Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert Howard Hodgkin/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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 27 December 2021 [1].

Robert Howard Hodgkin edit

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Howard Hodgkin is best known not for what he accomplished during his career, but for what came at its end. After spending more than a generation writing it, he placed one of the first histories of Anglo-Saxons into the hands of both general and academic readers. Two years later (and five days into retirement), he reemerged to take on the role of provost at Queen's College, Oxford, after the previous officeholder died in a plane crash. In his second retirement, Hodgkin produced his second book: a six-century history of the college. And so did Hodgkin—son of a banker-cum-historian, father-in-law of a Nobel winner, uncle of another—etch his name in the annals of his family's so-called "Quaker dynasty."

This article was created in 2017; a green circle graced its top right corner two years later, following a review by J Milburn. Since then, and thanks in large part to an obscure but comprehensive book on Hodgkin, the article has been expanded nearly threefold. It is now ready for its turn here. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 17:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley edit

Some minor points about the prose:

  • Lead
  • "historian of modern history" – the repetition of historian/history is infelicitous. And are the Anglo-Saxons regarded as "modern history"? (Question asked from the standpoint of my complete ignorance.)
  • Good point, completely missed that. I've deleted the "of modern history". According to the relevant article, modern history began well after the time of the Anglo-Saxons. This is explained, I think, because while Hodgkin taught modern history, his research into Anglo-Saxon England reflected more of a side interest; a number of reminiscences of him mention how his work on the Anglo-Saxons was mostly a rumor before his book was published. (e.g., Hodgkin et al. 1955, p. 66: "As undergraduates, most of his pupils knew little of his private studies and historical work. There were rumours of 'the Anglo-Saxons' being in the background, but for us they were very much in the background, and became part of the legendary activities which pupils associate with dons. When his History of the Anglo-Saxons appeared we realised how much more there had been in the background than we had dreamed.") --Usernameunique (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hodgkin was the son … Hodgkin matriculated … Hodgkin volunteered" – a pronoun or two might relieve the repetitions of the name.
  • "ultimately led to him being forced to leave the Society of Friends" – is it painfully pedantic to observe that this fused participle ought to be "his being" – a gerund with the possessive?
  • "In 1904, he was made a fellow, in 1910 a tutor, and from 1928 to 1934 he held the post of" – the AmE-style comma after a date is becoming regrettably common in English usage, but if you must use it, oughtn't it to be used three times in this sentence, for the sake of consistency?
  • I prefer no year-following commas to three of them, so removed it. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "B. H. Streeter fell ill, then resumed teaching" – it's asking a bit much of "then" to press it into service as a conjunction in formal English.
  • Most of us, I think, use words like "then" and "so" as conjunctions in informal speech, but in encyclopaedic prose it is better, in my view, to stick to traditionally recognised conjunctions, adding "and" or "but" or suchlike before a "then" or a "so". I am, however, an old codger and younger editors may disagree with me. The latest edition of Fowler is fairly relaxed about "so" used as a conjunction, though it doesn't give "then" the nod. Tim riley talk 09:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for two significant works" – Gowers has these wise words on that adjective: This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large … it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?
  • Early life and education
  • "In his first year at Bamburgh, Hodgkin's father became acquainted with Arthur Smith" – I don't think this says what you mean it to say. It was presumably RH's first year, and not his father's.
  • Fixed: "In Hodgkin's first year at Bamburgh, his father..." --Usernameunique (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "once per fortnight" – on the generally sound precept "prefer good English to bad Latin" it might be well to make this "once a fortnight".
  • "Per diem" or "per mensem" is good Latin for daily or monthly; I don't, to be honest, know what the Latin for "fortnight" is but it certainly isn't "fortnight". (I've now looked it up and it seems to be "quindecim [dies]"). But why use Latin at all when a shorter, crisper English alternative is to hand? Tim riley talk 09:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second Boer War
  • "due to his military service" – In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
  • Career
  • "On May 19, 1904" – unexpected date format in a BrE article. Not wrong, by any means, but rather strange looking, and you use the more familiar form "On 6 August 1908" later on.
  • ""signpost[] the roads and tracks"" – not sure what the empty square brackets are for.
  • They're to indicate an alteration. The source reads "His method as a tutor was thus suggestive rather than purely instructional, and, having signposted the roads and tracks, he would often leave his pupils to explore for themselves." --Usernameunique (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I've ever run across that exact usage before. It makes perfect sense now you explain it, though I'm not sure how many of your readers will be familiar with the construction or understand its - dare I say? - significance?. Tim riley talk 09:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • First World War
  • "watched the college population gradually dwindle as people were accepted for service" – men are undeniably "people" but the latter looks a bit odd in the context of an all-male college.
  • Changed to "as its members were". I take your point, but its possible that there were female staff/faculty members who also left to serve, hence the initial use of the gender-neutral "people". --Usernameunique (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his four years of service was primarily spent" – plural subject with singular verb
  • "in coastal defense" – why use the American spelling rather than the English "defence"?
  • Return to Queen's College
  • "who joined Queens" – Queen's or Queens?
  • "Due in large part to the sabbatical" – another "due to" pressed into service as a compound preposition.
  • "Hodgkin had spent around two years looking for a retirement home, such that" – "such" seems strange here. For an adverbial use like this one might expect "so that".
  • Provostship
  • "who likely saw his office as a trusteeship" – although a plain "likely" in this sense is good AmE it is not good BrE. "Probably" is the idiomatic form. (Curiously, as The Guardian's style guide points out, when modified by an adverb, "likely" becomes normal English usage.)
  • References
  • Ref 35 is in need of first aid.

