The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Johannes Schade (talk)

Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I would like to improve the quality of this article to FA-level and my FA-mentor, Gog the Mild, recommends to submit it to Military History A-Class first. Johannes Schade (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Buidhe. Could not find the citation we need. Deleted. Perhaps not far enough. Sorry I should not have waste your time. Thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Buidhe. I am on a learning curve. Until now I had not really seen Wikipedia writing under that angle. Now I see that in addition to having the reader in mind, I must also consider available citations and keep close but not too close to the wording found in the citations (but beware of WP:CLOP). I added about 30 citations since the beginning of this review. For example, the latest addition is in Section "Honours and Parliaments", 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence where it says "religious freedom". This is the only citation in this sentence. It did not have a citation before. I took the citation from Wallace (1973) because of concerns about the antiquity of my sources. I could have taken a similar one from Cusack (1871). Does the citation fully support the sentence? e.g. I wrote "religious freedom", Wallace just said "religion". Do I need a second citation to cover "freedom" (using a different source protects against WP:CLOP)? Should I change my wording, or delete? The treatment of the Graces in Cusack and in Wallace is very similar. It looks to me as if there are no new insights due to "later scholarship" in Wallace in this regard. Should the later source always be preferred? Am I doing the right thing? With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Reserving a spot. Some quick first thoughts.

  • I was recently asked a similar question on my talk page, to which I responded:

    I never do serious work on an article unless I own a hardback RS which covers it. Often several. This or these frequently serve as the "spine" of the article. After that Google Scholar is helpful, as is Academia. Google Books can be very helpful - sometimes - if you know how to use it, but time consuming. Sometimes books oft cited on Wikipedia or in other books or articles can be useful. Unfortunately the chaff to wheat ratio is high, one reason I like to write several articles from a similar period - to maximise the output to input. And the more articles I write on a period, the more books on it I stumble across and a virtuous cycle emerges.

    For example, click for access to Woolrych or here for Ashley. My article - if you look closely at the sourcing - uses The Civil Wars: a Military History of England, Scotland and Ireland 1638-1660 a lot - £7.04 on AbeBooks with free deivery. I also recommend getting access to JSTOR via TWL, and scouring the Internet Archive. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only needed a very few hardcopy materials for the articles I've written and brought up to good and featured status, although that has a lot to do with the topics that I write about. The vast majority of the academic papers and books I've cited can be accessed with TWL and/or by volunteers at RX. (t · c) buidhe 19:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Gog the Mild. Thanks for good and kind advice. I try to run my hobby on a zero budget. I will look for more recent sources. If I find the same information in an older and in a younger source, which should be cited (e.g. DNB vs. ODNB)? Is it worthwhile (improves the article) to replace an older with a younger source to support the same fact? You remark that "57 sources are more than a century old"; can you please define this in terms of a goal to attain like "reduce the number of >100 years old source to less than 25" or to "less than 50% of the sources" or "Cite at least 20 sources less than 10 years old" or whatever make sense for you. At present the article uses 112 sources with an average publication date of 1917, meaning that more than half of them are >100. Looking around in FAs of aristocratic biographies I find not more than 25% of such old sources, e.g. in Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I allow myself up to £5 a month, but rarely go near £60 a year. Well now, what you are trying to cover at A class is "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge". So for many basic facts - eg a date of birth - an elderly source may be fine. And a non-exhaustive look at this article suggests that the sources have been used judiciously. The problem is that one doesn't know what new knowledge has been published if one hasn't looked at many more recent sources. Anything startling can probably be spotted via the likes of Academia and JSTOR. Often what changes the the centuries is the tone, which is a bit ineffable. I am loath to attempt to apply an arbitrary target to this.
Bear in mind that many FAs promoted ten or more years ago are currently being reviewed. See the list of former featured articles. So many of those you are looking at may not be up to current FAC standards. Sourcing is frequently an issue. Eg note this exchange. Note that for FAC the requirement is "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature".
So the question for a wannabe FAC is not so much one of statistics, as has most of the (modern) scholarship been covered in the article?
I am not sure how much this helps. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Gog the Wise. You are spot on and very helpful. You bring us back to where we should be. Luckily, in this case I can give an answer: the latest scholarship central to the subject is found in the article "Donough MacCarthy" of the Dictionary of Irish Biography (DIB), published in 2009 (on paper) and also online. If there were any significant advance since 2009, it should theoretically be found in the online version, which is cited in the article. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Gog the Mild. There are now 140 sources, 81 146 sources, 80 140 sources, 71 of them >100 years old. What is outstanding? Or do you feel there are still so many problems that I should retract the candidate? With many thanks. Johannes Schade (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Gog the Mild. I have replaced some more "old" (>100 years) sources with "new" (<100 years) ones. The old ones are now a minority (68 of the 141). I believe I covered modern scholarship among others in form of 6 DIB and 16 ODNB articles. I hope I have now complied with your "age" objection. What is outstanding? Or do you feel there are still so many problems that I should retract the candidate? With many thanks. Johannes Schade (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, did you want to continue/complete this review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Break[edit]

References

  1. ^ UK Retail Price Index inflation figures are based on data from Clark, Gregory (2017). "The Annual RPI and Average Earnings for Britain, 1209 to Present (New Series)". MeasuringWorth. Retrieved May 7, 2024.
Break 2[edit]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Break 3[edit]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

I am doing a little copy editing as I go. Shout if anything alarms.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gog the Mild. I was astonished to see "variously" added. I think, if it had been there, you or another editor would have removed it as "superfluous" in the interest of a terse, concise, sober, encyclopedic style. In Wiktionary the word is exemplified by "My caravan served variously as a changing room, office and bedroom". There also "My caravan served as a changing room, office and bedroom" seems to be good enough. However, if you feel it is an improvement, so it is. Perhaps it is just my poor 2nd-language English. With many thanks for your patience with this long-running review. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk)

