".
  • "essay on "the duty of kindness to animals," " – should the essay title not be capitalised?
  • It's the essay topic, not the essay title. Here's how the source refers to it: [Hall] obtained the second prize in May, 1871, for the best essay on "The duty of kindness to animals," given by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which was competed for by students in about 120 schools in London. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "studied Roman law and constitutional law and legal history." – suggest "studied Roman law, constitutional law, and legal history." (unless this is using the Oxford comma, in which case omit the second one).
  • The way I understand it is that "Roman law" is one subject, and "constitutional law and legal history" is a second subject. Indeed, the source puts Hall's studies under the umbrella of "Roman Law and Constitutional Law and Legal History". Meanwhile, other students were placed under the umbrella of "Constitutional Law and Legal History". Perhaps it would be clearer if phrased studied both Roman law, and constitutional law and legal history? --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "takers of an exam" – suggest "candidates".
  • "This was itself reprinted" doesn't need "itself".
  • "The Contemporary Review, called it" contains a stray comma.
  • "advocating for the "parochial comprehensiveness" of the church" – on reflection, I've no idea what this might mean (nor why "for" is needed). Perhaps a word of explanation is called for here, in which case the already rather long sentence should be split up.
  • "wondered much how it reached there." should I think be "wondered much how it had reached there."
  • Do we need to know the name of the rector at Hall's wedding?
  • Similarly, "he left a £16,762 estate." should be "he had left a £16,762 estate."
  • The multiple editions of his Dictionary and of his Beowulf are formatted with the author's name masked for second and subsequent appearances. However those use a bullet as well as a long dash; I'd suggest to suppress the (indented) bullets so we have bullet points only where "Hall" is printed.

That's about it from me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Looks interesting. Here's what strikes me:

  • I might split the long second sentence of the lead that is now joined by a semicolon.
  • Done.
  • Why is the book by Hall bolded? Is there a MOS reason for it?
  • "along with a senior certificate from the latter, earning him the title Associate in Arts at Oxford.[4][5][18][19]" This is, I assume, Oxford University?
  • "St. Olave's ... Mr. R.B. Allen ... Ph.D. ... Mr. Braginton" Just making sure that since this is in British English, that the dots after St, Mr, etc are intended and proper. I note later you have both Dr. Clark Hall and Dr Clark Hall. I understand those are quotations, but is that the sort of thing we are allowed to tidy up?
  • Those are true to the sources, except for "Ph.D.", which I have now changed to "PhD". Meanwhile, only the Dr./Dr Clark Hall are parts of quotations; I'd be happy to remove the other periods if you think that's better for British English.
Possibly other commenters will weigh in. I'm not certain if usage has changed over time.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the reference strings are out of numerical order, such as ".[45][2]". Is this intended?
  • Reordered.

That's it. Good work.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review, Wehwalt. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

