Wikipedia

Talk:Joseph Priestley House/Archive 2

< Talk:Joseph Priestley House
(Redirected from Talk:Joseph Priestley House/Archive2)
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Ruhrfisch in topic Possible additions
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

FAC checklist

Latest comment: 16 years ago16 comments2 people in discussion

After having gone through FAC so many times, I developed a little checklist. Although it is laborious, it makes FAC much easier. See what you think.

  • Peer review
  • Copy edit
  • Be sure article adheres to WP:MOS
  • Proofread
  • Check all citations (page ranges, commas, lost citations, etc.)
  • Check all links to make sure they go to the right articles
  • Read article aloud one last time
  • Nominate for FAC!

Feel free to add/take away from the list. Awadewit | talk 00:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I know we are both anxious to nominate this for FAC, but can we wait until next week? I was suddenly called out of town. I will be back on Monday, though, so any day after that should be good. I would hate to be away while the FAC was going on. :) Awadewit | talk 23:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No problem at all - take your time and travel safely, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked with SandyGeorgia and she archived the withdrawn FAC, so we are ready to go with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joseph Priestley House whenever. I also got rid of the two red links in the article - Lackawanna and Bloomsburg Railroad is as far as I can get it (Choess will work on it later) and is nominated for a DYK. Carl Frederik von Breda has been started and I will expand it and try for a DYK nom in the next few days. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Do you mind if we co-nominate the article? I have to admit that I am attempting to climb to the WP:WBFAN list. Embarrassing, I know. I like competitions. :) Awadewit | talk 02:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I assumed it would be a co-nomination if you were OK with that - you are the major author here. What about MacDui's unanswered comments? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought I had answered all of them. Which ones are you referring to? (I, the major author? I don't think so - I think this is a beautiful example of joint authorship. Besides, you are the the only artist - let's not leave that out!) Awadewit | talk 03:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The two very first MacDui points have no responses - I struck the others. I too like our joint authorship very much and thank you for your kind words on the photos. I think we are ready to go. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know why I thought you had gotten those. I commented on one and changed the other. I agree - we are ready. Do you want to compose our nomination statement? Awadewit | talk 04:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I would be glad to write the nomination. Should get to it tonight still. Do you want me to put a draft here first or just be bold? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Odds and ends

Latest comment: 16 years ago54 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Awadewit, I have some questions from proofreading. The first are about this sentence: The Priestley property, purchased at a total cost of £500 from Reuben Haines who had secured the patent to the land for Northumberland,[4] comprised four lots of the original village borough plan (numbers 29–32). First, since the land was purchased in 1794, I was just checking that pounds sterling was correct (instead of dollars). I know Priestleys would have probably brought pounds with them, so I can rationalize it, but just thought I'd check. (I do not think an explanation is needed in the text if it is pounds, just fact checking). Second, I am trying to figure out "original village borough plan". Northumberland only became a borough in the late 1820s, so when it was laid out it was still a village. I would be in favor of "village plan" or perhaps even "town plan" over the current wording. Third, do we want to explicitly mention the purchase was in 1794?