Hi Johannes, I am starting into what I hope will be a final run through. Where I can I will copy edit directly into the article, but please feel free to flag up here any changes you disagree with or don't see why I have made. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Sir Donough" Just 'Donough' after first mention.
MOS:SURNAME says "Generally speaking, subjects should not otherwise be referred to by their given name; exceptions include royalty, e.g. Prince Charles or Charles". That is why I did not drop the Sir, but I think you are right. They just forgot to add this as another exception. Perhaps you have enough influence to have this added.
Done
Then use his surname, or his title at the time (as you do elsewhere). It is the occasional use of "Sir" which should be avoided.
Dear Gog the Mild. If my use of "Sir" was consistent. I changed his name whenever he was advanced. I called him "Donough" at birth and in the context of his parents and siblings, then "MacCarty" as an adult, then when he was knighted in 1634 I called him Sir Donough MacCarty on 1st use, then "Sir Donough". I did not change when he was made a baronet. When in 1641 he succeeded his father, I called him 2nd Viscount Muskerry on 1st use and "Muskerry" thereafter until when in 1658 he became earl. I called him then 1st Earl of Clancarty on the 1st use and "Clancarty" thereafter. Now I encounter your objections and also found MOS:SIR, which states "Honorific titles used with forenames only (such as "Sir Elton", "Sir David", "Dame Judi") should be avoided" (they seem to target modern celebrity than 17th-century aristocracy). Nevertheless I must comply. I now continue to call him MacCarty until he becomes Viscount. I hope this is correct Wikipedian. I will also have to do this across all of my watchlist.
"Wentworth let 10 articles be voted into law ... except articles 24 and 25 ... which he rejected." How did he do this. What power or influence did he exercise?
Due to Poyning's Law the Irish parliament could only vote on laws proposed by the Irish Privy Council and agreed to by the English Privy Council had. I feel that it would go too far to explain all this in the biography discussed here. He was only a back-bencher in the parliament of 1634–1635.
Perhaps replace "Wentworth" with 'the Irish Privy Council' then. Or 'the Irish Privy Council chaired by Wentworth'? (I assume that was the case.)
I fear many readers will not understand "Privy Council" without some introduction. I replaced Wentworth with Lord Deputy. Hope you agree.
I removed the entire sentence in further simplification of the section about the 1634 parliament trying to make the biography less bloated, as discussed.
"About 1640 his father built a new townhouse on College Green, Dublin." Strafford's father?
Donough's father. Done
Moved this out of its chronological place to later when the subject loses the townhouse by forfeiture in order to reduce random factoids, as discussed. The problem being that the citation refers to its building, not to its loss, which is inferred (WP:SYNTH?). However, I might be wrong. MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL prescribes "In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order". Is avoiding random factoids a sufficiently good reason? (still learning).
"which are usually divided into the Rebellion of 1641, the Confederate Wars, and the Cromwellian Conquest". Could we be told which time periods the latter two cover?
All these three are linked, where the reader can find this information. Do you object to the term British Civil War? We could of course just drop this term or even the entire first two introductory sentences. I felt it was nice for the reader to introduce the three terms here. I use them as heading of the subdivisions of the "Irish Wars" section. I do not like the term "Wars of the three kingdoms" it sounds terribly vague.
"also known as the British Civil Wars". Do you have a source for this?
Eventually David Plant http://bcw-project.org/
What I or you like is often irrelevant. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and such things should reflect the consensus of high quality scholarly sources. I have read reasonably widely on the period and participated in a debate on renaming Third English Civil War - see its talk page - which I currently have at FAC and have only seen it occasionally. Checking, Kenyon & Ohlmeyer also use the term, so fine.
I tried to find the term British Civil Wars in some of Kenyon's or Ohlmeyer's writing but failed. However, the University of Strathclyde (Glasgow) in 1972 published proceedings of a conference under the title "Celtic Dimensions of the British Civil Wars" (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=u4lnAAAAMAAJ).
"Castlehaven calls him an old man. He was turning 49 in that year." I don't see the relevance of this to the rest of the paragraph. (Or to anything.)
I thought it useful to remind the reader of his advancing age. It explains some of his reluctance to assume military leadership and tells us what people thought of him.
You go from his participation in a battle, to an insult by a rival to mentioning his age (which will not seem advanced to most readers). It seems to leap around a bit. 'Muskerry turned 49 that year and may have been feeling the strains of campaigning, as Castlehaven, a rival, referred to him as an old man' or similar? If it is the case and can be sourced of course.
The reason why this is all together in that paragraph is chronology: it all happened in 1643. It is sourced (don't you read the footquotes?).
Given that I have commented in some details on the footnotes I am disappointed by this comment.
I thought it should be included because it is really about the biographical subject rather than the general historical background, which still IMHO still takes too much place in this somewhat blown-up biography of a minor figure.
I am inclined to agree with both of those. But putting it with the battle because that is the chronology makes it look like a random factoid. I could just about agree that this meets the A class criterion of "The article/list is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear", but it doesn't meet the FAC "its prose is engaging and of a professional standard" which you have suggested is the standard you would like to meet.
Thanks for your remark. Your proposed sentence "Muskerry turned 49 that year and may have been feeling the strains of campaigning, as Castlehaven, a rival, referred to him as an old man' or similar" is very nice. The first part "turned 49" is I think allowed under WP:CALC, but I failed to source the second part "feeling the strains". The third part "old man" is sourced in Castlehaven as "the old General" which I hope is sufficiently close. I put "Castlehaven found him slow and called him an old man, hoping that the "slow" will make it link up with the battle action described in the sentence before it.
Link magnate.
Done. Ó Siochrú uses the word, I still wonder whether it is correct in the context. Is a magnate not an Hungarian? Could we use "big landlord"?
No, magnate is fine.
"The articles of the cessation"; "The Cessation allowed the Confederates". "C" or "c"?
Cessation. Done.
"Parliamentarian". "P" or "p"?
Parliamentarian. Done
If so, why not Royalist? And Covenantor? I have just spotted that you are also inconsistent with C/covenantors.
You would surely know better than I. I feel royalists have existed at many times in many countries and are not one single well-defined movement, but the Covenanters were. The Wikipedia article Covenanters capitalises the word. I will follow that example.
"signed the First Ormond Peace again on 29 July 1646. The peace was thus concluded twice: on 28 March and on 20 July 1646"> I make that three times. Or is one of those a typo?
Good catch! There is no typo but Webb says 29 July, Coonan 20 July. Changed to "in July".
"comprising 17 members of which Glamorgan, Fermoy, and Owen Roe O'Neill". Something is missing here.
"comprising 17 members of which were Glamorgan, Fermoy, and Owen Roe O'Neill".
I have tweaked this.
I simplified omitting that there were 17 members.
"the Queen"; "the queen". Which?
Changed to the Queen. Done. There are 3 queens mentioned in the article. The 1st is Queen Elizabeth in the section "Religion". She is linked and used only once. The 2nd queen is Queen Henrietta Maria of England, widow of Charles I. She is introduced in the section "Decline of the Confederation", 2nd paragraph, linked, and mentioned a couple of times as "the Queen" in the context of Muskerry's visit to the Château de Saint-Germain-en-Laye. The 3rd is Marie Louise Gonzaga, Queen of Poland, introduced in section "Exile and prosecution" and mentioned only once. I believe the reader is unlikely to get confused.
"He returned to Ireland late in 1653 to recruit". What or who was he recruiting for?
I do not know and none of the cited sources says it. It could possibly have been for the Venetians and his arrest would be the reason why he never served them, but this is pure speculation of mine.
I cite Burghclere (1912) so his recruiting is not OR. Why do you want to remove it? Is Burghclere not a RS or too old?
"and his 5000 Irish" ?! Some background on where these came from, where they were and what they were doing perhaps?
I do not know and none of the cited sources says it. It could possibly be the 5000 that surrendered with him at Ross Castle, but this is speculation.
5000 Irish going into foreign service at the end of the war is not astonishing. It happened in the 1650s and then again in 1680 with the Irish Brigade (France) (about 5000 men). All I say is quite well supported by citations: Clark (1972), Bagwell, Cusack, and Prendergast. Admittedly none of them gives much detail and all are quite old. However, this is not OR. Why do you want to remove it? With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting that you are ORing, nor that 5,000 Irish going into foreign service is unusual. You state "He returned to Ireland late in 1653 to recruit ..." Then move on. Recruit who for what a reader will be asking. Fruitlessly. Domestic servants? For a travelling circus? Who knows. You don't even mention that he is recruiting men (assuming he is, you don't say; perhaps recruiting comely ladies for his personal harem?) for foreign service, which above you suggest you can source. I am suggesting that you give a reader more detail on why he returned to Ireland or delete "to recruit".
"Muskerry and his 5000 Irish in Polish service". My objection is just to the sudden introduction of "his 5000 Irish". A reader is likely to skimming back up the article to see how they missed previous mention of them. I have no doubt they existed but they need introducing. If they simply spring into existence in the sources, then say so.
"returned with £20,000 for the King". Perhaps worth mentioning that this is not the same person as the last time "the King" was mentioned?
Charles II is mentioned just before in the same paragraph.
Link "Protectorate". And why an upper case P?
changed to lower case "protectorate". Done.
I reconsider. Is not Cromwell's Protectorate a proper noun and would keep its capitalisation even when used as a qualifier? The article The Protectorate uses "Protectorate Parliament" and "Protectorate England". The article Knights, baronets and peers of the Protectorate used "Protectorate baronet" and "Protectorate baronetcy".
"now called Clancarty House". "now" meaning 1660, or meaning 2021?
The house on College Green does not exist any more. This is 1660. Changed to "which became "Clancarty House" to avoid the "now".

