Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/L. D. Reynolds/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 September 2021 [1].

L. D. Reynolds[edit]

Nominator(s): Modussiccandi (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm presenting you an article on the Welsh Latinist Leighton Durham Reynolds. Spending his entire career at Brasenose College, Oxford, Reynolds was a textual critic whose work revolutionised the study of Seneca's Letters. He also wrote the most successful general introduction to his field, a small book named Sribes and Scholars.

The article is built in the mould of my recent FA on R. A. B. Mynors and is in many ways a continuation of my work there. About a week ago, the article was kindly reviewed for GA by Amitchell125. I will, of course, be grateful for any suggestions for improvement, Modussiccandi (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note on image in the infobox: there is an image of Reynolds available online which could be used in the infobox with a fair use rationale. However, I have been in touch with Brasenose college to ask whether they might want to donate a free, high-quality version of the image. They haven't yet replied but, as a courtesy to them, I wouldn't like to resort to the fair use version until we know that Brasenose can't provide the image. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image licensing is good. Please ping when the lead image is sorted out one way or the other. (t · c) buidhe 00:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe: I've been told that the college won't be able to deal with my request for another couple of weeks. Would it be possible for the article to pass the image review without an image in the infobox (which I would add once it's there)? Or would you want me to take a fair use one and switch to the free one later? Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, such an image is not necessary for FA promotion. (t · c) buidhe 20:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Ergo Sum[edit]

Lead

  • I'm no textual scholar, but I'm not quite sure what the term "standard edition" means here. I could probably take a guess given the context, but if this is a term of art in the field, I think it would be better to either give a brief explanation right at the outset. If it is not a term of art, I would suggest rephrasing so that the reader has an idea of what is meant by its later usage in the article.
  • The conventions on whether or not to capitalize "classics" and whether to precede it with the definite article are so messy that I can't quibble about it here.
  • Thank you. My personal preference is to capitalise but I recognise there are different takes on this. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fellow of Brasenose College". I just want to verify that "of" is the typical phrasing rather than "at"
  • Fellow "of" the college is conventional though "at" could certainly be used. (The point being that fellows at Oxbridge colleges make up the governing body and are more than just teaching staff.) Modussiccandi (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • British Academy should be linked in the lede. I think "fellow" should be lowercase here per MOS.
  • Done
  • I'm generally of the opinion that deaths need not be mentioned in the lede (except for death date in parentheses) unless the nature of the death were notable for some reason.
  • Done
  • achievement of Reynolds career. Need an apostrophe.
  • Done
  • ...in which he advanced a new reconstruction of the transmission and revealed.... The meaning of this sentence is largely lost on me, a non-expert. Because WP's readership is primarily non-expert, I'd suggest rephrasing to be a bit more accessible (hopefully without sacrificing accuracy).
  • I've tried to find a better wording but do say if this doesn't go far enough, Modussiccandi (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scribes and Scholars: a Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature. I generally see the first letter of a work's subtitle capitalized. Does this work not do this?
    Kindly done by Noswall. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time of its publication. Should be followed by a comma.
  • Done
  • considered by some commentators to be difficult to surpass I would put a comma after this.
  • Done
  • If possible, you can probably tweak a bit to condense the lede down to three or maybe even two paragraphs, given the length of the article.
  • You are right, the article is probably too short to require four paragraphs in the lead. I'm somewhat reluctant to condense because I personally think that it does an appropriate job of summarising all the relevant points. With that said, I could condense the second and first paragraphs into one. Would it be okay if I held off on condensing the lead until other reviewers have seconded your point? Modussiccandi (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, I'm not actually very concerned about the length as is. It might be just a bit long but it's still a reasonable length. Ergo Sum 17:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