  • I don't know why it is pounds, but it is. Could be the US hadn't totally switched over yet.
  • Yes, I think back then all sorts of currency circulated and was accepted. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Village plan" is fine with me. If I remember correctly, you had an earlier objection to "town".
  • Fixed - Bloomsburg is legally now the only incorporated town in Pennsylvania - we spent weeks on this on the Pennsylvania talk page (if you want to read about angels dancing on the head of a pin, also see McCandless, which is legally still a township). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think we should mention the land purchase date. Awadewit | talk 04:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I added it, now reads: The Priestley property, purchased in 1794 at a total cost of £500 from Reuben Haines who had secured the patent to the land for Northumberland,[4] comprised four lots of the original village plan (numbers 29–32). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I also have a possible tweak for this sentence On their way to Northumberland, the Priestleys stopped in Philadelphia, where Joseph gave a series of sermons and helped found the First Unitarian Church of Philadelphia. My problem is that it makes it sound as if the church was also founded in 1794, when it was actually founded in 1796, after more of JP's sermons in Philadelphia. How about On their way to Northumberland, the Priestleys stopped in Philadelphia, where Joseph gave a series of sermons which led to his helping found the First Unitarian Church of Philadelphia in 1796.? I am not totally happy with this sentence either. If we went to two sentences here, how about something like On their way to Northumberland, the Priestleys stopped in Philadelphia, where Joseph gave a series of sermons. These and later sermons led him to help found the First Unitarian Church of Philadelphia in 1796. Hope this at least makes my concerns with this sentence clear (even if my solutions are not) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • How about moving the part about the First Unitarian Church to the "Unitarian" paragraph? Awadewit | talk 04:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Um, I think this is already in the Unitarian paragraph. It currently reads On their way to Northumberland, the Priestleys stopped in Philadelphia, where Joseph gave a series of sermons and helped found the First Unitarian Church of Philadelphia. According to J. D. Bowers, who studied Priestley's influence on Unitarianism in America, "[f]or a decade Priestley served as the inspiration and leading force in the spread of Unitarianism in America... I think the First Unitarian Church founding is good here to transition into the Bowers Unitarianism sentence, and also think that it may need to be two sentences. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That'll teach me to go by memory. What about moving the foundation to the sentence which talks about the foundation of other congregations in other states? We could have a blander "helped influence the spread of Unitarianism" in the first sentence or something that would lead into the Bowers quote. Gotta run. Awadewit | talk 07:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, how about something like this: On their way to Northumberland, the Priestleys stopped in Philadelphia, where Joseph gave a series of sermons that helped promote the spread of Unitarianism. According to J. D. Bowers, who studied Priestley's influence on Unitarianism in America, "[f]or a decade Priestley served as the inspiration and leading force in the spread of Unitarianism in America and the formation of numerous societies that followed his teachings on congregational formation, the education of youth, lay preaching, and espousing one's faith in the presence of opposition from (and to) both the Protestant majority and a competing liberal faction."[20] Priestley helped found the First Unitarian Church of Philadelphia, and through his influence, a total of at least twelve congregations were founded in Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Kentucky.[21] Also not sure if we want to mention his helping found the Northumberland Unitarian church here too (assume it is one of the 12)? What do you think? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
How about ending with: Through his influence, a total of at least twelve congregations were founded in Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Kentucky, including the First Unitarian Church of Philadelphia and the [name of Northumberland church]. Awadewit | talk 01:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I changed it just now to On their way to Northumberland, the Priestleys stopped in Philadelphia, where Joseph gave a series of sermons that helped promote the spread of Unitarianism. According to J. D. Bowers... Through Priestley's influence, at least twelve congregations were founded in Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Kentucky, including the First Unitarian Church of Philadelphia and Northumberland's Unitarian Universalist Congregation of the Susquehanna Valley.[21] The Northumberland congregation's name is that of the current congregation, do we want to add their web page as a reference or does Bowers cover this? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
We need to add the webpage. Awadewit | talk 03:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I added it just now - think I got the MLA style right (followed the existing examples). I used the ref to the web page on Priestley founding the congregation, the name is given on a later page. Is that OK? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A few more

Lots of commas in the 2nd lead sentence. Suggest: Located in Northumberland, Pennsylvania, the house was designed by Priestley's wife Mary and is Georgian in style, with Federalist accents.

  • I don't think there is a way around this, because there has to be a comma after Northumberland. We could just say "Pennsylvania" - nobody knows where Northumberland is, anyway. `Awadewit | talk
  • I am in favor of keeping Northumberland in the lead, but then I like obscure places in the Keystone state ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

2nd last sentence in lead. Suggest: to return the home to the way it looked during Priestley's time.

Location

Two 'durings' in: During the American Revolution, the village was evacuated during the Big Runaway in 1778, and only finally resettled in 1784.

  • Thanks, changed to In the American Revolution, the village was evacuated during the Big Runaway in 1778, and only finally resettled in 1784. (although now it has "in" thrice - is this OK?) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry to be picky, but "in the American Revolution" is incorrect. While in English we do say "in [year]", we do not say "in the revolution" when referring to a time period. I'm thinking about grammatically correct solutions. Awadewit | talk 23:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for being picky. I had During the American Revolution, the village was evacuated in the Big Runaway in 1778, and only finally resettled in 1784. but that had "in" three times in a row. How about During the American Revolution, the village was evacuated as part of the Big Runaway in 1778, and only finally resettled in 1784. The whole West Branch valley fled to Sunbury, so this was just a part of the whole mass evacuation. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed to "During" and "part of", glad this is fixed Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The property's original area was reduced by about half c. 1830, when the Pennsylvania Canal (North Branch Division) was dug through the house's front yard. 'Excavated' or 'constructed' rather than 'dug'?

