This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cardiff, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cardiff-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CardiffWikipedia:WikiProject CardiffTemplate:WikiProject CardiffCardiff articles
A fact from George Insole appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 April 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that George Insole pioneered the introduction and early success of South Wales steam coal in the London and international markets?
Wikipedia style is to use double quotes (") first around quotations, but to keep original punctuation inside the quote if it exists, and outside if it's added. See MOS:QUOTEMARKS.
I like to remove unused parameters in templates, but it's no big deal.
I removed some links and added others. It's a judgement call about what's likely to be helpful to the reader. I thought everybody already knows what London is, but might not know what coke is.
"The first coal staiths" looks like an internal wikilink, but it's not and that feels deceptive. The link could be a reference for that fact though.
Each reference should stand on its own, so we don't use ibid or similar.
Hope that helps. I've learned some new things today. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful, many thanks - I've learnt new things today too! I will work through all your suggestions and clarification notes.
The 'File:' link in the 'Entrance to the West Docks' image caption is currently red but adding a pipe after the filename inserts the actual picture into the caption. I wanted the link to go straight to the image rather than the image's Commons page, so that's why is I used the file name as I did - is there a better way to achieve this? RLO1729 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I got that "this view" wrong, and it works now, but I'm not sure the right way to do that. I don't do much with images. Generally using a full URL to a sister project location shouldn't be necessary.
Also box quotes are polarizing on Wikipedia. At Template:Quote box it says "this use is not advised in articles" (emphasis in the original), so don't be surprised if someone objects to them. (They don't bother me.) In James John Joicey, there's a place where a box quote and a block quote bump up against each other and it's unclear that the block quote is a quotation, so that's a problem.
You've already run up against some of the limits of my knowledge, but I'm happy to contribute where I can. Keep it up. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 01:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again - yes, that was the only work around I could find for the image link within the caption. I've also moved the Joicey box quote slightly so they don't bump quite as much, but thanks for the heads-up. RLO1729 (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you removed the URL access dates in book citations with URLs but not in journal citations with URLs. Is there a style-guide that covers this? RLO1729 (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for an access date if the material is dated and we have the date in the reference. I should have removed them from the ones for journals too. Wikipedia officially has no standard way of doing references (see WP:CITEVAR), but at cite web, cite journal, cite book, etc. there's explanations for the way most things are usually done. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 04:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assessed this as C-class to get the ball rolling, as it was previously Unassessed even though a candidate for Good Article status. May I suggest someone uses the B-class criteria to check if it could be promoted to B as the next step? It certainly seems to be a worthy article, but I am not experienced in detailed assessments. welsh (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like an interesting article and I look forward to reviewing it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Intro and infobox
Great job summarizing the article. It is concise, but hits the high points from the article. Thank you for the the citations for the claims in the intro.
I am not understanding the use of multiple citations. The first paragraph has five citations, all at the end of the paragraph. Only one is needed, two or three perhaps to cover the content, more that that is overkill and make it harder to verify the information. In this paragraph, are some applicable only to certain sentences?
I struggled with this a little too. All citations are needed to cover all the information included in the paragraph. However, some citations cover more than one piece of information across the paragraph. In the end I thought it was cleaner to simply place all the relevant references at the end of the paragraph than cluttering it with repeated uses of the same references in different combinations throughout the paragraph for each specific item mentioned. ~ RLO1729💬
Let me know if I'm missing something but I think the first instance is already linked. ~ RLO1729💬
Yes, I missed that somehow. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The piped name for "Thomas" could be widened to "Robert Thomas" by using Lucy Thomas#As an industrialist as the link (or creating a redirect). Just a thought.
Regarding "Situating his offices in Cardiff at the mouth of the Glamorganshire Canal he continued as agent for Waun Wyllt coal and contracts were written to supply London-based coal merchants." shouldn't there be a comma after "Canal"? (I am an American, and here we would have a comma between a phrase and would would otherwise be a full sentence.)