  • For the infobox, I've observed the unwritten convention of using the Education parameter for education that didn't result in a degree and Alma mater for that which did. I'd suggest switching to the latter and adding the degree received in parentheses behind the institution.
  • Done
  • The name parameter in an infobox is generally the name by which the subject is commonly known. In this case, it would be the article name. I suggest changing it accordingly and then making use of |birth_name= for his full name.
  • Done

Early life

  • Need a comma after Abercanaid.
  • Done
  • I'm not so sure about the use of the colon. That seems like a semi-colon situation.
  • Done
  • Modern languages need not be capitalized.
  • Done
  • Perhaps specify that Università per Stranieri di Perugia is in Italy. Up to your discretion.
  • Done
  • an expert on the Ancient Greek novel Is this meant to refer to one novel in particular?
  • Ah, that wasn't apparent to me when I first read it. This phrasing strikes me as a bit of a rhetorical flourish, which might be lost on a casual reader (like myself, it seems). "on Ancient Greek novels" might be a slightly more prosaic way of putting it. Ergo Sum 00:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for pointing this out. I've used your suggestion. "The Greek Novel" is used so frequently in our discipline that one can forget how misleading the term can be. Modussiccandi (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can probably move the reference supporting the length of his Air Force service to the end of the sentence.
  • Done

Career

  • the influence of three textual critics working at Oxford. I think a colon, rather than a comma, should follow this phrase.
  • Done
  • You should have an inline citation inside the footnote to support the explanation of what a transmission is.
  • Done
  • When his research fellowship ended The phrasing of this sentence sounds a bit odd. Perhaps just cut out the introductory clause and just leave the part about the post becoming open and then beginning the next sentence with his appointment following the end of the fellowship.
  • Done
  • University Lecturer. If this is not a proper title, then it should be lowercase.
  • Yes, it's a proper title, as opposed to just "lecturer" in general. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise for vice-principal and principal
  • It seems there has been a push to make what I would generally consider capitalized titles lowercase on WP (e.g. president of the United States or chancellor of the University of Oxford). I tend to lean toward capitalization for offices that are uniquely held by one person and are well established/prominent, so I don't object to the capitalization here. Just wanted to mention that other editors might disagree. Ergo Sum 17:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • near Oxford which I would recommend a comma after Oxford.
  • Done
  • As above, I think a semi-colon is more appropriate than a colon regarding the visiting fellowships.
  • Done

Seneca's Letters

  • As above, there should be an inline citation inside the footnote about Greek letters.
  • Done. I actually found a suitable place in Reynolds and Wilson. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further critical editions

  • Ditto regarding inline citations in the corruption footnote.
  • Done

Scribes

  • I would re-introduce Wilson by full name, since he was introduced by name several sections prior.
  • Done
  • Ditto regarding subtitles, per above.

Legacy

  • Revello named Reynolds'. While grammatically correct, it might read a bit smoother by saying "Reynolds' editions".
  • Done

Bibliography

  • For any links references that do not contain stable URLs (e.g. doi or JSTOR identifiers, I would add an archival link.
  • Done though I'm not very experienced at this, so feel free to correct mistakes if there are any. For one reference, Hörmann (1970), there seems to be a PID number which only seems to show in the source text. I'm not sure whether this is a problem. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

