List of people associated with Jesus College, Oxford was given its FL star last August. Since then, many more names have been added (see the current version) and so this section was split off into its own page to save space. When the "people associated list" got its star, there were just 25 names of fellows and principals; there are now 118 names (if I can count correctly) all with references. Let me address "comprehensiveness", since this is always of interest with lists of this sort. As well as, of course, including all names in Category:Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford the list includes:
Comments - quick run-through from a tab on a Saturday evening...!
You poor thing...
Thumbnails should not be forced in size per WP:MOS#Images, the lead one isn't so important but memorial images are just too small.
Ah-ha, I'd tried various sizes on different monitors to get it to flow nicely - needn't have bothered!
"marked with (OM)" - no they're not, they're not bold, so unbold this one!
Done.
"1571–1595" vs "1553–59" in the same row - I'd be consistent throughout.
Done.
I despise centrally aligned notes.
Done.
Order refs numerically unless there's a real good reason not to.
Done.
What's Emeritus? (I know, but readers may not)
Wikilinked in the lead with a brief explanation.
First Thomas Ellis links to Thomas Ellis (clergyman died 1673) but this list says he was a fellow until 1677 - what gives? First dead fellow?!
First of many... Fixed, good catch.
"Professor of Zoology" - no full stop? Check other entries for consistency.
Done (<-- wot no full stop?.)
"1905, 1909, 1913, 1917" odd tenure. Reason?
Welsh Supernumerary Fellow (WSF), held on a rotating basis as explained in the lead.
Pity poor Eubule Thelwall who hath no notes... nothing at all to say about him?
Very little, but found something.
"College records do not show when his fellowship terminated." - this note ought to be applied to all ? entries (if applicable and if not, other reasons given).
Other reasons given for the other two "?"s - it's where they're WSFs and it's unclear from the obituary when their successor was appointed.
116–7 vs 53–54 in the refs for page ranges - be consistent.
Now consistent.
Is fellow capitalised or not? Seems to be inconsistent...
Now Consistent.
Looks like that photograph is slightly tilted top left to bottom right...!
Hadn't noticed that, clearly college is built at a slight angle! Uploaded two new images for the lead.
Done. Anything else from anybody? BencherliteTalk 20:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - under IE7, unless I look at the list with a horizontal resolution of at least 1600 pixels, all the images push the list to the bottom. Check it out. I think it's related to you forcing the table width, but I'm not 100% sure. It's probably fine under Firefox and Safari, but, it needs to be okay under IE7 really. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try now, I've stopped forcing the table width and the column widths. BencherliteTalk 10:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works much better for me now. Found "(1689–1701). Bishop of Hereford (1701–12)." by the way - just double-check you caught all those inconsistent year things. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pesky, aren't they? Last two (I hope) are gone. Thanks. BencherliteTalk 11:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The following are some things I {Eustress (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)} would suggest to improve the list:[reply]
Why do all phrases under the Notes column end in a period when not all are complete sentences? Similarly, some of the picture captions (e.g., "The college crest above the Ship Street entrance gate.") should not end with a period either per Wikipedia:MOS#Captions
See above (groan!) TRM picked out that "Professor of Zoology" (Paul Harvey's note) didn't have a full-stop, and asked for consistency. I took him to mean that that particular entry should have a full stop, and so should similar entries, so I added full stops throughout. What's the official line to follow here, please? As for the full-stop after "gate", it's gone. Any others? (James Howell's caption feels like a sentence to me, hence the full stop).