  • Thanks, changed "dug" to "excavated" Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • And I'm going to be picky again. "Excavated" has the connotation of digging something up that was already there, which is not the case here. I would stick with "dug" since canals really are "dug". It is the most precise word. Awadewit | talk 23:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I just changed it back to "dug" - in this era it was also dug by hand. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Priestleys in America

This confused me slightly at first. I assumed from the section title that this was a 'Birmingham' in the US, although I don't have a suggestion. It's a very long section and a pedant might grumble that some of it is really part of an article about 'JBP in America' rather than the house.

  • I think we tried to make it clear why he settled in such a remote village and also point out what he did while he lived in the house, to help put things into context - JBP did not just live here, he did important things here. Awadewit is the expert on this, but would it make sense to have some sort of introductory sentence here? Perhaps something like The last three years the Priestleys spent in Britain (England?) were a time of persecution and turmoil that led to their emigration.? I also have wondered if it would make sense to break this section into subsections - perhaps the first four paragraphs ("Emigration to Northumberland"??), then the next four paragraphs ("Settling in"??), then the remainder of the section ("Last years"??). Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I like Ruhrfisch's idea of an opening sentence (with "Britain") and subsection headings. I'm sure this could be the seed of JP in America article, but I think that understanding what Priestley was doing in America provides helpful background to the house. For example, the information regarding his Unitarian activities makes the fact that the family held services in their house come alive. Awadewit | talk 23:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I added the introductory sentence and the subsection headers. The images now are split between subsections - I tried making the vertical images smaller with "upright" in the image tags. I got them into their own subsections, but did not like the result and undid it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"According to J. D. Bowers, who has studied Priestley's influence" I think 'has' is redundant

There is presumably some Mos reason for the odd square brackets in ' "[f]or a decade '

  • I believe the original had a capital "F", i.e. "For a decade", so this shows the original quotation has been changed slightly. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That is correct - it is not a MOS convention but an accepted quotation convention in academia. Don't worry - it is not wikipedia run amuck! Awadewit | talk 23:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I note that friend MOS says:
If an entire sentence is quoted in such a way that it becomes a grammatical part of the larger sentence, the first letter loses its capitalization ("It turned out to be true that 'a penny saved is a penny earned'."). Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 14:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

" Therefore the poets undertook a lecture tour of England to raise funds; however, they never generated enough money and never emigrated." Two 'never's

  • Would you prefer two "did not's"? The idea was to emphasize this through repetition - it's a rhetorical flourish. Awadewit | talk 23:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Did Cobbet publish in the US or only in Britain? It's not clear to me if JBP is defending himself back home or if this is a scandal that was also taking place in the US media.

  • Cobbett is a complicated character. He published his newspaper in America, but that does not mean that the information was not reprinted elsewhere. Cobbett had ties to Canada and Britain. It is also likely that his publications were pirated. JP would have been primarily defending himself against the publications in the US, but he would have had reason to fear that they would have spread. However, there probably isn't a source for this material specifically related to Cobbett (unless it is deep in Cobbett research) because most of these are basic facts of eighteenth-century publishing. Everything was reprinted and pirated. Awadewit | talk 23:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Would it help to give the city where the newspaper was published? Cobbett published the letters in his [Philadelphia?] newspaper...? (I just guessed it was a Phila. paper - don't know). Regardless of pirating and reprints, it would help to know where the newspaper was published originally. A similar argument can be made for including the book's place of publication, though this seems less important to me (easier to imagine a book crossing the Atlantic). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It looks like Cobbett published newspapers in both Philadelphia and New York. However, the damaging letters he published against Priestley were also reprinted by other papers. (Schofield 329, 335, 337) Awadewit | talk 01:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Priestley's family relations deteriorated even further in 1800 when a local Pennsylvania newspaper published an article accusing William Priestley, intoxicated with "French principles", of trying to poison the entire Priestley family—both father and son vigorously denied the story." Should this be Priestley, of being intoxicated with "French principles" and of trying to poison the minds of the entire.

  • No - he was accused of trying to poison the family. When the incident was reported, the press smeared William Priestley by describing him as intoxicated with "French principles". It was kind of like calling someone a Communist in the 1950s in the US. Awadewit | talk 23:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggest: Stretching from 475 AD to Priestley's present,

  • Changed to 475 CE. Awadewit | talk 23:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I wikilinked CE as some readers may not know what it means. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Architecture

"As William N. Richardson, the site administrator for the Joseph Priestley House in the 1990s, notes, Priestley's American home" I don't like the commas around 'notes'. Maybe just As William N. Richardson notes, Priestley's American home or As the site administrator for the Joseph Priestley House in the 1990s, William N. Richardson notes, Priestley's American home.

