Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ben Gascoigne/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Karanacs 03:06, 16 June 2010 [1].

Ben Gascoigne edit

Ben Gascoigne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): hamiltonstone (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Gascoigne was an Australian astronomer who died about seven weeks ago. He played a crucial role in understanding the size of the universe, when his work revealed that astronomers had underestimated the distance to our nearest galactic neighbours, the Magellanic Clouds, by a factor of two. He was also husband, photographer, curator, cook and archivist to Rosalie Gascoigne, one of Australia's most important abstract artists. Thanks go to GA reviewer Xtzou, and special thanks to Iridia for the de facto peer review that was critical to the article's improvement. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Dabs and external links checked.
  • Image licenses look fine.
Images are fine, except that File:Gascoigne Stromlo 1948.jpg is in the public domain only in the source country and not in the U.S., which is required by Commons, but that's not uniformly treated by Commons so I believe it can stay and I marked it with the intended template. Hekerui (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done (hopefully correctly; I haven't tried doing one before). Iridia (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistency in references: e.g "Frame, Tom; Donald Faulkne". Follow the "last name, first name" throughout for consistency
  • Shouldn't "The creation of the Anglo-Australian Observatory" be included in the "Select bibligraphy"? --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O yeah. oops. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - reluctant because I didn't find the article, though it's written very well, particularly grabbed me. FAC criteria asks that the article be "engaging". I can't really say much more than that I found it easy to read but I can't claim enjoyment. At the end I was rather "meh" about the whole thing. But then again I'm not mad about astronomy, so I am not the core market for the article. It strikes me as written to a professional standard which is called for by criteria 1(a) so perhaps that's good enough... anyway, my notes follow...
  • Proofread done - two minor changes made, one wikification (someone may wish to check it points to the correct person) and one spelling correction; otherwise all appears to be well.
  • Article v FAC criteria
    • 1(a) Prose - PROFESSIONAL - Of a professional standard; no clunkiness and article reads as a unified whole rather than a disjointed effort of a number of editors.
    • 1(b) Comprehensiveness V.GOOD - though I bring no knowledge to the article, each decade of his life appears to be accounted for. As an observation I guess I didn't feel I got anything of the personality of the man; it would be nice to hear something on that but that's not a deal-breaker for me.
  • A number of quotes have now been added to the article to hopefully improve this aspect. Iridia (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1(c) Research - V.GOOD - again, as an amateur judgement, a variety of sources are used and listed.
    • 1(d) Neutral - YES - though I'm sure the editors admire the man, I didn't feel the article was 'selling' him to me.
    • 1(e) Stability - TOTALLY STABLE - no evidence of instability in article's short life (created on May 7 2010).
    • 2(a) Lead - GOOD - I might quibble with whether it is necessary to name his children or even the fact of their existence in the lead; personally I'd be happy to see that aspect removed.
    • 2(b) Structure - V.GOOD - takes a chronological approach which seems the obvious choice and most well-suited to the subject.
    • 2(c) Consistency of citations - CHECK IN PROGRESS at time of writing by Hamiltonstone
    • 3 Images - CHECKED by Redtigerxyz (see above) - I'm not personally familiar with the policies on images.
    • 4 Length - V.GOOD - well within length limits. I didn't feel it went into too much detail at any point and, as someone with only a layman's interest in astronomy, I didn't feel bogged down as a reader (though, as stated, nor enthused).
  • bodnotbod (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I've left some comments here, mainly just prose things I think need to be addressed. Re Bodnotbod's comment above, I found myself warming to the man, particularly when I read that he took a welding course to help make his wife's artistic creations safer. I'm confident I'll be able to support once the issues I've raised have been addressed. Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • These comments have been addressed point-by-point by hamiltonstone and myself. Iridia (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • I am unable to figure out ref. 7, which reads in full: "University of London. Institute of Education; Columbia University. Teachers College (1934). The Year book of education. Evans Bros.. p. 327." Can you explain?
  • The full stops have now been eliminated - these are two authors, Uni of London's Institute of Ed, and Columbia Uni's Teachers College. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the basis for compiling a "select" bibliography?
I suggested his five most cited papers, as given by searching for "Gascoigne, S.C.B." on ADS and sorting by "citations", and his book(s). Iridia (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look OK, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(adds) and I accepted Iridia's approach - Gascoigne has at least 80 publications and a line had to be drawn somewhere. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a well written article which I believe should be a FA. I only have two issues with it. Firstly, I concur with Bodnotbod, that the article starts in a rather dull manner. However, I think it is relatively easy to fix. It seems that Gascoigne's most significant contribution was correcting the distance and hence evolution of the Magellenic clouds. This is touched on in the lead but no great fuss is made about it. 'So what?' I ask myself, 'Why should I bother reading further?' It is only when I get to the main part of the article do I find out the significance of this work. I'd like to see the lead shortened with his real achievements highlighted rather than glossed over. That would then make me want to read the rest of the article (which is interesting and engaging). My second issue is that the photo from Mt Stromlo looking towards Canberra is very dull. I have looked for a better copyright free photo of Mt Stromlo but without success. I'd delete the dull photo until we can find something suitable. Gillyweed (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review. Completely agree with you about the lead. Writing and updating article leads is something at which i'm particularly bad. Have revised it. Will wait on the image issue to see if anyone else expresses a view about whether it's worth deleting - like you, i had searched for a decent free image and came up empty. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, fine, noone likes the photo. ;) I'll take a better one next time it's nice and sunny. Do people want one looking towards Canberra, or out towards the suburb-empty valley or mountains? Iridia (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are offering - any chance of a landscape photo taken up top with the restored original observatory building in the picture, since that would have been the main building i think when Gascoigne worked there. :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, no problem. I was thinking one of the landscape related nicely to Rosalie's perspective on the then-isolation of the mountain, but a CSO building shot is easy to do. Iridia (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead has been rewritten, and the photo deleted. Iridia (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Nice article, I'm not done with a thorough reading, because I'm slow, so I wanted to post some comments before this is wrapped up. The available online sources look alright, I have to agf on the offline sources.

