Talk:Robert Hooke/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 17:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Initial comments
There's nothing much wrong with this article, and I shall certainly be promoting it to GA. It is, to my mind, a potential FAC. I first ran across Hooke back in the 1970s in Pepys's diary (21 January 1665): "Before I went to bed I sat up till two o’clock in my chamber reading of Mr. Hooke’s Microscopicall Observations, the most ingenious book that ever I read in my life." I always meant to read more about Hooke, and now, thanks to you, I have. A few minor quibbles: Nothing to frighten the horses there. I shan't bother putting the review formally on hold, unless you would prefer me to do so. Over to you, meanwhile. –  Tim riley  talk   17:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "Father John Hooke's two brothers" – might be as well to make it clear that Hooke senior was not called "Father" in the RC manner, but was simply Hooke's father.
 * "On his father's death in 1648, Robert inherited £40 from his father" – you could avoid the repetition of "father" with a pronoun the second time.
 * Throughout the article the name Hooke is repeated when a pronoun would make for smoother reading, for example:
 * "Hooke secured a place at Christ Church... In 1662, Hooke was awarded a Master of Arts degree."
 * "In 1659, Hooke described some elements of a method of heavier-than-air flight to the Club, but concluded that human muscles were insufficient to the task. Through the Club, Hooke met Seth Ward."
 * "Hooke was also appointed Gresham Professor of Geometry. On 13 September 1667, Hooke became acting Secretary of the Society"
 * "Robert Boyle, who the Club sought to attract to Oxford" – whom, please.
 * "Biographer Margaret 'Espinasse" – a pity to let the tone of the prose down with a tabloidese false title.
 * "He often met Christopher Wren ..." – he crops up a lot in Pepys's diary too. Perhaps worth a mention? Just a thought.
 * "a radical departure from the Aristotlian "– spelling?
 * "an inverse-square relation with distance from the center" – spelling.
 * "at least 5 years beforehand "– it is usual to use words for numbers up to ten.
 * "a grid pattern with wide boulevards and arteries, a pattern subsequently used in Haussmann's renovation of Paris, in Liverpool..." – Paris, I grant you, but as a Scouser I have to say that I don't recognise that description of my native city.
 * "In 2003, historian Lisa Jardine" – another false title we could do without.
 * "amateur history painter Rita Greer" – and again
 * References – I can't work out the thinking behind the distribution of book titles/bibliographical information between the References and Sources sections. Most are in the latter, where one would expect to find them, but e.g. the Berry, Sullivan Manuel, More and Andrarde (and others) are bundled into the References section, with incomplete bibliographical details. This is passable for GAN, but will need to be sorted out and made consistent before you go to FAC.
 * Thank you, that is most generous. As for FAC, the threshold is very high nowadays (as it should be) and I'm not sure I have the stamina to drive it. I got (back) to Hooke while working on John Ogilby (the man who mapped London, then Britain and who worked for Hooke on the survey after the Great Fire). I thought I knew about Hooke but came to realise that I had only skimmed the surface. Newton did a very good job of making him an unperson. Anyway:
 * "Father John Hooke's two brothers": distracted by the honorific, I let that sentence stand. Now that you question it, I wonder why does it matter? Resolved by deleting it. ✅
 * Rewritten as His father died in October 1648, leaving £40 in his will to Robert together with another £10 held in trust from his grandmother. (which need a new citation, fortunately I still have Gribbin & Gribbin). I don't know if the "held in trust" is DUE? ✅
 * But but but it was only 283 times, sir! Guilty as charged. I have spring-cleaned but would welcome a re-read in case I have introduced ambiguity somewhere. I thought I was on a roll with using "Robert" until I reached Robert Boyle . ✅ unless you spot something (I just found that I had the King doing the survey of the ruins of the City.)
 * Hmm. You absolutely must use surnames except where it is necessary to distinguish between, e.g. brothers. Referring to our man as Robert in swathes of the main text is verboten: see MOS:SURNAME. And I wasn't suggesting you replace "Hooke" with a pronoun on quite such a scale. At first mention in any para it is usual to use the name.  Tim riley  talk   13:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank goodness for all the other Roberts as I might have a lot more reversion to do. ✅ I have left a couple of instances of "Robert" in the section about his childhood because it seemed very contrived not to do so: if you still think it is problematic then I will change them. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Robert Boyle, whom ✅
 * False title ✅
 * I did toy with dragging in a Pepy's quote on some pretext, but I couldn't find one. ❌ Where there's a will, there's a way! ✅
 * Center/centre. ✅ (Interesting that it was spelled in the American fashion at the time but then again the spelling - especially Aubrey's - would make Nigel Molesworth blush.)
 * 5 -> five ✅


 * "♬ It's not the leaving of Liverpool that grieves me ♬". Believe it or not, that canard has been there since October 2005! It's astounding that it has taken this long for anybody to notice. Deleted. ✅
 * Two more false titles ✅
 * Yes, FA requires tight consistency in ref style. ✅ (and exposed some sloppy old citations that I hadn't noticed, now fixed.)
 * All ✅! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Anomaly that may need consideration

 * In doing the citation style change, I noticed A bitter dispute between Hooke and Christiaan Huygens on the priority of this invention was to continue for centuries after the death of both; but a note dated 23 June 1670 in the Hooke Folio, describing a demonstration of a balance-controlled watch before the Royal Society, has been held to favour Robert's claim to priority. There was a (not very precise) citation for the note [rectified, see 102 Oldenburg (1670) p 81 but more significantly, there was no citation for "has been held", which has been there since over 15 years ago. By whom? I have changed it to "may be held to favour" but maybe it should just be dropped? It is interesting but can it stand? It wouldn't pass FAC, I suspect. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. Probably best to prune it, but for GAN purposes...  Tim riley  talk   17:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Concluding:
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria I enjoyed this very much indeed. On to FAC I hope!  Tim riley  talk   17:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: