Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William T. Stearn/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2017 [1].

---

William T. Stearn

Nominator(s): Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Introduction

This article is about a distinguished British botanist. Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC) This is the most complete biography of this scientist available to date. In context, there have been only four botanists that have reached FA status to date, and none since 2006. For comparison, they are listed here.

• Charles Darwin
• G. Ledyard Stebbins
• Barbara McClintock
• Georg Forster

• Support I had the opportunity to comment on this excellent article before it came here. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• Conditional Support A really incredible article. It's recently passed GA so, despite a close inspection, I was unable to find much to critique it on, nor reason to oppose its elevation to FA. Particularly notable here is the exceptionally thorough bibliography. The only issue I see is that there are no ALT tags on the images. With that correction, and resolution of the issues outlined by Nikkimaria, I would entirely support this as a FA. DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I am unsure what is intended here, since running the Alt text tool shows that all images have an alt text. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Michael Goodyear you're right, my apologies. I'm not sure what happened. I had two tabs open simultaneously and I must have pasted the wrong article name when I ran the Alt text tool myself. DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

We have all done it! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments to Nikkimaria added below --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• 1. File:William_Thomas_Stearn.jpg: suggest {{non-free biog-pic}} rather than current tag

Done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• 2. Images are tending to the tiny side, and see WP:IMGSIZE regarding fixed px sizes

True in principle but I was concerned to make images match text. I allowed image size to float, but the Awards images did travel outside the section - my only recourse therefore was to switch to horizontal. I hope that is ok. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• 3. File:Cambridgeshire_High_School_for_Boys_1900.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?

That's always an issue - clearly one cannot prove this. Therefore one has to use common sense. The image is a professional one and therefore likely to be taken by an adult. It is highly unlikely that any professional photographer alive in 1900 is still alive in 2017? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually I have now identified the author and added it to the file page. It might be a struggle to look for their obituary though.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It is true that the author is certainly now dead, but the issue is whether they were dead 70 years ago - it is quite possible for someone who was an adult in 1900 to still have been alive in 1947. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes I see, obviously very difficult to prove one way or another.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Life expectancy of males in England in 1900 was 47 (Office of National Statistics). So it is "reasonably certain" that an adult male alive in 1900 had died by 1947. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons has just finished an RfC that concluded that where author date of death is unknown, we should use creation+120 as a cutoff for life+70 works - although that issue is still under discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

So I see, although there is consideration of a case by case basis. There is a difference between unknown and presumed. A common sense analysis might suggest that it is unlikely anyone owns the copywrite to a photograph taken by a photographer for a Stationary Store that turned it into a postcard in 1900 when it was built. That store is no longer in business. It would be extremely unlikely that it has any commercial value. I see that some of the discussion used the premise that the photographer was at least 20 years old in 1900, as did I.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

An extensive search of the Cambridge archives suggests this is most likely Harry S Driver (1877–1947), although one cannot be 100% certain. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you feel then that this is likely to have been a corporation-owned copyright? If it were held by Driver, life+70 wouldn't apply until the end of the year. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

So it would seem - unless the school that exists on that site now owns the copywrite, since they have used it on a website - I could check. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Letter sent --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• 4. File:GoulandrisMuseum.jpg: see here

Well it is a maybe. But also the author (Spiridon Ion Cepleanu), who is now elderly, has expressly made this public. Did you have any specific suggestions? It strikes me that it falls under "shall be permissible". --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The issue here is the architecture, not the photo - the freedom of panorama issue is unclear. Hopefully there are sources available to clarify, or the building is PD otherwise? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

So it remains a maybe? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I could discuss it with the Museum staff, since I assume that if FOP is not applicable, the Museum would hold the copywrite and could grant permission for use --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Letter sent --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• 5. File:Medaille-Linnaeus.jpg needs a US PD tag and more information to verify the current tag

Tag added, but I agree we have no source, and although widely used on Wikimedia, I can find no original source. The author is Valérie Chansigaud who has uploaded a lot if images to Commons, but I see some questions have been raised about her license tags. It is possible of course that it is her own work, but I cannot prove it. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

If you feel that it is unusable, this image is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share Alike CC BY-NC-SA Licence, could be substituted? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately no - see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Non-commercial_licenses. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

But it does say may be used on English Wikipedia? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The artefact was created in 1888 - see discussion under #6 --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Licence adjusted to {{PD-1923}} --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• 6. File:Order_of_the_North_Star,_Grand_Cross_(Sweden)_-_Fram_Museum.jpg: what is the status of the original work? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are looking for precisely here. The author made it PD, and is an active contributor of images. I also see many images from this museum on Commons. Is the question what permission did the museum give the author to photograph and reproduce the artifacts? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

My question is, what is the copyright status of the artifact itself, as opposed to the photo? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm unsure how one could establish that, other than writing to the museum perhaps.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The museum would only hold copyright if they either created the work themselves or had some copyright arrangement with the original copyright holder. In most cases someone who is not the copyright holder donates the artifact; the museum owns it, but not the copyright on its design. It's likely that has now expired, but you'd need to verify when the design originated. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The artefact was created in 1748. Does that help? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that would mean PD-1923 would apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Licence adjusted to {{PD-1923}} --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Up to now I have tended to trust the licensing on Commons. I don't profess to be an expert on image licensing and I am happy to defer to those who are. It seems to me that most of these issues are unresolvable, for instance proving the death date of the of the photographer, or the copywrite status of a museum artefact. The council of perfection I suppose is to delete all images that are disputed? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Generally, if we cannot be reasonably certain an image is free we should assume it is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

So it comes down to a definition of "reasonably certain" --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Issues reduced to 2: Images 3 and 4. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Other reviews

• Support A remarkable man, and an outstanding article, well written, extensively cited, clear in his greatness without losing neutrality and elegantly structured. I made a few c-edits, and have one quibble. In Early Years - a new species of Allium (A. farreri Stearn, 1930) - it should be noted that this species was later merged back into another species, by Stearn himself. Still, thank you to all the writers and reviewers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually that last point is discussed in Note h. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so it was. Very good, carry on. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support WRT prose and comprehensiveness. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we can request a source review (unless I missed one) at WT:FAC now. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Conditional Support by Lingzhi

