Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Rolph/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) 8 July 2024 [1].

John Rolph

[edit]
Nominator(s): Z1720 (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Upper Canadian lawyer, politician doctor, and medical teacher. This figure's career is characterised by moderate Reform stances and constantly switching between a political life and practicing medicine. I hope you enjoy reviewing as much as I enjoyed researching him. Z1720 (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:John_Rolph_Portrait.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • Source says it was published 1800-1880, so I have updated that on Commons. Source does not say where it was published, and I do not know how to add that to the existing Template:Inforamtion, so I put it in the description. Z1720 (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: I am not sure as I don't know how Archives Canada defines "date" on their website. My guess is that it is the creation date as the source is an autographed card and thus was not "published" in a book or album, but rather originally taken for Rolph's personal use. Z1720 (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Does the above resolve your concerns? Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead image has a copyright tag indicating it was published before 1929. If I understand your response, you're saying it wasn't published at all - is that correct? If that's the case the current tag will need replacing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Since there is no confirmation from the source that this was ever published, I have replaced the tag with "never published" licencing templates on the image's commons page. Does this resolve the concerns? Z1720 (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Just want to clarify: have all the image issues been resolved, so that there are no more concerns with the images used in this article? Z1720 (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I will try to review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 02:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the lead needs some editing - for instance, it is stated in multiple places that he was elected to the Parliament in 1824. In general it seems that much of the first paragraph is duplicated in the following two paragraphs
  • I have done a full edit of the lede, cutting a lot of the information. My goal is for the first paragraph to state why he is notable and the second and third to describe his biography. Z1720 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it known why he returned to England in 1817?
  • I will have to consult Godfrey's book, which I have placed on hold at the library and should have a copy of in about a week. Biographi and Patterson both say that he returned to continue his education, with no special reason given beyond that. Z1720 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't directly address much why Rolph first entered politics in the 1820s - the brief description in Patterson suggests that opposition to the Family Compact and the treatment of Robert Fleming Gourlay were causes - do Godfrey or other sources go into more explicit detail on this than Patterson?
  • I will have to check Godfrey when I get a copy of the book. Unfortunately, the copy of Muggeridge's article that I had access to was missing a page, so I don't have info from that source from 1809-1826. Patterson seems to be giving more of a background of the political scene when Rolph entered politics, so I don't think I can use this. I'll check Godfrey when I get his book but Rolph also did not leave many letters or editorials of his thought process so his motivation for politics might not be in the historical record. Z1720 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Rolph was associated with the Reform party, then why did he run as a Tory for the Toronto city council seat?
  • I made an error: Godfrey says that the Tories endorsed Rolph, not that Rolph ran on a Tory slate. I corrected this in the article and outlined why he was endorsed. Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead refers to Bond Head as a Lieutenant General - this doesn't seem to be accurate and I'm assuming that's an error for Lieutenant-Governor
  • "After Rolph submitted objections to Bond Head's tactics in the previous election to the legislature. " - sentence fragment
  • The infobo indicates that he was in the legislative assembly until 1870, but the article indicates that he chose not to run for re-election in 1857?

I think that's it from me. While I did not conduct a formal source review, the sources used all appear to be sufficiently reliable, quick searching doesn't turn up any glaring sourcing ommissions, and I've skimmed through the Patterson source and compared it to the article. Hog Farm Talk 18:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I anticipate supporting; please ping me when you've been able to consult Godfrey again. Hog Farm Talk 20:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Finally got the book, responses above. Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, supporting. Hog Farm Talk 01:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm conducting reviews at FACs: hopefully, someone will pity this nomination and review it in time. Z1720 (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

[edit]

I will review this. Anything useful in https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/onhistory/2022-v114-n2-onhistory07279/1092218ar.pdf by chance? Heartfox (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: I considered adding information about this when writing the article. However, this event mostly concerns his brother, George. Yes, John was George's lawyer at the many subsequent court proceedings, and scholars suspect that John's election to the parliament was a reason why George was attacked. However there are lots of other reasons why Tories wanted to harm George (accusation of adultery with his servant, and apparently his personality was annoying to Tories). Also, the court proceedings lasted several years and overlapped with Rolph's visit to England; I was worried that if I mentioned it, it would become a constant thread throughout the biography and confusing for the reader, as well as UNDUE for John's biography. Z1720 (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In September he returned to North America, settled in Charlotteville Township, and was called to the bar in the province" → Could the locations be made more specific? I'm just a bit confused as this part of the article switches between Ontario and Upper Canada.
  • "became a member of the Board of Education" → what is the Board of Education?
  • Source doesn't explain what this is, so I do not know. Should it be left in or removed? Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • being a trustee already implies he was part of a larger organization, so I would remove it
  • "that rules Upper Canada" → ruled?
  • Reform movement is linked in the lede but not the body
  • "In the summer of 1826", "In spring 1833" → MOS:SEASONS
  • "equivalent to £50,000 in 2019" → is this in Godfrey?

