Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Thompson (surveyor)/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 promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 20 June 2020 [1].

---

James Thompson (surveyor)

Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a short ditty about the man who, in a way, made the "first map" of Chicago. I'd like to thank Hog Farm for reviewing this for GA status and epicgenius for giving a thoughtful peer review. If not an imposition, I'd like this to be TFA on August 4; should that not be possible, I understand and would like this to be a rewarding (and hopefully successful) FAC anyway. As always with my nominations, feel free to make any minor adjustments to the prose as you see fit. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment - any chance of an image of the man himself? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the only image I could find was from the Randolph Society, and I'm uncertain as to its provenance/copyright status. I have contacted the Randolph Society for further information on the matter, but for now I don't think one will be forthcoming. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • If no freely licensed image can be located, there would be a case for a fair-use one ({{non-free biog-pic}}). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I'll keep that in mind if the Randolph Society doesn't get back to me. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • According to the Randolph Society, there are no known copyright restrictions on the work. I have thus uploaded it to Commons and added it to the article. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

• to obtain legal title of their property: shouldn't this be "title to", not "title of"?
  • Fixed
• He was the Probate Judge of Randolph County from 1831 to 1848, when a new Illinois Constitution made the County Judge of a county automatically in charge of probate: does this mean he was also the county judge?
  • No, I hope I made that clearer.
• The pink line is almost invisible on the plat diagram in the legacy section. Could it be thickened? Or use the upright parameter to enlarge the image?
  • Done

    It's still very faint; I'll support anyway, but if you can make the line thicker that would be good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

    • I intend to vectorize the image eventually and will thicken the line then. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

That's all I can find to complain about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• • Hope this helps! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Support. There's a minor point left above but it's not significant enough to stop me supporting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

Lead

• "as a young adult" - "young man" seems more natural to me.

• Done

• I can never keep up with MoS on capitalising offices, but why would Probate Judge be capitalised but county commissioner not be?

• Apparently per JOBTITLES, they denote offices rather than titles and should thus be all lowercase.

• 'associated with the word "Chicago"' - the article on Chicago gives an interesting etymology of the origin of the name. Worth a brief footnote, given the centrality of the place to the article?

• Added to prose

Early career

• "a road linking Kaskaskia to the state capital of Vandalia" - "to the then state capital", given that it's not now?

• Done

Later years

• "the County Judge John Campbell thereby assumed probate. In this capacity he dealt with the estates" - I think I'd replace the "he" with a "Thompson". I thought we were still talking about Campbell.

• Done

And that is the sum total of my meagre gleanings. It looks good, and there's nothing in the above to stand in the way of Supporting. KJP1 (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC).

Coord note

I've added this to the urgents list but I'm not seeing a source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review

If there are no ISBNs for the older books, are there at least OCLCs?

I was able to find one for Andreas but not Montague, I'm afraid.

Aside from that, all sources seem reliable and appropriately and consistently used.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

I left several comments at the peer review, all of which I feel have been resolved satisfactorily. I see no problems with this article as it is; it's short, but very well written. As such, I'll support on prose, per the peer review. epicgenius (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

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