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Dear Gog the Mild. Thank you so much! Johannes Schade (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reread all of my notes and your responses above and am content other than where I have commented in this post. Except for the "recruiting" and the 5000 Irish who seem to appear. I can guess what happened, but if you can't source it, it may be best to trim or remove it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just three issues left. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gog the Mild. Thank for your wise remarks, that put into perspective what we are trying to reach. I had my nose too near the screen. I am working on it. Besides, I said "footquote" as in WP:FOOTQUOTE. I really appreciate your efforts. With many, many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You changed "The titles were probably bought" to "The titles were probably purchased". I wondered why. Is "purchased" not the pretentious Norman-French speak of the upper class that we try to avoid and replace with Plain English. The noun "purchase" might be sometimes unavoidable as a "buy" can be confusing. WP:PLAINENGLISH is an essay but it claims the MOS recommends Plain English (I have not found where). I am still busy simplifying and chafing off needless detail and not ready. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to revert, but I think it usual to use "buy" for simple, everyday purchases (sic) and "purchase" for larger, more important ones. Such as "house purchase". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Gog the Mild. Thank you for your kind reply. You are of course right and I will not revert.

Dear Gog the Mild, I wondered whether dates should drop the day and the month according to how much precision is needed in the context. Such simplification seems to be evidently acceptable in the lead as all its dates are repeated in the body. However, should dates be simplified in the body, e.g. in section "Early life, marriage and children", 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, I simplified the date of his paternal grandfather's death from "23 February 1616" to "1616" to be concise and make the article less bloated as the day and month appear irrelevant in the context. The full date can still be found in the citation's footquote. I searched MOS and guidelines but found nothing. With regards and many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you suggest, it is at an editor's discretion and depends on context. Your change seems reasonable to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found a cite for British Civil War (BCW mentioned in the title of the article):
*((Cite journal|last=Ó Siochrú |first= Micheál |date=2007 |title=Atrocity, Codes of Conduct, and the Irish in the British Civil Wars 1641–1653 |journal=Past & Present |issue=195 |pages=55–86 |jstor=25096669 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/25096669/))
Thanks for your patience. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gog the Mild. I hope I have now removed the last obstacle by introducing "his men" when he tries to serve Venice (it can be sourced) and mentioning such men again when they are proposed to the Poles. I have cleaned out about 200 words by simplifying dates and dropping unwarranted detail, You probably know that citation from Saint-Exupéry: "La perfection est atteinte, non pas quand il n'y a plus rien à ajouter, mais quand il n'y a plus rien à retirer". Most of the removed content can still be found in the biographies of his father and his eldest son. Sometimes, It is of course alo true that gaps in the content can persist after the last superfluous word is removed. I feel, conciseness can interfere with readability and the "engaging prose" requirement that, as I see it, asks to guide the reader, to provide introductions, transitions, reasons, keeping things together despite MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL by using flashbacks.—The article certainly still has issues with the content e.g. I feel that not being a lawyer, I do not treat the war crime trials well. The entire checking of for WP:V needs still to be done if I understand it right. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting.
That made me smile - I don't have time to write a succinct article, so I have written a long one.
Suggest "employ Muskerry and his men (5000 of them) in Polish service" → 'employ Muskerry and his following - 5000 men - in Polish service', but I don't insist.
Verifiability gets a relatively light touch at ACR.
I agree that concaseness and readability can sometimes be in opposition.
Gog the Mild (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, Johannes, thanks for your efforts with this article. I found the subject a bit beyond me, to be honest, but I took a quick run through for some bold adjustments. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear AustralianRupert. I am not so sure what is left. Should I remove the map? Should I add a citation to the caption of the map? With many thanks for your patience. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Hi, I see this needs a further review. I'm not terribly familiar with this era or with bios of nobility, but I will start one shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and origins

