Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles William Fremantle/archive1

Charles William Fremantle

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

This article is about... one of the most important figures in the history of the Royal Mint. If you're looking for the Charles Fremantle for whom Fremantle, Australia is named, you've come to the wrong place, that was his uncle. But this Charles Fremantle did quite a lot, enough to distinguish himself in a family where there are an amazing number of notable people. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

750h
Reviewing, I live in Perth (capital of WA, near Fremantle) actually! Comments incoming. 750h+ 03:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Pickersgill-Cunliffe

 * My hopes were raised and dashed for Charles Fremantle!
 * We generally include the "Sir" in bold text in the lede, and don't include The Hon at all (in infobox, but not lede)
 * Royal Mint isn't linked anywhere! Suggest adding in lede and main text at first mention
 * You've a mixture of including "Sir" in name links and not including, suggest standardising by always including it
 * [inserting oar] - hear, hear!  Tim riley  talk   13:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Craig says, "All but the lightest running repairs had been sent out until that date." I've adopted your language.
 * "Hon Sir Henry Brand" per above cmt about "Hon"
 * "appointed deputy master of the Mint" This is the first mention of the Mint, so using the full name and linking it here would be appropriate
 * "from without its walls" interesting phrase! "outside" would be simpler
 * "G.P. Dyer and P.P. Gaspar" note who these people are - historians?
 * Would Sir John Craig deserve a red link?
 * "submitted 6 November 1869" unnecessary repeated year
 * Provide a conversion for the £1,500 salary, and later figures?
 * " from May to July 1870" repeated year
 * "required the deputy master to submit an annual report" a report on what? you say it's helpful but don't really explain why or how
 * "were sent out" not wording I've heard before - would not "contracted out" work?
 * "gentleman of cultivated taste" according to who?
 * "the coins of earlier in the Victorian era" > "earlier coins of the Victorian era"?
 * Done, slightly differently.


 * Link Numismatic Society of London
 * "He served as a British delegate" beginning a paragraph with "He" rather than the name is awkward
 * Link Civil Service
 * "and was the boss in a position described as "none too arduous""
 * A large part of the wonderment at his resignation was that he was the boss, with none to contradict him, since the master of the Mint was busy elsewhere.


 * Do we know when he was appointed JP?
 * No. I looked.


 * A word or two on what the Charity Organisation Society actually does, if Fremantle is one of the movement Fathers, would be useful
 * Do you have some thoughts on phrasing? Our article on it is not wonderful.


 * Link Sloane Street
 * "Fremantle's retirement ," accidental space
 * Some discrepancies in your referencing style. Ref. #2, #46, #48 (which should also include the page number used), #50, and #51 would do better as short form references with longer entries in the Sources section
 * Done, except for the two that go to the ODNB online. I don't think those need page numbers.

That's all I have for now. Will take another spin through later in the process. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think I've gotten everything except as noted. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
I found this a hugely enjoyable article and look forward to supporting its elevation to FA. A few minor cavils and carps first, more meo:
 * "Fremantle began his time as deputy master under Master of the Mint Thomas Graham" – we could do without the false title
 * "and then entered the treasury as a clerk in April 1853" – if we're capitalising "Royal Mint" (rightly, I believe) we ought, I think, to give H. M. Treasury its caps too.
 * "and Hon Sir Henry Brand, later speaker of the House of Commons" – whether you contract "Honourable" to "Hon" or not it needs a definite article.
 * "and that the Royal Mint would benefit from an infusion of new blood" – I suggest a pronoun instead of "the Royal Mint" would help the prose along here.
 * "someplace closer to the City of London" – "somewhere", rather than "someplace" if we're in BrE.
 * "every Continental mint had updated its equipment, even that in Constantinople, making the Royal Mint the least efficient in Europe" – not clear why Constantinople is singled out here.
 * From the source, "... the Royal Mint's machinery was more obsolete and inefficient than that of any other mint in Europe, Constantinople included." I don't have access to the memorandum by Fremantle which seems to be the original source. Probably the view of the Turk as somewhat decadent and not very competent.