Best, Heartfox (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Heartfox (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sawyer777's comments

[edit]

here to help prevent this getting archived :) starting with the "works cited" section:

  • the "via" parameter is used inconsistently
  • Kett 1967 doesn't need a JSTOR stable URL since the JSTOR parameter is used
  • publishers are linked only in the first applicable citation - MOS:REFLINK allows (but doesn't require) repeated linking in citations, since they're standalone. i'd suggest linking publishers across the board if we're linking publishers at all, but since MOS doesn't require it neither will i. (the same for the linking of journals, which i just noticed)
  • I linked to the first time they are mentioned. I also wikilinked authors if they have an article in the first mention.
  • Muggeridge 1959 should have an ISSN consistent with the other Ontario History journal cites (i assume it doesn't have a DOI if one hasn't been listed; not unusual for old articles)
  • I had to get a hard copy from the library to find this article. A Google search doesn't list an ISSN, I can't find it on the publisher's website (and that issue is behind a paywall) and the library's online catalogue doesn't have this information. I do not know how else I can find this information. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the ISSN is for the journal itself, so it's the same for all of the articles! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 18:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i'll be back for more! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sawyer777: Responses to above. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
looks good - i'll be back later for some more feedback! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 18:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sawyer777, reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
could sense this coming - i'll get to it later today. busy week! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

back at this.

  • is it "the Inner Temple" or just "Inner Temple"?
  • Rolph was discontent with the political clique that ruled Upper Canada called the Family Compact. a little context about the ideology of this group would be helpful
  • "reformer" is inconsistently capitalized - is this based on those who held a reformist ideology vs. members of the Reform party? if not, should be made more consistent.
  • You are correct: the Reform party had a reform political ideology, similar to the Conservative Party of Canada with a conservative political ideology, or the Liberal party with a liberal ideology. If there are any instances where the wrong capitalisation is used, please let me know. Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rolph was an Anglican who thought everyone in Upper Canada should belong to the Church of England. i'm interested to hear more about this belief of his, if any information exists - i'm also curious if this was a popular opinion at the time, or if he was particularly conservative in this view.
  • In 1837, he denounced clergy reserves because they led people to think a ceremony within the state-sponsored church would give them salvation, instead of seeking it outside of church institutions. this strikes me as something that would be confusing to the average reader - "isn't that the point of church institutions?" etc.
  • as someone who knows very little about Canadian history or geography, i think adding c:File:Canada upper lower map.PNG somewhere would be helpful to the average reader for visualization purposes, but this one's totally up to your discretion.
  • I'm concerned that using a map that relies on colour might be again MOS:ALT. I think if others want information about Upper Canada, they can click on the wikilink. Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i've read through the article several times, and honestly don't have that much to say - the other reviews have covered & resolved quite a lot of prose issues. i did a couple of small copyedits myself, but i was expecting to have more feedback, haha. good work! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 01:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass – the sources are comprehensive and high-quality. For Read (1982), it appears the title of the book has not been standardized in title case like the rest of the sources. Heartfox (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments bySupport from Dugan Murphy

[edit]