− More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Early life, marriage, and children

Dear Peacemaker67: Thank you very much for your efforts. It shows that even after user:AustralianRupert and user:Gog the Mild have worked through the text, correcting the spelling, syntax, and grammar and making it more concise, there are still serious flaws and ample room for improvement. However, the task that user:Buidhe started and left unfinished was the WP:V. I think he dropped it because the citations in the text (at the time 322 for a readable prose size of about 4900 words, which I thought was a lot) were hopelessly far from giving sufficient support. He wrote, "It doesn't matter exactly how many refs you have per text as long as all content is directly supported by the sources, rather than inferences you have made." I feel that it is in this area that the need for improvement is most urgent. I do not seem to know how to cite and write so that WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are avoided and a reasonably well written text (not a sequence of "random factoids" as Gog the Mild called it) can be supported. I seem to tend to "infer" as Buidhe says. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not easy and can take a lot of work to get the hang of verifiability. (for me, it really took this). It can be especially difficult when you are trying to put together a large number of sources and the sources don't always provide the analysis that connects different facts. What I would try to do when writing is first get the facts out of different sources, then try to organize them in a logical order. (t · c) buidhe 14:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Buidhe. Thank you very much for your intervention and good advice. Best regards, Johannes, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Buidhe. The timeline (which you deleted) was my way of trying to "get the facts out of different sources, then try to organize them in a logical order" as you say. Is not "organize them in a logical order" already WP:SYNTH unless it is simply chronologically, which is probably allowed by WP:CALC? Perhaps I have sources for most of the facts but omitted the analyses (resulting in "random factoids" as User:Gog the Mild says) or inferred my own (WP:OR!, WP:SYNTH!). As you say, "the sources don't always provide the analysis". This goes with the bias to older and genealogical sources that Gog objected to. Genealogical sources are usually facts only. What I should do is look for citations for the analyses. Analyses are harder to source (and correctly understand and cite avoiding WP:CLOP) than bare facts. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Johannes, organizing information by topic (or by time) is not original research. I agree it can be a challenge if sources don't give the analysis but in that case a bit of disjointedness is to be expected. The reason the timeline had to be removed is that it duplicates information in the article. (t · c) buidhe 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will review this aspect at the end. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parliaments

I think I picked this usage up from Charles Vane, 3rd Marquess of Londonderry, where Baron Stewart, Earl Vane, and Viscount Seaham were already bolded in the oldest version, dated of the 11 August 2004 by 62.254.32.9. In Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 1st Marquess of Dufferin and Ava user:Proteus bolded the title Baron ClaneboyeDufferin. The articles Charles FitzGerald, 1st Baron Lecale and Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly also show bolded titles in the body. Johannes Schade (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guidance is MOS:BOLD. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Peacemaker67. It is as you said. I reread MOS:BOLD and see now that the existence of a redirect justifies the bolding. In Charles Vane, 3rd Marquess of Londonderry there are in fact redirects Baron Steward, Earl Vane, and Viscount Seaham, but all three point to Marquess of Londonderry rather than Charles Vane, 3rd Marquess of Londonderry so I would say the bolding is not justified. The case of Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 1st Marquess of Dufferin and Ava seems similar. I contacted the editor (User:Proteus) but do not seem to get a speedy reply. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, MOS:BOLD talks about bolding alternative names in the lead, but not about doing so in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peacemaker67. Some might advise I should just silently implement your corrections and obtain your SUPPORT. However, I would in fact not mind an OPPOSE. I need to learn and understand, I therefore discuss your objections when I do not understand them and try to find the rules behind them. This serves not only for myself but also when I review other editors' articles in quid pro quo (or how do you call this? Obviously when I ask for a review I should provide such reviews for others and must learn how to do this. Otherwise the system comes to a halt.). With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Johannes, I certainly hope that you will ask questions when you don't understand what I am getting at, and hopefully no reviewer expects mute conformity. I will go through the above and explain where needed before I proceed. Once I have gone right through the article in detail I will make some overall observations and recommendations as well. I don't know yet whether I will be supporting, opposing or what. I don't decide that until I've been through and my comments have been addressed or alternatives implemented. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peacemaker67. Thank you very much, best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done that where necessary. I'll crack on with the rest now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Irish wars

Down to Confederation. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Nuncio. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peacemaker67, Thank you very much. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peacemaker67, I have recently spent time moving content from the article to his father's article and other linked articles. Speaking to myself I tend to call this "equilibrate between articles". It seems Wikipedia calls this "summary style" WP:SUMMARY. This feels quite important to do, but reviews seem to rarely mention it. Why not?

