Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Randall Davidson/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22 January 2020 [1].

Randall Davidson[edit]

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 18:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a biography of the longest-serving Archbishop of Canterbury since the Reformation: he served for 25 years, from 1903 to 1928, through momentous times, and in a quiet way he was one of the foremost religious leaders of his time. The article has had an exceptionally thorough and wide-ranging peer review, with input from Cassianto, Fowler&fowler, Gog the Mild, Josh Milburn, KJP1, Noswall59, SchroCat, Smerus and Wehwalt for which I am immensely grateful. I think the article now meets the FA criteria, and I look forward to colleagues' comments here. – Tim riley talk 18:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cassianto[edit]

I never did finish, did I! Nevermind, it has certainly had the Rolls-Royce treatment since and is a stunning piece of work. CassiantoTalk 19:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cassianto! Yes, I've indeed been privileged at PR. Support gratefully received. Tim riley talk 19:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Some trivia:

  • "and, after a brief spell as a curate he became chaplain and secretary" Comma after "curate"?
  • "Henry's father, grandfather, and great-grandfather were Presbyterian ministers" Link minister.
  • Hmm. You and I often differ over what is or isn't an everyday word. I can't imagine anyone reading this article will struggle with the meaning of the term. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But note that I had to look up just what a minister was to see what what you had written meant. Knowledge of the intricacies of the various Christian hierarchies may not be as widespread as you believe.
OK, I'm persuaded. Linked. Tim riley talk 10:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • "he had hoped to study Greats (classics and philosophy)" Lower case g? "the less demanding subjects of Law and History" Ditto l and h? "Third Class Bachelor of Arts" And again. Followed by "degree in law and modern history". "Roman Catholic doctrine such as Benediction". "opposite the Chapter House".
  • Capitalisation has been tricky throughout this article, and I don't doubt others might not capitalise everything I have capitalised. "Greats" is always capitalised. I should think even The Guardian would capitalise it. I am persuaded about "third class bachelor of arts, though. The Chapter House is borderline, but is usually capitalised in the sources. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " he thought too much power was in the hands of its general" Optional: Link general to William Booth.
  • I think it was more generic than just Booth – it was the nature of the general's office he was concerned about. Tim riley talk
  • Note 8: "The 26 senior diocesan bishops sat, and (2020) still sit, as Lords Spiritual as opposed to Lords Temporal.[51] Davidson succeeded to the seat on the death of James Atlay, Bishop of Hereford." Should that be 'a seat'?
  • "In 1895 Davidson accepted the offer of translation to the largely rural diocese of Winchester, which involved less arduous work" This reads as if it were the translation which was less arduous.
  • I have reread this sentence and try as I may I cannot see anyone misunderstanding its meaning. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later: an alternative wording has come to mind. Now tweaked. Tim riley talk 18:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: Link cope.
  • "the link between Buckingham Palace and Lambeth Palace" is, sadly, only likely to make sense to a learned few. Possibly a bracketed translation?
  • We've explained earlier that Lambeth Palace is the Archbishop's residence and headquarters, and I don't think many people will need Buckingham Palace explaining. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In August 1904 Davidson accompanied by his wife, sailed to the United States" Comma after "Davidson"?
  • Thank you. Much better. I had missed that article. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "241 bishops were present" One would normally avoid starting a sentence with a number. Perhaps 'It was attended by 241 bishops' or similar?
  • I have never seen an explanation of why it is sinful to start a sentence with a number. Seems to me a superstition on a par with the mythical split infinitive. I think the prose is crisper as it stands. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Later: I've turned the full stop into a semicolon, which now means the digits are in mid-sentence, appeasing the superstition without making the slightest difference. Tim riley talk 14:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and reunion with other Churches" I read "other" as meaning the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Which further reading suggests is not what you intend. Possibly you could be more specific?
Do you mean that it is unclear in the source as to
"reunion with other Churches" is the actual wording in the source. Tim riley talk 10:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an eight-day visit to combatant troops at the front" Are you sure that he visited "the front"? On the face of it it seems unlikely.
  • Davidson visited "more or less the whole front line held by the English from north of Ypres to the Somme". (Bell, Vol II, pp. 778–779) Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Lambeth Conference, 1908: "Prayer Book"; under Revision of the Book of Common Prayer: "Prayer-book".
  • I thought I'd caught all those. The form "Prayer-book" is the usual version in the contemporary sources and I have tried to standardise on that, though my personal usage would be "Prayer Book". Now amended – thank you! Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "opened the door to Romish practices" Might it be mentioned to a reader what these may have been, and, more pertinently, why anyone might have objected to them. (Possibly a brief explanation of high v low church and its relationship to Catholicism earlier in the article may be appropriate?)
  • I'm not keen to repeat the examples given earlier – east-facing communion, lighted candles, making the sign of the cross, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament and so forth. Not that Joynson-Hicks was specific. He cleverly hinted at – and never named – the Romish excesses he professed to fear. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more of something like 'ceremonial rituals and accoutrements similar to those used by the Catholic Church, also known as the Church of Rome, which the Church of England objected to because [you're on your own there I'm afraid]'.
I see what you mean, but we're straying into WP:OR here. Everyone in the House knew what his hints were referring to (bells and smells as you say) but, as far as I can now find, none of the sources interpret them into unequivocal plain words. If I can find such a thing after a a more leisurely search I'll add it. Tim riley talk 10:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Not a deal breaker, IMO. I can more or less follow what is happening, but I suspect that one doesn't need to be far removed from the internal Anglican wranglings of a century ago to find it impenetrable.
  • "He had served as Archbishop of Canterbury for longer than anyone since the Reformation" Optional: Footnote pre-Reformation A'soC who did serve longer?
  • There seem to have been some in the pre-Conquest era such as St Honorius and Berhtwald; after the Conquest I can only spot Henry Chichele, Thomas Bourchier and William Warham. (This is from our WP list of Archbishops of Canterbury.) The sources I have used, even the massively detailed Bell double volume, don't go into the matter. I agree it would be nice to mention the long-serving predecessors, and I'll look out a WP:RS next time I'm at the BL. Ideal for a footnote, as you say. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was buried with him" - 'alongside him'?
  • On top of, I should think. I wasn't looking closely when I was last at the Cathedral, a couple of years ago, but I think from the photograph in the article, the graves are not double-spreads.
My point was that, to me - and I may be alone in this - "buried with" means at the same time as. Not important if you are confident of your meaning.
Oh, I see! It's a fair point, but the dates rule out any misunderstanding. We could just leave it out if you prefer. Tim riley talk 10:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC) Or perhaps "buried in the same grave?" Tim riley talk 12:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My point is a fairly trivial one, so I wouldn't want to beat it to death. I like 'in the same grave', but don't insist.
  • "this particular bark of Christ" Optional: Link "bark" to barque.
  • We aren't supposed to put blue links into quotations, but I think you're right, and I'll chance it. (Nice mixed metaphor in the quote, I think: mansions in a bark?) Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From the MoS "Be conservative when linking within quotations: link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author."