  • As William N. Richardson notes, Priestley's American home - Unfortunately this doesn't tell the reader who Richardson is. Awadewit | talk 23:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As the site administrator for the Joseph Priestley House in the 1990s, William N. Richardson notes, Priestley's American home - This does not provide the second comma for the appositive phrase - William N. Richardson. Awadewit | talk 23:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The commas in the original are actually all correct: two for the appositive phrase and one for the introductory clause. We could try to find a version that does not use an introductory clause or appositive phrase. Awadewit | talk 23:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Museum

" The 1834 Joseph Priestley Memorial Chapel is a contributing structure in the historic district, and home to a Unitarian Universalist congregation which considers Priestley its founder and was built by his grandson." I think you mean: The Joseph Priestley Memorial Chapel, which is a contributing structure in the historic district, was built in 1834 by his grandson, and is home to a Unitarian Universalist congregation that considers Priestley its founder.

ACS

 

"These chemists came from 15 US states and the District of Columbia, Canada, and England" I hope you mean 'England' and not 'Britain'.

  • I understand your concern, but the plaque the ACS put up for the centennial of the meeting (pictured) and other written sources use "England" so we followed their lead. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

On 1 August 1974—that has been labeled the bicentennial of the discovery of oxygen—

  • This is the only suggested change you make that I don't get - the original what makes sense to me here. (An alternate wording giving the same meaning but without the dashes would be "On 1 August 1974, which has been labeled the bicentennial of the discovery of oxygen,..."). For the record, I am fine with all of your other suggested wording changes, but since Awadewit is both an English grad student and author of most of the sentences where changes have been suggested that I have not replied to, I will defer to her on the remaining items. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Should either be "what" or "which" - it is a non-restrictive clause. Awadewit | talk 23:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The references look OK to me - one or two (pdf)'s missing is all. However, the Bibliography needs some attention. Some years of publication are in brackets, some not. Some have this at the end, some not etc. There are odd hyphens or lines against the first three on my browser. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 19:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The odd hyphens or lines are MLA style to show there is no author identified. I will add the "(PDF)" tags, but leave the style questions to Awadewit. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure that all of the bibliographic listings adhere to MLA style. I tried to check them all as we were entering them. The parentheses are from MLA style - that I know for sure. Awadewit | talk 23:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks MacDui! I will reply to some of these and leave others for Awadewit, as we have access to different sources and thus made different contributions. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your careful reading as well. It is evident that you thoroughly read the article. Thanks! Awadewit | talk 23:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you for thanking me ... I am not going to quibble with any of the above - it's your show. For the record whether or not 'what has been labeled' is technically correct some UK readers may guffaw. A well-known comedian here used 'what' in a similar way as a catchphrase as a means of emphasising his character's inept writing style.

  • Perhaps "which", then? Awadewit | talk 01:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Re America - I wasn't saying the info should not be there - and I think the sub-sections are a big help.

Re Bibliography, I despair at MOS's ability to create consistency but even if each entry is correct, there are inconsistencies between them:

  • Smith, Edgar F. Priestley in America, 1794–1804. Philadelphia: P. Blakiston's Son and Co., 1920.
No retrieval date
  • Schofield, Robert E. The Enlightened Joseph Priestley: A Study of His Life and Work from 1773 to 1804. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004. ISBN 0271024593.
  • Silverman, Sharon Hernes. "Joseph Priestley: Catalyst of the Enlightenment". Pennsylvania Heritage Magazine 25.3 (1999). Retrieved 11 November 2007.
Brackets around one date, not around another etc.
That is correct. Parentheses are added around years in MLA style when the entry is an article but not when the entry is a book. This is all very standard and I haven't run into any problems at FAC when I've used MLA. Thanks again for the eagle eye, though! Awadewit | talk 01:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a fine piece of work and I am sure will sail through. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 10:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks again MacDui, Awadewit has had to travel unexpectedly and will not be back until Monday, so I will leave the remaining points until her return. I guess my general feeling is that somewhat simpler constructions may be preffered in FAC over more complex ones, even if both are grammatically correct. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox question

Latest comment: 16 years ago32 comments5 people in discussion

This conversation started on the following talk pages: User talk:Daniel Case, User talk:Awadewit, and User talk:Ruhrfisch. I am being bold and copying the relevant parts here (omissions are shown by ellipses ...), so the discussion can be centralized and so that other interested users can see it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To Ruhrfisch ...I was wondering why, though, you can't at least restore the NRHP infobox. I see what you were doing with all the maps and how that caused problems, and I know articles aren't required to have them and you certainly proved it wasn't necessary, but I still think it would be good for the readers to have a quick extraction of salient facts available. and for an NRHP project FA to have the same infobox.

