Talk:Robert Jones (artilleryman)

Issues

This article is going to really need more content to meet quality standards, possibly propose deletion as he already has a paragraph about him in History of figure skating#18th and 19th centuries? Pastorma (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Just an aside

In clipping this contemporaneous newspaper article, I think I found the first documented fatal case of man flu. Bogger (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hounslow Heath shooting

As reported in Jan 1770 and corrected, a "Robert Jones Esq.", was aquitted on grounds of self defence of the shooting on John Tillier on Hounslow Heath. Same? Bogger (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It could be, but I doubt it. If it were, I think that the story would've mentioned Captain Jones' military experience. This Jones also doesn't seem famous enough. Plus, I'd think that Norton and Hines would've mentioned this incident. It's interesting, though. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Removed dubious tag

while I share the apprehension of the usage of the word, the sentence is correct and clear about what the source states. It is scholars job not ours to stop conflating abuse and sexual relationships. Until then all wikipedia can do is report what the consensus is.

Wickedjacob (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert Jones (artilleryman)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 01:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Earwig finds no issues. Sources are reliable.

• The images need a copyright tag for the UK as well as the US. Changing the first two from PD-US-expired to PD-old would do it; the one hosted on en-wiki needs PD-UK added.

  I added the PD-old copyright on the first and third images; the second one was already accurate.

  So it was; not sure how I missed that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• 'The Art of Skating was called "a milestone in the history of figure skating"': this wording implies it was called that at the time; it appears this is a modern opinion, so I would suggest "has been called" instead.

  Done.

• You link to macaroni (fashion), but I think a word or two of definition wouldn't hurt inline, since it's a term most readers will be quite unfamiliar with. And I think it should be a lower case "m", so that will make it seem even odder to readers who only know of the pasta.

  Done.

  Just checking: do we also need a cite for the definition you added? Or is it covered by the subsequent cite to Norton? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I took the definition from the macaroni article, like when you use a description for a place (i.e., "in the southwest part of China") or a person ("the king of England"). Is that good enough for our purposes here? If not, I can find a definition somewhere and then cite.

• 'He also described seven advanced figures, or "circular patterns which skaters trace on the ice"[11] that gave the sport of figure skating its name, with sketches and large colour plates of three of them, that were skated at the time.' A bit convoluted. Suggest 'He also described seven advanced figures that were skated at the time: these were "circular patterns which skaters trace on the ice" that gave the sport of figure skating its name, with sketches and large colour plates of three of them.'

  Done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• "According to Hines, Jones filled the need for a record of these figures.[12] Hines stated that the book’s publication served as ...": I don't think these are controversial enough to need to credit Hines inline. I think we could make this just "Jones filled the need for a record of these figures, and the book’s publication served as .."

  Followed suggestion.

• "the execution of inside and outside edges": can we get a link to something that explains these?

  No, not really. I mean, it's explained in the Execution of figures section in Compulsory figures and to a lesser account in Figure skate. I guess I could link to the section(s), although it'd be hard to find. My problem with this suggestion is that for bios, it's not up to us to explain every aspect of their sport. Plus, I'm not sure that this is done for athletes of other sports.

  OK. I think links are normal for sports terms that a reader might want, though I agree inline explanations would be excessive, but if there's no natural link it's moot. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• "due to their prolonged use": I don't know what this refers to.

  Clarified to "because critics thought that skaters executed them too often".

• 'As Hines stated, "Jones lent unconditional support for women skating, albeit recreationally".' Doesn't this just repeat the previous sentence?

  Ok, removed sentence.

• "According to historian Mike Rendell, Jones was found guilty": can we make this just "Jones was found guilty"? There's no reason to doubt Rendell, is there? Similar for the subsequent "According to Norton" and "Norton reported that", and "Rendell also said that".

  Ok, done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Spotchecks. Footnotes refer to this version. I don't have access to any of these; can you quote here the text that supports these?

• Not sure what you're asking for here. All the refs you list below are from books that can't be accessed online. I've gotten the citations correct, though. When I've run into sources I can't access, I AGF, if the other sources are good. Could you give me examples of what you'd like me to do?

  The reason I'm asking is that the GA criteria have changed; a year ago I'd have AGFed on the sources I can't see, but (partly because of the debacle with Doug Coldwell's GAs -- see WP:DCGAR if you don't know about that) there's now a requirement that a GA reviewer spotchecks a sample of the citations. That mean if I don't have access I have to ask the nominator to quote the information here so I can confirm. Of course I've reviewed many of your articles and I know that you're very accurate in your citations, but I'm not supposed to take that into account of course. So could you type in enough text from the source for me to see that these citations are accurate? Sorry to put you to the trouble. I have to say that the new requirement has actually led to me finding quite a few problems in articles I've been reviewing -- nearly all for newer nominators, as you would expect. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I was unaware of that. I mean, I knew about the notorious DG debacle, but not about the new requirement, and I've reviewed a couple of GAs in the last year. Good to know. Yes, I'm an experienced editor, but I also believe in presenting a good example for newer editors. See below.

• FN 5 cites "Jones was found guilty based solely on the basis of the alleged victim's accusation, and that there was no medical evidence or corroboration of Hay's testimony in court."

"Captain Jones was found guilty simply on the statements made by the boy, who waited three weeks after the alleged incident before revealing his story. There was no collaboration and no medical evidence was produced."

• FN 6 cites "Jones' trial caused a stir in the press and from politicians including John Wilkes, who viewed the pardon as an example of government corruption because defendants like Jones, who had supporters within the government, were pardoned, but poor defendants often were not."

"He saw it as yet another example of corruption in government. If a poor man stole a watch he would be executed for theft; it a rich man committed sodomy then his friends in high places were sure to get him released very soon" (p. 173).

• FN 4 cites "Robert Jones was a lieutenant in the Royal Artillery, but was commonly referred to as "Captain Jones" by the popular press and royal court in the late 1700s."

"Robert Jones, a lieutenant in the British Royal Artillery and a devoted skater..."

- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Mike, thanks for your feedback. Let me know if you have any more, and what else to do to get this over the GA line. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've addressed your most recent feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks good; passing. I assume you typed "collaboration" but meant "corroboration" above? Re GAs: there have been quite a few changes, actually, though the spotchecks are the only substantive change to the criteria. One fairly big change is that the GAN page now lists the number of GA reviews each nominator has done, and the number of GAs they have written, and the nominations are now sorted so that nominators who've reviewed the most are at the top. Actually completely new nominators come first, then frequent reviewers. That's one reason I picked this article to review -- you have 35 GAs and have done 75 reviews. When we started listing number of reviews, it was amazing to discover that there are some very frequent nominators with hundreds of GAs who never review at all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Mike Christie, for the review, the pass, and the explanation. I knew about the nom list, since that's obvious to see. I think that was a good move, since we all, being human beings, need incentives to get articles reviewed. I've always liked reviewing articles; it has helped me improve my writing skills and it gives back to the editing community. It also helps to learn the criteria so that when you submit articles, it makes for a stress-free, drama-free experience for all. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)