Template:Did you know nominations/Edward Hatton (surveyor)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Edward Hatton (surveyor)

(

)

* ... that Edward Hatton (pictured) created the first comprehensive guide to the streets, buildings and life of London after the Great Fire of 1666?

...that A New View by philomath Edward Hatton (pictured) is a guide to the streets, churches and life of London after the Great Fire of 1666, even detailing the lawyers' robes and workhouse rations of the time?

Reviewed: Edmondston-Alston House

Created by Philafrenzy (talk), Edwardx (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 23:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC).

New (created by Philafrenzy on June 13, 2014). Long enough (4184 characters). Within policy (cites sources: yes, neutral: yes, free of close paraphrasing: some is fairly close - e.g. the "weekly diet of children", the details of the Description de Paris - these are factual points so probably exempt, but it might be best to rephrase them to be absolutely safe). Misc: The statement that the book is over 1100 pages contradicts Cherry's statement that it is 824 pages long (p.96). A link or a gloss would be good for vade mecum. It would be nice if references to Cherry's article were to the exact page. The point about Hatton's marriage should also be cited to Cherry p.100, lest it be accused of being original research. QPQ has been performed.

Hook: is 142 characters which is good and is interesting which is good, but the fact that it was "the first" is not cited in the article and depending on your definition of "comprehensive" might be contradicted by Cherry p.98 (Burton, 1681 and Delaune 1681, "with the subject matter arranged by type of building..." but also "little", "succinct" and don't "provide detailed commentary of the post-fire churches"; Colsoni 1690, "which is comprehensive in its coverage but has no architectural commentary"). So I think that the hook needs to be altered to stress that it is the detailed architectural commentary which is the novel feature. Furius (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Alt1. ~~that Edward Hatton (pictured) created the first comprehensive guide to the streets, church buildings and life of London after the Great Fire of 1666?~~

Made the changes suggested apart from page numbers in the Cherry article as it makes the referencing more difficult and the original article is only seven pages of text excluding notes. Changed the hook slightly but the original seems quite sound. Cherry says "The New View aspires to be at once popular history, directory, mini-encyclopaedia of London institutions, and a practical guide to the London of its day" and "No English guidebook of this period can compete with the thoroughness of Hatton's detailed and up-to-date descriptions of both pre- and post-Fire churches and their contents." The point about it being the first seems to be a matter of fact even if the word first is not used by Cherry. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair point on the page numbers. On the hook, I am concerned that this is exactly the sort of not-quite-what-the-sources-say statement that User:EEng has been pulling from the Qs and the MP recently, so I'll seek a second opinion on this point - no point passing it now if it's going to get pulled, after all. Furius (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

What hook do you suggest? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, either take out the potentially problematic claim of "first":

ALT 2 ~~that A New View by Edward Hatton (pictured) provided a comprehensive guide to the streets, church buildings and life of London after the Great Fire of 1666?~~

Or try for a different interesting fact:

ALT 3 ~~that the guidebook to London published in 1708 by Edward Hatton (pictured) includes information on the colour of lawyers' robes and children's weekly rations in the workhouse?~~

As I say, I've asked for someone else to take a lookover and tell me if I'm unreasonably splitting hairs. Furius (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Alt 2 would be fine with me. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the original and with ALT2 is that I see neither "comprehensive" nor "first" in the article. Or how about:

ALT 4 that the works of philomath Edward Hatton (pictured, died 1733) give the colours of London lawyers' robes, and offer model business letters addressed to debtors Lazarus Lackcash and Dives Doubledun?

Though I'd really like to work Lazarus Lackcash in, overall I think ALT2's Great Fire angle is best, if you drop "comprehensive" i.e. (with some other tweaks)

ALT 5 ~~that A New View by philomath Edward Hatton (pictured) is a guide to the streets, churches and life of London after the Great Fire of 1666?~~

EEng (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC) P.S. I changed lawyer's to lawyers' in ALT3

I find Alt 5 equally acceptable as it is a pity to lose The Great Fire of London, and that was the really distinctive point about the work. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we can just fit this (remembering that (pictured) doesn't count):

ALT 6: ... that A New View by philomath Edward Hatton (pictured) is a guide to the streets, churches, and life of London after the Great Fire of 1666, even detailing the lawyers' robes and workhouse rations of the time?

EEng (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Do I point out that the article only says that some surveyors called themselves philomathai, not that Edward Hatton called himself one? Furius (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Check this link: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015063888377;view=1up;seq=9 Philafrenzy (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It was a total cockup on my part to add philomath based on what's in the article, and thanks to Furius for pointing it out. Luckily, Philafrenzy's link is just right to allow it to stay. I'm about to add that cite to the article. EEng (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I'm going to send this on it's way with ALT6, then.Furius (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Uh oh! Furius wrote it's instead of its! I'm pulling this from prep! A new review will be needed! EEng (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I am utterly mortified by this error and must regretfully agree that it has irreparably sullied the whole review process. Furius (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If I were you I'd be furius. EEng (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Would it be OK if we ran this without the image? EEng (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Keeping greenie visible, for ALT6. Unless we're short on hooks with images this can run without the img, IMO. EEng (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there a cite for the list of sections in the book, per DYK rules? Yoninah (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. It's also downloadable from the link in the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Ready to go. Yoninah (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)