Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thaddeus S. C. Lowe/archive1

Thaddeus S. C. Lowe

This article is self-nominated. It has undergone Peer Review and has received only the best of comments from other editors including a Barnstar to Magi Media--Magi Media 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In an attempt to align the article with the comments made about the introduction, I have rewritten it with what I hope is better grammatical construct. Thank you everyone for your gracious input.--Magi Media 05:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

---

• Object lead is way too long and has too many details. Should be 3 paras in this case. See WP:Lead. Rlevse 16:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

re: The lead has been pared and reduced to 3 paras.--Magi Media 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - This is an interesting article that would be a good addition to the featured articles. It is well written with a tone that is in keeping with the subject and period and is well researched. The lead is five paragraphs as opposed to three, but I feel that it fits the intent of the lead as being a good "executive summary" of the article. The article is one that leads me to want to read more about the subject, which I feel is also a sign of a featured article. Nightngle 17:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Thank you--Magi Media 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object until the leas is fixed per Rlevse and all the paragraphs are properly cited.--Yannismarou 20:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

re: citations for lead paragraphs are well noted in the body which restates in more detail the leads.--Magi Media 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

All the paragraphs of the article I mean. For instance, in "Mount Lowe Railway" there are two uncited paragraphs. And I think that we do not cite headings. Anyway, I don't want to be unfair. I see the lead is better. So, I turn my vote to neutral until the article is properly referenced.--Yannismarou 09:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Lots of style problems. Here are some of the obvious ones:
  • birthday and date of death should come immediately after name

re: repaired--Magi Media 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• • birthday and date of death should not include place of birth, place of death, place of interment or "b." abbreviation.

re: all of this info is in the INFOBOX!

• • first sentence is not a sentence and does not have ending punctuation, needs to be fixed

re: fixed!

• • introduction is too long

re: shortened!

• • sentence fragments should not end in periods (see Infobox especially)

re: the dots are removed!

• • there are no metric conversions for distances

re: distances and weights converted.

• • linking directly to an image in the See also section is unorthodoxed. what is the image from the census for? if it's a reference, list it under references (and link to the image description page rather than the image itself). Otherwise I would remove it.

re: That was someone else's idea. It is removed.

Kaldari 01:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for those helpful comments--Magi Media 03:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object, I honestly don't like the intro, very inconsistent.--Seadog ^♪ 02:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Seadog! Thou cutst me to the quick. Are you and Nightngle reading the same article? I have made some revisions.--Magi Media 03:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Your first sentence isn't complete. It should flow grammatically like a normal sentence. Aside from that: put the dates in the intro; even if you think it's redundant with the infobox, it's simply stylistic convention for bio articles. Also, you've got a cite number in one of your section titles; by all means use the ref, but place it in the main text. Everyking 10:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

re:Someone fixed the lead sentence, and I am indebted... I fixed the citation--Magi Media 02:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment leads should summarize the article and if properly written, in many cases won't need a citation in the lead. Rlevse 13:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

re: I agree, but does my rewrite qualify?--Magi Media 02:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There should be no use of ibid in the footnotes. If a new footnote is added then ibid will no longer refer to the right footnote.--Peter Andersen 16:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Ibids are out!--Magi Media 02:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object—Poorly written. Take the opening:

Lowe lived a life that was full of claims-to-fame. Born of pioneer farm boy stock, Lowe showed an initial interest in meteorology with his avid study of the winds and cloud directions. He initially recognized the strong easterly high altitude wind which sparked an interest to fly in it. As an older teenager, Lowe became fascinated with the properties of lighter-than-air gases, in particular, hydrogen. By age 21 he found himself taking up amateur aviation, which at the time was ballooning. As a chemistry lecturer and balloon ride conductor he was able to put enough money together for a formal education thus furthering his studies in chemistry, meteorology, and aviation. By the late 1850's he was well known for his scientific academia and balloon building which included a plan for a transatlantic flight via the high lofting winds (the Jet Stream).

• Why is "claim to fame" in italic and hyphenated? Then we have another triple bunger shortly after.
• "Farmboy"—not sure I like the genetic angle in the first clause; a farmboy's a farmboy. Might raise hackles about African-American boys forced to live on farms, too.
• "Initial" twice.
• "sparked an interest"— "sparked his interest"?
• "he found himself taking up"—bit laboured; why not just "he took up"?
• "1850's"—Only the NY Times persists with this illogical apostrophe.
• "amateur aviation, which at the time was ballooning." "Ballooning" is ambiguous and/or ungrammatical here. Could mean "expanding rapidly", or that amateur aviation centred on ballooning.
• "well-known"
• "his scientific academia"—What does that mean? And the "plan"—does that refer back to both items or just "balloon building".

Muddled. Tony 09:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)