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 SandyGeorgia 22:53, 30 January 2010 [1].

---

Henry Edwards (entomologist)[edit]

Nominator(s): Binksternet (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured article candidates/Henry Edwards (entomologist)/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I am nominating this for featured article because it passed its GA review and no major issues were revealed that could inhibit Featured Article status. Binksternet (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• technical stuff no dabs, no deadlinks, decent alt text present Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I've made these edits, please check Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good. I slightly tweaked one unresponsive google books URL to make it land on one of the two useful pages, unfortunately the second page of 141–142. For some reason, when the URL ended with page 141, the resulting page view was of the frontispiece, not the internal article target. Weird! Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on image concerns Image review:

• File:Henry Edwards engraving with sig.jpg: the source states "printed in 1880s" but the date states "before 1891". That it was published (as a souvenir card) is not in dispute; a crucial question to verify the copyright status of this card remains unanswered: where was this item first published? (removed)
• File:Syngrapha celsa.jpg: the license is incorrect; the Canadian site never granted "free use" of the photo for following the conditions stated. They plainly forbid commercial usage,[2] thereby disqualifying it from storage on Commons. (Image removed) Jappalang (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• (Added) File:Catocala ophelia2.JPG: this should be moved to Wikipedia until the death of the true author is resolved (see commons:Commons talk:Licensing#Category:Catalogue Of The Noctuidae In The Collection Of The British Museum). Basically although Hampson wrote the book, he did not draw the illustrations; Horace Knight drew them, West and Newman coloured them. Thus, the British copyright last for 70 years after the death of Knight, West, and Newman (all of them). The image is sound when stored on Wikipedia (since the project's hosting scope is limited to US copyright laws), because of its publishing before 1923. Its copyright in its country of origin, however, is unknown for the moment. Jappalang (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC) (moved)[reply]

• I have taken your advice to heart, but in carrying out the process I noticed that there was a discrepancy: I was mistaken in thinking that the image on the Catocala desdemona page showed that particular moth. It doesn't. It shows the Catocala delilah; a different moth. Instead, I have transferred an image of the Catocala ophelia moth to Wikipedia in alignment with your concerns regarding the wait for 70 years after the deaths of Hampson, Knight, West and Newman. Binksternet (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image issues should be easily resolved; the oppose stands until then. The other two images (photo and sketch) of Edwards are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I dumped the green caterpillar image—I am not married to it and I certainly didn't realize its illegitimate beginnings. I may try to replace it with another Edwards-identified critter photo in the public domain but if so I will be more careful. The engraving with signature I feel is more central to the article. I will try harder to identify its provenance. Binksternet (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• After quite a lot of fruitless searching to find the publishing date of the challenged infobox image, I removed it, moving another up into its place. At the same time, I added an image of Catocala ophelia down near the bottom of the article, as an example of his preference for Shakespearean characters. Binksternet (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images are verifiably in the public domain and stored on appropriate servers. Jappalang (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://sfgenealogy.com/sf/history/hbabs2.htm