Thank you for these points, Gog, as well as for your v. helpful input at the peer review. Much obliged. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. An impressive article. A couple of minor points above for your minor consideration. If I haven't responded then I am content with your response. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim. A couple of comments above purely for your consideration. Great work, I am more than happy to support this outstanding article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, thank you very much for your detailed input at PR and now here. I am much indebted to you, and hope to repay your thorough reviewing when next you want it. Tim riley talk 16:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nb: it is my intention to claim points in the WikiCup for this review. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noswall59[edit]

I may have time to review this fully, but I apologise if not—things have been rather busy offline lately. I am glad that you found Grimley's book helpful. It has just occurred to me that Roy Strong's 2005 book Coronation probably has some discussion about Davidson's roles in the 1902 and 1911 crownings. I remember Strong going into some detail on the organising committees' "behind the scenes" politics which might add something to the article (or not, I don't know). I apologise for this slipping my mind while this was at PR. Otherwise, this is looking like a fine summary of the man's life, work and thinking. —Noswall59 (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

This is the one that I mean (other booksellers being available of course...) —Noswall59 (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Excellent! I'll put it on my list for my next visit to the British Library. I don't think anyone will object to my adding a sentence or two, if appropriate, after the current review is concluded. Tim riley talk 09:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fowler&fowler[edit]

I read this article very closely during the Peer Review, taking time to weigh its every word, phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, and section. I have no hesitation in recommending it for promotion to a Wikipedia Featured Article. May I take this opportunity to congratulate the author. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your valuable and detailed input at PR and for your support here. I am greatly indebted. Tim riley talk 09:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

Lead
  • "He was the longest-serving holder of the office since the Reformation, and also the first to retire from it": the "also" brings nothing to the party.
  • The "also" is not needed grammatically I agree, but I have written and rewritten this sentence and the "also", to my mind, helps the flow and rhythm. It has, I think, the additional benefit of distancing the second part of the sentence from the first, making it clearer that he was the first ever to retire, not just the first since the Reformation. Tim riley talk 12:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your call. I think it hinders the flow, but I never press my personal style onto others' work. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1903, he succeeded": no need for the comma (you don't use it in this fashion elsewhere)
Early years
  • "Although high-church versus low-church controversies were rife": as these are the first mentions after the lead, best to link high-church and low-church.

