Talk:George Insole

Notes on recent edits
Nice job. Just a few notes: Hope that helps. I've learned some new things today. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 23:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia style is to use double quotes (") first around quotations, but to keep original punctuation inside the quote if it exists, and outside if it's added. See MOS:QUOTEMARKS.
 * I like to remove unused parameters in templates, but it's no big deal.
 * Book titles in title case. See MOS:TITLE.
 * I removed some links and added others. It's a judgement call about what's likely to be helpful to the reader. I thought everybody already knows what London is, but might not know what coke is.
 * "The first coal staiths" looks like an internal wikilink, but it's not and that feels deceptive. The link could be a reference for that fact though.
 * Usually don't capitalize the in the middle of a sentence, but sometimes you do. See Manual of Style.
 * Each reference should stand on its own, so we don't use ibid or similar.


 * Very helpful, many thanks - I've learnt new things today too! I will work through all your suggestions and clarification notes.
 * The 'File:' link in the 'Entrance to the West Docks' image caption is currently red but adding a pipe after the filename inserts the actual picture into the caption. I wanted the link to go straight to the image rather than the image's Commons page, so that's why is I used the file name as I did - is there a better way to achieve this? RLO1729 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yep, I got that "this view" wrong, and it works now, but I'm not sure the right way to do that. I don't do much with images. Generally using a full URL to a sister project location shouldn't be necessary.
 * Also box quotes are polarizing on Wikipedia. At Template:Quote box it says "this use is not advised in articles" (emphasis in the original), so don't be surprised if someone objects to them. (They don't bother me.) In James John Joicey, there's a place where a box quote and a block quote bump up against each other and it's unclear that the block quote is a quotation, so that's a problem.
 * You've already run up against some of the limits of my knowledge, but I'm happy to contribute where I can. Keep it up. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 01:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks again - yes, that was the only work around I could find for the image link within the caption. I've also moved the Joicey box quote slightly so they don't bump quite as much, but thanks for the heads-up. RLO1729 (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I noticed you removed the URL access dates in book citations with URLs but not in journal citations with URLs. Is there a style-guide that covers this? RLO1729 (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no need for an access date if the material is dated and we have the date in the reference. I should have removed them from the ones for journals too. Wikipedia officially has no standard way of doing references (see WP:CITEVAR), but at cite web, cite journal, cite book, etc. there's explanations for the way most things are usually done. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 04:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

C-class assessment
I assessed this as C-class to get the ball rolling, as it was previously Unassessed even though a candidate for Good Article status. May I suggest someone uses the B-class criteria to check if it could be promoted to B as the next step? It certainly seems to be a worthy article, but I am not experienced in detailed assessments. welsh (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments

 * What an interesting article! I had never heard of this person and the article certainly gives good information.
 * I see from the discussion above I use commas more than you do. Partly this is an individual style choice and partly an international thing. American writers use far more commas than UK ones. I'm not sure where Australia lies on this continuum... I've added a couple of commas where I thought it might aid understanding.
 * Thanks, I prefer minimal punctuation in my own writing but am quite happy with your edits. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 02:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * What did he die of?
 * Cause of death added to article. I had previously considered it didn't add anything to the narrative, but, on reflection (thanks), the fact that he suffered from heart disease for "many years", i.e. while running his business, is relevant. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 02:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Wales/England; again, it's a judgement call how much emphasis we place on geography. There will be readers who have no idea where or what Wales is (and was); the question is, how far this article should go to educate them. It would seem slightly ridiculous to say "Worcester, England" on first appearance; we certainly don't need "Worcester, Worcestershire".
 * Yes, I also struggled with this. British Commonwealth citizens (generally) have some understanding of English/Welsh geography but (as you suggest) this may not be true of Wikipedia readers in general. The fact that there is a US Worcester was a particular consideration in deciding to err on the side of more detail rather than less, and the consistent use of "town, broader location" in the article led to the seemingly redundant (at least to "British" ears) "Worcester, Worcestershire", as distinct from "Worcester, Massachusetts" for example. Though not particularly euphonious, I don't have such a problem with "Worcester, Worcestershire", it is an accurate geographical description after all. On balance, given the obvious geographical context of the article, and that "Worcestershire" is linked in the lead, and that "Cardiff" now also appears without a broader location, I'm happy to go with just "Worcester" on first reference. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 02:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Images should not be hardcoded per WP:IMGSIZE.
 * Thanks. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 02:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Possessives; again this is partly a US/UK thing. Americans are far more in love with using just ' at the end of a name; I was taught at school that it is only used for famous historical figures (Jesus, Moses, Archimedes etc). An article on a UK subject should use "Thomas's" rather than "Thomas'".
 * The BBC grammar website indicates either is acceptable. As it would seem to be just a style issue, I prefer the minimalist apostrophe. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 02:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This is the big one. When sources disagree about the significance of a person or an event, how do we proceed? Was or wasn't Insole a key figure in the development of the industry? I think with the spread of sources you already have, you should be able to craft a more elegant treatment of this.
 * I'll reflect on this and see what I can come up with. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 02:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I hope the above and the minor edits I made will be helpful. --84.64.237.205 (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, much appreciated! ~ RLO1729&#128172; 02:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * No bother. MOS:POSS may be of interest. --84.64.237.205 (talk) 07:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, after reading that article and the recommended "For thorough treatment of the English possessive, see Apostrophe", I'm going to go with what is most comfortable to say (though I realise that may be subjective), so will use Thomas's as you suggest, but, for example, stay with Wilkins' and Stephens' in other articles. :) ~ RLO1729&#128172; 07:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)