Yes, it is fairly complex, IMHO. When there are excellent quality articles on key aspects of the reviewed article that can be linked, there is a lot of scope to summarise those aspects in the reviewed article and reduce the detail needed. However, many times the articles on key aspects of the reviewed article are not yet of high quality. This draws editors to develop a more detailed article which covers the material that should be in the linked articles. Of course, in a perfect world, every editor would fix up the linked articles so that they could be more succinct in the reviewed article, but this can lead to going down endless rabbit holes, and few editors are keen to do that when the article they have spent a great deal of time on is currently under review and the clock is ticking. I hope that explains the practical difficulties of WP:SUMMARY. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Peacmake67, Thanks for your comment. I feel there is also the danger of unbalancing the article when some aspects are summarised as a corresponding article exists (e.g. a battle) whereas other, equally or even less important important (e.g. a skirmish) aspects are treated with full detail. Johannes Schade (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continued:

Dear Peacemaker67. I have to tell you that I am leaving for France this evening to see some relatives of my wife. Back in a week. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Decline of the Confederation. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for the prose and MOS review. A query about the huge number of citations – could some of them be combined or moved to the end of sentences to improve the readability? Also, are all the quotes and other material in the footnotes necessary, such as columns and lines? If the material they are supporting can be verified by reference to the page of the source, then they don't appear to be necessary. This is causing extreme bloat in the Citations subsection, which is undesirable. Some of the citations could be combined by cutting out the additional information from the footnotes, eg Ohlmeyer 2004 p. 107 has 18 separate footnotes (with various info about where on the page the info is located, which frankly is completely unnecessary) which could just be one footnote with multiple iterations (like fn 75). There are several other examples where the number of individual footnotes could be seriously reduced without any reduction in verifiability, such as Dunlop 1906 p. 530, Cokayne 1913 p. 215 and p. 216, Bagwell 1909b p. 64 etc. Finally, assuming most of my comments above are addressed, I am leaning towards support, but due to the current state of the footnotes, I wouldn't support this at FAC until it was addressed. Well done thus far. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peacemaker67. First of all a hearty thank you for all your hard work. I learned a lot from you, e.g. to always give a full contemporary name at the first mention of a person in the text, even if the name is linked.

With regard to the citations. User:Buidhe would tell you that they are still too few and he is of course right. I know of quite a few that I still need to hunt down and add. WP:INTEGRITY prescribes that we should keep citations near to the supported statements but in the examples given the citations seem to always follow some punctuation. I will look for citations that could be moved to the nearest punctuation without losing text-source integrity. End of phrase rather than end of sentence position seems to be generally well accepted though, I feel. I have not found a rule that prescribes that all citations must appear after punctuation. There is already the counter-example of citation before a closing parenthesis.

As you pointed out, the citations could have been presented with less detail and many could have been combined. My purpose was to make checking as quick and simple as possible for the reader and reviewer. I find that quite often it is not easy to identify which is the supported statement or fact in the text and then to look for a suitable citation on an entire page can be time consuming. Buidhe said "It's not easy and can take a lot of work to get the hang of verifiability. (for me, it really took this)." I looked up and found that this article had a first FA review in which User:Ealdgyth made a thourough source check and Buidhe then retracted the candidate version, put in a lot a lot of work before resubmitting and finally passing. Buidhe said "I have started a page for matching each citation to a quote from the source: Talk:The Holocaust in Slovakia/Sources check. If you think this would be helpful". I feel that what I did with my pages, columns, lines, and footquotes is similar to what he did, only that he did not incorporate it into the final article. If the citations should be simplified as you suggest, then, I feel, this should be done only after the detailed final source check. Besides, WP:FOOTQUOTE explicitly allows footquotes. Best regards and thanks Johannes Schade (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think by incorporating what buidhe did in a article talk subpage into the article you went a step too far, and you will need to do what she did and retract the additional detail about where on a given page the info is located. As far as quotes in footnotes is concerned, just because WP:FOOTQUOTE says you can do it, doesn't mean you should, or even that it is necessary. It also says "In most cases it is sufficient for a citation footnote simply to identify the source... readers can then consult the source to see how it supports the information in the article." Happy for it to happen after the source review though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put any additional things I find here:

Dear Peacemaker67. I noticed that the ISBNs in the source list wrap on their hyphens, resulting in an odd isolated single digit or X when the ISBN is wrapped on its last hyphen. I tried to prevent this by replacing that hyphen with a non-breaking hyphen but that breaks the built-in link to the Special:BookSources page, throwing an invalid-character error. I did not find a solution to the problem. Even the recent FA Charles Green (Australian soldier) shows that same defect. I could of course drop all the hyphens from the ISBNs, but hyphened ISBNs are more readable than unhyphened ones. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this, different sized screens result in different wrapping, so I would leave it as is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peacemaker67. You are right to stress that WP:FOOTQUOTE states that "it is sufficient for a citation footnote simply to identify the source". However, why should it be inappropriate to go beyond and help the reviewer with column, line and footquote? Admittedly, this results in a bloated reference section that almost all readers will ignore. But that is the fate of any reference section how bloated or minimalistic it might be. Wikipedia should present that section closed by default. Most source reviews, even at FA-level, are spot checks done by a single reviewer, whereas the prose is typically reviewed several times from A-Z. This is so because with page-only citations the supported fact and the corresponding passage in the source are both so time-consuming to identify that few reviewers are ready to make the effort. Besides, have you seen that Buidhe's FA Armenian genocide denial uses footquotes? With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't looked at that article, but there is a huge difference in the subject matter involved. The likelihood of someone challenging anything in this article in terms of it being controversial is extremely low (is there really anything that might be contested or considered controversial?), but the Armenian genocide is hugely controversial as a subject, and its denial is also highly controversial and contested. I completely understand why buidhe has used footquotes for material that might be challenged in that article, but there really is no justification for their use here. I consider this level of detail should be moved to a subpage. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One might argue that the persecution of Protestants during the Irish Rebellion of 1641 and the atrocities committed during the Cromwellian Conquest of Ireland are controversial and not seen in the same manner by Catholics and Protestants. Both subjects are touched on in the article, notably in Muskerry's war crimes trial. It would be unwise for me to reveal whether I am Catholic or Protestant or what I voted in the last election (DUP? Sinn Fein?). Where I live a 500-pound car bomb exploded in Main Street in 1993. But whether controversial or not, I feel that page-only is just not good enough. It comes from the printed scientific journals. Wikipedia can do better than that. But perhaps let us see this at the FA-level if I ever get there.