• Nary a single page number anywhere? Reason for this?... I'm adding the Oppose (per 1c) here because I suddenly remembered an incident in which a FAC coordinator closed a FAC when I was barely started finding flaws...I don't want the coord to miss my remarks. But I am very open to withdrawing my Oppose if things get straightened out somehow.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that for every citation, you want the exact page number in the source that is being referred to? If so that will balloon the reference section, already at 131 entries, considerably. However I will take a look and see to what extent that would make the article any more useful. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Many sources don't have page numbers, because they are web resources (e.g. 1, 3-8). Many are articles, for instance citation 2 is used 22 times and is a 17 page article so that would likely add 17 more lines. Others are very short articles like 9, which has 3 pages, or 10, 18 (1), 15 (2), 17 (4). Others like 19-20 refer to the work as a whole, because it is a publication by the author and pagination is immaterial. So it is a question as whether 1c is actually improved by exact page numbers within articles every time they are mentioned? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Not for sources that don't have page numbers. :-) If there are no page numbers (web source, forex), then of course you do not/cannot add individual page numbers. If an entire journal article is some arbitrarily short length (two pages? three pages?), then you don't need individual page numbers. Beyond that arbitrary minimum, pages are a Good Thing. Wikipedia's referencing needs are not the same as journals in the relevant field. No one's professional reputation is at stake here, and neither readers nor reviewers are necessarily knowledgeable in the relevant field. So... for any source longer than... three pages?... that has numbered pages, page numbers are a good thing.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I will look into examples further. In other situations, eg 23, 25, 28 where books are cited without pagination it is because, they are primary sources, and the secondary sources which are more easily retrieved, are provided, the primary sources being cited for readers wishing to delve more deeply. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(←) If you're adding something "for readers who want to probe more deeply," then perhaps a footnote would be in order rather than a citation.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been over all the citations carefully, several times, and have added page numbers to references where I believe they would be helpful. Most of the pagination is contained in the bibliography, but the bulk of the citations are to works in their entirety, principally the canon of the subject. As mentioned above I'm not sure it would be helpful to add a page number on each occasion to those articles (principally obituaries and tributes) where nearly every page is cited. I trust this meets your concerns. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Nolo contendere on the page numbers, as per WP:AGF. Oppose stricken. Many of the citation templates etc. are handled in a notably complex and nonstandard manner, e.g., {{cite book|last1=Stearn|first1=W. T.|title=Botanical gardens and botanical literature in the eighteenth century|date=1961|pages=xli–cxl|ref=harv}}, in {{harvtxt|Hunt et al.|1958–1961}} vol. 2 (instead of "|chapter=") and nonstandard cite webs etc. I pity the poor n00b who tries to edit through that kind of tangle. Looking on the bright side, I very seriously doubt that any n00b will do any serious editing to an article about William T. Stearn.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

For that reason in the past I have added helpful comments to the references as a guide to the citation style in use, to encourage uniformity. Actually determining what is "standard" when it comes to WP citation is no easy task. One important point is to at least ensure uniformity. Keeping chapters and multiauthored texts separate has many advantages, particularly in portability. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I agree about keeping chapters and multi-authored texts separate. I was suggesting, forex, that the above should have been something more like my test edits here  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

So I saw. However, I think I will revert, at least pro tem because that is concatenating chapter and text, and duplicates unless one deletes the latter. You will find that in previous articles I avoided any confusion by keeping Chapters in a separate part of the bibliography. The trouble here is that the bibliography is already curated by subject. I will play around with the idea a bit. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Style

(←) OK then. Waiting for your next word on the subject.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I reorganised the bibliography to make this clearer. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks nicer. I just noticed the footnotes, which I earlier said didn't exist. The refs section is huge & complex. But... what can you do? I think it works.

Optional cosmetic note #1: If you wish, bunched sfns can be consolidated using {{sfnm}}. So all instances similar to this: "the title of his biography of Linnaeus.[17][118][134]" would become more like "the title of his biography of Linnaeus.[108]" (or some number; the enumeration would change). If you find that appealing, I could whip up a thing to do it in a jiffy. But if that doesn't appeal, then the way it is now is fine too.

Optional cosmetic note #2: Wherever you have name/date followed by cites (like "Walters (1992)[17] and Heywood (2002)[2]"), you could use {{harvtxt}}.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Also adding Comments to assist other editors in view of your n00b concerns. More later --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Navigation Comments now in References and Bibliography.

Note 1. I haven't used that template but I have tried to edit articles with bundled references, which were a pain. I can see that cosmetically there are less numbers in the displayed text, but that is offset by longer footnotes which detracts from the advantages of "short" footnotes. I also wonder about ease of maintenance. Know any good examples using this? I might try a test edit.

Tried it. I think it has a place - maybe where there is a natural pairing --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Note 2. Might try a test edit - not sure how often that exists - will check - thanks --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Substituted those two - but seem to be only two examples --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• I put a test version with {{sfnm}} in a personal sandbbox page; you can see if you like it. It actually increases the reference count from 143 to 166 by spreading them out; forex "^{abcdefghijklmnopqrstu}Prance 2014" becomes "^abcdePrance 2014"... Moreover, " and fields.[2][6][7]" becomes " and fields.[7]" etc.
• Because it's in userspace, categories and some metadata templates were removed from the bottom of the page, and {{good article}} was removed from the top. I also haven't gone over it with a magnifying glass to look for errors caused by my program... (ah there's an error with Hara et al; fixed it manually).