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The SF Genealogy site question is really two questions: Who are the people at SF Genealogy (can they be trusted) and where did they get this bit from? The people are the "TAG group" composed of Sharon Yost, Rich Wharff, Betty Vickroy, Kathy Styles, Margie Newton, Carol Jackson, Cathy Gowdy, Ron Filion, Aviva Ernst, Jill Crowhurst-Chesnik, and Marie Clayton. These are dedicated amateur historians and genealogists, donating their time to transcribe and categorize historic texts to be placed online. Ron Filion is also one of the two SF Genealogy administrators. Filion and Pamela Storm state the website's purpose here. The book from which the facts were taken is one published in 1897 by Oscar Tully Shuck entitled Historical Abstract of San Francisco, unfortunately unavailable for browsing online. Binksternet (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• First, if you're actually using a transcribed book, you need to cite the footnote like it was a book, not a website. The information you're citing wasn't published by the SF people but by the original publisher. Second, how do we know they accurately transcribed this? I won't say it's unreliable, but it would be better to check the original book just in case. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I've cut out the middleman and gone straight to the source, which I had mistakenly assumed was unavailable because Google books did not have it. It is, in fact, available for online reading at www.archive.org. Interestingly, the SF Genealogy people had the cite exactly right. Binksternet (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Yeah, normally they do, but... better to go with one of the bigger names (like archive.org, google, or project gutenburg). When it's a scan, less chances of transcription errors. (I write on medieval subjects, I know ALL about transcription errors!) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, 1a. Hey, interesting! I enjoyed the read. However, I don't think the prose is up to par at the moment. You probably should have spent a bit of time between GA and FAC getting this ready... you brought it to FAC the day it was promoted to GA? One of our good friends at Peer Review likely would have identified some of the issues. I listed some specific examples below, but overall the problem is sometimes-jarring, repetitive prose. Many sentences begin with "Edwards <verb>" or "<prepositional phrase>, Edwards <verb>" which is monotonous and difficult to read smoothly. Recommend a thorough copyedit by someone new and/or withdrawing for a Peer Review.
  • "A gathering in Edwards' honor was the spark which began the traditional summer encampment of the Bohemian Grove." I have to say this sent me spinning off into a variety of articles for a few minutes to understand the context. Not a good thing for the first paragraph. I think it's the past tense that threw me. I had to look up Bohemian Grove, then discover the significance, then try (unsuccessfully) to understand why it "was" the spark. It appears that the gatherings are still hosted... do they no longer honor Edwards?
  • "Edwards' wide-ranging studies and observations of insects allowed him to name his discoveries" How so? Just because he discovered them first, or was there some kind of authority vested in Edwards? The body text doesn't clarify, it only states that he named several species.
  • "Early Career" begins with "Edwards was", "Edwards collected", and "Edwards' father ... Edwards took" and so on. We need to introduce some variety into the text. This problem is endemic throughout the article.
  • "Edwards went up in a hot air balloon, and befriended William Sharp Macleay" He befriended him in the hot air balloon? How are these related?

--Andy Walsh (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I see your concerns and I will be dedicating some red pencil time to smooth out the clunky prose. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been attacking the wooden prose and I believe I am making headway. Next up: the lede. Binksternet (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I have worked on the indicated problems, and the article is once again ready for review. Thanks for everybody's patience! Binksternet (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Withdrawing my opposition—significant progress has been made. Thanks! --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I've just been through it again and nothing jumps out at me. An enjoyable and interesting read for sure. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• SUPPRT
• few more toothpicks in your prose...

