Talk:Joseph Priestley/Archive 3

message: Hello, friendly GA reviewer. A couple of comments on JP. He could have been placed under numerous categories at GAC, but I placed him under "Chemists" specifically hoping to draw the attention of editors with a scientific background to check the science in this article, as that is not my forte. Second, I know the article is long (it is still under the 10,000 word limit!), so please suggest material to delete. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 03:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hello, GA reviewer!

message: I wonder why the reference to Priestley recommending William Wood as his successor at Mill Hill was deleted. I would have thought that Priestley's associates and whom he thought worthy to follow him were material to his personality.Cutler 09:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Wood 

message: I don't know if you want to use it, but I found this image of a "pneumatic trough", that of Stephen Hales.  Priestley used a modified pneumatic trough to perform the nitrous air test, so this might a more informative replacement for the title page in the natural philosopher of air section.--ragesoss 15:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure Priestley modified Hales' trough specifically. Let's include this picture. We have too many title pages anyway. Awadewit | talk 19:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nitrous air test

message: In the natural philosopher of air section, from "Always the historian" to the end of the paragraph, most of this could be cut.  The but about cheap apparatus and reproducibility should kept (but maybe trimmed), but the writing style and history bits are less valuable.--ragesoss 15:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *But all the biographers made such a big deal about that! :) Let's try and trim or perhaps this is where the Joseph Priestley and science page will have to be utilized. Awadewit | talk 19:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cutting suggestions

message: Fruton (Methods and Styles, p. 30) says "It has been suggested that Priestley death may have been hastened by his repeated exposure to the carbon monoxide generated in his last experiments."  The footnote points to several papers, the most recent of which is: Conlin, Michael F. “Joseph Priestley’s American Defense of Phlogiston Reconsidered,” Ambix Vol. 43, Part 3, November 1996: 129-145.  I'm not sure if this bears mentioning, but it's interesting, in the least.--ragesoss 17:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *What do you think? I'm inclined to leave it out for the moment unless the authors explain the connections between his symptoms and his work with CO. Awadewit | talk 19:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Death

message: I think the science in this article is handled well; it's clear and I don't notice any remaining problems.  One thing that I don't like is using an article from 1984 (Schaffer) to make present tense historiographical statements, especially since there are a substantial number of sources on Priestley's science (many used in the article) that have been published since.  Other than that, I think the article is ready for FA.--ragesoss 16:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I am still planning to read more secondary material - the long list of articles you see on the page. Hopefully that will eliminate things like the Schaffer problem. I am also hoping that the articles will help clarify the most important points to include in the page so that it can be cut even more. I am uncomfortable basing the article almost entirely on biographies. They have their limits. Awadewit | talk 23:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Priestley and science

message: I noticed that an IP editor has added the "new style" birthdate for JP - is it customary to include both old and new? I thought not, but I can't really find any policy on that. WP:DATE does not seem to be clear. Anyone? Awadewit | talk 09:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I see that now both dates are the "new style". Is that what we do? Awadewit | talk 05:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthdate 

message: I have removed the infobox and placed the right-facing portrait on the left (per WP:MOS). The current layout of the lead was a consensus achieved a few months ago. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 18:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which has the effect of pushing the ToC lower than it would otherwise need to be, introducing more white space than there needs to be. Could you link to the consensus of which you speak, please. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you'll find it in Archive 2 above. While I'm a big fan of infoboxes, adding one here would also force the use of another portrait, as all but this one are right-facing. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: We are now at 9009 words, well below the 10,000 max. Awadewit | talk 20:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The body text size (81 kB) is also more manageable, and (not much of a criterion, but still) larger articles have been promoted to FA. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did some trimming because I thought you wanted more of that, but feel free to change all that back.  In other news, this quote is pretty bad: "as one early biographer writes: "taken collectively, [Priestley] did more than those of any one of his contemporaries to uproot and destroy the only generalisation by which his immediate predecessors had sought to group and connect the phenomena of chemistry", however "he was wholly unable to perceive this fact"."  I'm not sure it's even necessary; the first part of that sentence is enough.--ragesoss 00:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ragesoss, I trust your instincts - please change whatever you think is necessary. Besides, you are the only other person who has read anything about Priestley who is working on this! Awadewit | talk 01:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do want to keep trimming a bit more. The peer reviewers have had pretty strong reactions to the page's length. Awadewit | talk 06:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have now hit about 8,000 words and 50kb of prose - still at the outside limit. I don't think there can be a substantial reduction beyond that without a wholesale rewriting of the page, which I am not prepared to do at the time. I think the page works well as it is, so I am going to proceed with the FAC preparations unless I hear otherwise. I know that User:Qp10qp thought I should rewrite the whole thing, but I guess I am prepared to try FAC and if there is a consensus that the article is too long, I will return to it in a few months. Or perhaps some other brave soul can attempt to transform it. :) Awadewit | talk 02:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word count 