Obviously I have no objection if you really think it will help. On the other hand clearly I am (1) concerned about introducing errors, and (2) making sure whenever you do this it incorporates any recent edits I have added. I have no idea how your programme works, but I notice that if the intent was to remove multiple citation numbers from the displayed text, then it clearly missed quite a few, or was it based on "more than two" - I had tried to make 3 the limit. While admittedly I don't like seeing 20 letters before a reference, the downside is that it produces a fairly dense Reference section, and it is harder to find things and maintain. Swings and Roundabouts. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It's 100% cosmetic. I personally find the multiple boxes^[1][2][3] very distracting and annoying when I read – looks cluttered – but many people don't notice or don't care. There is one editor in particular who (among several other things) is well known for explaining at length why he thinks {{sfnm}} is evil.... Ah, there are some multiple citations together because yuo've mixed {{sfn}} with named refs<ref name="Foo" />. I don't believe I'd ever seen that done before, so the possibility hadn't occurred to me. I could program around it, but since it seems to be a special case, it would be better to revise them manually (if desired). The program would use the latest version of the article as its input. I haven't seen any other errors; would check. But again, all is cosmetic and so a matter of choice/taste.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

And that's the problem - it always comes down to personal choices which vary considerably. I looked over a random sample of Biography FAs and its all over the shop - and often not all that well done. The mixture of sfn and <ref> came from a decision at the Plant Project where I wrote most of the style guidance, that sfn|loc=url defeats the purpose of not cluttering wikitext, so those were made <ref>. See Comments at the top of References and Bibliography. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• what does this mean: "particularly when he was younger.this period, also published in the new"

Obviously gobbledygook. I traced it back to a browser crash - which inserted a fragment from a phrase a few paragraphs earlier. Fixed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• While I was fixing the error my program made with hara et al., I noticed that "An Enumeration of the Flowering Plants of Nepal" is mentioned twice, with different capitalization.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Clearly not ideal - must have happened when earlier block was split into separate sections. I removed the second one. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• why is ""a small man, his pink face topped with a thatch of white hair" a part of his legacy?
• why is "wumpty" a part of his legacy?

Yes, I scratched my head over that one. A lot of his biographers write about the man - his characteristics and appearance. I tried to minimise such content, fascinating as it was - but hadn't yet come up with a better idea of where to place such references. Any thoughts? (its in legacy right now because that is what people say they remember --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we should just lose the cute pink face. It doesn't seem particularly distinctive (many people can be described similarly). The wumpty could be tossed out or could be kept somewhere, but not kept in Legacy. IMO.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Again I pulled out a random sample of FA bios and checked the project page - no consistency. Walt Disney has a separate section on personality - others put something in Biography, but absolutely no consistency. With a bit of thought I could probably pull together a separate section. But everyone comments on his remarkable personality --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Separate section is OK. Fitting it in somewhere else relevant is OKtoo. But in legacy... maybe a stretch.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry but I got a small chuckle when I saw Stearn ranked coequal with the Hookers (go ahead, click the link. Unwl.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk)

I have no idea - it does not seem to have been vandalism, and its been there since the beginning - it does not make sense to wl the surname and fornames. Thanks. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Stafleau isn't British. Drop Stafleau or recast sentence.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't the implication hence the comma - and nor was Linnaeus - but if you think that's how people will read it I will recast --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• You can't wl Linnaeus' book as if it offered support for the idea that Stearn was honored for his work on Linnaeus. Unwl.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not following this one since I'm not sure where you are pointing - maybe I will find it amongst your ces. All I can think of is that maybe you are referring to Stearn's edited version of the Linnaean text? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

As I thought - fixed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Am copy editing from the bottom up (as always). Will take time. Revert if/when/where you wish.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I did notice you have been rather busy - maybe I should stay away from it till you have finished --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Right now would be a good time to do your work. I'm probably on the opposite side of the world from you, or at least halfway. Bedtime approaches.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Eastern Canada - And you? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC) - Ah, thanks --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Extensive ce reviewed - minor tweaks added --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Botanical taxonomy

• "Stearn played an active part in the ..." perhaps a candidate for the Legacy section. Judgment call... yes, the more I look at it, the more I think it could well be moved.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, but on the other hand it also makes more sense to keep subject matter together - maybe add "continuing". legacy implies something posthumous. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Due to the illness of F.J. Chittenden, and through the good offices of Bowles and together with Gilmour" You may wanna consider the possibility that this is inside baseball (metaphor)... I commented it out.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The phrasing could be more felicitous. On the other hand it brings together several major influences on his career - I had to actually write - or considerably upgrade a number of biographies in order to bring them into this article. I will have another look once I have reviewed all the ces. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ditto for "upon the death of then secretary Chittenden"  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Ditto "again chaired by Camp"  Lingzhi ♦ (talk)

It may be baseball, but then maybe the article is aimed at baseball players. Those interested in a biography of Stearn are likely to be those interested in the institutions he worked in, the lives of his colleagues over his life, the history of botany, and of UK botanical gardens. These would be arguments for retention of pertinent details as to how these intercept. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• "he described its history back to 1864 in his 1952 paper" OK, I commented this one out too, but for a completely different reason, as a completely different kind of case. The other details I commented out (described above) should be deleted outright, in my opinion. They are not about Stearn. This "history to 1864" could be left in because it actually is about Stearn, but it breaks the logic of the passage. I think it should be footnoted. However, there are 3 references directly after it (before my edits, that is). I don't know which one is relevant. I don't know which, if any, should go in the (proposed) footnote. So I punted and commented it out.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

In the end I rewrote the section and tightened it up a bit. Stockholm wasn't an example, it was a tour de force that became a horticultural legend (he passed on a bus trip and drafted the entire code before the others got back). You may notice some patterns here, the wealthy Bowles appears regularly like a fairy godfather guiding our subject to new opportunities, while the unfortunate Chittenden (I wrote a short bio on him) conveniently fell ill and died creating a whole raft of opportunities for the hero of this piece to seize on and make his own. But that's baseball. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Linnaeus

• Was the his 176-page introduction the text that made Stearn a recognised authority on Linnaeus? That's the way I interpreted that sentence, and my re-write states that much more clearly. But I am double-checking.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Similarly I rewrote this section. Life is never that simple. Yes, it is his best known work on the subject but one becomes an authority based on one's canon. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Botanical history

Also rewritten. I think you will understand that in the end texts look best when written by one person, even though incorporating many of your suggestions.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Later years

