Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Anning/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 11:12, 26 September 2010 [1].

Mary Anning edit

Mary Anning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... There was a lot of work on this article the first few months of this year and it passed GA in March. Ever since then I and other editors have been making improvements, mostly copy edits to improve the prose. I now believe it is FA quality.Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No problems with dablinks or deadlinks. PL290 (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cool topic. I'll certainly be giving the article a read through, but, first, images- File:Mary Anning painting.jpg is lacking author information (though it is claimed the author died over seventy years ago), and has a rather confusing mention of GFDL which could do with removing. A source for File:Duria Antiquior.jpg would also be good. Other than that, very nice. J Milburn (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The artist who painted the famous portrait of Anning at the British Museum is unknown. I have edited the file description to state this explicitly. It should not be an issue for copyright purposes because the painting is from the first half of the 19th Century and therefore is clearly in the public domain. I have updated the Duria Antiquior file to show where I got the original image, which was from an article on the original water colour painting, which is at the Department of Geology at Amgueddfa Cymru (a Welsh museum). Again there shouldn't be a copyright issue here because the original watercolour was painted in 1830, and the artist, Henry De la Beche, died in 1855. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I didn't expect there to be copyright issues (though I guess it's possible that they are modern reproductions "in the style of" or something) it's just good to have the sourcing top-notch. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 10:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, taking a read through.

  • "In 1800, when she was 15 months old, an extraordinary event occurred." It kind of is, but that's not the most neutral of phrases. Perhaps it would be best to first clarify that "members of her community would attribute the child's curiosity, intelligence, and lively personality to the incident" before talking about the event itself?
Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both Mary and her brother Joseph accompanied their father on occasions when he searched the nearby cliffs for fossils to sell." Seeing as you've just said he died, how about "Both Mary and her brother Joseph had accompanied their father on occasions when he searched the nearby cliffs for fossils to sell." Alternatively, perhaps you could include that detail earlier?
Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The cliffs could be dangerously unstable, especially in winter when rain sometimes caused landslides that often drew collectors like the Annings because they exposed new fossils" That sentence could do with splitting.
Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A photograph of the cliffs would be nice. We have this, which is pretty cool.
Looks like FunkMonk added it along with another really good image. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lady Harriet Silvester" Who is this?
The following is from (Torrens 1995) :"The woman was Lady Harriet

Silvester (1753-1843), widow of a former Recorder of the City of London. She visited Mary on 17 September 1824 and recorded in her diary the 'very extraordinary history of this young woman'." The quote from her on Anning is widely reproduced (though couple of online sites misspell her name as "Lady Sivester"). The citation in Torrens is "E. Welch, 'Lady Silvester's tour through Devonshire in 1824', Devon and Cornwall Notes and Queries (1967), 30, 313 and (1973), 32, 265-6." That is as much as I have been able to find out. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "William Buckland who lectured on geology at Oxford often" Comma after "Buckland" and "Oxford"?
Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Also held against Anning was her working class background" You've already mentioned the working class bit a sentence before
Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a young woman who sometimes accompanied her while she collected" Name?
Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "deep time" That's not a term I'm familiar with- link?
Ok, I linked deep time, even though it was linked in the lead. I think that with an article this long it is Ok if a few key terms are linked more than once. Unfortunately when the article was nominate for GA it was heavily over linked and the reviewer made a pass through and deleted all the duplicate links, which was mostly a good thing, but I have quietly added a few back in key places since, and I agree that since this is sort of a "term of art" used by modern historians of science it is probably worth linking in both the lead and the body. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its popular pastor, a fellow fossil collector, left for the United States to campaign against slavery and was replaced by a less likeable individual." Do we know the names of these two people?
Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a bad investment" What/who?
This is complicated. According to the source (Emling 2009) there are multiple conflicting versions of events. She invested the money with someone in London, and that man either died, leaving her with no way to recover the money or ran off with the money. The person responsible is not named. No other source that I have found even says that much about what happened so I am not clear on what more would be useful to add. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "her death her" Comma after "death"
Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there no criticism? No anger she appeared in the publications? No upper-class types trying to downplay her importance? You mention "the scepticism of her fellow townspeople of Lyme"- what did this entail?
Not really. I don't know of anyone who criticised De la Beche's decision to include the eulogy in the Geological Society transactions. By that time Anning had earned quite a bit of respect. There was not much overt criticism of Anning in scientific circles. The only things I can think of is a somewhat unflattering description of her that Gideon Mantel put in a letter, which doesn't seem particularly relevant and Cuvier's accusation of fraud which is discussed in the article. For the most part the slights to Anning were ones of omission as when someone like Coneybeare or Owen just failed to mention her name when writing papers on her discoveries. Even then there was probably little or no personal animus involved. They just didn't consider her a "gentleman" therefore they felt no obligation to mention her any more than they felt an obligation to mention the names of the quarrymen, ditch diggers, and road workers, who often found fossils and sold them to wealthy collectors, who, as Torrens points out, were often credited in scientific papers of that period as the discoverers of a fossil when all they did was purchase it and donate it to a museum or make it available for examination. Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone back and added a couple of sentence to the "interactions" section to make this a little more clear. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There it created a sensation, and raised questions in scientific and even religious circles about what the new science of geology was revealing about ancient life and the history of the earth." This is very interesting- any chance of an expansion of that point?
I added a little more context, but I don't want to go too far in this direction. This is not a general article about the history of paleontology. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "found an 'unrivalled specimen' of Dapedium politum," Why inverted commas? If this is a quote, why not quote marks?
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, I did not know that about extinction. That's really interesting, thanks :P
  • "ground breaking" hyphen?
Somebody fixed this. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "made into a feature film in 1981" Do we not have an article on the film? Even if we don't, a redlink wouldn't hurt.
Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Acrodus anningiae, and Belenostomus anningiae," Italics and links? Again, don't be scared of redlinks.
Somebody fixed this. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mary Anning 'facsimile' was" Again, why the inverted commas?
Somebody fixed this. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have some inconsistency in terms of speech marks and italics in the references. I note you have italicised book names in the prose (as the MOS recommends) so I would recommend italicising them in the references, too. Also, you've put some paper titles in speech marks (again, as is recommended) yet not others. Some external link references have accessdates, and some don't (I'd say it's best they all do...). Ref is currently formatted as "J. Smith" instead of the "Smith, John" used elsewhere and a few refs (52, 53) should italicse the names of the periodicals (and link if we have articles). On a similar note, it would be helful if some more of the publishers were linked.