I had a look at moving citations to the end of the sentence. The first sentence of the "Birth and origins" section is a good example. There are three citations: one for the date, two for possible places of birth, distributed in accordance through the sentence so that it is evident what is what. Do you feel it would be better to regroup at the end? Is there a rule about this in one of the guidelines? Do you feel I should use WP:CITEBUNDLE to reduce the number of citation marks in the text? I have tried this on citation 19. Please have a look. I am not convinced this will work well. I am imitating Buidhe who uses bundling on some of the citations in Armenian genocide denial. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is less important that the massive bloat. There is absolutely no comparison between this article and the Armenian genocide denial article in terms of controversial aspects. I am passingly acquainted with Irish history, and the aspects covered here are in no way controversial today. There is almost a universal academic consensus on what happened during this period of English and Irish history and the reasons why, and nothing that I can see that might remain controversial is touched on here. Even if a controversial incident was covered here, you would only provide this level of detail in the citation and a quote for that incident, not for utterly mundane things like the various spellings of his name (in the case of the bloated citations), or the quote in Ohlmeyer 2004, p. 107, right column, line 29: regarding the nuncio being welcomed at Macroom (regarding the unnecessary quotes). Apart from this, there are still a few unaddressed comments scattered above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peacemaker67. I hope I have addressed the outstanding issues you mentioned. I also have redlinked Dermod McCarthy (MP) and Andrew Barret (in the succession box) Are points deducted for redlinks? Redlinks seem to be very rare in your FAs (e.g. Uroš Drenović). I learned from you that notable persons should be linked (WP:REDLINKBIO). It seems all MPs are notable. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peacemaker67, I have created a stub for Sir Charles Vavasour, 1st Baronet of Killingthorpe to get rid of the red. Since about three days I experience difficulties editing Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty needing to wait for minutes between changes. With many thanks and apologies, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All good, Johannes. I am supporting here on prose. I have serious concerns about the bloated approach to citations (as I have explained above), and would oppose this on that alone at FAC were it to be nominated without it being addressed. It is massive and unnecessary overkill, like using a B-52 to carpet bomb a single foxhole. That said, well done on all the improvements that have been made to the article thus far, and for the considerable work put into it before nominating it here. All the best, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding source review[edit]

I would do a source review, as one is needed and this article has been on the list for ten months, but frankly I would fail it as the article stands for the reasons I have identified in my prose and MOS review. Given my view might be a minority one, I suggest that the two other reviewers @Gog the Mild and AustralianRupert: give their opinions on the issues I have raised (specifically the citation bloat and unnecessary quotations in the citations). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little less concerned about the number and density of citations and their including quotations, given that this is ACR. If I examined the sourcing in detail these may be reason to fail at ACR, but on a skim they are not the swift fail they would be at FAC. I am however, as I said at the top of my review, concerned at the age, even antiquity, of many sources. Eg the first three are over a century old; two citations date to a work published in 1680; etc. Given all of this it seemed highly likely that I would be failing any source review I did and so, like Peacemaker67, was leaving it in the hope that you may find a reviewer more sympathetic to your approach. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog. Given AR is rather busy at present, perhaps one of the @WP:MILHIST coordinators: not yet involved might consider doing a source review? I must say that if this is really intended to go to FAC, dealing with an issue here at ACR that would clearly result in an oppose at FAC makes sense to me. FAC coords are far less forgiving of underprepared noms than the Milhist coords (what nom would be left on the list for ten months at FAC?). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it to me. Ping me if in four days I have materialized no review. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Steady on about FAC coords Peacemaker, I'll tell Hog Farm! Whom I was going to suggest, but Vami may be even better. Thanks Vami_IV Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to look at this if Vami becomes unable to, but like Gog I'd likely oppose this at FAC due to the very heavy use of older sources, including in places where they aren't necessary or shouldn't be used. For instance, in the royalists defeated the rebels under General Garret Barry in the ensuing Battle of Liscarroll why is the 1882 citation necessary? Surely a modern source somewhere includes a brief description of the battle that would support this. I'd also challenge sourcing Muskerry allegedly panicked, fled, and caused others to flee to an 1898 source, as surely there's a better, more modern source, for allegations of panicky flight. Hog Farm Talk 21:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Vami[edit]

For starters, I have never seen sourcing like this. The vast majority of sources are older than even my grandparents, and most in the ballpark of a hundred years in age; when I was first examining the article, I thought the sources being used were being used because they had drifted out of copyright and could be quoted as they are now being quoted. Reading the review, though, I see that is not the case. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johannes Schade: If you didn't already know, you probably qualify for the Wikipedia Library and its partners. If you do qualify, I recommend skimming through Oxford's available resources. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vami_IV†♠. Thank you very much for untertaking a source revue. Admittedly, many sources are very old, but often they seem to be the best sources for the events described. As WP:OLDSOURCES says "older reports ... tend to have the most detail". I find this often true with regard to the present nomination. At the beginning of this review an effort was made in response to Gog's criticism to replace older with younger sources. At the end of this drive the sources older than 100 years were a minority. As Gog said what matters is that "latest scholarship" is included. This drive has not added any insight stemming from "latest scholarship". In the present case the more recent sources are those of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB; 2004) and the Dictionary of Irish Biography (DIB; 2009). I have used The Wikipedia Library but almost exclusively for JSTOR, which seems to exclude the most recent articles. It seems therefore practically impossible for Wikipedia editors to include the latest scholarship unless they have access to University libraries. Obviously not my case.
With regard to the organisation of the source list I had it subdivided into books and articles following a suggestion by Buidhe, but I wonder wether a single alphabetical list would not be more user-friendly.
I also wonder whether my way to cite the DIB is correct. I feel I should not have used SfnRef but cited them by year as done with other sources, of course it might result in 2009a, b, c etc. I have recently added some Citation Needed to remind me of places where citations are still missing. There are probably quite a few others, especially towards the end of the article as Gog remarked. I am working on this. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Vami_IV†♠. I wondered what the requirement with regard to the age of the sources really is. The Featured Article Criteria (WP:FACR) say (1c) "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". That seems to be all. The term "latest scholarship" does not appear. The term "most recent scholarship" appears in the essay "Guidance on source reviewing at FAC" (WP:FASOURCE). This essay seems to derive its "most recent scholarship" requirement from the "high-quality" requirement of the FACR. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I'll review within the next week. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to have concerns about the age of the sources because of the possibility of WP:OR, but otherwise I am satisfied by their legitimacy. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vami_IV†♠. I know there is a problem accessing that URL. Sometimes it fails and sometimes it works fine. I have not understood what is going on. The URL itself seems to be correct. Besides, the citation concerns an fold-out without page number in that source. I had it as "|pages=fold-out" in "Cite journal" but that does obviously not make sense. I discovered that "Cite journal" has a parameter called "at" which seems to be intended for such cases, so I changed it to "|at=fold-out". It is the first time I use the "at" parameter. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vami_IV†♠. Coming back to the ages of the sources. I must admit that I am not sure that I understand your remark "concerns about the age of the sources because of the possibility of WP:OR" I would interpret you to mean that the risk of being outdated (is this WP:OR?) increases with source age, which surely is true, even if it is rare in history texts. For example, older sources give Donough's father's death as 1640, e.g. Cokayne (1913, p. 214). McGrath (1997) seems to be the first who corrects this to 1641. Besides, George Edward Cokayne (1825–1911) is a famous and normally trustworthy genealogist who wrote many books, surely a WP.RS source, whereas McGrath's work is a Ph.D. thesis. I cite the 1913-edition because this is the most recent available on the Internet. Obviously, even very recent WP:RS sources can be in error. For example, Ó Siuchrú (2009) in Dictionary of Irish Biography, article on Donough (https://www.dib.ie/biography/maccarthy-donough-a5129), states "Cormac was killed in June 1665 at the battle of Solebay", but it is well known that the Battle of Solebay was fought in 1672.