• OK, I'm stuck, so I've reached a pausing point. The section "Later work" originally began "At the Lindley Library (1933–1952)", so I assumed Stearn was there from 1933 to 1952 an rewrote the text to reflect that assumption. But no, he went to India etc... Is the new text ("Stearn wrote steadily while at the Lindley Library between 1933 and 1952") wrong? And.... I haven't read earlier sections closely yet, but they seem overlapping/redundant. Forex "Royal Horticultural Society, London (1933–1952)" covers the same period. You'd think the section earlier in the text would be about his life, but it also mentions of his work. Then we have a section covering the same period but devoted only to his works...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Later years is from 1933 on in contrast to his amateur output while at school and working in the bookstore at Cambridge. You are correct that in general WP biographies tend to separate life, career and output, but it is impossible to completely and surgically place someone's life into compartments. Consequently writing is mentioned only in general terms in the earlier sections. I tried to minimise overlap but also ensure some continuity. Yes I was at the Lindley Library from 1933 to 1952 but like most adult males took a leave of absence during the war while in the Library's employment. The Lindley Library is at the RHS. I'm wondering if some confusion arises from working backwards, unlike (hopefully) the reader?--Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

General

Now I'm confused. Is this the source review requested by the Coordinator? It seems to me that what started out as a ce, seems to be be becoming a major rewrite, so that each change needs to be looked at in the context of the structure and content of the article as a whole, not just phrase by phrase. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I now need to look at this section by section rather than edit by edit. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• This article unquestionably needs a good copy edit to check for wordy, snake-like sentences, broken logic and dangling modifiers. I saw cases of referring to a primary source as evidence that that particular primary source exists (e.g., Smith and Jones wrote a book in 2013 about the Sun{{Smith|Jones|2013}} I'm still waiting to see what we will do about the whole page number thing. But in any event, no matter how lenient we feel we can be with the latter two points, the first is a must. End review. Good luck.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Like Michael Goodyear, I'm a little confused now by the review of Lingzhi. We have a conditional support, but qualified by "needs a good copy edit to check for wordy, snake-like sentences, broken logic and dangling modifiers". This is unhelpful, to be blunt, at this late stage as that does not look like a conditional support, but more of a reason to oppose. Without at least one or two samples, I'm not sure if these points are actionable or reasonable. It is also unhelpful placing it before the comments made earlier, so I've moved it to the end. Another point which is baffling me is that Lingzhi has said that a good copy edit is needed, but has copy-edited himself. It is not clear if this is the requested source review, and if, as seems to be indicated above, this review has resulted in a fairly major re-write, it would be fairly polite to request the opinion of the very experienced reviewers who supported this article before the major copy-edit which the reviewer performed. This needs to be a collaborative process. Jimfbleak, DarjeelingTea, Sabine's Sunbird, Casliber do you have an opinion on the changes made to this article? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• • @Sarastro1: I called it "Conditional Support" rather than "Weak Oppose" (tho I was tempted to do the latter) because 1) a good copy edit is only an easy request away, and 2) the ref situation is a little contentious. I have already Opposed Amargasaurus, so perhaps more would be overkill... I ceased copy editing. I was very far from finished. The nominator prefers his own writing style. I can find examples of snake-like sentences with dangling modifiers that I altered; but I would think these should be obvious. And asking at least two of those above if the refs are OK is pointless; they are firmly in the "no pages ever!" camp. Does that help you?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry - been away for a few days - to be fair I have accepted 90%+ of the reviewers changes - I just rewrote sections - rafter ce to try and keep style consistent, and also I think I get a tiny bit of deference on familiarity with subject matter. if there are still "dangling modifiers" that the reviewer wants to reword I'm not putting up objections. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Also I'm a bit confused about the reference thing - I have said several times that if the reviewer wants to change everything to {{sfnm}} I'm not objecting. Some examples of reference issues would be helpful. It maybe that someone is implying motive by citation - to add a citation does not always mean - I'm justifying this sentence - in a number of cases it means - and this is the material I'm referring to. I also don't know what spotty citation means - I'm seeking clarity. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• To clarify: this article is on the verge of promotion. If there are still problems, the coordinators cannot spend too long searching for vague prose concerns. It needs to be concrete; not a laundry list, just samples to see how close we are. Otherwise your comments could be disregarded as unactionable. Asking "those above" is to clarify the prose points as your concerns now seem to be prose related. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  Thank you for your kind guidance. In truth, my concerns are not only prose related:

• (undent) It is cited very spottily, but I am being gracious and passing on that issue, because of recent discussions. Examples of spotty cites? No page numbers for direct quotes: He has been variously described as a [[polymath]],{{sfn|Festing|1978}} "the modern Linnaeus",{{sfn|Buchan|2007}}{{sfn|Stafleu|Cowan|1985}}{{sfn|Bourne|2010}} "the great Linnaean scholar of our day", {{sfn|Cox|2003}} "one of the world’s greatest botanists"{{sfn|Carmichael|2007}}... One description that Stearn rejected, however, was "The Complete Naturalist"{{efn|"I note you are giving a lecture relating to me as 'a Complete naturalist' which I am most certainly far from being: the only person to whom that distinction could have been given in modern times was [[Charles E. Raven|Charles Raven]]"{{sfn|Walters|1992b}} I believe there are other cites to books that are without page numbers. Does the practice of eliding 1c by skipping page numbers for journals (which we have discussed elsewhere) also extend to books?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought we had dealt with the page numbering and reached a Nolo Contendere? As explained above - do we really need a page number within a 3 page article? It sounds like this has been the subject of extensive discussion elsewhere - so I'm happy to take another look at the examples provided here. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Exact page numbers provided for all above examples --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Dangling modifiers

• I killed a few dangling modifiers; the nominator even re-introduced at least one. Let's find some examples:
  • But then it evolved into an etymological dictionary, only to discover such a work had already been published in the Netherlands before the war. [The book made a discovery?]

reword --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• • One of the focuses of his work at the Natural History Museum was Caribbean flora, which included field work. [field work is a Caribbean plant?]  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

reword --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• • Run-on sentence: He first met them in 1967 and offered practical help with their museum and stayed with them when they visited Greece.

reword --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• • A series of botanical publications followed, starting with a new species of Allium (A. farreri Stearn, 1930), a genus he would repeatedly turn to, many of which bear his name and of which he was considered a world expert.

reword --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• • Snake: Seven volumes of Flora of Jamaica had appeared prior to the Second World War, and although the project was revived after the war, Stearn's efforts which included six months field work in Jamaica (where he followed in the footsteps of Sir Hans Sloane (1660–1753), whose collection was left to the Museum) did not come to fruition and no further volumes appeared.