[edit]
  • The lead seems a little short for an article of this length. The "Christianity" subsection doesn't appear to be summarised there at all.
  • Good point: expanded. I hadn't included it because Hall certainly isn't notable for it—those three works are quite obscure and hard to find—but given that it has its own section in the article, it should be in the lead also.
  • A link to Beowulf in the lead would seem appropriate.
  • Done. Looks like there used to be one, but it got taken out with a trim here.
  • Seven explanatory notes in just over 2,00 words seems excessive. Are they all necessary? Note 1 doesn't seem to have anything to do with Hall; the first half of Note 2 fell irrelevant, and the second half should be in the prose if it's important; not sure what Note 3 has to do directly with Hall; Note 4 seems like trivia; Note 5 should be in the prose so we're not burying criticism; Note 6 should be in the prose; Note 7 should be shortened and incorporated into the prose.
  • (Old version with numbering convention referred to above.) Taking these in turn:
1) Can't argue with you, and I've deleted it (see review above re: A Town in Ashes for how that footnote came to be).
2) There's a link between "the duty of kindness to animals" and the humorous "Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Insects".
3) This is about the photo caption, which refers to "Folio 158r"; it is to clarify that "Folio 158r" is so-numbered under one convention, but has a different numbering under a previous convention. The footnote is modelled after that in the featured article Gevninge helmet fragment. Incidentally, Hall published a note on four lines which appear on this folio, which is why it's the folio shown here.
4) This is intended not as trivia, but to place a clarification somewhere so that the two John Hall's don't get confused.
5) Done.
6) I think this is pure footnote material. The privately published pamphlet is very likely to essentially be a short draft of the book published the next year.
7) This actually started off in the text, and was then expanded and put in a footnote (see review above noting "parochial comprehensiveness"). I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I don't want to elevate a one-paragraph letter to the editor above a 170-page book; such a letter is truly a footnote compared to such a book. On the other hand, it offers some useful tidbits into Hall's thinking on the subject.
  • "railways and parliamentary elections... You need a ref straight after a quote.
  • There's a citation at the end of the sentence.
  • "the duty of kindness to animals," punctuation outside quote marks per MOS:LQ. Check for others.
  • Done, and removed one other. The others are only where full sentences are quoted.
  • "At last", wrote The Guardian The grauniad was known as the Manchester Guardian until 1959. I see you refer to it as such below and link it there. The link should be on the first mention.
  • This is actually a regional paper called The Guardian, which was published at the same time as The Manchester Guardian. Presumably it stopped publication—and thus freed up the name—before The Manchester Guardian changed it's name to The Guardian. As noted in the good-article nomination, I've done some digging on the regional paper without finding out much more information.
  • My general rule of thumb is to introduce those who don't have Wikipedia articles, but not for those who do. Having an articles 1) implies relevance, and 2) gives an easy way to figure out who the person is, making the introduction less needed.
  • according to Marijane Osborn;[68] a 2011 survey Suggest replacing the semicolon with a full stop. There doesn't seem to be a direct relationship between the two facts.
  • Done.
  • suggested that "[i]n attempting No need for square brackets if you're just changing the capitalisation of the first letter and other superficial changes.
  • Looking at The Chicago Manual of Style on this point, it says that it is "generally permissible" to silently change capitalization as so (§ 13.7), but that "[i]n some legal writing, close textual analysis or commentary, and other contexts, it is considered obligatory to indicate any change in capitalization by brackets" (§ 13.21). To be fair, Wikipedia is probably a field closer to the former than the latter. Personally, however, I dislike unremarked changes and would never use them. As a compromise here, I've changed it to suggested that by "attempting...
  • Ditto [a]ny way we are glad.
  • Here, I think the alteration—which effectively combines two sentences—is significant enough that it needs the signal which the brackets provide.
  • I haven't looked at the sources in the detail needed for a full source review, but I'm concerned that the personal life section seems to be based entirely on primary sources.
  • Although four primary sources are cited, they almost exclusively sit under secondary sources in that section. For example, the information about Hall's marriage comes from this newspaper article; his death and probate information was published in The Scotsman; his son Cecil Hall's information is backed up by three secondary sources (most expressly by this book); and his son Wilfrid Hall's information is courtesy of Who Was Who. The main point of the primary sources is that they substantiate the secondary sources, and provide more information for anyone who wants to click over.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell, thanks for the review! Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from TRM