I came across the FA John Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk, very nice, well referenced and almost all references 20th and 21th century, mostly books. My sources indeed do look old compared to this. I do not know how they do this.

Early in this review I asked User:Gog the Mild about a rule for this and he wisely declined. I think we have to take this source by source and see whether they pass the "high-quality reliable" criterion of (WP:FACR) and what can be done in each case.

Something that needs to be fixed is how I referenced the Family tree. I used citations with huge page ranges, which are quite cetainly not acceptable (WP:FASOURCE makes a remark about excessive ranges). However, I feel the boxes or lines in the family tree shoulds not be encumbered with citation marks. This might be a case for citation bundling. What do you think?

With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vami_IV†♠. Still thinking about the source age. Surely, our prime objective is WP:V. Should not an old verifiable source (Internet access) be preferred over a recent one that cannot be verified at all (neither on the Net nor at the local library)? With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated my counts: the article cites 176 sources, 85 of them are older than 100 years. The FA criteria say: "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;" I expected a frontal attack from you a bit like User:Buidhe did at the beginning of this review (10 months ago). Do the 176 sources constitute a representative survey of the literature? Are all 176 sources of high quality? are all statements appropriately supported by the at present 525 inline citations? what of WP:SYNTH when more than one citation is given for a statement? What about WP:INTEGRITY, WP:CLOP, WP:PLAG? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment (HF)[edit]

Serial, mostly on sourcing, more with an eye to the future than today[edit]

A couple of points. And if anyone calls me "dear" I'll oppose on principle!