Those are my few comments on the prose. The content looks fine to me: well and widely referenced, balanced and easily comprehensible. – Tim riley talk 15:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim riley. I always enjoy your reviews, not least because I inevitably walk away having learned something. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria. It is well written, well and widely sourced, balanced, and, I suppose, as well illustrated as possible (though couldn't a picture of Queen's be found? It wouldn't tell the reader all that much about Hodgkin, admittedly, but would break up the prose; I do not press the point). I look forward to seeing the article featured on our front page. Tim riley talk 15:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Wehwalt edit

  • "In 1894, meanwhile, Hodgkin and his sisters Lily and Ellen were taken by their father to Italy, where they spent time in Milan, Florence, Rome, Naples, Ravenna, and Vienna.[19]" This makes it sound like Vienna is in Italy.
  • " Saint Petersburg before travelling down the Volga and exploring the Caucasus," Would it be preferable to say "up the Volga" as they were going upstream?
  • Can it be made clearer why he was not called upon to serve in South Africa if he joined the service in 1900? Was this regiment eligible to serve outside the UK?
  • I've been able to find next to no details of his Second Boer War service, except that it forced him to leave the Quakers. Given how he seemed to have plenty of time to pursue his other interests, however, it may have been something more akin to his time with the Ilmington Home Guard than to his World War I service. Some searching (1; 2), however, suggests that not many from the 1st Volunteer Battalion Northumberland Fusiliers went to South Africa, and of those who did, most or all volunteered to do so. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know the Volunteer Force were not required to serve outside the UK before the Army was reorganised in 1907. It may be that what he served in formed part of that. Our article on his regiment mentions volunteer battalions, and I note a V.B. in what you wrote.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and (from 1917 to 1919[48])" I have the vague impression that footnotes are to go outside of parentheses.
  • I would think inside, since the citation supports only the material inside the parentheses, but am happy to be proven incorrect. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bradmore Road is linked on second usage.
  • Does Oliver Franks need a second link in the final paragraph?
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Wehwalt. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

I didn't do a thorough spot check except for some of the sources cited in the bibliography. Source #107 says that Betty was 11 not 12 as the article claims and I am not sure what information #112 supports in the sentence cited to it. Is #101 a reliable source?

It seems like the sources are reasonably formatted - save for Ferry 2014 which has no page numbers, and Magoun 1954 which JSTOR has 1952 - and have the necessary information. Andy Croft is being used as a source for some lightweight claims but are they a reliable source?

