Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Honorary Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 15:56, 25 October 2008 [1].

List of Honorary Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford[edit]

Another FLC contest list, I'm afraid; yet another Jesus College list, as well, so extra apologies. Is it complete? Well, whilst there is no complete list anywhere else to check against, I've scoured The Times, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, the Dictionary of Welsh Biography, Who's Who, Who Was Who, the two main published histories of the college and the college's annual publications since 1992, and I can't see how anyone else would have slipped past all of these sources! Comments welcome. BencherliteTalk 21:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current ref 7 (Biography College de France...) is lacking a publisher
    • Done.
  • Would be nice if you indicated on the ONDB refs that you need an subscription to access it.
    • Every time? It already says that a subscription is required in the General References section, as it does for Who's Who and Who Was Who.
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. BencherliteTalk 08:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments - picky ones though...

  • Last sentence, first paragraph of lead, needs work. Too long perhaps, but " dismiss members of academic staff as redundant, or to dismiss or discipline members of academic staff for reasons for performance or behaviour, or to dismiss " has a few repetitions in it and I'm not convinced by "for reasons for performance" either...
    • Trimmed. I was trying to follow the language of the statutes, but have given up... BencherliteTalk
  • eighty-two->82 per MOS.
  • Same with sixty-four.
    • No to both: MOS:NUM#Numbers_as_figures_or_words – "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." As I've got a "three" in the same paragraph, I'd rather have them all spelled out. BencherliteTalk
  • I'm not convinced Wales needs to be wikilinked but I won't fall on my sword for it to be unlinked.
    • Well, I'll leave it, then. Not every reader of WP will know that UK != England. BencherliteTalk
  • "is currently" - tend to avoid this, I'd go for a more precise "As of October 2008..."
  • Link MP.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. BencherliteTalk 16:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. No problem with the MOS either - I'll need to do more homework when I get back before I dare try another serious review! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose An impressive list and full of impressive people. But there are some minor issues and a couple of more serious ones

  • The date format is inconsistent (try logging out to see what 99% of readers see). Consider using accessdaymonth and acccessyear parameters instead of accessdate.
    • Will do, but need time Update: Done. That would appear to be because {{cite news}} has been edited – since I brought the list here – to be inconsistent with {{cite web}} in its display of accessdates . Great...
  • As The Rambling Man notes, there's some WP:DATED issues particularly affecting some of final lead paragraph. ("every decade since then"; "have been elected since then"; "the most recent election")
    • WP:DATED refers to events that will date quickly, and doesn't apply here IMHO. That said, I've removed the offending sentences for other reasons, since two people think that the lead is too long.
  • The second paragraph appears to be entirely original research. As you indicate, there is no source that lists all 82 people and you don't cite any that confirm, for example, that Francine Stock is the only woman. Much of this information can be discovered by the list readers, using the sort option to group the link column entries. IMO the lead is overlong, so removing this paragraph would help.
    • Hee-hee, SatyrTN thinks I should remove the sortability of that column, so I can't please both of you! I've removed the references to numbers and repeated the citation (non-internet) about Stock being the only woman. I've trimmed the lead.
  • Much of the information in the link and notes columns is unsourced. This is particularly true of those entries sourced to the Oxford University Gazette, which merely contain a list of names. Some of our people lists contain unsourced DoB or nationality which I'm relatively comfortable with overlooking because it is a minor detail, useful for identification, and actually rather hard to source. I suppose someone might challenge even that minor info. But, for example, stating that Yoder won the Pulitzer Prize in 1979 really demands a source. BTW: having a separate Ref column makes it hard for me to tell if the source (particularly one I can't read) covers the HF year, the link and/or the notes. It is possible that all three facts might be separately sourced. Colin°Talk 17:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yoder is sourced for all three elements in the one source, but you can't read that source on the internet. That's the problem with offline sources, isn't it? Do you really need me to give an internet source as well for the fact that he won a Pulizer Prize? If so, I will. My mistake; I was confusing the article that I wrote on Yoder with the list entry; the article has two sources, one of which is offline and contains the fact of his college attendance, his PP and his election date to an HF. I'll add in another source to the list entry. Are there any others that you think demand sources for particular note entries? Do you really want me to put a ref by the HF year, the link and the notes as well? I think that's overkill, since very often it'll be the same ref three times, which is pure reference bloat and will look very messy - hence keeping everything in one column.
    • Thanks for the review. BencherliteTalk 11:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The cite web/news difference is one problem, but the other is the use of ISO date formats, which should really be discouraged as that's what logged out readers see. The DATED text will/may be out of date as soon as there is another election. The issue is that without making your time frame explicit (As of 2008) the reader and future editors won't know if or when your text became out of date. I think the Link column sortability is now working fine and is useful. I agree that having refs inside most of the cells would be ugly. My point is more that once you start distrusting that a row-ref actually supplies a source for all the row, then it becomes hard to know which facts you are claiming come from the row-ref. Some of the sources supply everything and some only supply the fact that X was elected in YYYY. All the notes information is challengable, IMO, and technically the Type (were they a former fellow) is too as both are significant pieces of information in this list. It looks like all the rows sourced to Oxford University Gazette lack the detail required (unless the paper version has more detail and the online one is just an outline, in which case the source should be the printed version and the web link should clearly indicate it is just a summary). Colin°Talk 12:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Access dates put into a revised format. Added a whole load of extra refs to ensure everything's covered at least once. BencherliteTalk 15:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good when logged out now. The sourcing is much better. Support. Colin°Talk 11:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SatyrTN
  • As per above, the lede is waay too long, IMO. My suggestion is to take out paragraph two and the accompanying quote. Just my opinion.
    • I have trimmed the lead. However, the quote is the single most interesting individual fact in the list. It is the only documented reaction I have found of a HF's reaction to being awarded an HFship. It was sufficiently interesting to be made the lead item (with picture) at DYK. Why on earth would you want to remove the quote?
  • More pictures! Surely out of the 82 entrants on the list there are more available?
    • No more photos on the accompanying articles. Most of the people are still alive and not sufficiently photographed to have free-use images waiting around to be used; those that are dead are often too recently dead to have photos out of copyright.
  • The column header "Link" is vague - It took me several readings of the key to figure out what you meant. "Link to College" would be too long a header. Perhaps the Key could be renamed "Key to Links" and start that off with a sentence like "Most Fellows are linked to the College in various ways. These include:" Or something like that.
    • Reworded.
  • I'm not sure about this one... Sorting the "Link" column may be problematic. If I've sorted that way, I'm interested in counting how many Old Members there are, for instance. But six of them end up out of order (since they're "F/OM"). I'm wishy-washy on this, but I'm leaning towards removing the sortability of the Link column.
    • Well, I'm strongly leaning to keeping it, particularly when (as noted above) the previous opposer was using the sortability of the link column as a justification for calling for changes in the lead paragraphs! To make it even better, I've changed "L" to "CL" so that the "F"s lead into the "F/OM"s and then into the "OM"s without the sole "L" in the way.
I'm still worried about the lede being so long. I feel like this is trying to be both an article (where reactions to being named would definitely be included) and a list (where they may not). My concern is not quite strong enough to justify an oppose, though :) BTW, this is good work, conflicting reviewers or not :)

Update I have asked Colin to revisit this FLC, but his busy schedule hasn't permitted this yet; please hold off archiving this until he does. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 22:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'll aim to look at it this lunchtime. Colin°Talk 07:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Colin°Talk 11:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. BencherliteTalk 23:22, 23 October 2008 (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_list_candidates/List_of_Honorary_Fellows_of_Jesus_College,_Oxford&oldid=247665315"