Serial, may I respectfully thank you for your interesting remarks without trying to endear myself to you. I am not a historian and a newby compared to your experience. I recounted my sources according to your criterion: 85 out of 176 are post-war. I feel you are perhaps a bit too severe with the 19th-century historians. Just like today some are trustworthy and others not. Samuel Rawson Gardiner can surely not be accused of having published "romanticised almost-guesswork" or having indulged in "colorization". Sometimes one finds contradictions like Ohlmeyer vs older sources about the date of Donough's father's 2nd marriage. It took me some time to realise it. Somebody must be wrong here. I hope I have handled this correctly. I expected that some reviewer would go through the citations with a level of detail similar to the one that has been applied to the prose. I thought I had made this feasable by providing footquotes. User:Buidhe had made a courageous start in this direction. Perhaps she could continue? Detailed source reviews appear to be rare even at FA level. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G'day @Nikkimaria and Buidhe:, would either of you be willing to do an image review? This nom has been here forever and it would be good to get it promoted given it now appears to have a consensus to promote on prose and sources. Any help gratefully appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Increased the font size from 80% to 90% in the chart and from 70% to 80% in the legend. Hope this is enough. Sorry, user:Nikkimaria, somehow, it seems I was not alerted for your edit.
No worries on the alert, but be aware that MOS:SMALL advises against anything smaller than 85%. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nikkimaria, thank for you patient explanations. I need them as this is my first image review. I increased the font size of the legend to 85% to comply with MOS:SMALL of which I had not been aware. Thanks for mentioning it. But, are not all our little superscript citation marks smaller than 85%? That seems to be an unavoidable exception to MOS:SMALL. So are the little lifespan numbers at the bottom of the frames of the family tree. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File (1) Second_Viscount_Muskerry.jpg – I added tags ((PD-US-expired)) and ((PD-Ireland-anon))
What's the date when this was considered to have been "lawfully made available to the public"?
Dear Nikkimaria you talk far over my head. You said "needs a US tag". I was wildly trying to guess what that implies and did not and still do not understand. I thought I must throw in a tag starting with PD-US and did not understand that ((PD-US-expired)) is not the right one for the case because it requires a pre-1927 publication date and that is why you ask me for a publication date which confused me even further. The painting is poor quality and was probably first published with the opening of the Hunt Museum in Limerick, Ireland in 1997. I took this image from the museum's website and uploaded it using the upload wizard provided in Wikimedia Commons, choosing the option "Faithful reproduction of a painting in the public domain because the author died more than 70 years ago". This option seems to be have resulted in the copyright tag ((PD-Art)). How can this be wrong or insufficient? I still do not understand why a "US tag" is needed and what that could be. With apologies and thanks, best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's a brief explanation and if anything's unclear please ask. Under US law copying a two-dimensional image - for example, taking a photograph of a painting - does not result in a new copyright. This is what PD-Art means - as long as the original painting is in the public domain in the US, then the photograph is also in the public domain in the US. However, we still need to have a tag reflecting why the original painting is in the public domain in the US. The PD-old-70 tag covers countries where works enter the public domain 70 years after the death of the author, but the US is not one of those countries, so this tag doesn't cover US status of the painting either. PD-US-expired is a US tag, but we need to determine whether that tag applies to this particular image by determining when this was published - that term has a technical meaning in US law that might not be what you expect with regards to paintings. If we can confirm that it was published by that definition before 1927 then this tag is fine. The same for below - if for example Ormond's portrait was not published until 1983, then PD-US-expired would not be a correct tag for that image. There is a list of US tag here that might help. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the publication date is after 1997 and the painting was published in the US by the website of the Hunt Museum, however how can I be sure of this there might be a book somewhere that shows the portrait, even if I have not found it. . In consequence ((Tl:PD-Art|PD-old-100)) applies as Muskerry's portrait was first published in the US after 1978 when the US joined the Berne Convention (List of countries' copyright lengths) and there is no need for a second US-specific tag. Dear Nikkimaria. Thank you very much for your patient explanation. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When there is uncertainty, we generally err on the side of caution and go with what can be proven. Also be aware that PD-old-100 at Commons is not a US tag - see the note on that tag that "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found the URL from which I downloaded the photo showing Muskerry's portrait painting:
- https://www.huntmuseum.com/collection/painting-the-second-viscount-muskerry/
This URL is now dead, but the page can still be found on the Wayback machine at:
- https://web.archive.org/web/20200825025103/https://www.huntmuseum.com/collection/painting-the-second-viscount-muskerry/
I now wonder whether ((PD-US-unpublished)) cannot be asserted. No copyright publication of the painting has been found despite the reasonable effort made. By its very nature ((PD-US-unpublished)) can never be proven. Display in the museum or on its website is no copyright publication as there is no sale. Many images on Wikimedia Commons are marked ((PD-US-unpublished)). For example the portrait uploaded by User:Magicpiano that figures on Jonathan Belcher, a Good Article. If this is not acceptable, must the image be deleted? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File (2) Van_dyck_thomas_wentworth_earl_of_strafford_with_sir_philip_mainwaring_1639-40.jpg – I added the tags ((PD-US-expired)) and ((PD-UK-unknown)). The painting was uploaded by user:Daverdis and is in private collection.
Er, there is an artist named in the description, why would this be considered UK-unknown? If this is in a private collection, when was it made available to the public? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course right. I did not really understand that I was in fact lying by adding these wrong copyright tags. This was not uploaded by me. But why should ((PD-Art)) not be good enough? The Source http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue15/vandyckbritish.htm gives error 404. I found a backup on the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20120218094955/http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue15/vandyckbritish.htm and added it on the metadata. National Trust Collections (https://www.nationaltrustcollections.org.uk/object/500055.2) has an engraving of the painting done in 1739. I think this constitutes a publication and enables us to use ((PD-US-expired)) as it is before 1927.
File (3) Liscarroll_Castle_perspective.png – I added the tags ((PD-US-expired)) and ((PD-UK-unknown)).
When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know when this was published, probably in the 17th century. It is an engraving and therefore made to be printed and distributed in bigger numbers. It might have been used in an 17th-century pamphlet or broadsheet about the war, but I have no proof. However, this makes it quite sure it was published "anywhere before 1927" and we can user ((PD-US-expired)).
File (4) 1st_Duke_of_Ormonde_by_William_Wissing.jpg – I added the tags PD-US-expired and PD-UK-unknown. The latter is probably not the right one as the painter (Wissing) and the location (National Portrait Gallery) are known. What would be the right one?
What is the first known publication of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ormond's portrait was purchased by the National Portait Gallery, London, in 1983, but display in a museum is not publication. However, the British Museum (https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_P-5-70) has an engraving done 1680–1688 of the central part of the painting; this is publication and allow us ((PS-US-expired)) because published before 1927. What do you think?
That seems reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File (5) Edmund_Ludlow.JPG – I added the tags ((PD-US-expired)) and ((PD-UK-unknown)).
As above, this has an author named, so why would it be UK-unknown? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was marked ((Tl:PD-Art|PD-old-100)) but you asked for a "US tag" so I added ((PD US-expired)), I thought that was what you wanted. The I thought I also needed a copyright for the UK as the country of origin, so I added ((PD-UK-anon)), the only UK copyright for PD that I knew of. I now wonder whether ((PD-Art)) ((PD-US-expired)) is not what you want here.
I propose to mark it ((Tl:PD-Art|PD-old-100)) and ((PD-US-expired)) because the engraving was published in Switzerland in 1698 as frontispiece of a book.
Sounds good. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I might be able to find an "original design". Just a second ...
Added the blazoning on which the graphic is based and cited Burke 1866. I added the all to the Description. I am not sure this is the right place. Perhaps it should have gone under Source (wich reads only |Source=((own)))? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does a dead source link mean the photo becomes unusable? I thought we put it into WikiCommons to protect against precisely this risk. Obviously I do not know much about these things, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make the photo unusable per se, but sourcing is part of both our WP:IUP and Commons' commons:COM:EI. Is an archived copy available? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nikkmaria, thanks for mentioning WP:IUP, I had never read this important guideline. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nikkimaria. I found a backup of the source on the waybackmachine at https://web.archive.org/web/20160304071143/http://pdphoto.org/PictureDetail.php?mat=pdef&pg=6126.

Drive-by from CPA[edit]

The Irish wars section
Mate, you must have a very small computer screen. On my smaller screen, there aren't any that are even close. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey mate long time no see? Not really to be honest it's the opposite. I recently bought a new monitor and it's way bigger than the last one. However, I did not know that Wikipedia isn't converting the standard 1070px format into bigger screens or some browsers. So this makes it much more annoying and kinda awkward than it already is so I've manually checked some articles on my laptop whether or not it is a sandwich by the majority of readers. I was already wondering why nobody is saying there is some sandwich going on. But currently, I am now kinda confused, MOS:SANDWICH doesn't say that this doesn't apply to bigger or smaller screen resolutions unless there is a discussion about this in the past I am not sure whether or not this guideline should apply here or not. I hope Wikipedia will solve this issue in the near future. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought it must be a bigger screen, not a smaller screen. When checking for sandwiches, I would say, the width of the browser should be adjusted in a way that a full line has about 80 characters. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More