  • Done
  • Regardless of the response from Brasenose, I encourage you to upload the free image to the Commons. Always helpful to add to its massive collection of images whenever one can.
  • The reason why I'm hesitating to upload the available image is that it isn't actually free. Our use of it would only work under a fair use rationale. If the the image were indeed free, I would have already uploaded it to the Commons. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first footnote regarding standard edition needs an inline citation.
  • Ah yes, the reason I didn't automatically add a reference is this: the content of the footnote only spells out what the adjective "standard" can mean in this context. I don't know whether there is a reliable source which adequately describes this meaning because it's typically deduced. The Oxford Classical Dictionary, for example, uses the term in its articles but doesn't itself describe what it denotes. So, to summarise, I think a reference would not be practical or necessary in this case. We could cut the note altogether since, as you indicate above, the term is near self-explanatory in the context of this article. In my view a link would be the ideal solution but our entries under the relevant title are not very helpful. In the Mynors article the term was used without objection, which might be an indication that readers found it reasonably straightforward to decode. Modussiccandi (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll readily admit that literature is not my field of expertise, but I have not come across that term in adjacent fields in which I am more well read, like philosophy, where I would expect to encounter it if it were not a term of art particular to a given field. Alternatively, it might just be an example of a British-American vocabulary divide; I don't know. If you think the term is sufficiently commonplace that there isn't a source that could be cited to support an explanation, my suggestion would be to rephrase the sentence to avoid the term until it can be explained by additional context later on in the article. If others disagree and think the meaning is really too obvious that explanation is unnecessary, then I'd retract that. Ergo Sum 02:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have opted to remove the note and rephrase the lead so that the term doesn't crop up. In the body, the concept is introduced in a quotation saying that Reynolds' edition would become the "standard text" of the work. I hope this is a reasonable compromise. I would not want to ignore your opinion on this since those who, like you, are well read in adjacent fields are surely the educated general reader whom we should have in mind. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Another very fine article from Modussiccandi. Ergo Sum 01:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Ergo Sum, for your comments. Have a look at my responses and feel free to let me know if more needs to be done. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added just a few more comments above. In any event, I'm happy to support. Ergo Sum 00:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Noswall59[edit]

I don't think I have reviewed an article before and found so few quibbles. This is an excellent piece of work and brilliantly written. I have made some very minor copyedits here which I shall explain. Firstly, I don't believe that we italicise book series (this would be confusing because we do italicise book names). Secondly, I believe we capitalise the first letter in a book's subtitle as a matter of course. Thirdly, based on some advice I was recently given, I think it makes sense when a proper noun ends in an "s" to use an apostrophe followed by another "s" for the possessive; this way, it reads as it sounds (hence, Reynolds's).

These really are the most minor of points though and I recognise that the latter is rather subjective. Based on the prose, I am happy to support this. It seems to cover the full details of his career too, and, though I'm not an expert, offers a concise summary of his scholarly output. On this last point, I have added the short list of articles and chapters he wrote to the list publications (I think that's appropriate under the "comprehensive" criteria for FAC). Unfortunately, the Cite Book template shows the editor as the author when there is no author field, so I've had to include author fields and then mask the author's name, which has altered the format slightly from your preference. Apologies for this – I tried to find a work around to no avail (this is probably something which needs raising with the template developers). Anyway, I'm happy to support this article – the first time I can recall offering support here without asking for changes! Many thanks for this fine contribution. —Noswall59 (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Noswall59: I'm flattered to read these kind words. Thank you, too, for adding the additional publications (I may have been slightly lazy when I didn't include them in the initial version) and your copyedits. It's impressive to see so much initiative in improving someone else's article at FAC. All the best, Modussiccandi (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • "he wrote the most commonly cited edition of Seneca the Younger's Letters" - source?
  • Done
  • ""his edition of the Letters still serves as the standard text in the early 21st century" - would suggest making this an "as of 2001" statement given the sourcing
  • Done
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
  • How are you ordering Bibliography?
  • Done. Should have been alphabetically but I made a mistake in the 'K' range. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this, Nikkimaria. Please see my comments above. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

