Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emery Molyneux


 * 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 00:34, 18 April 2008.

Emery Molyneux
Self-nominator. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 02:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

*Oppose. I think this is an interesting topic, but the article needs work to reach the FA criteria. The organization and focus of the article needs work, and once that has been revamped a bit, it needs to be carefully reread for clarity.
 * Neutral. Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel like the article is focused more on the globes than on the man, and since this is a biography that should not be the case. I think your information overall is useful and should remain in the article, but it might need to be organized or worded differently to make it more focused on Molyneux.  For example, the first section title, "Making of the globes" is not person-focused ("Globe maker" is one alternative).
 * Fixed: I considered creating two articles, one about Molyneux, another about his globes, but the problem is that so little is known about the man himself that much of the information would end up being duplicated. For example, the only part of the current article that would probably not be in an article on the globes would be Molyneux's final years in Amsterdam where he turned to the making of ordnance.
 * The "Construction" subheading still doesn't fit. Why not pull the information under "Construction" into a "Background" section that is stand-alone?  Then you can have the "Globe-maker section" focusing on the globes he made. Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't think this would work. Most of what we know about Molyneux relates to the making of his globes. There would be hardly anything left in the "Globe-maker" section — JackLee 00:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the "he" in Ubaldini's report Ubaldini, or Molyneux
 * Comment: From the first part of the sentence ("Molyneux accompanied Francis Drake on his 1577–1580 circumnavigation of the world; ..."), I believe it's clear that Ubaldini was referring to Molyneux.
 * "legend in Latin on the terrestrial globe" -> which terr. globe? The one he gave Harriot? A different one?
 * Comment: "[T]he terrestrial globe" is a general reference to all the terrestrial globes Molyneux produced from the printing plates.
 * That might neeed to be made clearer. There is no mention of the printing plates until later.  Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I really don't think is a problem. Perhaps we could get a second opinion from another reviewer on this. — JackLee 23:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I had no problem with this. Although different editions of the globes survive, they were all either the basic terrestrial or basic celestial globe. They were a manufactured product, produced in numbers and updated from time to time. qp10qp (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I've made some changes to the article and responded to your comments above. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 18:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Several 16th century books (Hakluyt, Ramusio, Hood, etc, etc.) appear in the footnotes, although their only purpose is to list the full form of a book cited in the text by short form. This is redundant and misleading; a link to the list of sixteenth century sources would be better and clearer, and need no footnote.
 * Comment: Can you explain why is this redundant or misleading? Also, are you suggesting that I put these works in the "References" section?
 * Redundant because, AFAICS, you've already listed them as 16th century sources; you don't need to send the reader to the footnotes. Please don't list them as References, unless you used them; footnote listings are misleading to the extent they imply you consulted them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That was what I understood the "References" section to be for as well. However, in the new "Early works on Molyneux's globes" section, I've only listed works that were directly about the globes, not works such as those by Hakluyt, Ramusio and others. I think they should stay in the footnotes as there isn't anywhere else appropriate to put them. — JackLee 01:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wm. Sanderson's MS from 1656 is in the list of sources, although as far as I can tell it is only cited (far more plausibly) at second hand. Please remove.
 * Fixed: I had initially referred to sources cited in earlier footnotes like this: "Sanderson, above, p. xxx". The GA reviewer advised me that if the works were placed in the "Reference" section, they could simply be referred to as "Sanderson, p. xxx". Anyway, I've removed the Sanderson work from the "Reference" section as suggested.
 * You should not cite any work as a source you have not yourself consulted; there are unkind names for that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I appreciate that. I must have misconstrued what the GA reviewer suggested. — JackLee 01:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We should consider whether last name first (especially in notes) serves any purpose. The normal order would simplify linking and be clearer.
 * Comment: There doesn't seem to be anything in the Manual of Style on this (correct me if I'm wrong). I've simply been using, and following the format used in, citation templates such as citation, cite book and cite web. Is this a matter that needs to be raised on a Manual of Style talk page?
 * No; the less the MOS has a chance to rule on the better. This one is merely a request for your consideration. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless it's a matter that will affect whether or not the article achieves FA status, I think I'll leave the citations as they are, otherwise it will be necessary to make changes to all the citation templates used. — JackLee 01:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. It won't affect FA, but in future, I suggest using first name second name for notes and second name first name for booklists/bibliographies. Most manuals of style (I don't know about ours) recommend this, and it makes sense, because the only point of second name first name is for easy location in an alphabetical list. qp10qp (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Thanks, I'll do that in the future. Also, if I have time I'll try and fix the citations in this article. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 23:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, have fixed the citations. — JackLee 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've indicated my comments above. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 23:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * One more - you've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE Ealdgyth - Talk 18:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I was unaware of this guideline.
 * Comment: I've noticed that there are no instructions in the documentation of the Citation for the use of this template for citing web pages. Does that mean that I should use Cite web? &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 23:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to either use citation exclusively or cite exclusively. If you mix the two types, they won't always play well together. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, but my point is that Citation doesn't seem to be designed for the citation of web pages (there's no mention of how to use it for this purpose in the documentation). I'd like to use Citation throughout as it deals well with journal articles and chapters of books, but it seems that websites would still have to be cited using Cite web. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 01:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (grins) Do what I do, ask Sandy for help. I generally use the cite form so I'm clueless on citation. Might drop a note on Sandy's page asking for help on that, she's the expert. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't use citation; I don't speak citation. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.yeoldesussexpages.com/index.html doesn't list the source for the information given.
 * Comment: Unfortunately, you're right. I haven't been able to reference the fact that the Petworth House globe was restored between 1995 and 1997 to any other source.
 * All other links checked out fine with the tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've put my responses above. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 20:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Support. An excellent piece of work. I recognise the painstaking and time-consuming effort it takes to compile this sort of article, which is all about particulars. I found it interesting, illuminating, and convincing.

