Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Lax/archive1

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 GrahamColm 16:21, 21 July 2012 [1].

---

William Lax

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

• Featured article candidates/William Lax/archive1

• Featured article review/William Lax/archive1

Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have worked extensively on the article from its conception and I think I've finished it now. Farrtj (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose for now, as referencing is very messy. You should use a consistent style as much as possible, and provide complete citation information for each source. I'd be willing to revisit once considerable cleanup is made on this point (I haven't read the article itself yet). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have worked on the references. I believe they are substantially improved since you last saw them. Farrtj (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Better, but unfortunately significant work is still needed here. Many references are missing publisher information (ex. FNs 1 and 4). Some of the cited sources (ex. FN 4) are of questionable reliability. Some references are missing page numbers (ex. FNs 14 and 47). There are also a number of formatting problems - all-caps, hyphens instead of endashes, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by hyphens instead of endashes? Farrtj (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ranges, for example, should use endashes (–), but are currently using hyphens (-). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I fixed that a little while ago. Farrtj (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: Sorry, the article looks unready; the prose needs some significant attention. For example, the brief Early life section is a series of generally very short sentences and thus reads very jerkily, well short of the professional standards of prose writing required for FAC. There are other obvious faults, e.g. use of pronouns to introduce the subject in new sections: "In 1785 he was appointed curate of Tideswell..." etc. A few more points, mainly from the lead, are examples of further work required:- done

• The lead is not of adequate length or detail to stand as a summary of the article's content, and needs to be expanded. done
• Academic degrees should not be shown as postnominals after the subject's name, and in any event graduates of Cambridge University are not described as "AM" done
• The postnominal "FRS" should be shown as FRS not ^FRS done
• The assertion that the Senior Wrangler is "the greatest intellectual achievement attainable in Britain" is absurd. Who is making this claim, and who has designated the Smith's Prize as "the most significant academic prize of the era"? done
• Minor point: use dashes, not hyphens in date ranges (correct in lead, wrong in Early life) done

Think I got them all. Farrtj (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

An interesting subject, and worth doing the extra work, I'd say. Brianboulton (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I find him fascinating. I don't know whether he was lazy, or suffered from ill health, or used his time ineffectively, or was simply unlucky, but he certainly did not live up to his early promise. He must have been one of the most favoured students at Cambridge ever in his early years. His rise from humble beginnings is pretty impressive. Farrtj (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - no time to do a full reivew, but I noticed this article was at FAC, and remembered doing a peer review on this here. Some of the issues pointed out there are still evident. I'm reviewing this version.
  • Reference 30 is still just a bare URL. There are also three later URLs (59, 60 and 61) described simply as '"Library and Archive catalogue". The Royal Society.' plus an access date. I'm not sure this is really sufficient, and I've known those URLs to break in the past when they change their website architecture. You really need to provide more details so the information and links can be recovered in future if needed. Rule of thumb: consider the person reading a printed version of the article and what you need to provide in the written reference so they can go about verifying the information.done
  • In the peer review, I noted that the mother's name was given as 'Helen' (see this version), with no source provided. This now appears to have been changed to 'Hannah', with this as the source. How is http://www.jamesfamilytree.org.uk a reliable source? done

"Helen" was a transcribing mistake made by myself. I can actually vouch those dates and her name myself as I live near Ravensworth, and there is a dedication to the family in the parish church. Hence I know the information given at that website to be factually correct in relation to the Hannah Lax dates. Farrtj (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Funnily enough, this is one of those cases where a photo of the dedication would be more 'reliable' than that website, crazy though it sounds. Is the dedication a carved wall plaque or memorial slab or something? This might be better discussed at the article talk page than here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• • I mentioned at the peer review that you could link to his two Philosophical Transaction papers online. You link to the JSTOR copy of 'On A Method of Examining the Divisions of Astronomical Instruments', but you provide no link for the 'A Method of finding the Latitude of a place, by Means of two Altitudes of the Sun and the Time elapsed betwixt the Observations' paper. That is here. done
  • I also note that my suggestion at the peer review to provide an online link to one of the references ("The Reverend William Lax and a Supposed Observatory of Newtons") was not followed up. The link is here, and the title used in the ADS database has missed out the apostrophe in "Newtons" which should be restored in our reference. You should also make clear that (although impeccably referenced) this is a 'letter to the editor' (not a peer-reviewed journal article).done

The article is much improved and expanded since the peer review, though the lead image isn't the best (if you are going to use an image like that, it should really be a better quality scan). I will try and look again in a few days if I have time. Carcharoth (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive advice and your detailed research. I shall endeavour to affect your improvements over the coming days. Farrtj (talk) 05:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes above. This edit is perfect (I'll remember that next time I use one of those Royal Society archive references) except you need to include an access date. The same should be done for the other three Royal Society archive references. Also, there is another bot-generated reference, the one titled 'Appointment Evidence Record, ID 111849' (currently reference number 9), which is only a titled URL at the moment. I also noted a large number of 'ref name=autogenerated' references - I presume most of those are tidied up, but it might be worth checking. Carcharoth (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)done

Cleaned up that reference no. 9. Those auto-generated things are just hangovers. Farrtj (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.