  • Lead is too much at four paras, for an article of this length WP:LEAD would recommend perhaps two.
  • You are the second reviewer to bring this up, so I accept it was time to address the length of the lead. I have reduced it to one larger paragraph and two smaller ones. I hope this is alright. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are there references in the lead? Everything there should be in the main body (and expanded upon) and thus can be cited there.
  • The footnotes are there to support challengeable claims such as the one about his edition being the most cited. Nikkimaria indicated in their source review (see above) that this was the way to go. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are indeed repeated in the body, which was already the case when the source review was done. Maybe Nikkimaria can suggest what the correct procedure is. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seldom see any references in FA leads, perhaps sometimes for direct quotations, but barely otherwise. I don't see anything so outlandish in this lead that would warrant referencing both there and in the main body of the article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations in the lead are not forbidden, as per WP:LEADCITE. The reason I asked for one for the particular point mentioned above was because it was an unusual claim not readily locatable in the main text. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for clarifying. You are right that the claim is not repeated verbatim. However, it says in the "Legacy" section that a group of scholars "named Reynolds's editions as "the best and most cited" texts of Seneca's works." To me, the two sentences expressed roughly the same thing but I can see how one can disagree about that. I've now removed the two footnotes at the end of the lead and kept the one in question plus no. 3, which backs up a direct quotation. I hope this is a compromise that works for TRM. Modussiccandi (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "studied Latin at" could link Latin.
  • "St. John's College, Cambridge." no full stop after St
  • Done
  • "Oxford and" comma after Oxford (no pun intended).
  • "The central academic achievement of Reynolds's career was the publication in 1965 of The Medieval Tradition of Seneca's Letters" this repeats some of what was said in the first para of the lead. Is the first para of the lead a lead for the lead?
  • Done. I have changed things around in the new lead so as to be less repetitive. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reynolds's reputation was largely based on his contributions to textual criticism" you said that in the first para of the lead too.
  • Done
  • "standard text as of 2001. [6]" what's "standard text"? And if you keep the citations in the lead (which I don't recommend), don't put a space before them.
  • Done
  • "Textual Criticism" in infobox, -> Textual criticism.
  • Done
  • "the Caerphilly Basin" avoid part-linking formal titles.
  • Done I removed the link altogether.
  • "A. E. Wade" not notable?
  • Done
  • "study of Latin" link.
  • Done
  • I assume the BAs in the infobox mean Batchelor of Arts, but those types of degree aren't mentioned in the article, nor linked in the infobox.
  • The source didn't actually say anything about BAs, so I have removed this bit from the infobox. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in two years" instead of the usual three?
  • Done
  • "a Craven Fellowship" what's that?
  • The source doesn't specify what it is. I presume it's an award for undergraduate results. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reynolds joined the Royal Air Force but most of his national service was " seems wrong way round, makes it sound like he had an option to join, but if it was national service, presumably he didn't.
  • Done
  • "the Air Force after" either add Royal or make it "air force" as this isn't the full formal title.
  • Done
  • "rank of pilot officer" given that's the lowest rank, was that what he started as, i.e. commissioned? Or was he an NCO?
  • I'm not sure (partly because I know next to nothing about the air force). The source doesn't give any more information than this. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at Queen's College, Oxford" The Queen's...
  • Done
  • "During his three years at the college" at the college -> there
  • Done
  • "Oxford had" comma after Oxford again.
  • Done
  • "Around this time, he was diagnosed with cancer" vs "the diagnosis was made only in 1999 " conflicting.
  • The situation is this: Winterbottom says that Reynolds had surgery in 1995. From this it follows that the diagnosis must have come in 1995 or earlier. Wilson, on the other hand, says that the diagnosis came in 1999. Since the two sources can't both be right, I chose to write "around this time" (i. e. 1997) to indicate that he suffered from cancer in the late 90s.Modussiccandi (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link monograph.
  • Done
  • "transmitted in a separate tradition" what does this mean?
  • It simply means that they weren't transmitted together. I've changed the sentence to be a bit plainer. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link philologist.
  • Done

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for your comments, The Rambling Man. Feel free to have a look at my replies above. I'm not at all dogmatic about the citations in the lead. I'm aware that there is strictly no need for them except in the cases specified by MOS:LEADCITE. I merely wanted to comply with what I thought was required for the source review. I'll happily remove them if your hunch is confirmed by Nikkimaria. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/L._D._Reynolds/archive1&oldid=1042629651"