message: May I suggest using smaller font (i.e. as the notes) for the Bibliography section, by adding  and  before and after the subsections' content? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Done. Awadewit | talk 01:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: Shouldn't his this be mentioned somewhere at the beginning, with a reference? -Kez 00:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *It is in the caption under the picture of his birthplace. I will be adding a reference soon. I have recently moved a lot of information to the captions to try and cut down the size of the article. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 00:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place of birth 

message: Normally, an image caption simply identifies the image. If other text is added to the caption box (which is done to very good effect in this article), the image description should end with a period, to separate it clearly from the other text. I did this awhile back, but it appears that most of these changes were reverted. Since the image ID and the other text do not form a single sentence, a stronger separation than a semicolon is called for. If others don't like using a period (I acknowledge that the image ID usually is not a sentence), consider a colon or a dash, or perhaps something else. Finell (Talk) 20:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I was under the impression that no phrases in the caption should end with a period unless they are full sentences. Long ago I was chastised at FAC for doing this and have avoided it ever since. Has the MOS changed again? I simply cannot keep up! (This is why I changed them.) Awadewit | talk 00:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not aware of the MOS on this. However, there is no grammatical justification for a full sentence to begin after the semicolon, nor is there grammatical justification for the image description and what follows it to be in the same sentence even with a semicolon. So, as I suggested, perhaps there is a more satisfactory solution. Finell(Talk) 01:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looked at Captions. It does state, as you understood, that a non-sentence caption should not end with a period (ending a non-sentence with a period is wrong anywhere, I must admit). It does not specifically address the situation here. It discourages long captions, but encourages captions that show relevance rather than just describe the image itself; yours do this beautifully. In some instances, like the title page images, you may be able to dispense with the descriptive part of the caption or make what is depicted obvious from the text that accompanies it. Consider the em-dash to separate a non-sentence description from additional text. Finell (Talk) 01:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look at the captions again, but I have a feeling the dash would be discouraged. Awadewit | talk 01:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Captions have been refined; not all semi-colons have been avoided, I'm afraid. Awadewit | talk 02:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image captions 

message: Is it really necessary, or desirable, to translate this well-written piece into British English, as discussed above? Finell (Talk) 01:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *See the previous debate/bloodbath between Roger Davies, myself, and others here over just this very issue. I am not prepared to go through such a debate again, particularly since there are multiple contributors to this page (not the case previously) and since Roger has agreed to keep this page consistent. If you would like to start up the whole thing again, obviously you are welcome to, but I would encourage you to read the long debate, which also managed to spill onto other pages and other FACs, before doing so. Awadewit | talk 02:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I won't reopen something that was settled. Finell (Talk) 06:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [Insert caustic sarcastic joke about how it's the duty of every Wikipedian to constantly squabble over minor things that have long been settled.] – Scartol · Talk 13:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree! I DEMAND that you cite a reliable source for this alleged duty. Your allegation that I am derelict in my duty as a Wikipedian is a really, really nasty thing to say and grounds for your being run out of town on a rail. Am I doing better now? Finell (Talk) 08:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are, if I may be so bold as to say so, completely missing the point. No real progress on this can be made until the  Lilliputian -v- Blefuscan dispute is resolved. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British English? 

message: *(anhydrous hydrochloric acid, HCl) What is this a parenthetical of? The brackets between semicolons look wrong to me.
:*There was an extra semi-colon. I have removed it. Awadewit | talk 22:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Now reads "attended Lindsey's church". It was on Essex Street, if you care to know. :) Awadewit | talk 22:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *Added "in 1922". Awadewit | talk 22:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *Linked to Association of Ideas. Awadewit | talk 22:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *Suggestions? Awadewit | talk 22:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Small queries