Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Stanley (inventor)/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:24, 22 June 2010 [1].

William Stanley (inventor)

[edit]

William Stanley (inventor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the criteria. I may be biased, as I am the main contributor, and I did almost all of the research - and I am proud that it was judged a 'good article'. I feel that this article is interesting, and covers the subject in as much detail as is available in the research which I did. As Stanley died just over 100 years ago, there is relatively little news coverage available! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the article should be renamed to William Stanley (inventor) or something that does not use the "Victorian" (William F. Stanley).--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 10:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a good idea! I'll do that later today (I've got to go out soon) - the reason why I'm not going to do it just now is that I'll also change any "what links here" links to the article, and I want to do that when I have the time to concentrate on it, rather than keeping an eye on the clock! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me clarify that! I mean the links from other articles, and from the GA page, as well as the link here (I presume)? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources issues

  • Refs 7, 27 and 31 are all inaccessible. 7 nad 31 give "access forbidden", 7 times out.
  • I commented on this on the talk page: 7 & 31 is hopefully a temporary problem (my guess is that the organisation missed a payment to their hosting company!); 27 has other problems, as you say it is timing out. I have removed them. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One way or another, this problem seems resolved. Many ref nos have changed. Brianboulton (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 38 needs a publisher: "Plaques of London"
  • Refs 53 to 57: what is being cited here?
  • Refs 59 and 60: redlinks unhelpful. Is it possible to give more information than "Unknown title"? Otherwise, how would I verify these?
  • The parameters weren't correct; corrected. The source I used did not have issue/page details (it was in Akpan's book), just the fact that they were caricatured in those pu blications- along with a copy of the caricature - but no further details. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 61 and 62: what is being cited here? }
  • Refs 64 and 65: what is being cited here? }
  • Refs 69 and 70: what is being cited here? }
  • Refs 72 and 73: what is being cited here? }
  • Ref 75: what is being cited here? }
  • Akpan references: it is not necessary to repeat the book title in each citation; "Akpan, pp. 13–14" etc is enough. There is also much scope for combining some of theses, as I notice that some page numbers are duplicated and others are adjacent.
  • I have changed it as suggested. I am going to go to the library and get the book out again (hopefully tomorrow or Saturday) - I'll change it to be "Akpan, chapter 1", "..chapter 2", etc (I will also get the page for the caricatures mentioned in refs 59 and 60 above) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is only the Akpan book listed as a "Source"? Aren't the online websites, the magazines and newspapers, also "sources?