That took longer than I expected :P Very nice article, really interesting subject matter. I think this would make a great FP once a few tweaks have been made. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

  • Book titles in References and Further reading should be italicised per MOS. Likewise, article titles per MOS should be within quote marks.
  • Note 3 needs attention
Not an issue anymore. That footnote is now gone.Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I presume your question is what makes it a reliable source. This question came up during the GA review and here was my response. "Strange science is an educational web site that is self published, but it is supported, approved, or endorsed by a variety of organizations including the National Science Foundation, encyclopedia Britanica (who gave it a Web's best sites award in 2009), School zone who gave it a 5 star rating, and KidsSites.com who lists it as one of the top science sites for kids, and it lists the sources used for each of its articles. I should think it is Ok for what this article uses it for." If you need more information than that please let me know. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed that and the Dorset Page as sources, the first because it looks self-published, and the second because it's just a local council page by the looks of it, and they're both tertiary sources anyway. It would be better to use the sources they used. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but I have gone back and re-added them as external links. They are useful and well written articles and therefore they are useful as external links and the standards for suitability as an external link are not the same as the requirements for reliable source. I really don't agree with the decision that they are not RS. They are self published web sites but that does not automatically make them not reliable sources. There has to be a process by which a self published site acquires the status of being reliable in this day and age when so much material is only published on the web, and it should have something to do with how trusted the site is by other sites and organizations. That should be particularly true of a site like strange science which has become a major educational site. As far as this article is concerned the loss of them as sources is not major problem since as you say most of the information in them was available elsewhere. The loss of the Dorset Page as a source will mean some changes to the section on ichthyosaurs as some of the information about the discovery of the first ichthyosaur namely "and a year later a storm weathered away part of the cliff and exposed some of the rest of the skeleton" I was only able to get from the Dorset Page. I will reword the section after I have a chance to review the sources I can use.Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, my bad, Emling 2009 does support everything there. So we didn't actually loose anything with the two deleted sources. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, one clarification point below Comment CoI, I did the GA review. I made these edits, please check. Note that putting '' around titles in the template removes the italics which the template would otherwise automatically format Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Due to her skill in locating and preparing fossils, as well as the richness of the Jurassic era marine fossil beds at Lyme Regis where she lived, she made a number of important finds. — This reads poorly to me, what about something like Her skill in locating and preparing fossils led to her making a number of important finds in the rich Jurassic era marine fossil beds near her home in Lyme Regis
  • Civil list — can't be correct, with one word capitalised and not the other. Must be both or neither
  • Deep time — as at GA, what's wrong with geologic time?
The term is no longer in the lead. I don't see a problem with the way it is used in the body of the article as it is the preferred term among historians of science and others for the idea of long course of the earth's (and life's) history that developed in the late 18th and early 19th century. Besides the Martin Rudwick book Scenes out of Deep Time that I cited in the discussion at the GA review. Here are some more examples: [2], [3],[4], and [5]. It is somewhat of a synonym for 'geologial time' but that term is more often used as a synonym for our modern geologic time scale (which is what the link geological time redirects to) and that isn't quite the meaning we want here because the concept of a geologic time scale in something like the modern form (with different eras and ages in a sequential order that was constant across the globe) did not exist until very near the end of Anning's life (John Phillips created the modern one in 1845), where as the concept that the Earth had a long history (a sense of deep time) was very much a topic of discussion during her entire career. Therefore I think deep time is the most appropriate term. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Heroine of Lyme Regis: The Story of Mary Anning the Celebrated Geologist — Can we have the author, either in the text or as a note?
  • note 6 is a bare url
  • Ref 12. Magazine is capitalised, nothing else. Can this be right? Why is it formatted as a book?
  • Anonymous ref is formatted as a book, actually a journal
  • Conybeare (1824) and de la Beche are formatted as web pages, should be as journals since they are on-line copies of real publications. Shouldn't they both be Transactions of...?
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society) — why the Roman repeat of the italic publication (twice)