I'll read through the article and write out some comments soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there documentation of the reason why Rolph was released from POW camp? Was his release connected to the Battle of Queenston Heights, or did it just happen to happen around that time?
  • The third paragraph of the Early life section: it starts with him joining the militia and surprisingly quickly moves to the story of his retirement. Is there just a little more content you can add there about his service and it ending before you go into his retirement? That would make the transition less jarring, I think.
  • I added information about Rolph's activities in the militia, but it seems like he was absent during any of the militia's combat. Also added info about Rolph staying employed with them after the war. Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who labeled Slatter as a spinster?
  • Rolph never referred to this event in his life – It's one thing to say his papers don't mention his wedding, but does Godfrey really say that Rolph never mentioned it to anybody ever? That's quite a claim.
  • The quote from Godfrey is "The wedding registry, verified by handwriting experts, confirms Rolph's signature, but the marriage remains a mystery. Rohph never referred to this event, which leads to speculation about the possibility of a double life." I reworded slightly to better match what Godfry says. Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't St. Thomas still in Upper Canada (not Ontario) when Rolph bought his farm?
  • Same question about Dundas at the time Rolph moved there.
  • Why should "Reform-minded" be capitalized?
  • This is very nitpicky, but I don't think it's necessary to Wikilink deed.
  • easier to obtain, improving public education and ensuring – I saw the article use a serial comma earlier, so you should either remove it from that spot or add it here (my preference), for consistency, per MOS:SERIAL.
  • Now that I'm seeing "Reform" capitalized again, I'm realizing this is likely a reference to Reform movement (Upper Canada). That is Wikilinked in the lead but not in the body until almost the end of the article. You should unlink it there and link it from its first use in the body, which would be the sentence about Baldwin, Bidwell, and Baldwin (unless that's truly a lower-case use of the term), or perhaps the "Reform-minded" referred to in a previous comment by me.
  • You have hinted at the problem, which is politicians who followed the reform political ideology (which Wikipedia calls reformism, but I haven't seen a source use that term) created a bloc of Reform politicians which is kind-of-but-not-really a political party. I wikilinked both the movement and the political party in their first use in the article body. Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see from your comment earlier about the multiple issues of "reform" that this is not super straightforward. Looking it over, I'm still wondering if oppose reformer policies should be capitalized and if any uses of the term in the Political views section should be capitalized. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the section and capitalized what I think should be capitalized. Z1720 (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see "Reform" capitalized and not capitalized all over. I recommend you do a control-F search for the word and make sure that every time the word is used in reference to the Upper Canadian Reform movement, that it is capitalized. And vice versa.
  • In the legislature Rolph – I think a comma is warranted there.
  • The only source I can find for naturalise vs. naturalize in Canadian English is this website, which says to use the latter. Do you have a source to the contrary? Naturalisation comes up in the lead as well.
  • declared all Americans in Upper Canada as citizens – I think "as" should be "to be".
  • The first time "Tories" is used it should be Wikilinked, instead of later when "Tory" is Wikilinked.
  • The amended legislation passed without Rolph's support – Can you summarize here the primary difference between Rolph's proposal and this ammended version?
  • There's mention of Rolph marrying Slatter, then later marrying Haines, but nothing is said in the body about how his first marriage ended. The infobox says it ended with Slatter's death, but that claim isn't supported by the body, which it should if it is to be in the infobox. Including that info here would also help the reader understand how he could be getting married for the second time.
  • Should "Provincial" in the section header be capitalized?
  • Why refer to Francis Bond Head as "Bond Head" instead of "Head"?
  • Does campaign in the constituency refer to campaigning to voters? Seems like an odd wording to me, but if it's more common in Canada, than that's appropriate.
  • Canadians would say "campaign in the riding" but reviewers of my articles in the past have said that Wikipedia's international audience does not know what a riding is and that riding is more of a slang term. Since constituency is more well-known and it means the same thing, I used that term instead. Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This website says you should use "criticize" instead of "criticise" in Canadian English.

I'll add more comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through the rest of the article:

