Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Reginald Heber/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 GrahamColm 09:16, 12 August 2012 [1].

Reginald Heber edit

Featured article candidates/Reginald Heber/archive1

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heber, whose name is all but unknown in the 21st century, was a significant Anglican presence in the early 1800s; had he lived longer he may have become one of the Church's leading figures. As it is, overwork and the the Indian climate did for him at the age of 42. He was highly regarded in his time; if you doubt this, see the size of the memorial his chums had built for him in St Paul's Cathedral. This article is part of my (very) occasional "forgotten figures" series, dealing with people whose personal mark has been largely obliterated by history (see also Talbot Baines Reed, Peter Heywood etc). There could be more... Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A really good article which makes everything very clear and seems comprehensive. A few minor points, which may be more about personal preferences, but none affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"He also wrote hymns, of which a few subsequently became staples in church hymnals for several generations.": A little heavy here, perhaps. Maybe: "Several hymns that he wrote subsequently became staples in church hymnals" as I'm not sure "several generations" is necessary, but I'm not too sure about "hymns…hymnals". Compositions?

I've adopted your suggested wording and lost the "generations". A hymnal is simply a book of hymns Brianboulton (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"practical conditions" seems a little vague; maybe "living conditions"?
"Modern commentators assert that although Heber's example and writings inspired many of his own and future generations to devote their lives to the mission fields, his paternalism and imperial assumptions appear outdated and generally unacceptable in the modern world.": Unless I missed something, the inspiration of others does not really come across in the main body, and the more negative aspects only seem to refer to his hymn writing, rather than life in general.

I need to consult the sources again, to get some clarification here. Brianboulton (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point, but do we know why his father married twice?
"Heber's brother Richard was currently a fellow of the college": Another minor one, but not sure "currently" is the best word here. I always prefer "at the time" as currently seems to suggest the present. But not really a problem.
the 17th century cleric Jeremy Taylor": Should something here be hyphenated?
"the singing of hymns in churches, other than metrical psalms, was officially disapproved": Probably worth specifying here who constitutes officialdom as it may not be clear for everyone.
"Heber, according to the poet John Betjeman, was…": As it is not immediately obvious, maybe say in what context Betjeman commented here, otherwise it is not clear why the poet would be an authority on Heber.
"In the modern world the words of this hymn seem patronising and insensitive to other beliefs…": Editorial voice?

No, it's Betjeman again; I've made that clear now. Brianboulton (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the critical paragraph about his hymns, could some examples that Betjeman and Watson use be included? Or is it not worth it?

By "examples", do you mean quotes from the hymns? I'm not sure what they would add; besides, the full text of "From Greenland's Icy Mountains" is available via an external link, and "Holy, Holy, Holy" has a WP link. Brianboulton (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"including that of Abdul Masih, an elderly Lutheran whose reception into Anglican orders incurred some opposition." Opposition from who? Sarastro1 (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. These are all good points to which I shall attend a little later today. Brianboulton (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Later: all above done, except per comments. I still giving attention to one. Brianboulton (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support had my say at the PR. Excellent article, well worth promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Wehwalt. I great little article and a complete joy to read. -- Cassianto^Talk.

Thanks to both of the above, who were significant and helpful contributors to the peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - enjoyable and easy read. Interesting too, btw. A few very tiny nit-picks: Christmas is linked but Easter not; Ganges should be linked I think; M.A. with punctuation but DD not. Not much else to say, except job well-done. Oh, I wondered about the children; he was married for a long time before the first child was born, and I wondered whether the sources mention anything about that or even if it's relevant. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the support. The minor fixes, links etc, are done. As to children, yes, 8 or 9 years was an unusually long interval in those days between marriage and first child, but none of the sources give any reason for this. Miscarriages were extremely common then, so maybe one or two of those? But that cannot be verified. Brianboulton (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

FN80: formatting

Sometimes it helps if you indicate the problem. Then I know whether I've fixed it or not!

Where is Worthing?
Check for doubled periods caused by templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All fixed (I think) Brianboulton (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - as requested, I have looked at the images used in the article and they are all freely licensed, being either PD through age (published in the early 1900s) or freely licensed images of places taken in modern times. I did not have a chance to carefully read the article (yet). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure of that, Ruhrfisch. Well, OK, I am, but the documentation on File:Reginald Heber - Project Gutenberg eText 18444.jpg may need fixing. I'm not sure but I think the country of origin will be the UK and so the file should be tagged appropriately. No idea of the country of origin of File:GreenlandsIcyMountains.jpg either, but possibly either. It's taken from the web, which also doesn't identify it I don't think. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear that I did my proper due diligence at the time of my review, the Heber portrait (first image) is from an edition of the book that was published in New York (USA) in 1906, while the hymn (second image) is clearly identified as from a book published in Philadelphia in the US in 1899, which makes both PD US, which makes them both free for Wikipedia. I will clean up the Heber portrait documentation further. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, one was my error and the other you've now documented (it should be possible to verify the copyright licence from the file description). No concerns remain. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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