reword --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• • Snake: While at the Library he continued his self-education through evening classes, learning Swedish, and travelling widely during his three-week annual leaves in the pre-war years to visit other botanical libraries, botanic gardens, museums, herbaria and collections, as well as collecting plants, with special emphasis on Epimedium and Allium.

reword --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• • OK this next one is grammatically fine, but why is it included in the article on Stearn? "Lindley also bequeathed his herbarium to the Cambridge University Herbarium, where it now forms the Lindley Collection"

That one is simple. Stearn was a Lindley specialist. Lindley's books were bequeathed to the library where Stearn was employed, while his plant collection was given to the Cambridge University herbarium where Stearn's career began. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• • Snake: In 1930, the library had been rehoused in a new floor added to the Society's Vincent Square headquarters, and the role of the library somewhat downgraded, with the appointment of Frederick Chittenden as Keeper of the Library (1930–1939), and to whom Hutchinson reported.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

reword --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification. Do the other reviewers have any comments on these points? Sarastro1 (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Happy to take another look at all the above examples and see if I can understand the objections. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Citation

(←) Well then, I'm glad we're moving forward constructively. My original goal was to request a copy edit (from someone other than me, because it seemed you disagreed with me), then step away gracefully. Alas, the vigilant eye of Sarastro1 locked on me as I was on my way out the door, and pressed me for details which i originally did not want to provide. Thus pressed, I provided. Now you know the reason why referencing was reintroduced into the discussion... as for that topic, you said, "It maybe that someone is implying motive by citation - to add a citation does not always mean - I'm justifying this sentence - in a number of cases it means - and this is the material I'm referring to." I... have never seen anyone use {{sfn}} in the latter manner, and I am not sure whether it should or can be used in that manner. It seems to me that it runs a grave danger of WP:OR, tho many might say in this case it's an exception. I defer here to the opinions of others. As for "spotty", I mean "page numbers" again. This is an ongoing debate and I was trying to defer the issue for another day and another article... However, I do think you should at the very very least add page numbers for direct quotes, provided the source has page numbers.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I must say I am confused as to what the intention is here, and that's after spending many years as reviewer, editorial board member and editor of academic journals. It is not a matter of sfn or any other citation device. If you refer to something, provide a citation. That's not original research, its secondary research, surely. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

A citation supports/defends an assertion. A note provides extra information (perhaps clarifying or expanding a point). Are you defending, or providing extra info? It seems to me you are doing the latter... If you point to a primary source and make an assertion about that primary source based on your own observations, it usually is WP:OR, but there are exceptions (e.g., a fact that is obvious from looking at a map ). Is your case the same type? I have already explicitly stated that I would defer to the opinions of others as to whether or not notes and citations can be mixed in the same section in this case.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I am just trying to get some clarity, so we can proceed. I don't think I was inserting any of my own assertions. Can you point to what you think is OR? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not saying it's OR, actually – just an unusual practice that might be wandering toward the range of things considered OR. And you described it yourself: any time you use a reference to mean "this is the material I'm describing". BTW, I have not looked at the article in a day or so. If these things are cleared up, please say so. Sorry & tks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

With specific reference to citations, no I haven't changed any (other than page numbers) because I am awaiting input as to which specific ones concern you --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• WP:ALLPRIMARY says "Even if the book would normally be considered a secondary source, if the statement that you are using this source to support is the date of its own publication, then you are using that book as a primary source." There seem to be many (many) similar examples in this article. Two closely related questions questions therefore are, how "acceptable" are they, and how "flexible" should we be? In cases where there is no significant extra information – just a bare mention of the publication's name – and similar bare info, the use of a primary source is acceptable.

I don't ever recall seeing that primary sources are unacceptable? Are you saying it requires additional sourcing? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• • Forex, "Later enlarged and reissued as a book{{sfn|Raven|2000}}" You can almost certainly find a direct statement of "revised" and "enlarged" in the book itself. This is almost certainly acceptable.
  • However, when we are given even more extra information before the cite, it moves into a more problematic area. Forex, "Stearn became a member of the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland (BSBI) in 1954,{{sfn|BSBI|2016}} joining the Maps Committee the following year to prepare their Atlas of the British Flora (1962).{{sfn|Perring|Walters|1962}}" Does Perring & Walters say any of the following: Stearn joined the committee. He joined the committee in 1955. He joined the committee to write the book... And how does he join in 1955 to write a book in 1962?

That's because the secondary source (Robson) is provided at the end of that paragraph dealing with Stearn's association with the BSBI, rather than attached to every statement within it. To be clear I have added a page reference to the secondary source. As far as the dates go, that is how long it took to prepare a very detailed mapping of the British Flora --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• • Another example: "1930 would also see his first bibliographic work, on the botanist Reginald Farrer,{{sfn|Stearn|1930a}}" I'm OK with mentioning "1930" and "bibliographic work", but does Stearn 1930a say anywhere (the introduction?) "Ahem, my name is Stearn, and this is my first bibliographic work"?

That is because I make two statements in that sentence and provide the secondary source, with page numbers {{sfn|Nelson|Desmond|2002|pp=144,146,148}} after the second - are you requesting the source be added after each of the two statements in the sentence? In an abundance of caution I have done so --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• • Another example: "Amongst his early work, starting in 1932 were several papers on Epimedium, which he had studied at Cambridge, Kew and Paris, and a genus for which he became known, and many species of which bear his name.{{sfn|Avent|2010}}" I count.. 5 and perhaps 6 assertions in that sentence [early work, starting in 1932, several papers, studied at Cambridge Kew & Paris, became known for, many species his name]. How many of those assertions are actually contained within Avent 2010? Maybe all of them, in the introduction I would guess. But are they?