If it isn't possible, or adverse to a readable article, I understand. Daniel Case (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks Daniel, in general I am OK with infoboxes, but Awadewit is very opposed to them, and in this case I think the article is better as is (without one). The comment at the top of the article when editing it is "Please discuss adding an infobox to this page before doing so; we have tried it before but haven't found a good way yet - Thanks!".

    There really wasn't room to include the box and two maps and all the images, and we preferred to get rid of the box rather than a map or other image (or two). I tried a different box ({{Geobox Protected Area}}) first (as it can include two maps), but that still took too much space. I then made several different versions of one map to try and combine the two maps, but all of the combined maps had more opposition than support on the talk page (for the combo maps see here on Commons and for a different approach see this).

    After we omitted the box, I made sure that all the information that was in the two different infoboxes we tried was in the article The box omission was raised on the article's talk page at the time (now archived), without any opposition. It did not come up in the official peer review, or on the later, unofficial "peer review" we solicited (on the current talk page). We specifically mentioned the infobox omission in the FAC nomination, but none of the subsequent FAC comments mentioned it. The only compromise I can think of is to try and make some sort of collapsible box that would be one line unless opened, but I am not sure this would work either. I will also ask for Awadewit's feedback here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC) ...

  • To Daniel Case: Since the infobox would just replicate information that is already succinctly presented in the lead (the "salient facts" you mention), I don't feel that it would add anything. Moreover, since we would have to remove a map and possibly some images to add the infobox, I believe it would only detract from the page. I would hate to remove either of the maps, which provide useful information not otherwise in the article, or the images which Ruhrfisch himself traveled to Northumberland to take and which illustrate key parts of the article. I think that these concerns outweigh any benefits to be gained from the infobox. Awadewit | talk 04:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • To Awadewit: Yeah, I figured it was a formatting issue with the maps more than anything else (although I'm surprised no one in the FAC suggested taking the image sizes down to thumb level, where most readers' preference settings (mine are at a cozy 300px after some of the militants in the US Roads project insisted on that in New York State Route 52) will take over and give you space). I wouldn't have wanted to lose the maps either.