Brianboulton (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let me try again! I counted the book as a source because it was the main... source... of information for the article. Unlike the websites, newspapers, magazines (where information about Stanley formed a small part of the medium, for example 1/2 a column in a newspaper), the whole of the book is about him. I have moved the book to the "Further reading" (as, obviously, she goes into more detail than the article, otherwise the article would probably be about 50 pages or more long!) - if you can think of a better way of listing the book (as the references use it a lot!), then I'd welcome it! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking the time to look at the article and respond here, Brianboulton. Apart from the Akpan references, I trust this addresses your concerns, please let me know if there is anything else which you think that I need to do! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reworked the Akpan references so they are by Chapter - I still need to add a couple of references from it, but I need to re-read it to find them! I'll try to do that tonight. I have also made all the "Notes and References" to be "Notes" and the book itself in "References" as at WP:CITESHORT. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't honestly think that WP:CITESHORT gives much help here, where the article is supported by references to many journal and online sources, and only one book. It just looks wrong to have that single book listed as "References". What would a reader unacquainted with Wikipedia's MOS make of this? Personally, what I would do is to give the Akpan book's full details in Ref. 5, the first citation to the book, and use the short form for the subsequent citations to the book. You could then remove the one-item "References" list, and use the References title instead of "Notes". That way you have a complete listing of all references under a single appropriate heading. Brianboulton (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good advice, Brianboulton - thanks. I have done as you have suggested. I am going to get a coffee, and then I'll look at your remaining points (for the patents, I'm going to see if I can find them via Google, and use that instead) - and then I'll update the status here (both for your comments and for Nikkimaria's below) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I think I have addressed all the issues now! I have also added a few more patents using Inwards! Let me know if there is anything else that needs to be done, and once again thanks for taking the time to respond to this FAC discussion, it's appreciated! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsWeak Oppose - interesting article, but needs some improvement still. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC) My opposition is based mostly on prose concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Based on article length, lead should be at least 3 paragraphs
  • Cumberlow or Cumerlow Lodge?
  • I fixed a couple of typos, but there might be others. If you can find someone to copy-edit the article, that would definitely help to achieve the "professional prose" required by FA
  • Some section headings need to be changed for clarity. Also, per MoS, section headings should start with "the", and should avoid repeating "Stanley" where not absolutely necessary
  • "He was also a skilled architect who designed and founded the UK's first Trades school, Stanley Trades School — later renamed as Stanley Technical School (now Harris Academy South Norwood), as well as the Stanley Halls in South Norwood." - sentence is overly complex, should be broken up.
    Done (I've put the final sentence in this point on a separate line, as I still need to deal with it!) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several other run-on sentences to change
  • "He was an engineer who designed and made precision drawing and mathematical instruments, as well as surveying instruments and telescopes, manufactured by his company "William Ford Stanley and Co. Ltd.""; "Stanley worked in his father's unsuccessful building business, becoming adept at working with metal and wood, later to obtain employment as a plumber/drainage contractor and joiner in London"; "Stanley designed and set up a factory in 1875 or 1876 (called The Stanley Works, it was listed in the 1876 Croydon Directories as Stanley Mathematical Instruments) in Belgrave Road near Norwood Junction railway station, which produced a variety of instruments for civil, military, and mining engineers, prospectors and explorers, architects, meteorologists and artists, including various Technical drawing tools"; "His 1890 catalogue shows that the company were selling Magic Lanterns, with a variety of slides including such subjects as the Siege of Paris, the travels of Dr Livingstone and Dante's Inferno, as well as improving stories for children such as Mother's Last Words and The Drunkard's Children, while in the catalogue for 1891, Stanley refers to the company having 17 branches, with over 130 workmen"; etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the one-paragraph subsections would be better incorporated into larger sections
  • Could you give some examples - the ones I see are in "Final years and death" and "Legacy" - and I'm not sure how they can be incorporated easily into larger sections (although I will look through it again on Monday, as I'm about to go to bed, so could be missing it because I'm tired!) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two subsections of "Personal life" could be combined, or the second subsection could be combined with the first; the third and fourth subsections of "Entrepreneur" could be combined; the second and third subsections of "Legacy" could be combined. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally speaking, it's less disruptive to put footnotes at the end of sentences, and where possible to combine them
  • Numbers under 10 should generally be spelled out
  • Some of the extensive lists should be converted to prose
  • Avoid one- or two-sentence paragraphs
  • What was the school called when it first opened? Be consistent in naming between lead and article text
  • Be consistent in naming - World War II or Second World War?
  • Last patent needs citation
  • Magazine articles should be in quotations, magazines should be italicized
  • Since Akpan is used as a reference, it shouldn't also be listed in Further reading
  • Citation formatting (in both references and Further reading) should be consistent, and avoid double periods ("..")
  • Subscriptions are free for holders of a British library?
  • "he had sold enough to produce enough" - repetitive
  • I have done a lot of them, but will continue on Monday. I have also obtained a copy of "William Ford Stanley: His Life and Work" edited by Richard Inwards (presented to Croydon Library "With the compliments W.F. Stanley & Co. Ltd") from 1911, which may give me more citations if required and/or new information... I should get the chance to read it over the weekend (it's only 82 pages long!) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I think I've got practically everything on your list - but if there are any more ideas for what needs to be improved to get this to FA status, let me know! Life is hectic over the weekend, but I should be back online on Monday (if I'm not on before), so will re-read the article then, plus any comments here! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:41, 18 June 2010 (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/William_Stanley_(inventor)/archive1&oldid=1136094656"