  • Rolph agreed to the rebellion under three conditions: – This sentence lacks a serial comma, and I see from your reaction to an earlier comment that you have decided to go all in with serial commas in this article.
  • His views on the meeting or a rebellion were not published or written down. How do we know everything in the following paragraphs about Rolph's views on the rebellion?
  • "Organised" should be "organized". Same for "disorganised" later on.
  • Are the "government troops" and "Loyalist troops" the same thing or different?
  • Similar question: are "Patriot troops" the same as "rebels"?
  • Is "Patriot's" supposed to be Patriots'?
  • Rolph was granted amnesty in 1843 and returned to Toronto in August. – Could be rewritten as "Rolph received amnesty in 1843 and returned to Toronto in August of that year."
  • Park and Rolph's policies – I believe that should be "Park's and Rolph's policies".
  • Same for Rolph and his allies' suggestions,
  • What does incorporating the Upper Canada profession mean?
I'm still unclear on what it means to incorporate a profession. Does that mean that an incorporated profession can only be practiced by license holders or something like that? Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote from the source is "Rolph lost no time in changing the manner of business of the Board...One of his first acts was to suggest that the Board petition the legislature to pass an act of incorporation for the medical profession of Upper Canada." I added in the article that Rolph was trying to get the board to petition the legislature, but I am not sure what else I can add here to clarify. Z1720 (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little uncomfortable including information in the article that neither of us understand, but I see that your wording is now clearly true to the source. So I guess if the source is good, maybe it's ok to keep. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the only word in "Minister of Crown Lands" that should be capitalized here is "Crown".
Excellent. Thank you for looking that up! I see you're correct. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think "Minister of Agriculture" should be capitalized here.
  • "Centralisation" should be "centralization".
  • Why is "Railways" plural?
  • I think there should be a comma after "Railways".
  • Does "Medical Board" need to be capitalized?
  • Depending on whether or not it passed, I recommend changing that would expand to either "that expanded" or "that would have expanded".
  • I don't think "counter-argument" needs a hyphen.
  • teaching medicine where he treated should be "teaching medicine in which he treated"
  • During the 1830s more radical needs a comma.
  • The lead uses and Wikilinks "Republic of Canada", which is nowhere in the body. The body uses "State of Canada", which I'm guessing is the same thing. Sounds like the body should be using this Republic name of that's recognized and has an article. "State of Canada" comes up a few times.
  • There's no need to capitalize or hyphenate "Lieutenant-Governor"
  • "practicing" should be "practising". I can't believe I found an American spelling that should be British spelling!
The lead still says "medical practises". There's also a "Medical practise" section header. That's everything I found with my own control-F search just now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lede should say medical practise because the sentence is referring to the verb. In the level 3 heading, it is also referring to the verb in this case: although the section starts off with the creation of his medical school, it also refers to his activities with the Provincial Lunatic Asylum and Medical Board of Upper Canada, which he did not own and were not in charge of. Therefore, I think the heading is referring to the verb, not the noun. Z1720 (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead says As a doctor, he ... incorporated new ... medical practises into his lectures. The way I'm reading the sentence, the s makes practises a plural noun. Are you reading it as a simple present conjugation of the verb to practise? If I read it that way, the sentence doesn't make sense to me. The verb in that sentence is incorporated, not practise. I am also reading the section header as a noun. Practice/practise doesn't have to be an establishment owned by Rolph to be a noun. I can swing at a golf ball (verb) or have a good golf swing (noun). To make it a verb in the header and still have it make sense, I think it would have to be something like "Practising medicine". (I suppose you could sidestep this back-and-forth by rewording as simply "Medicine" or something like that. In that vein, I suppose you could replace "practices" in the lead with "techniques".)
@Dugan Murphy: I changed the lede to "procedures", because I am unsure about which one to use, and the sub-heading to practice. Z1720 (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Canadian government granted him amnesty and he returned to Canada in 1843, and later created a new medical institution called the Rolph School in Toronto. Could be "The Canadian government granted him amnesty and he returned to Canada in 1843, later creating a new medical institution called the Rolph School in Toronto."
  • opposition member of the government his focus needs a comma after "government".
  • The lead says Rolph retired as dean in 1870, but the body doesn't say he ever retired.

Overall

I'm trusting the source review by Heartfox and haven't looked at the sources, but this certainly seems well researched. Earwig didn't find any likely plagiarism. The prose of this article is super easy to read and adheres well to WP:NPOV. The article seems to be comprehensive, leaving no obviously large stretches of Rolph's life uncovered. Nevertheless, I don't see undue weight on any single part of his life. The lead section does a good job of summarizing the article. Those are all my comments for now. I haven't yet looked at the responses to my first batch of comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just three minor things now, I think, per my new replies above. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dugan Murphy: responded to the practice/practise comment and the medical incorporation comment. Not sure what the first minor concern referenced is. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have misspoken when I said "three". The only issue I see now is the great practise/practice controversy of 2024. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any other issues keeping this article from deserving featured status. Trusting the source review by Heartfox, I fully support this nomination. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I have my own FAC nomination that has yet to attract any comments outside the image review. It's also about a 19th-century Canadian topic! I would be thankful if you were to read through the article and comment on the nomination, especially if you can find any instances of the English not fitting Canadian standards. You'll find that nomination here. Thanks in advance! Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Publisher location for Gates? (Toronto.)
  • It would be helpful if somewhere in the lead a date were attached to the Upper Canada Rebellion.
  • "an opposition member of the government". That sounds like a contradiction in terms.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2024 (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_Rolph/archive1&oldid=1233421831"