Not exactly. Avent supports the statements in the second half of the sentence. The issues around London, Cambridge and Paris were dealt with in earlier sections, and I don't think bear repeating. Again, to be cautious, I added the appropriate pages of Nelson & Desmond - the same as in the previous sentence - to support the first statement. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• [November 11th 1960. Promoted by Professor Jan van Steenis, whose citation mentioned, inter alia, Stearn's "remarkable rise to a lofty scientific level by exploiting with energy, perseverance, caution and a rare combination of talent and character — under difficult and often disheartening circumstance] direct quote needs page number

Added --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• [Blunt states he received "some 30 foolscap pages of comments, almost all of which have been incorporated, often indeed verbatim, in my text". ] direct quote needs page number

Added - I hope this addresses your concerns --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Etc.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I just became aware of the prolonged discussion around this on WP:FAC, so it would appear it is not entirely straight forward --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "not entirely straight forward"?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Only that there appear to be a range of opinions --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• OK, good then. I've been trying unsuccessfully for over a day to extract myself from this review. I will now give a one-shot summary of the conceptual differences between your practice and my understanding of "best practice". After that, I am really gonna try to walk away again. :-). This will be a little long (sorry!!!), so I will number the topics. Sorry again!

1. So here goes: you say there is a range of opinions about referencing, and you are correct when it comes to journals. Science people (Jimfbleak, Sabine's Sunbird, etc.) are apparently accustomed to the practice of omitting page numbers for journals. And that's of course OK within their field (of course, of course), but the debate is whether that's OK for Wikipedia. But again, this stark difference of referencing paradigms is only about journals. I honestly... I could be wrong... but I honestly do not think there is any experienced Wikipedian who thinks direct quotes can ever go without page numbers. I think everyone agrees that every direct quote should have a page number, no matter whether it comes from book, journal, etc. [Jimfbleak said on his talk page that he very strongly doubts that he would ever directly quote a journal, but that is a sub-issue.] I am not here to engage in this debate in this forum; I am only saying that you are correct that the debate exists and is unresolved – with respect to journals. For that reason, I am certainly willing to let journals slide here. I have already Opposed on one separate FAC, as the proper scope for the debate.
2. As I said, I strongly believe that everyone thinks direct quotes should always get page numbers. In addition, I think most people believe that facts cited to books should always get page numbers, whether they are direct quotes are not. You can ask the people I mentioned above about that. Regardless, I am even willing to let some (but not all) cites from books slide here, at least somewhat, because... just because. Just because WP:AGF, since you are experienced in the field, and you have made a good faith effort to include page numbers. According to a very strict application of the rules as I see them, I should not let any book cites slide. But I am. I will. Per WP:AGF. Do you understand this point?

All direct quotes have page numbers --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

1. Now we come to the issue of using {{sfn}} simply to indicate "this is the book or article I am discussing at this moment". One of your comments above opened my eyes to the problem here. In one example above, you said, "That's because the secondary source (Robson) is provided at the end of that paragraph." OK. Here's the problem: You are using one tool (that would be {{sfn}}) to perform two functions (as a pointer to a cite/reference, and as a pointer to a note). Unfortunately, in the case above, there is a scoping clash. You are using the {{sfn}} at the end of the paragraph as a pointer to a cite/reference; you are intending its scope to cover the entire paragraph. But inside that paragraph, and therefore inside the scope of the "Robson" reference, is a {{sfn}} that you are using as a pointer to a note. So... the inner scoping does not override the outer scoping, in your mind, because they serve different purposes. In your mind, they do not clash. But how do other readers disambiguate the purposes and the scoping? How do they determine when you are using {{sfn}} to point to a note, and when you are {{sfn}} to point to a cite/reference? There are no visual clues to distinguish "This is what I am talking about here in this sentence; it's a note" from "This supports my assertion, it is a cite/reference." So to make a very very very long story short (too late!), I very strongly suggest that you provide a clear visual clue to disambiguate the two rhetorical goals. More specifically, please stop using {{sfn}} as a footnote device. You can use different ways of circumventing this issue:
   1. You can put that info in a {{efn|footnote}}
   2. If you think about it and if you decide this particular article or book or whatever that you are discussing really isn't a major waypoint in Stearn's career, you can simply skip mentioning the title at all.
   3. If you are sure it's a waypoint and feel averse to using a footnote for any reason, you can just include it in the article's text.
   4. If other solutions don't seem appropriate for a certain point, in some contexts you could use {{harvtxt}} or {{harvnb}} or {{harv}}, perhaps with a little additional punctuation.
2. There we go. I hope this huge post can somehow bridge the communicative gap here. I apologize for the very grave danger of tl;dr.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we have reached an impasse here. It is probably time to get some other opinions as to whether this is actually an issue or not. I understand you feel very strongly about it, but I would like some sort of concensus, since it clearly makes an enormous difference in the construction of WP articles. You appear to be making a very stark distinction between primary and secondary sources and it would seem want them visually separated. I'm not at all sure that referring to "notes" helps the discussion much since that is a separate issue. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Break for air (gasp)

I've just become aware that a re-opinion has been requested, and uh, I guess there goes my evening? It's a big article with another big article's worth of comments since my support, but I'll try and provide my opinion in a timely way. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm so sorry --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• On second pass through -

• I find the sentence Seward was impressed by him, giving him access to the herbarium of the Botany School (now Department of Plant Sciences - see image)[13] where he worked as a part-time research assistant,[2] and later to the Cambridge University Library.[1][9] a touch vague about which he worked as a part time research assistant, I assume it wasn't Sward.

True - rephrased --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• In his war service but was accepted into the Royal Air Force (RAF) Medical Services, given his work with the St John Ambulance Brigade. what work? Never mentioned before.

Ok - rephrased --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• I may still be smarting from WP:BIRD being brought to heel by WP:MOS, but is it customary for sentences like were obliged to live in the Library - I know which library but why the caps?

Specified - --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• More to come, but to be clear this isn't enough of itself to remove my support. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, finished my second pass through. There were a number of places were I found myself wanting to rewrite, but concluded that I would not make it better, only different and more how I would write. I remain impressed at the scope of the article and its depth and thoroughness, and found the prose fine (although on occasion it dipped into more detail than necessary, I'll allow it) . I have one last matter to look into, Lingzhi's sticking point about the use of {{sfn}} as a citation tool and footnote. I think I understand the point he is driving at. I want to go through again to see if it impedes verifiability or confuses as he suggests. But it's late here and I must concede I won't get to that tonight. On balance though I still support this. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - the danger is often is that every time someone comes by and rewrites, the next person wants to change it! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm traveling and cannot edit much. If you compare my t tldr scoping discussion to my earlier confusion about one sfn covering various facts maybe it will make sense. I don't want separation be primary and secondary sources I want sfn used for citations only. Am on cellphone can't discuss.(talk)
  • I think we got that - but that is till separating primary and secondary --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Necessary. Use fen in article text; use harv variant inside footnote. Not strange not unheard of.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Bookstore