    As for the salient facts being in the lede graf, there is not (nor, IMO, should there be) a standard order in which they're presented, nor are they always in the lede graf. And they can sometimes get accidentally edited out. A lot depends on the individual editor or editors writing the article, and I don't think it's fair to readers to subject them to such an arbitrary and capricious standard for the presentation of the one fact they may have looked at the article for in the first place. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I tried making a collapsed infobox - all that shows are two lines: "Joseph Priestley House / National Historic Landmark" wikilinked to National Historic Landmark. It is just barely wider than the 300 px photos (has to be this wide to display properly). The only parameter it is missing are the coordinates, which are shown just above it anyway. What do you think of it? Awadewit, this might also be a solution for other articles where there is disagreement on whether or not to include an infobox? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I was all prepared to compromise on this. However, when I took a look at it, I was a bit concerned. On my screen, when the infobox is open, I can't read half of the lead or see the map. I think that it distorts the layout of the lead a bit too much. I really just don't think that the box is necessary. The most important facts about the house are in the lead. I don't think that there is a necessity to repeat them in a box. Surely people can read a few paragraphs. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia after all, not a listing of facts like an almanac or something. Awadewit | talk 05:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, when the box is open it just shoves the rest of the article down the screen - no way to get around that. I could make the box go all the way across the top of the article. That version would be much narrower - just one line of text when closed and only four lines of text when open (data in three columns). The current version is two lines of text tall when closed and 13 lines tall when opened. Since we have not heard from Daniel yet, I will wait on his feedback on this box (just above the lead image). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I still would like to take this box down, since it disrupts the layout of the page so severely. What does everyone else think? Awadewit | talk 15:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I am OK with taking it down - I put it up as an experiment and to get feedback from you and Daniel Case - I have asked Daniel twice but gotten no response so I am not sure what Wikiquette is on waiting for a response, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC) By the way, aren't you supposed to be on Wikibreak? Also congrats on the DYK streak ;-)
  • This is a wikibreak for me. :) However, it may become more complete in the coming weeks. That's why I'm trying to tie up any loose ends. Awadewit | talk 20:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I took it out of the article and put it here for now. Cross one loose end off your list. I think Daniel has had enough time to weigh in. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • When I saw how it kept the text here I added it back and now it does not shift the text down at all on opening (still moves the picture and map below it). What do you think now? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am all in favor of keeping the infobox. I am big fan of them and always like the use of them. This collapsing box is great. I say keep it in place. Dincher (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I still think it looks rather silly when it is open. Users have to scroll down an incredible amount to get to the text. Since the box just repeats information, I simply don't think we need it. Awadewit | talk 22:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 
screen shots of the page on Ruhrfisch's computer with box closed (top) and open (bottom)
I appreciate Ruhrfisch's effort to make this work, and I am intrigued by the collapsing nature of it. But I do think at least it does not belong centered and at the very top of the article. It is jarring in part because that is unusual placement and prominent by being at the top. NRHP infoboxes, as those who like them and might look for them would unconsciously understand, always appear on the right of articles, because there is no built-in option to place the standard ones anywhere but on the right side. Also, the info fields of the infobox usually ride below an image, either a pic or a map. So, I wonder could it be tucked underneath the first picture on the right, instead? Since it is a transcluded passage and for other reasons, i don't know how to do it myself to see how that would look instead. Perhaps placed there it would work better for all concerned. doncram (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it must display differently on different computers. I made two screen captures and put them in one image above. On my computer the box is a blue one-line box on the right, just above the first house photo and inline with the first line of text. When open on my computer, the box pushes the photo down, but the text layout is basically unchanged (a few words shift). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I could make it as wide as the page and centered if we want it at the bottom of the page. I just moved it to the right side between the first picture and first map and it looks fine there on my computer. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
(oops edit conflict) Aha! The screen captures convey it quite differently than what I was seeing using Firefox, which I am guessing to be what a relatively higher percentage of editors vs. wikipedia readers use. Using Microsoft Internet Explorer (MSIE) now, on another PC that I have to go to to run it, I get the same as in your screenshots, and I like that fine, I would say keep it. It is then a matching length bar just above the picture, like the NHL header would be above the pic in a standard NRHP infobox. Then i also see your new placement below the pic, which I prefer somewhat, fine again in MSIE. In Firefox on regular PC the new placement is worse, it is centered, overlapping over text at left although placed below photo on the right. When expanded, opens up gap in text on left (bad) and opens space on right (ok). (How do you capture the screenshots by the way? I wonder if there is some freeware I could use to do the same for showing what is yielded in Firefox right now, and I would have other uses for it.) In Firefox its placement is bad, centered and above the matching text and photo, and pushing all down further when opened. In Firefox I think it would be better to move the infobox to the bottom of the article, above the RHP collapsible box. I edited that move into the article, and then undid it; for others to see how that appears go to the history page version before last. I wonder, could the difference between Firefox and MSIE go away if it wasn't transcluded? I suppose there must be some wikipedia resources on treatement of Firefox vs. MSIE views and programming for wikipedia. doncram (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Eek. Must be moved. Here is a screenshot from my computer. Image:JPHouseFirefoxLinux.png. Awadewit | talk 02:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I took it down for now - will ask tomorrow on the navbox talk page - perhaps this is a bug with the new pre-parser? Edoktor was very helpful when I was making the collapsed infobox and hope s/he can help again. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I asked about it at Template_talk:Navbox#Not_displaying_correctly_in_some_browsers - I got quick helpful feedback there before on this, so maybe they can fix the problem. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