 * "tied up in treasury and parliamentary red tape" – a good phrase, which I like very much, but I suspect some sobersided editors will think it a little colourful for our ever-so-serious encyclopaedia.
 * It's difficult to find a phrase which so succinctly sums up the matter, so I'll let it stand for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "De Saulles would go on to design the coinage of King Edward VII before dying in 1903" – reads a little oddly, as though he might have designed it after dying. Something on the lines of "shortly before dying in 1903", possibly?
 * "interdepartmental committees relating to the Civil Service – should the civil service be capitalised if chancellor of the exchequer is not?
 * It's how I interpret JOBTITLES but would be happy to be wrong as the lower case rendition of such titles looks very strange to me.

That's my lot. Shall look in at the Texas Centennial half dollar article later.  Tim riley  talk   13:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Hasegawa Tameharu, who he had met" – "whom", please.
 * "Fremantle's father, Sir Thomas Fremantle, was ennobled as Baron Cottesloe in 1874, entitling his sons to preface their names with 'The Honourable'" – glad to see this bit: I'd been wondering from the outset where the "Honourable" came from. Would you consider adding "later Baron Cottesloe" in the first para of the main text? Just a thought.
 * "Fremantle wed Sophia Smith – the current edition of Fowler calls the use of "wed" instead of "married" "irretrievably naff" in serious writing, and I concur. Fine for tabloid headlines, of course.
 * Thank you for the review. All done but for as noted.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

MSincccc
Lead Dropped comma after "clerk".
 * More concise version.
 * Could this sentence be shortened or rephrased for greater accuracy and conciseness?
 * "Soon" should be omitted in any case from this sentence given that August and October are two months apart.
 * I've split the sentence you've flagged and I think done the other things you've asked.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review by Dugan Murphy: pass
I'll do this in a little bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Source list
 * I see that two items in the source list have no listed author and that they are alphabetized between themselves before the alpha-first listing with an author name. I think I always see those integrated alphabetically into the rest of the sources, but I also can't find any policy saying that is necessary. Have you thought about this explicitly?
 * I went back and looked at the last time I remembered having sources that lacked an author, which was New Jersey's 1927 biannual elections proposal. Although all the sources that lacked an author were published by the state, I had alphabetized them and put them before the sources that had an author. That's what I often do, see what was found to be acceptable before. That way you aren't constantly trying to reinvent the wheel.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Journal of the Royal Society of Arts: I think it would be appropriate to include the volume (62) and issue (3230) numbers.
 * Charity Organisation Review: I think it would be appropriate to include the volume number (36).
 * Craig: I think it would be helpful to write out the whole title like it is listed here on WorldCat.
 * I see Cambridge is in the UK and Llantrisant is in Wales. I think either Cambridge should be in England or Llantrisant should be in the UK. London is listed without a country. For consistency, I think that should be added, though I wouldn't stand in your way if you want to leave that one be.
 * I've added "United Kingdom" after Wales. My understanding is that there is no need to disambiguate major cities such as London.


 * Elliot: I think it's appropriate to include the volume number (45). Also, the publication year doesn't match what's in the link.
 * It says 1916 on the first page near the bottom. I have to assume that it means what it says. As for the volume number, the title says it's the Forty-fifth annual report, so it might be redundant.


 * Wikilink Leonard Forrer?
 * Garside: I think it's appropriate to include the volume number (23).
 * Wikilink Numismatic Circular?
 * Wikilink British Numismatic Journal?
 * Wikilink George Washington Moon?
 * Seymour: I think it's appropriate to include the volume number (25). Also, the publication year doesn't match what's in the link.
 * Similar as for the 45th. The title says it is the Twenty-fifth and the first page of the book says 1895 as the publication year.