To my ear "bookstore" sounds like North American English in contrast to "bookshop" which sounds BrE. I have some forms of agreement: from oxforddictionaries.com which in BrE simply diverts bookstore, without comment, to bookshop (how rude!); from Chambers which defines bookstore as North American for bookshop; and from OED which has "bookstore, n. ... Chiefly U.S. ... A bookshop." I don't want to go crashing around in an FAC in my size 10 wellies changing stuff, but would involved editors please carefully consider altering bookstore to bookshop in its seven appearances here? Thank you. In passing can I also say that in the fifth appearance of bookstore, in "Cambridge years (1929–1933)", I don't understand the reason for its having a capital B. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The simplest solution is to ignore what some later biographers referred to it as, and do some research into what it was actually called, which turns out to be "Booksellers". However the predominance of contemporary references seem to refer to it as "bookshop" so I will change it as you suggest. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

That's great, thanks very much. I know it sounded picky of me but I do find it reads better now. And yes, bookseller could have worked too - I had not thought of that - but bookshop does sound fine. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Revisit by Jim

As requested, I've had another look at this. I think the prose reads very well, my only new comment being that "spare time" may be superfluous in "spare time, lunchtimes, evenings and weekends"—what else is left? The references now look much better than before, and the restyling has aided their usability. I still support this article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Tx I will take a look --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Gerda

I was invited on my talk, and like to follow.

General

• Please decide for consistent date format, I'd say European.

You are correct, MOS requires consistent format but does not specify "European". UK usage is not consstent but dmy is the most common - the few dates that were mdy have been changed, thanks

I wasn't precise, should have said consistant within an article, and European for a European topic. Thank you.

• Consider - if life and work are split - to have life afterwards, - it's a bit difficult to return to Cambridge after his wife was 103 ;)

Interesting idea - there may be inconsistencies either way. The format for biographies, at least in the Plant project, is Life then Work. I think rather than look for sequiturs it is best to consider the two as free standing entities

Understand. Never wrote a substantial bio like this one. My typical opera singers have a career, then recordings, little life ;)

I like lots of life - if I can find it. I like to make my characters human.

• If split, wouldn't the bicycle commuting belong to life?

There are actually three general sections - Life - Career - Work. I placed the several references to bicycles - see for instance photograph on 1st page of Festing - was his preferred method of comuting between places of work, so I placed them in Career.

Fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Can more cites have page numbers?

What should have page numbers is a topic of active discussion at FAC. Most of the cites refer to either a particular work, or within the various biographical articles ("Articles about Stearn"). Of these, many are web resources, and the rest articles with only 1-5 pages, so I'm not sure that adding page umbers for every cite would be helpful. However all direct quotes have been paginated.

Lead

• Perhaps a hint at him being influential in the first paragraph?

Good point - added

• Perhaps no wife and children in the lead at all, certainly not before talking about why we should read about him.

That would depend on how the main text is structured. The lead is a summary of the text, and it seems to make sense to me at least to follow the order of the main text.

I actually don't believe that the summary has to follow the same order. Remember that the reader is not yet introduced to your structure life/career/work, so might be surprised that he first dies, then works ;) - I wouldn't mention the children if all you can say about them is that they survived him, or I might say something minimal such as "The couple had three children." - Language question: at the time of his wedding, his wife "would become" his collaborator, but from the perspective of a summary, "she became", no?

Childhood

• Perhaps get father's name as a unit, not the surname a line later, the unit followed by "and his wife ..."?

I'm not sure I completely follow you here. I have tried ordering this a number of different ways, and changed it again just recently - the surname is introduced at the beginning of line one (William Thomas Stearn) so it is a reasonable assumption that his father would also be Stearn. One could call his parents Thomas Stearn and Ellen Stearn, rather than Tomas and Ellen Stearn - or one take a feminist position and refer to his parents as Thomas Stearn and Ellen Kiddy. Let me play around with these. For now I am adopting option 2 - "Thomas Stearn (1871/2–1922) and Ellen ("Nellie") Kiddy (1886–1986)"

You did what I wanted ;) - The mother with a different surname would tell me, they were not married, or was she Ellen ("Nellie", née Kiddy, 1886–1986)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily, since whether she took his name or not is not discussed - but as phrased it gives her more autonomy. They were the people who became his parents

• Perhaps repeat his name - instead of "his" - when he hasn't been mentioned in two sentences, but the father instead.

Agree, done

• "Milton Road Junior Council School (see image)" - the "(see image)" is new to me, and I don't find the image.

Thank you for making me rethink that one. There is a story behind that one. During GAN I was obliged to remove a number of images that turned out to be non-free. So I made them external links and placed them in the Bibliography under Images. If you click on the citation next to the image it took you to the citation link. So I just simplified the whole thing. All links to external images (since external links in line are not allowed) are anchored directly to the link in Images!

Thank you, understand now, and think it's a great solution! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• "He would spend his school holidays on his uncle's Suffolk, tending cows grazing by the roadside, and where he observed the wild flowers of the hedgerows and fields." - may be my lack of English, but "tending" then "observed" reads a bit awkward.

Agree, rephrased

• "and while he was there, he was encouraged by his biology teacher, Mr Eastwood, who recognised his talents" - I guess that could be put simpler without loosing the meaning.

Agree, rephrased

• "He would also spend part of his school holidays" might be better without "also".

Agree, rephrased

Later life

• "develop linguistic (particularly German and the classics) and bibliographic skills." - takes too long before we get to skills.

Agree

Lindley

• "Librarian at the Royal Horticultural Society's (RHS) Lindley Library" - how about "Librarian at the Lindley Library of the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS)"?

Agree --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I am thoroughly impressed by the man's work - and yours! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments Gerda. I will carefully examine each one and respond a little later --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Watching, and please feel free to insert your comments right below the items, indenting to clarify what's yours. Just sign the last comment of one edit, not every single one ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I am now happy with all the details, - just not yet the order of summary in the lead, and the passive role the children "play" there. Would like to know what others think. Bach was mentioned: the lead doesn't say by how many children he was survived. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

And he had lots and lots of children! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

I'll do a source review; I hope to get it done today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review:

I will try and get to all these on Sunday

• There's a harv error showing for footnote 13: "link from #CITEREFCUBS1904 doesn't point to any citation".