Is it just me or are there more sources about his book than about him? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed age of Betty Hodgkin. She was 11 years and 11 months (per Wolfers, she was born on 8 October 1915 and died on 8 September 1927).
  • Source #112 (namely footnote 17 therein) supports the fact that the poem was about Betty Hodgkin, which is not obvious from the face of the poem.
  • The above two are the only sources for which Croft is used. The first is backed up by Wolfers (who has the specific dates), and the second is I think reliable given that Swingler was the specific subject of Croft's research, and the source is being used simply to identify the subject of Swinger's poem.
  • #101 doesn't support any information in the article, it's just a nice link to follow for someone looking to see what the house looks like.
  • Ferry 2014 is a placeholder—I'm trying to get my hands on the physical book, but have just seen the Google Books version so far, which (as it's formatted from the e-reader version) doesn't have page numbers.
  • I'm not seeing where JSTOR lists Magoun as 1952; JSTOR 2853872 gives it as January 1954.
  • There are definitely a lot of reviews cited—pretty much every review I could get my hands on. But Hodgkin et al. 1955 is a 99-page book with information on Hodgkin by 19 separate people, and there are a number of works on Hodgkin's family members (e.g., Wolfers's 2007 book on Thomas Lionel Hodgkin) which contain a lot of information on him as well.
Thanks for taking a look, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ROBERT HOWARD HODGKIN, A History of the Anglo-Saxons. Third edition. Oxford University Press, 1952. Two volumes. Vol. I: pp. [xxxiil+[1I, 381i; Vol. II: pp. xii, 383-796, with plates, figures, and maps. Cloth. is the part of the JSTOR that says 1952. The reason why I wonder about the reviews is because if the book is better known/more frequently described than the author, an article about the book seems to be warranted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, the book is from 1952, but the review is from 1954. The book could no doubt sustain its own article—it probably meets both criteria 1 and 4 of the notability standards for books—but that is a project for another day. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Mike Christie edit

  • "Following preparatory and boarding school": if you're not going to name them, I don't see the point of saying this in the lead -- of course he had schooling before college.
  • "a role he would reprise": "role" seems the wrong word for a military career.
  • Is there a possible link for "pro-provost"? I'd never heard the term. A Google search gave me a very specific definition for UCL's pro-provost but I doubt that's what this means. Later in the lead you describe him as provost, rather than pro-provost, so I wonder if the term just means interim provost.
    I'm not sure what pro-provost would link to, although I've added a clarifying citation to the statutes of the college. Pro-provost appears to be a temporary role, bringing with it the powers of the provost, used only when the provost is unable to exercise his duties. According to the 1877 statutes of the college, "The Provost shall be required to reside in the College seven calendar months at least in each year, whereof seven weeks at least shall be in each Term ...: Provided that in case of the Provost's sickness, or for any other urgent cause, it shall be lawful for the Visitor to dispense with the Provost's residence for such a period as the case may appear to the Visitor to require: Provided also, that if the Visitor dispenses with the Provost's residence for a period of one or more Terms, of if the Provost being resident shall be through sickness temporarily incapable of performing his duties for one or more Terms, the Provost and fellows may nominate one of the Fellows to act as Pro-Provost, who shall during the absence or sickness of the Provost perform the functions and exercise the powers of the Provost." While Edward Armstrong was pro-provost for well more than a decade (1911–1927), this appears to have been a special circumstance, and not one that the college was keen on. Per Armstrong's obituary, this occurred because "Dr. Magrath in 1911 resigned his functions as Provost, though not the title". And per the article on Magrath, "Having been reclusive for the last ten years of his provostship, seen only by the servant that brought him his meals, Magrath's refusal to participate in college affairs led the college to seek to get rid of him". --Usernameunique (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a footnote then? Saying something like "The college's statutes allowed for a pro-provost to be appointed, to act as provost when the holder of the position was unable to perform their duties", and cited to the statute? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a footnote. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest moving at least some of the contents of note 1 into the body text, since you later quote his sister referring to him as Robin, without explanation.
  • I'm not sure there's an elegant way to work it in, particularly since the attribution ("Per his wife") would introduce yet another person (not to mention one from much later) into a paragraph already filled with names. But "[note 1]" is fairly noticeable already, and the nickname "Robin" is given in bold in the lead. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd avoid using "matriculated" for entering Repton -- I think most people who even know the word think it refers only to entering university, so as you phrase it it sounds like Repton is a college.
  • "one sister speculated, was possibly": seems redundant to have both "speculated" and "possibly".
  • "at the end of 1893, the family sold Benwell Dene": the article on Benwell Dene says it was donated, not sold; just checking that your source specifically says it was sold.
    I'd noticed that discrepancy too, especially as some sources also say it was donated. But the source used is both close to Thomas Hodgkin (it's largely a book of his letters), and specifically says the house was sold. It's possible the considerable grounds were donated (they became a park), or that the house was sold cheaply, given the intended use. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck; your source is much better than the one in the article on the house. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was proxime for the Stanhope essay prize": suggest glossing "proxime".
  • "For years, Hodgkin spent vacations working at the history of Anglo-Saxon England": since this is the first mention in the body, I would avoid "the"; perhaps "working on a history" or "writing a history".
  • "Hodgkin and his wife were then only a month removed from the death of their daughter": since we haven't mentioned any children at all to this point, I would mention the death before giving the information about the sabbatical.
  • "Hodgkin finished his first major work, A History of the Anglo-Saxons, in 1933": we've mentioned the book earlier in this section so I think it would be natural to make the connection here. Something like this might work" "Hodgkin finished the book he had been working on for so long in 1933: titled A History of the Anglo-Saxons, it was his first major work", though I'm sure that could be improved.
  • Changed to "Owing in large part to the sabbatical, Hodgkin finally finished A History of the Anglo-Saxons, his first major work, in 1933". --Usernameunique (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Much of the first two years was spent with committees, guests, and socialising": suggest "and in socialising".
    • "in socialising" sounds off to me, though I've now read it and "with socialising" so many times that both just sound weird. Tim riley, do you have any thoughts on this? --Usernameunique (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Grammatically the sentence is fine as it stands. Adding "in" before socialising would be fine too, but you'd need to change "committees, guests" to "committees and guests", I think. Whether the acquisition of "in" is worth a repeated "and" is for you to say. Tim riley talk 08:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, Tim riley. I think I'd prefer to stick with it as is. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          Tim, what I was concerned about was that it implies "was spent with socialising", which isn't a construction I've ever seen used -- it would normally be "it was spent in socialising". Are you saying that "with socialising" is acceptable in British English, or that the construction doesn't require parallel application of the preposition to each of the terms in the list? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          What sounds most correct to me (AmE) is "was spent socialising". This construction adding with does not seem correct to me. I would rephrase: "was spent socialising, with guests, or in committees". (t · c) buidhe 21:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          buidhe's wording looks good to me. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I can see. All minor points, and I look forward to supporting once they are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Mike Christie. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, further comments addressed. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@WP:FAC coordinators: Not to rush, but just a friendly heads up that all issues have been addressed. Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support edit