Jim, I think I fixed all of the above except for the deep time issue, because I don't know the difference between that and geologic time, so I'm reluctant to fiddle; and the Conybear and de la Beche webpage issue, as I didn't follow what was meant. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that they are on-line versions of real journals, not web-only pages, and should be formatted as journals. Title in quotation marks, not italics, journal title (in italics, Transactions of the Geological Society), not the publisher (Geological Society), no retrieval date needed. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) "Henry De la Beche, who later became one of Britain's leading geologists, collected fossils with Anning (and sometimes with her brother Joseph as well) when they were both still teenagers." Just checking that it was Henry and Anning who were the teenagers, not Anning and Joseph.
  • (2) Is switching from a Congregational church to an Anglican one (both Protestant Christian) really a religious conversion?
  • (3) I would consider adding to the lead that she's the source of "she sold seashells on the seashore."
SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the above myself. Now a little concerned that the "sea shells" thing may not be well-sourced. Discussing that and some other issues on the article's talk page. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added to the lead that Dickens wrote about her, that she was the subject of the famous tongue-twister, and that a Royal Society panel placed her third in the top-ten British women to have influenced the history of science. [6] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We say her father died when she was 12, but Dickens says 10. Do we have a good source for 12? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the first reference to Emling is pp. 1–22. Could we have some more precise referencing to make it easier to check?SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some more page numbers myself. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was November 1810, when she was eleven, so I changed that. Do we have a source saying she was discriminated against because of her religion? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added one myself. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article says no fossil species was named after her in her lifetime, but this page says Acrodus anningiae was named in 1839. Do we know whether that's correct? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A source says "The only two British species that were - the fish Acrodus anningiae of. 1841 and Belenostomus anningiae of 1844 - were both named by the Swiss"[7] (can't see more of the paper), which is two within her lifetime. FunkMonk (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the article says John Fowles wrote in 1969 that it was a disgrace that no BRITISH scientist had named a species after Anning in her life time. This is quite well known (many sources cite this passage from Fowles) and quite accurate. Two sentences later the article points out that the Swiss-American scientist Louis Agassiz did name the two fish after her. I fail to see a problem here.Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's different. But it could still be mentioned that the two fish were named in her lifetime just to make it clear, for some reason each source lists a different year though. FunkMonk (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question about references: I was wondering what system you're using for short refs as opposed to long ones. I see some articles in the References section too (not just books), though others are listed in long form in the footnotes. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is OK if a source is a just a website that can be linked to directly to just have it in the footnote, but if a source requires significant bibliographic information (author, publisher, ISBN number, or journal, issue number, page numbers etc.) or if the source is going to cited multiple times I have tried to move the source to references to keep the footnote section as compact and uncluttered as possible. I have also used the harvnb template as much as possible so that you can click on the footnote and see the reference. However, some other folks have added footnotes containing sources during this FAC preocess that I would be inclined to move to refs. The one that stands out to me is the Torrens article in the Oxford online dictionary of national biography that someone has added in a footnote, which I think should be listed as a reference. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also the Dickens piece should appear in the reference section as well. If noone beats me to it I will take care of this tonight when I get home from work. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've not been able to work out what your system is, so I didn't know what to do when adding refs myself. The usual thing is: (1) having everything in short form in the footnotes and long form in References; (2) everything in long form in the footnotes, and everything repeated in a References section or no References section at all because repetitive; or (3) books in short form in the footnotes and in long form in References, and everything else long form in the footnotes and not mentioned in the References. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I couldn't see the problem even with IE (I just switched to Firefox a couple of months ago), but I realize the problem might be IE version specific so I have replaced the Quote Box with a Quotation template. Hopefully this will avoid the problem. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for withdrawal from the nominator. While the article has improved greatly during this cycle, and most of the comments have been addressed. There have been some valid concerns raised on the talk page about how inconsistencies in some of the sources have been handled. It will probably take some time because of the necessary research and discussion to resolve these properly, and it is not helpful to try and do so with the time pressure of an active FAC. Therefore I would like to withdraw this nomination, and come back and try again in a few weeks, after all the editors involved have had a chance to come to a consensus on how to handle some of these conflicts between various sources.Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:23, 26 September 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/Mary_Anning/archive1&oldid=1048167283"