Lead

  • I know there was some work on the lead, but now the number of paragraphs is not in line with WP:LEAD, as far as I can tell

Early life

  • to Auckland University College, he won a scholarship, the bursary was for the University of Bristol according to the source, no?
  • Both. bursary to the College; then later, scholarship to Bristol. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Honorary Fellow/Member" - isn't that "Honourary", in keeping with the British spelling, or is that a spelling used by the Australian Science Societies?
  • No - "honorary" does not vary in spelling, even though honor / honour does. Another triumph of the English language! hamiltonstone (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War service

  • what does Frame & Faulkner, p. 81, source?
  • The Frame and Faulkner book in the reference list at the bottom?? hamiltonstone (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When in 1941 Gascoigne was offered a research fellowship by Woolley" - that formulation appears weird to me, shouldn't the 1941 move to the end there? Maybe that's just me.
  • It is grammatically correct though not how you might expect someone to speak. I'd prefer to leave it, but will revise if others don't like it. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I feel that's a good scientific story: achieving understanding is the essence of what you want to do" - this part of the quotation belongs to another problem, the quotation is stitched together.
  • You are correct. i have deleted the second fragment. i have also converted one of the pull-quotes to in-line quotation as it was getting too busy. Still battling some layout issues. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1949, the Gascoignes' third child, daughter Hester, was born." - that's not in either of the given sources but in the Media Kit Article
  • Sorry, I think that happened when the text was reordered. Fixed. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hekerui (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first cquote in the section Mount Stromlo is distracting. As this is part of the text itself, it shouldn't be a calloutquote (at most, a blockquote), and it needs to be properly introduced. The second of these quotes in this section is poorly placed - on my laptop screen it means there is text sandwiched between the quote and an image. Karanacs (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This seems to be a no-win. If it isn't part of the text, one gets told that a call-out quote must repeat the text, then when it is part of the text, someone suggests it should be "at most a blockquote". Get the impression that what people really wannt is no callouts at all. OK :-) will get to it. hamiltonstone (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have introduced the first quote and changed it to a blockquote. The second quote has been rearranged and also made a blockquote. Iridia (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments.
    • Is it the "Anglo-Australian Telescope" or the "Anglo-Australian telescope"? It's called both in the article.
      • Found only one instance of "Anglo-Australian telescope", in the AAT image caption. Fixed. (It is also referred to as "the telescope": were you meaning those as well?) Iridia (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was the occurrence in the image caption I noticed. I don't mind whether it's called "the telescope" or "the "Telescope" more generally. Malleus Fatuorum 14:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't like those distracting and overpowering {{cquote}}s. That template should only be used for pullout quotes, i.e., to draw attention to something said elsewhere in the article by repeating it. The MoS is pretty clear that the quotations here should be blockquotes, for which you can use the {{Quote box}} template to give you less in your face quotation marks around the quotes.

Malleus Fatuorum 13:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed all cquotes either to blockquotes with no box ({{quote}}) or to {{quote box}} with the small quotes activated. Better? Iridia (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support no deal-breakers in the prose, but could be massaged a bit. I found a few bits and pieces. I'm pretty sure it's comprehensive. I have no strong opinion on the quotes either way. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cquotes issue needs to be resolved, and I see WP:MOS#Ellipses without spaces-- could someone take a closer look at MOS issues? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on both, but can't today - only got a min to spare. Back 2morrow i hope. hamiltonstone (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One only realises how ***** long the MOS is when someone asks you to go through and check MOS issues :-) I've now had a shot. Hopefully found everything. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like what Iridia has done to eliminate the cquotes, but I can't speak for others. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

media all seems fine Fasach Nua (talk) 23:49, 13 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/Ben_Gascoigne/archive1&oldid=1089817798"