Yeah, I would completely disagree with TRM. No full stop (or period, in this case) is needed if there is no complete sentence per MOS. Moreover, The James Howell caption is a participle phrase; it has no preceding subject and verb and is thus not a complete sentence. This is consistent with other WP Universities FLs. --Eustress (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great!</sarcasm> I'm caught between the devil and the deep-blue sea here. The FL Director wants one thing, the next reviewer says that the FL Director himself is wrong. Fantastic. Whose lead am I meant to follow - whoever speaks last? I've reworded the James Howell caption, to make it a proper sentence with a verb and everything, but I'm not going to be caught in a ping-pong battle over full-stops in notes without someone pointing to specific passages in MOS. (Pointing to other FLs gets us nowhere fast, since I can point to another similar FL with plenty of full stops in the notes.) In any case, I have a question: when there are two incomplete sentences (e.g. William Aubrey: Regius Professor of Civil Law (1553–1559). One of the eight original Fellows of the college.) should there be 0, 1 or 2 full-stops? Or should such notes be reworded into one sentence or one note (thus risking losing the whole snappiness of the notes section in the first place)? BencherliteTalk 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Regius Professor of Civil Law (1553–1559), one of the eight original Fellows of the college" ta-da! If you need to separate phrases beyond a comma insert a semi-colon (e.g., "I have three red, blue, and yellow hats; five orange, green, and blue sticks; and two black shoes."). Maybe you just misunderstood TRM? Perhaps he can help clarify the full stop issue, but I think the list looks pretty cluttered with all the periods now. --Eustress (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have already asked TRM to pop back. BencherliteTalk 00:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TRM has popped back (see my talk page if anyone is interested) and I have now removed the full stops. BencherliteTalk 08:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can a description or link to an explanation of what Old Members are be supplied?
That link helps a lot, but it brings up another question: why is "Old Member" a proper noun (i.e., why is it capitalized)? --Eustress (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's how the college itself uses the term e.g. here and here. BencherliteTalk 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Perhaps it should be linked instead to Old Member (Jesus College, Oxford) then, if it's a proper noun and not just another way of saying alumnus. --Eustress (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Err, no - it's not just a Jesus College thing: see various other colleges using "Old Member" (Exeter, Balliol, Univ, and that's just page 1 of the Google search). See also Cambridge. Describing former students as "alumni" is a comparatively new thing – "comparatively new", at any rate, in the context of a university that's been teaching since the 11th century... BencherliteTalk 00:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do the English really know about English anyway :-) (j/k) Thanks for the clarification. --Eustress (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: After responding to all suggestions (from me and others) I believe list now meets all FL criteria --Eustress (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Suggest you unbold the opening sentence, then link the first occurrences of Jesus College and Fellows and delink the ones in the second paragraph.
OK, no bold anywhere. Is this what you wanted? (If only we were allowed links in bold type...) BencherliteTalk 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A comma somewhere suitable in the Seth Ward sentence might make it easier to read.
The last two occurrences of Principal in the first paragraph are uncapitalised.
Do you think separating Powell's and Hazel's election dates with commas rather than parentheses might make them look less like asides?
Why does Governing Body need capitals?
Because that's its proper title: see the college statutes (e.g. Statute 2, clause 2). BencherliteTalk 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest restructuring the Celtic section; it's rather repetitive, and the second sentence doesn't really say what you mean. Something like "Holders of the position since its creation in 1877 include Celtic scholars such as John Rhys, Ellis Evans and current Professor Thomas Charles-Edwards." Though "current" should be avoided; see MOS:DATE#Precise language.
Reworded, without a current, even though there isn't exactly a high turnover in this job... BencherliteTalk 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"musiclogist"'s lost an "o".
That sentence would be clearer if each person's reference immediately followed his name rather than having a string of five at the end.
OK - but actually since these are the same references as in the main list, I've just removed the references. No point in adding extra noise to the lead. BencherliteTalk 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leoline Jenkins being a former Principal should definitely come out of the brackets.
Delink the King Charles I in "King Charles I Fellows" and link it when you refer to him as founder. Maybe referring to him as Charles I rather than King Charles would sound better?
The third John Lloyd's notes are still centred. Also Thelwall's.
Change Strawson's note from "now Prof at Reading" to "since 20xx ...".
Reference #10 needs a publisher.
You need some consistency in reference formatting. Your publication dates currently use at least three different formats, see notes 11, 12 and 15 for example; please pick one (international format, as 29 July 2008, is most frequently used in English articles) and stick to it.