[edit]
  • "called to the bar" this is jargon so needs linking/explanation.
  • "became a standard" what does that mean, I know about Jazz standard for example, is this the same?
  • trot to Beowulf", the quote mark here crashes into the italic text of Beowulf.
  • "Other work on Beowulf included.." reiterate "Hall's other work" here as the last person's work you described was Tolkein.
  • As long as those quotes appear in the main body, you don't need to include references in the lead.
  • " in 1855,[3] He was" should be a full stop.
  • From the infobox, it says "England" as place of birth so that needs to be here too.
  • Do we all know what a "principal clerk" is? I recall Clerks being about people working on checkouts...
  • "in Golcar Hill" we don't normally part-link formal titles.
  • "found their way into the collections" anthropomorphising these pamphlets, perhaps just "were included".
  • ""the Corning Museum of Glass" context perhaps, i.e. in New York.
  • "Collegiate School in Peckham, and" Peckham is overlinked.
  • " St. Olave's Grammar School" no full stop in St.
  • It may have been brought up before, but "clerkships.[5][6][22][23] " are four citations required for one clause of one sentence?
  • They all have some information that is available for those who click over. The first two give some personal details about the placement, the third gives the full list of candidates, and the fourth (from four months before the examination) provides background on what the examination actually entailed; it took a bit of digging to track the last one down. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""local paper" newspaper.
  • "finally called to the bar in 1896,[28][29][30] " again, three cites for this? And "called to the bar" is jargon.
  • "both Roman law, and constitutional law and legal history" both seems odd when three are listed, and do these have suitable articles?
  • It's just two: 1) "Roman law", and 2) "Constitutional law and legal history". See the comment above beginning with "The way I understand it" for a fuller discussion of the point. I could add quotation marks around them, if that would make it clearer. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "quickly became standards " again, not sure what that means.
  • "through four editions each;[34][35] the third, a translation" confusing here as this could be related to the third edition mentioned in the previous clause.
  • "quickly became a standard" you said pretty much this just a para or so ago, repetitive.
  • "editions of Old English texts" Old English is overlinked.
  • "cross references" hyphenate unless you mean angry citations.
  • "expanded edition followed" I would reiterate the work here, "expanded edition of the dictionary followed"
  • "supplement by Herbert Dean Meritt[51][52]—" this person may be meaningful enough to be noted here for his supplement but without context or a link, it's like "meh".
  • I see the thrust of that clause as saying just "the edition was Hall's work plus a supplement by someone else," but in any event I've added a description, red link, and cite to a bio, for Meritt. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tenth English translation" do we really need to link English?
  • "trot to Beowulf".[1] " text/punctuation crash again.
  • You link The Manchester Guardian but not The Guardian previously. In the previous instance, was it really called The Guardian or was it The Manchester Guardian back there too?
  • "compendium of Beowulf material" any reason Beowulf isn't in italics in this quote but is in italics in other quotes?
  • "desideratum" what is that?!
  • "The Athenæum, for its part," what does "for its part" add to this? I don't imagine it would quote for anyone else's "part"?
  • ""Prefatory Remarks on Prose Translation of 'Beowulf'"," similar comment re: italics for Beowulf here.
  • "Beowulf of Scyld ... " italics? And needs a non-breaking space before the ellipsis.
  • "a metrical translation" jargon, needs explanation.
  • "W. G. Sedgefield[79] suggested" red linked to imply notable but context, who was this individual?
  • "of translating the poem" surely this link should/could be applied earlier, e.g. "published a literal translation of Beowulf"?
  • "the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge published two " overlinked.
  • ""The former, Herbert Tingle..." too many clauses to easily parse for me.
  • "journal School a reviewer" comma after School.
  • "or Montessori ... yet his" non-breaking space before ellipsis.
  • "read it, ... [a]ny way" likewise. And do we need that comma?
  • ISBNs should be consistently formatted.
  • "time in Peckham as a child" overlinked.
  • "the "straphanger",[106] which" jargon, needs explanation.
  • "unable to move " not really, surely.
  • Here's what the source says: "It so happened that we were all in Switzerland when the late war broke out, and were unable to move or communicate with our friends for more than a fortnight." I'm sure what he meant is that they were unable to move from place to place. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "broadside ... purporting " jargon and non-breaking space before ellipsis.
  • "fiction ... which" non-breaking space.
  • "Southern Gaul" I know this is in a quote but do our readers know where this is? Doubtful.
  • "home in Eastbourne, East Sussex.[83][111][112] three citations needed?
  • "left a £16,762 estate" could inflate to provide modern context.
  • "that the R.S.P.C.A. seemed" no full stops in their usual initialism, and this is effectively unexplained unless you put (RSPCA) into the prose.
  • Note 4 needs a full stop.
  • "parochial comprehensiveness" that's a proper easter egg link, I had no idea it would lead there.
  • "told ... that" non-breaking space before ellipsis.
  • Ref 21, year shouldn't be in italics.
  • Ref 59, work should be in italics.
  • Ref 83 likewise.
  • "The Huddersfield Daily Chronicle" vs " The Huddersfield Chronicle" daily or not or different works?
  • Same work, but the cover of each issue has a different title (Friday; Saturday). The full name of the Saturday issue is The Huddersfield Chronicle and West Yorkshire Advertiser, with "and West Yorkshire Advertiser" in smaller font. I imagine it reflects a weekday/weekend difference, where the Huddersfield Chronicle came out daily, but on weekends was combined with the West Yorkshire Advertiser. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From the London Gazette of Yesterday" is that not London Gazette?
  • "1858-1995" should be en-dash.
  • "pp. 1–307" really??
  • Manc Guardian is relinked in the Bibliography but things like The Standard are not, take a consistent approach.
  • No barrister category?
  • No translator category?