 * The source list is pretty heavily weighted toward publications over a century old, particularly from the time of Fremantle's death. You can't find more contemporary sources?
 * No, and that's often the case in such biographies. Contemporary biographical sketches, news mentions, and obituaries often provide detail which later sources lack.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Nothing on this list longer than a page is specifically about Fremantle. Have there been no book- or article-length treatments of his life?
 * No, or I would have obtained and used them.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I see every item in the list of sources includes a ref= parameter. Do the in-line citations not work without them? My impression is that this parameter is for sources with no listed author.
 * I've probably done it this way with well over 100 articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

That's what I have for now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've done as you suggest for each or explained why not.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I see that you have! I would consider the above comments resolved. I just have a few more below. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

In-line citations

I'll do this in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The Wikilink for Bristol Evening Post appears to be a newer paper.
 * Royal Mint Museum: Recommend adding an archive link in case the link dies. Same for Debretts.
 * I just added url-status=live to the archived citations so the original link is featured first. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Daily Telegraph 2024 should be 1914.
 * Shouldn't Debrett's have an apostrophe?
 * I don't see a publication date on Debretts. Where'd that come from?
 * Similar text is found here. Since there's no doubt about the reliability of the source, I'd rather cite to the more easily verifiable page. Google Books is not available in all countries, and previews may vary.
 * According to this Google Books link, this ebook was published April 19, 2016. The citation says it was published June 24, 2021. I still don't see where the 2021 date comes from. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed that. Not sure how that got in.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Laughton/Morriss and Seccombe cite the same publication but are formatted quite differently. I think both should have the publication date and the retrieval date.
 * Liverpool Daily Post: The listed publication date and page number don't match the link.
 * What I said in the above section about the age of the items in the source list I could say about the items listed as in-line citations only, except that these ones tend to lean even more toward primary sources from Fremantle's life. There aren't newer sources for that info?
 * I did a newspapers.com search since 1950. A few articles mention him in passing in connection with one of his sons, who died in 1952. Every other reference to Charles Fremantle has to do with his uncle.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Not a source check issue
 * "City" is inconsistently capitalized. My feeling is that the only appropriate capitalization is the direct quote.
 * The capitalizations are to "City of London", which our article on same capitalizes.  When used in connection with the Australian place-name, it is lower cased.
 * I had no idea London was commonly referred to as the City! Never heard that before. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The area known as the City of London is a district of London itself. The financial district, I believe.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Overall

The items in the sources list are all legit-looking journals or books that WorldCat says are held at reputable libraries. I didn't do much of a spot check, but I'll say that in the few instances where I looked at a source to confirm a claim, it was there. I'm not excited about the number of primary sources, but I don't see any being used inappropriately. Save for a few minor issues raised above, the sources seem to me to be consistently formatted. I can't find any obviously comprehensive, book-length treatises on Fremantle's life, so I would have to take it on faith that these sources represent a comprehensive survey. There certainly are plenty of different sources and none of them are unreliable. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a most thorough review. I would say that if you are going to have a high-quality article on a person who no one has seen fit to write a book about, then there's an extent to which you have to rely on contemporary sources. The heart of the article is about the Royal Mint, and that is reliant on secondary sources, the two histories of the Royal Mint. I've done the other things you suggested or given my view as to why it is not necessary. Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I get the use of primary sources. My basic internet search didn't bring up anything newer or more scholarly to replace them, but I figured I would ask in the spirit of the review. My only unresolved comment is the one about the date on the Debrett's link. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's done now, many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course. This source review is a pass. These were all minor issues. If you have the time and the will, my current FAC nomination could use more eyes. Thank you in advance if you are able to look it over. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to, hopefully this weekend. I'm a bit backed up at the moment and RL is interfering. Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

SC
That's my lot: scant fare in what is an excellent and interesting article. - SchroCat (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * IB
 * You've got three instances of "U.K.": these should be "UK"
 * Lead
 * "Whilst" -> "while" (x2 and elsewhere in the article)
 * Appointment
 * "G.P. Dyer and P.P. Gaspar": spaces between the initials?
 * Thanks. I've done that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)