Recusing to leave some comments here, I don't expect there to be many

  • ""signpost[] the roads and tracks"" - something has gone wrong here with the brackets
  • This makes total sense after reading that explanation up there, although I don't believe I've ever seen this usage before, either.
  • "As a teacher, Hodgkin was remembered for being "suggestive rather than purely instructive", offering signposts for "the roads and tracks" but "leav[ing] his pupils to explore for themselves"" - this is in the lead, but the body attributes this to the opinion of a single student. I'm not sure the phrasing in the lead is appropriate, as we are saying this in wikivoice, when this is only the opinion of a single student.
  • Fair enough. It's now "As a teacher, Hodgkin was remembered by a student for being..." --Usernameunique (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " split nearly equally between Northumberland (1915), Herne Bay in Kent (1916–1917), and (from 1917 to 1919[48])" - It's unclear what is supposed to be sourced to what, as ref 48 does not mention Herne Bay or the 1915 or 1916-1917 date ranges
  • "Hodgkin was unofficially selected at a meeting on 22 September, and officially elected on 5 October; his six days spent as an ordinary fellow set a record for brevity," - I'm struggling to figure out what these six days are; this seems to be the only mention of ordinary fellow in the article
  • His resignation was effective 29 September, so add six days and that brings us to 5 October. Per the source, "The resignation of his Fellowship became effective on September 29th: on October 5th, he was elected Provost, having held an Ordinary Fellowship for six days, a record for brevity." I read "ordinary fellow" not as an official title (the title, I think, is just "fellow"), but as a distinction from, say, "senior official fellow", a title which was presumably knocked down to "fellow" upon retirement. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can this be explained a bit better in the article? I think even just noting that the resignation was effective on 29 September would help, as where the six days is coming from is more obvious that way. Hog Farm Talk 14:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarified. It's now mentioned twice, but as the first mention is in the preceding section (see the last sentence thereof), I can see how it gets missed. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm Talk 07:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hog Farm. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, replied above. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2021 (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/Robert_Howard_Hodgkin/archive1&oldid=1062355188"