For me, the box is right in the center of the page again (just at the top of the article). I just don't think it looks good there. I can provide another screenshot of how it looks open, if necessary. Is there a consensus for the infobox? If there is, perhaps we should go back to the one we had before (months ago) and delete an image. This version of the box isn't really working. (I am, of course, in favor of deleting the box, but if everyone else is in favor of adding the box back in, I will go along with that.) Perhaps we could at least have a reduced infobox that doesn't graphically dominate the page? I think it would be best to have the picture of the house and the map to be the most prominent visual parts of the top of the article. Awadewit | talk 15:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for all the trouble. To Awadewit: I do not think another screenshot is needed. Just to make sure, when the page opens, you see the box is closed, but centered, correct? Is the box the width of the screen or less than full width? (I ask because doncram seemed to have a full width box earlier).
To Doncram: I use "control" and "Print Screen" (or "Prnt Scrn") to capture images of the screen. I also switch to full screen in the browser to maximize the picture (F11 in IE). I then paste the picture into MS Paint or Paint.net and upload it. On my keyboard the "Prnt Scrn" key is a separate key above the "F10" key.
Finally, my preference would be to have a working collapsed box (like my screenshot on all computers). Does not take too much space closed, does not distort the text when open. I am going to try two more tricks - one is not to transclude the box, the other is to make a collapsed table (the programmming syntax is different so it may work differently in different browsers). I will also ask Edokter's help again. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Collapsible table

Since the coding is different, I added a collapsible table as an infobox. It should look the same as the screen shot I made (closed on opening the page, aligned right above the house image, pushes down the image on opening but does not chnge the text layout). I know the color of the top background is white instead of blue, but does this work for everyone? If it does I will worry about the color, if not, not. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. This does not work between the picture and the map (at least as code in the article). It only works on top of the picture, at least in IE - your mileage may vary Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I really like the collapsible table. It works wonderfully on my computer at home. I shall check the work computer later. Dincher (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It works at work too. Also Internet Explorer but the letters, etc. are larger. Nothing to do with the box, just the settings of the two computers. Dincher (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Dinch, what is your web browser at home? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It works as you intended in Firefox on my usual PC, and looks good to me. Thank u for persisting with getting this right, and thanks for the instructions on how to print-screen. doncram (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
If we must, we must. :) It works fine here. Awadewit | talk 00:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes after FA

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I was filing my notes and found that a sidebar to the main Glazer newspaper story gave the original area (2 acres). I added the ref and the area to the article. It said that Priestley never became an American citizen, but that is already well sourced. Finally, it also had an interesting quote about Joseph Priestley: exulted for his intellect by Philadelphia and New York society, he was simply tolerated in Northumberland from Glazer, "Scientist Discovered Oxygen" (see Bibliography). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, I wouldn't include that information unless we could verify it in another, more reliable source. I'm not really tempted to go back to the books right now (but perhaps that is because I am ill). Let me know if you want me to check on this in a week or so. Awadewit | talk 16:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry you are not feeling well and hope you are better soon. I am not clear which information you would not want included - should I take the acreage back out? The sentence now reads The property's original area was 2 acres (0.8 ha),[8] but this was reduced by about half c. 1830 when the Pennsylvania Canal (North Branch Division) was dug through the house's front yard, between the house and river. Before it was The property's original area was reduced by about half c. 1830, when the Pennsylvania Canal (North Branch Division) was dug through the house's front yard, between the house and river. I am OK with leaving the new acreage in, but will take it out if you'd rather.

    The quote was from the then director of the Priestley House Museum. I agree it does not merit inclusion in the article, but thought it was interesting. Please focus on getting well and your dissertation, not on looking this up. If you can, please do let me know if the 2 acres addition is OK. Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Leave in the two acres - leave out the quotation about "exulted for his intellect..." Sorry I wasn't clearer. Awadewit | talk 06:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. The exulted quote was never anywhere but here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible additions

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I was able to obtain a copy of the Fall 2008 (No. 42) Friends of Joseph Priestley House Newsletter. It mentions the 2007 total visitation was 1709. It also mentions that the house is closed in January and February each year, which is also noted on the Friends web page here. Is this worth mentioning in the article? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds worthwhile to me. Do you want to add the info, since you have the cite? Awadewit (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I added the information - feel free to tweak as you see fit. I tried to get the ref formatted correctly. The Newsletter uses all caps for several titles, so I did those as all initial caps, i.e. "Message From The Director". In the newsletter title the part before the colon is all caps, the part after is capitalized as I did it, so: Postings From Priestley House: Newsletter of The Friends of Joseph Priestley House. The newsletter is only 4 pages, but Bashore's Message is on parts of pp 2 and 3.
The newsletter also gives the hours donated by volunteers from the Friends: 616 hours between Jan and Oct 2008. Not sure this is notable. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_Priestley_House/Archive_2&oldid=1078752985"