Done to the end of the EL section. More to follow. – SchroCat (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these, SC. Looking forward to more, at your convenience. Tim riley talk 12:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

Curate and chaplain
  • Do we need the Mews quote? This looks like one that could easily be re-written.
Dean
  • "unbudging". I'm not a fan of the word; would "unwavering" or "unchanging" suffice? (your call to leave as is, if you prefer).
Rochester
  • "1894–95" should be, according to the MoS, "1894–1895", in mmuch the way you have 1888–1890 above.
  • The MoS allows the shorter form for two contiguous years, if I read it correctly. I hasten to add that am not accusing the MoS of common sense here. Tim riley talk 10:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Winchester
  • "Purgatory" or, as our article has it, "purgatory"?
  • The sources use the capital. I think the supposed actual place is capitalised as a proper noun, but the figurative and more general use of the word ("...temporary suffering or expiation") has a lower-case p. The OED gives a pertinent example: "The doctrine of a purgatory seems innocent in itself..: it is only the absurd notion of praying or buying souls out of Purgatory, that renders it a heresy repugnant to reason". Tim riley talk 10:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this specialist sense I think the capitalisation is correct. All the examples in the OED are capitalised. (In more general senses it isn't capitalised, of course.) Tim riley talk 10:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are link for a few religions here (Roman Catholic and Baptist are in this section). Although it is advised not to link these (in MOS:OVERLINK), I think it's advisable to retain them here, given the subject.
  • I agree. I am as a rule in the less rather than more camp for links, but the links here are, I think, ones people might possibly find it helpful to click on, given the subject. Tim riley talk 10:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.

Done to the end of Winchester; more soon. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury
  • "In 1907, Davidson": another errant comma (there are a couple of others lower down I'll leave to you to sort)
  • Blast! I thought I'd caught all these. (Legacy of a short-lived and well-meant effort by another editor to improve the article with AmE commas.) I'll have another comb-through to find any further stragglers. Tim riley talk 10:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Domestic affairs
  • "and was succeeded by George V": this final sentence needs a citation
Kikuyu controversy 1913–14
  • "1913–14" (in title and first sentence): again, the MoS now suggests 1913–1914 is the way to go (another ridiculous change foisted without much of a discussion outside a small set of devotees, but we're supposed to pay the MoS some lip service at least)
  • Again, I think 2 contiguous years are exempt from the MoS's weird diktat. Tim riley talk 10:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is true, although it does make the Contents table look a bit odd with the following:
5.2 Domestic affairs, 1909–1911
5.3 Kikuyu controversy 1913–14
5.4 First World War, 1914–1918
Feel free to leave it as it is: I'll leave the decision to you over what to do with the rather silly decisions of the "Guardians of the MoS"®! - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right: the headers do clash a bit with each other. I've changed the Kikuyu one to 4+4 digits, but left the 4+2 form in the text à la MoS. Inconsistent, admittedly, but what can you do given the MoS's prescription.(Rather silly, as you say: I can't recall seeing the 4+4 prescription applied anywhere else but Wikipedia, and I'm always uneasy when we're out of step with the rest of the world.) Tim riley talk 13:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First World War
  • "and even considered resigning[100] But, despite": a missing full stop, or was it something else?
  • It was indeed a missing full stop. Now stopped.

Done to the end of the war, for now. As a general point, you may just want to cast you eye over your commas in lists: some are serial, some are not (and the serial are not in places where there is confusion ("put to Parliament in 1894, 1895, 1911, and 1912", as an example)). Best to make consistent, where possible. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Welsh
  • Any need for the accent in "élite"? The OED eschews the use...
  • it does! I think that may be fairly recent. I shall reset my autocorrect in Word. The e is now less acute (not even grave, in fact). Tim riley talk 12:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strike
  • You have "co-operation" here, but "cooperate" a bit further up
  • That'll learn me to cut and paste! Now relieved of the hyphen. Tim riley talk 12:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Reith, general manager of the BBC": the general manager?
  • I'm happy with or without the definite article here, and have added it. (I have so far lost a little bet I had with myself that someone would boggle at "general manager" and try to change it to the metachronistic "director general".) Tim riley talk 12:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fearing reprisals from the government": it's odd he feared reprisals, as he allowed the TUC their say and tried to get a Labour broadcast in too. Maybe he was coming under increasing pressure by this stage.
  • I don't know the details of the BBC and the General Strike, but the sources are clear so far as Davidson's proposed broadcast is concerned. KJP1 may know – indeed will certainly know – more about the wider question than I do. Tim riley talk 12:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. A fine article – certainly up there with that on Lang, which is exceptionally good. – SchroCat (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SC. Your comparison with the Lang article means a lot to me, for obvious reasons. Tim riley talk 12:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All good from me (I'll let you get on with the commas in your own time), but there is certainly passes the FAC criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Wehwalt[edit]