Oh, yes, earlier reviewer wanted source deleted - fixed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• No location for Bowles, Perring & Walters, or Stern; or (in the collaborative section) for Baumann (1993) or the first Linnaeus.

Absent locations generally because not stated (and a defect in Google Books), therefore some sleuthing is required - will inquire further

If they're not stated, that's OK, but if they can be found of course that would be good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

- fixed

• You don't give the location for Cambridge University Press in most cases, which is fine, but then in a couple of cases you do (Arber, Tutin). I'd suggest being consistent.

Agree - erred on side of inclusion

You had both "Cambridge" and "Cambridge, England", so I made them consistent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Tx

• Suggest being consistent with US locations and states; you have "Santa Barbara CA", "Pittsburgh", and "Portland, Or.". I've had non-US editors request fully spelled out state names, rather than abbreviations, so I'd suggest "Santa Barbara, California", "Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania", and so on.

All US States spelled out in full

• Woodcock & Coutts is listed under books, but the date has a month and day, and the publisher is just given as "Country Life". Did this actually appear in a magazine?

Country Life also published books. Another Google Books thing - they tend to give exact date of publication. I took a look at a copy for verification - amended and added additional biblio material for erification

• I haven't seen anyone include an "inauthor" search on Google in a bibliography section, and given that we can't know how the results of the search will change as Google changes its algorithm, I'm not sure this is a good idea. Have you seen this done in other articles?

Well, seeing it on other pages gave me the idea. I based the decision to include it on the grounds that as more books get digitised, it will automatically update. No worse than any other xlink that can rot

• Does the "Works by Stearn" section include only a selection of his works? If so I think it should say so at the top of that section.

Yes, he wrote 500! I added the word "cited" to clarify the criteria for inclusion

I guessed it would be something like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• In the Selected publications section it appears you indent with "Reviews:" to introduce reviews in some cases but not all; is there a reason for the different formats?

Probably the number! I changed them all to cite format

• The second-to-last citation at the end of "Articles about Stearn" (Heywood) appears to be out of alphabetical order. I assume you're placing the Jstor Global Plants one at the end as there's no author available?

Correct on both counts - fixed

• You have a citation for "Stearn, William (15 October 1965a)" but there doesn't appear to be a 1965b. There are several others like this -- 1952, 1955, 1981, 1989. I thought perhaps you were using the "a" suffix where there is a less specific date -- e.g. Stearns 1952 and Stearns 7 September 1952a, so that the latter can be referred to just as 1952a, but that doesn't appear to be necessary for the 1981 or 1989 citations.

(i) Stearn 1965. The original citation was cited as {{sfn|Stearn|1965}}, when another publication was added later I made the date 1965a to differentiate it, according to the rules I had seen (the alternative being to go back and change the original to 1965a and make the new one 1965b). (ii) Similarly for the other instances, eg 1952 etc all of which I just checked

I follow you, and I agree that most of the cites are fine. Let me just ask a couple of follow up points.

• 1952: There are three Stearns citations for 1952: "William Herbert's 'Appendix'...", which is dated November 1952; "Proposed International Code...", which is dated 1952; and "International Code of Nomenclature...", which is dated "7 September 1952a". I agree you don't need to make them 1952a, 1952b, and 1952c, but when you cite "Stearn 1952", as you do in footnotes 125 and 126, I'm not clear which of the first two you're referring to.

I see what you mean - ok, this could take a while to sort out and make sure there is no ambiguity. I have clarified the Stearn cites

• 1965: I can't see that you cite the 1965a article anywhere; am I missing it?

No. There was no harv parameter. I added it as a placeholder while I toyed whether to cite it or not - eventually I did. So it is now cited

• 1989: It took me a while to see that "Stearn 1989" referred to the "Nandina, Ranzania..." chapter in Cullen 2011. I see from the wikitext that you've labelled this as a 1989 source, but I don't see anything that explains that date in the visible form of the citation -- shouldn't there be?

That's a complicated story. As a matter of principle, I reduced clutter in using chapters of books by omitting all redundant matter such as dates, eg Smith (1989) in Jones (1989) (though every now and then someone flies by with AWB and reinserts them). In this particular case it is more complicated. His chapter was published in the original 1989 edition of the book, but also reprinted posthumously in the 2011 edition, which is the one I cited and linked to online edition (but included "original date"). I could put the date back, but it would still look odd as Stearn (1989) in Cullen (2011) - unless of course I add another foot note.

Foot note added in abundance of caution

These three points are all that's left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• This link is dead.

It seems the journal just reorganised their website - I have replaced the old url with the new one

• One citation to Stafleu & Cowan gives the page number; the other doesn't -- I'd suggest making them consistent.

That's all I can find on the sources. I'll do a spotcheck shortly and report back here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that's because I was asked to prioritise pagination of direct quotes - and its only 3 pages long. Since its available online I changed both to direct page links

And I think that completes all responses to Source review --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I've done a spotcheck and have no concerns, though I should say that I have no access to the major sources used. I check about six or seven of the sources which I am able to access and found no problems. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I would be happy to provide if you so wish --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you; that would be very helpful. I've emailed you with three requests. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

So notifications says - but I have been waiting for the email all morning! Try emailing me directly? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you have an email link I can use, perhaps on an external webpage? Or try emailing me through my email link . Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what the problem is here. Ok, its on my user page but here it is again - mgoodyear@dal.ca --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I've emailed you; let me know if you haven't received it within a few minutes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Sent --Michael Goodyear (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Spotchecks are good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review is complete; there are no issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: With four supports and a conditional support, I think have consensus to promote. Some of the issues that have arisen here are a little on the experimental side and I'm not sure how much consensus they enjoy. I'm also not sure that FAC is the best place for the extended commentary that came to dominate this review, and it became quite hard to follow quite quickly. There may still be a few prose or sourcing issues (including anything that Gerda might find), but I think these can be addressed outside of FAC on the talk page. One little issue I would recommend addressing is that we have a few duplicate links; these should be trimmed where possible. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

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