Occasionally you have a newspaper as publisher rather than work, I've spotted notes 67 and 72, there may be others.
Some references to Hardy have no "p." before the page number. Notes 92, 101, maybe others.
Hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful, thank you very much indeed for your thorough review. Unless mentioned otherwise, all your comments have been actioned. BencherliteTalk 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They have, and I hope enough nits have been picked. Avoiding the use of "current" can be taken too far; the introduction to this list would hardly have been complete without mention of the current Principal, for instance :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note
As the above is getting a bit tl;dr, I'll just note that there are no outstanding issues from the above comments. BencherliteTalk 00:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Think procedurally it's probably up to the reviewer(s) to say whether there are issues outstanding, which I thought I had, and certainly Eustress had if he/she is supporting, however that's by the by.
I do have a question on comprehensiveness, provoked by the arrival of several more fellows overnight. The scope of this list appears to be well-defined and finite: either someone was a principal or fellow or he wasn't, just as in a list of footballers who played more than a certain number of games for a club, either he did or he didn't. In each case there may be no one definitive source from which to take the information, so research has to be done. If I submitted such a footballer list and said, "Well, it's not complete, but there are a lot of them, and I'll add the rest if and when...", that list would fail. Why should a different standard apply to this list? Actually, I don't expect you to be able to answer this; maybe the director can explain the difference? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would point you at criterion 3 of WP:WIAFL - "It comprehensively covers the defined scope" - so, as long as the scope is adequately defined, and then the list meets the definition and the community are satisfied that the criterion 3 (and the others, of course) are met then the list can be promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So it is purely subjective, then :-) thanks for clearing that up... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's subjective subject to a consensual agreement. We've had this debate a few times (witness List of Arsenal F.C. players) and there's never been a 100% agreement on the best approach. At least criterion 3 makes an attempt to suggest there should be a "defined scope" which is better than nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
← Apologies if I trod on anyone's toes by my note earlier - I was just trying to improve general readability, but didn't want to put comments made by others into collapsing boxes.
As for the fellows that arrived overnight, it occurred to me late yesterday that some of the Welsh Supernumerary Fellows of recent years might have articles about them that didn't mention Jesus College, and so wouldn't have shown up in a "what links here" search for Jesus College (needless to say, that's a route I've been down as well to find additional names for this list and the alumni list). So I looked in my back issues of the College Record and found a few more names, and they've been added, (each with a one or two year period of Fellowship) plus a college chaplain I found lurking in the shadows without any mention of his time at JC (Graham Tomlin). In terms of existing articles on Wikipedia, I really believe that that's now it. Of course I'm not relying on the inclusion of every article on Wikipedia as being sufficient to pass FLC: if I thought that, I would have nominated a list with about 30 or 40 names (and would have saved myself a lot of work in the process, seeing as I wrote 90+ of the 125 biographies on the list, to make it as comprehensive as possible before coming to FLC).
As for more articles that could be written? Well, I've cleaned out the three major reference sources mentioned above, and ensured every Principal and every founding Fellow is included as well, and so I think the list is comprehensive, even though I can't of course put my hand on my heart and say that no notable Fellow has been omitted. Hardy's history of the College, published at the end of the 19th century, listed 369 Fellows between 1571 and 1898, but the majority aren't notable at all in Wikipedia terms. Whilst all professional footballers playing for Arsenal pass WP:ATHLETE and so meet notability standards on WP, not all Fellows of an Oxbridge college (past or present) pass WP:PROF, and certainly don't pass that standard just by being an Oxbridge Fellow. So it could never be a "complete list of all Fellows", or even "a complete list of all notable Fellows", but I've done my very best to ensure that it's a "comprehensive list of notable Fellows". Hope this helps. BencherliteTalk 16:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support A pleasure to deal with a nominator prepared to put a significant amount of work in before nominating their list and with enough knowledge of their subject to discuss and justify it afterwards. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
For Thomas Charles Edwards, the date for the fellow is "1997 onwards".. Is he still a fellow? Perhaps "1997–present" would be better. Same for others that use "year onwards".