It would be nice to have the author in the quote box. In this case, I would use E. D. Lewis, "Pioneers of the Cardiff Coal Trade". It helps provide context for the quote.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer minimal punctuation in these situations. Unless there is an intervening phrase I don't see the comma as grammatically necessary. There are many similar cases throughout the three articles under review and other editors who have made copy edits on these articles have not commented, so can we consider it a stylistic choice and leave them as is please? ~ RLO1729💬
Nice images in this and the preceding section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, some of them took quite a lot of negotiation to arrange copyright permission. ~ RLO1729💬 03:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would add: "The Cardiff and Merthyr Guardian", 4 January 1851 — as the author for the quote box.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
Yes, the sources are verifiable, but it is a little difficult because there are sometimes five and six citations used for the cited content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
Great sources. Please look at the years in citations 14 and 16, I think there is a typo (or you are a time-traveller).
Yes, the images are relevant to the article content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment.
Comments
Great job!
Please take a look at the years for citations 14 and 16.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Revised year for citation 16 - thanks for picking that up and many thanks for your very helpful review. ~ RLO1729💬 03:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that the numbers for 14 and 16 were issue numbers, in parentheses like a year. I have never seen that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great job on the article! It passes.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... that George Insole (1790–1851) was largely responsible for the introduction and early success of South Walessteam coal in the London and international markets? Source: Citations following this statement in the article lead section.
Reviewed: NA (5th DYK nomination)
Improved to Good Article status by RLO1729 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
What an interesting article! I had never heard of this person and the article certainly gives good information.
I see from the discussion above I use commas more than you do. Partly this is an individual style choice and partly an international thing. American writers use far more commas than UK ones. I'm not sure where Australia lies on this continuum... I've added a couple of commas where I thought it might aid understanding.
Thanks, I prefer minimal punctuation in my own writing but am quite happy with your edits. ~ RLO1729💬 02:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What did he die of?
Cause of death added to article. I had previously considered it didn't add anything to the narrative, but, on reflection (thanks), the fact that he suffered from heart disease for "many years", i.e. while running his business, is relevant. ~ RLO1729💬 02:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wales/England; again, it's a judgement call how much emphasis we place on geography. There will be readers who have no idea where or what Wales is (and was); the question is, how far this article should go to educate them. It would seem slightly ridiculous to say "Worcester, England" on first appearance; we certainly don't need "Worcester, Worcestershire".
Yes, I also struggled with this. British Commonwealth citizens (generally) have some understanding of English/Welsh geography but (as you suggest) this may not be true of Wikipedia readers in general. The fact that there is a US Worcester was a particular consideration in deciding to err on the side of more detail rather than less, and the consistent use of "town, broader location" in the article led to the seemingly redundant (at least to "British" ears) "Worcester, Worcestershire", as distinct from "Worcester, Massachusetts" for example. Though not particularly euphonious, I don't have such a problem with "Worcester, Worcestershire", it is an accurate geographical description after all. On balance, given the obvious geographical context of the article, and that "Worcestershire" is linked in the lead, and that "Cardiff" now also appears without a broader location, I'm happy to go with just "Worcester" on first reference. ~ RLO1729💬 02:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Possessives; again this is partly a US/UK thing. Americans are far more in love with using just ' at the end of a name; I was taught at school that it is only used for famous historical figures (Jesus, Moses, Archimedes etc). An article on a UK subject should use "Thomas's" rather than "Thomas'".
The BBC grammar website indicates either is acceptable. As it would seem to be just a style issue, I prefer the minimalist apostrophe. ~ RLO1729💬 02:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the big one. When sources disagree about the significance of a person or an event, how do we proceed? Was or wasn't Insole a key figure in the development of the industry? I think with the spread of sources you already have, you should be able to craft a more elegant treatment of this.
I'll reflect on this and see what I can come up with. ~ RLO1729💬 02:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the above and the minor edits I made will be helpful. --84.64.237.205 (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, much appreciated! ~ RLO1729💬 02:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, after reading that article and the recommended "For thorough treatment of the English possessive, see Apostrophe", I'm going to go with what is most comfortable to say (though I realise that may be subjective), so will use Thomas's as you suggest, but, for example, stay with Wilkins' and Stephens' in other articles. :) ~ RLO1729💬 07:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]