Support Had my say at the peer review, seems fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wehwalt, both for support here and for your input at peer review, for which I was, and am, most grateful. Tim riley talk 10:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1[edit]

Just booking my spot in what's an already crowded field. Pleased to pick up the Source review unless a more ecclesiastically-minded reviewer has their sights on it. KJP1 (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KJ, all comments gratefully received. A source review would be a bonus, especially from one who knows the period as well as you. Tim riley talk 19:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also made a few suggestions at PR but the article was fully FA standard without them. Pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, KJ. You made so many helpful suggestions for sources at PR that I threatened you with being co-nom here. I am exceedingly grateful for your input, and for your support here. Tim riley talk 08:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

ALT seems OK to me, regarding use isn't one file of Tait sufficient? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of Tait included, plus one of his son. Tim riley talk
Thank you for the review, Jo-Jo-Eumerus. Is there anything above that I need to action to make the images acceptable? Tim riley talk 21:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The provenance and broken link issues should probably be addressed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scans of originals now noted. No idea about the broken link. I should have known better than to use an image from Commons: they invariably cause grief at FAC. Can delete the image and do without in the info-box if you insist. Tim riley talk 22:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's more a problem with files that directly link to the source file rather than Commons. I don't think the broken link is a serious issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thank you so much for the review. Tim riley talk 12:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Given that the Clerk of the Closet article states someone can retain the office after leaving his see, I'd like to see a source for the 1903 end date
  • Source for "Appointed Clerk of the Closet immediately after his consecration, he remained in close touch with Queen Victoria"?
  • I'd suggest moving the archive link in your web sources to immediately before the retrieval date
  • Done.
  • FN56 should have full details for the original publication as well as the republication
  • I'm afraid they aren't available. This impression of the Book of Common Prayer (1662 version) was printed by John Baskerville, but no publisher is mentioned. The two functions often overlapped in those days but I really do not know whether that was so in this case. I have my own copy of the Prayer Book to hand, (printed in the 1960s) which I could cite instead if wanted, but I thought a link to an online source would be helpful to those who haven't a BCP on their shelves. Tim riley talk 18:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
  • FN125: what source is this referring to?
  • Changed. (It was agreed at PR that "Barber" was a more appropriate citation than "Taylor", though it isn't as straightforward as chapter author -v- book editor, and I clearly omitted to change the ref.) Tim riley talk 18:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN140 doesn't match other Times refs
  • FN144 should include doi, although I'm not sure why you're using {{cite journal}} in the Sources section and not here?
  • I'm not familiar with doi, and haven't used it before. Is it now a requirement for FA? WP:CITE says it is optional. Added, anyway. I could remove the template from the Quinault reference if you prefer. (The length of that article is the reason why it is sequestered under "Journal" – at 16 pages it needs a specific page number in the references.) Tim riley talk 18:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further reading should be a separate section rather than subsection
  • Begbie OCLC goes to a different work
  • Jacobs: looks like Magee is an illustrator rather than a coauthor?
  • I should say Martell's work, published by Durham University, meets the second criterion in the list at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It is, incidentally, cited by Dan Cruickshank of Glasgow University in his The Theology and Ecclesiology of the Prayer Book Crisis, 1906–1928, which I have not read. The quotations are verifiable in William Bridgeman, Philip Williamson ed., The Modernisation of Conservative Politics - The Diaries and Letters of William Bridgeman, 1904–1935, The Historians' Press, 1988, p. 212, I am told, though I have not seen it. Tim riley talk 18:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria - I can certainly vouch for the quote. I have a copy of Bridgeman in front of me now. The full cite reads: “The Archbishop thought, ‘he absolutely muffed it ... a poor speech with no knowledge and no fire’. Bridgeman himself called it ‘the worst speech in his life’.” Philip Williamson is a respected historian of the Baldwin-era Conservative Party and, although this may be less of a recommendation, he taught me! KJP1 (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Smerus[edit]

I made my meagre comments at PR, but am very glad to support this excellent article for FA.--Smerus (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Smerus, for support here and for your input at PR. Gratefully received. Tim riley talk 08:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from JM[edit]

I read this closely and had a shufty for further sources when it was at PR. I'm happy with Tim's respones, and particularly happy that he managed to dig up (and incorporate) the sources I identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, JM, for support here and for your input at PR. I enjoyed following up your suggested sources, and the article is the better for it. I am much indebted, and as ever, I hope you will feel free to ping me to repay the debt at any future PR you have up. Tim riley talk 21:44, 15 January 2020 (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/Randall_Davidson/archive1&oldid=937091441"