That's all I have from a first read. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, The Rambling Man, I appreciate the review. I've responded to everything above. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, nice piece of work, so I'm happy to support. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • I think that the section on his Anglo-Saxon dictionary exaggerates its status. It "quickly became a standard work upon its publication in 1894" is cited to a 1962 review in Scientific American, which is probably not an authoritative source for AS history. It may have been "a standard work" as a cheap alternative to Bosworth-Toller, but the comment is misleading. Garnett's 1898 review, which you cite, says that anyone who can afford it will use Bosworth-Toller, but there is still room for a dictionary between it and the smaller ones, i.e. Clark Hall and Sweet's 1897 dictionary. Mark Atherton on 'Dictionaries' in The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England describes Clark Hall and Sweet as compact alternatives to Bosworth-Toller, but says that they have all been superseded by the Toronto Dictionary of Old English from 1986. I think that Atherton's comment is worth citing as showing the current status of Hall's dictionary. You do qualify your comments with phrases such as "an introductory resource", but the overall impression is misleading.
  • You're probably right, and thanks in particular for the useful Atherton reference. This is complicated slightly by Magoun's 1932 review, which claims that "In its new garb the Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary is without rival in its field". Perhaps, however, "in its field" is a way of qualifying it against Bosworth-Toller. And in any event, Atherton (writing in 2014) agrees that Bosworth-Toller led the pack until the 1986 Dictionary of Old English. Let me know if you agree with the revisions to this section (namely the first paragraph). --Usernameunique (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • New English Dictionary. It would be more helpful to readers to use the name Oxford English Dictionary, especially as that title was coming into use at that time.
  • "At last", wrote The Guardian, "we have a complete Anglo-Saxon dictionary, complete from A to the very end of the alphabet." The key qualification here is "to the very end of the alphabet" In 1894 Bosworth was out of print and Toller did not complete his multi-volume revision until 1898, so the Guardian's 1894 statement was true for four years, but it does not seem significant in 2021.
  • Is there a reason you chose Liuzza's translation for comparison?
  • "discussed the ethics of birth control". I would specify that it is an attack on birth control.
  • 'Personal life' seems a bit of a rag bag. The fact that he was unable to communicate with friends for a fortnight is hardly worth mentioning and the letter of Jesus belongs in his writings.
  • Honestly, that's just all I was able to find about his personal life. He apparently found his time trapped in Switzerland worthy of note—it's one of the few things he wrote about himself in his book on Tingle—and apparently it considerably worried Tingle (and perhaps others) at the time. And the letter about the broadside is listed among Hall's works, but I don't think it bears discussion there, for two reasons. First, unlike his other writings, it is Hall soliciting information, not offering it. Second, it's origin—passed down from Hall's Yorkshire ancestors—speaks, albeit marginally, to his background. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think RSPCA is normally shown as one word, not with stops.
  • This is an interesting article. I would like to have known more about who taught him AS and what his PhD was about, but of course it cannot be helped if the information is not available. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review, Dudley Miles. Responses above. Hall probably learned English at the University of London, given his BA followed by MA in English and French from the school. Unfortunately, however, I haven't been able to find out anything about his Ph.D.; in fact, the only evidence of it is his use of "Ph.D." as a post-nominal. But you've inspired me to send an email to a library at the University of London, so perhaps that will shed some more light on it. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • "Hall's A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary became a standard work upon its 1894 publication". I think "widely used" as below would be more accurate.
  • " issued four years before the final volume of Joseph Bosworth's An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary". It was the final volume of Bosworth Toller.
  • "After Bosworth's work was revised by Thomas Northcote Toller in 1898" See above - I think it goes better there.
  • I am not sure whether you should mention Sweet. Worldcat at [2] shows that it was never revised, but unlike Hall it is in print as an ebook as well as a print book. Of course what you can say depends on sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Probably wasting my time here. Comments refer to Old revision of John Richard Clark Hall

  • Sources seem to be high quality, although I'm not versed in the subject. I initially thought John Richard Clark Hall was a building.
  • fn 13, 14, 15, 16, 75, 105, 106, 108 - page number required?
  • fn 33 - pp. 1 to 307? Can we have something more specific?
  • fn 58 - access date required?
  • Spot checks 23, 46, 50, 66, 70, 92 - all good

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hawkeye7. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good then. Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@FAC coordinators: No rush, but just a heads up that all the issues raised in this nomination have been resolved. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/John_Richard_Clark_Hall/archive1&oldid=1022697072"