1. He collected butterflies as a hobby, and studied these insects under the tutelage of''
   1. Good one! Done.
2. The part of Petruchio, the male lead in Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew, was ably filled by Edwards at the Princess's Theatre in Sydney in 1859...Edwards ably filled the part of Petruchio, the male lead in... at the Princess' Theatre in Sydney in 1859....
   1. I was asked earlier to change a bunch of wooden prose that involved a lot of sentences beginning with "Edwards did such and such..." Thus, when I discovered the Petruchio cite, I tamped Edwards down into the middle of the sentence. I can easily change this to fit your suggestion, but will I lose earlier reviewers in doing so?
      1. At the Princess' Theatre in Sydney in 1859, Edwards ably filled ??? I don't agree that starting a sentence with the subject's name is wooden. It's using the same verbs and sentence structure that makes it wooden. But I'll not fall on the sword over this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. and Brookes...etc. Make a new sentence? This one is long and I was gasping for breath by the end.
   1. Agreed. Done.
4. As a twist to perk public interest,.... As a twist to tweak...?
   1. I selected pique. I think you will like it!
5. ...the first Australian mounting of that work ..... production of that work?
   1. I like mounting for its classic theatrical usage. See Cymbeline, Afore Night Come, Alice in Wonderland and I Am My Own Wife, or perhaps Stephen MacDonald or Beit Zvi, or the scads of online theatre reviews that use variations of the phrase "mount the play".
6. Edwards sought out renowned expert... make your subject the subject when possible'
   1. See "wooden prose" above. Easy to change, but should I?
      1. see my response above. It's not a deal breaker for me. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. founding member of the theater company of the California Theatre...founding member of the California Theatre company?
   1. I changed it to "founding member of the acting company of the California Theatre" because I wanted to retain the notion that the company of actors was associated with one building, not the state of California.
8. studying butterflies under Hans with Hans.... or something. Under the direction of....
   1. I don't understand the concern. People study under other people, with the word "under" clearly meaning that the first one is the pupil, and the second one the teacher.
      1. Under someone implies a more formal organizational structure. But again, not a deal breaker. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Baja California needs a comma. Baja, California. At least it does in the United States.... Leeds, England? or Leeds England?
   1. I believe Baja California stands without a comma.
10. He befriended John Muir who sent him specimens from the Sierras. John Muir, who ? Commas before which and who usually.
    1. Good catch. Done!
11. Edwards presented a series of papers to the Academy entitled Pacific Coast Lepidoptera,[8] and classified two species as new to science, naming one Gyros muiri for Muir. Edwards presented a series of papers entitled Pacific Coast Peidoptera to the Academy and classified two species as new to science. He named one Gyros muiri, for Muir. The academy is not named Pacific Coast Pe...the papers are. The sentence is already long.
    1. Yes, you're right. Done.
12. In 1873, Edwards was made curator of...too passive. Edwards became....
    1. Done!
13. Combine Boston and New York? Only 1 idea in Boston. really shouldn't be on its own.
    1. Right! I put all of that under the heading "Boston to New York", deleting "Boston" and "New York" as headings.
14. performing on stage and taking part in insect studies. performing on stage and participating in insect studies...
    1. Yes. Done!
15. framed to support destitute actors or their widows.... formed? actually you don't need anything there just to support destitute actors or their widows...
    1. I like your shortest suggestion. Done.
16. the book was favorably reviewed in the New York Tribune, and the review reprinted in the Literary News: "Mr. Edwards—remarkable for attainments in science no less than .... this should be a new sentence.
    1. Split into two sentences. Done!
17. current value... 2010 value.
    1. The inflation template does this job for us—we do not have to perform manual updates.
       1. good to know! Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• perhaps some pictures of the butterflies?
  • I have searched for exactly that, but too many images are not public domain. The insects Edwards discovered are not the usual easy-to-find sort—people who manage to take pictures of them are protective of the results.

Lovely article, nicely done. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If this one makes FA, it will be my first WP:Four Award candidate. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, terrific, I hope it makes it. I don't see why it shouldn't. Full support. All issues resolved and struck. The ones that aren't struck are explained and not deal breakers for me. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Support from Auntieruth55 and AndyWalsh. Jappalang did an image review and it sounds like "he" says it's okay. Ealdgyth checked the links. Someone else whose name I cannot read checked the other technicals (dabs, etc). Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Leaning support but a few niggles before I feel comfortable doing so.

• "The life of the theater called to Edwards early in his career...." slightly unencylopedic there.. Perhaps "Edwards joined the theater early in his life, appearing in ..."

• I opted for "Edwards was drawn to the theater early in life..." Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If he was English, shouldn't the dates be in the English format?

• Ouch! I think of him as American, no less than millions of other Americans born elsewhere who came and stayed. His major works were in America, especially his bug publications and his play Elaine. Because of this, I wish to keep mdy date format, and US engvar. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A bit of peacockery is evident "...was ably filled..."

• Deleted "ably", though I'm sure a review I read caused me to put that in. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Need a cite for the opinion bit in the last phrase of the first paragraph of Early career.

• Copied named ref from earlier in the sentence to that spot at the end. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You should quickly explain what Lepidoptera is besides just linking it.

• Done. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Need a cite for "After a successful six-week New York run, Palmer took Elaine on the road." as the "successful" bit is opinion (barely so, but best to cover your bases here)

• Okay, I found a bit of extra detail along with the cites for "six weeks" and for "successful". Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When these are resolved, I'll be happy to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I made some simple copyediting tweaks, nearly all related to minor punctuation issues. This is nicely written and well-sourced. Theater and bugs—what a combination! Maralia (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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