Three points:


 * In March 1593 Molyneux was issued with a royal warrant and the matter was considered by the Privy Council on 4 November 1596, when the Lord Admiral was urged "to speak to Molyneux, Bussy and the two Engelberts about their offensive engines"[45] as part of measures to defend the south coast of England from recusants. I am not sure what is meant by "recusants" here: which ones? I would have thought the security threat to the south coast was still from the Spanish, who launched a second armada in October 1596, in fact.
 * Comment: The information was from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. The GA reviewer also raised a query about this: see my response to him at "Talk:Emery Molyneux".


 * Well, I rather agree with that reviewer: it is not enough that it comes from a source, it must be luminous to the reader, and this is not. You might get round it by removing the words "from recusants". Then the meaning would make sense to everyone, while at the same time not contradicting your source. qp10qp (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed. — JackLee 23:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My catalogue of the Elizabeth I exhibition at Greenwich suggests that "the cartography for the celestial globe is based largely on the 52.5 centimetre celestial globe made by the Dutch globe maker, Jacob Floris van Langren. It shows the canonical forty-eight Ptolemaic constellations of the southern hemisphere, created by the Dutch cartographer Petrus Plancius". The present article only suggests influence on Langren/Langeren, not from him.
 * Comment: Hmmm, this is different from what Margaret Wallis said in her article on the subject. It's possible that new information has come to light since Wallis published her article in the 1950s. Does the Greenwich exhibition catalogue provide a reference for the information? What's the title of the catalogue? Will see if I can borrow a copy from a library.


 * The reference is Elizabeth: The Exhibition at the National Maritime Museum, edited by Susan Doran, Chatto & Windus in association with The National Maritime Museum, 2003, p 134. That entry is by Emily Winterburn and Kristen Lippencot. Their references (for the whole six-paragraph entry), are to Clifton, Globe Making, pp 46–47; Crinò and Wallis, Molyneux Globes, pp 11–18; and Lippencot, Power and Politics, p 138. I've said some more on the talk page. Since only four pages in this book mention Molyneux, just ask me any details you need and I can save you the trouble of borrowing it (although it's a wonderful volume to look at). qp10qp (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed: I've added the information to a footnote. Where the article mentions Molyneux's globe having influenced van Langeren, this is a reference to the terrestrial globe. — JackLee 01:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The catalogue also points out and shows that the royal arms were emblazoned across North America on the Temple terrestrial globe. Is this worth mentioning, given that Sanderson had funded Davis's search for the Northwest Passage and Raleigh's Virginia adventures? It would place the globe in the context of the new mercantile imperialism.
 * Comment: I remember something about this in one of the sources I read when preparing the Wikipedia article. Let me dig it up.
 * The reference for this is to an essay in the same catalogue by Sian Flynn and David Spence, "Imperial Ambition and Elizabeth's Adventurers", pp 121–131 (specific pages, 127–28). There is also a full-page illustration of the royal arms on North America (present-day Canada, in fact) on page 135. qp10qp (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added the information and the Armada Portrait of Elizabeth I to the "Publication" section of the article. — JackLee 29 July 2024 (UTC)

qp10qp (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for reviewing the article. My responses are above. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 23:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

 Provisional support—This is very good, but I suggest a run-through by a copy-editor who's unfamiliar with the text. Here are examples of issues at random, towards the top.
 * "The globes were the first to be made in such a way that they were unaffected by the humidity at sea, and they came into general use on ships." When? Even "during the century after his death they ..."?
 * Comment: I understand Markham to mean that the globes came into general use on ships when they were first published. — JackLee 23:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree with that. Small ones were being made for £2, so probably all ships had them as the latest thing. This is referenced to Markham, and so will have to do, I should think. qp10qp (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Didn't like this sentence: "Only six Molyneux globes are believed to exist in the world today, and of these, three are in England. One pair, consisting of a terrestrial and a celestial globe, is presently owned by Middle Temple and displayed in its library, while a terrestrial globe is at Petworth House in Petworth, West Sussex." Perhaps "Only six Molyneux globes are believed to be still in existence. Three are in England, of which one pair, consisting of a terrestrial and a celestial globe, is owned by Middle Temple and displayed in its library; a terrestrial globe is at Petworth House in Petworth, West Sussex." Is that better?
 * OK, fixed. — JackLee 23:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Not much is known about the man himself." --> "Little is known of ...". But we still have "is known" × 2.
 * Fixed. — JackLee 23:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "he had a reputation for being a mathematician"—kind of pejorative, like "Tony1 has a reputation for rudeness at FAC". Needs recasting.
 * Comment. I don't think this is pejorative. Such a sentence construction is only pejorative if what the person has a reputation for is itself pejorative. — JackLee 23:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've changed it to "enjoyed a reputation as a mathematician". qp10qp (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Long winding snake: "In making his terrestrial globes, Molyneux examined ruttiers (instructions for directions at sea)[10] and pilots (navigational handbooks),[11] such as the ruttier for Brazil and the West Indies he gave to Thomas Harriot in 1590,[12][7] and received advice and assistance from navigators and mathematicians.[13]"
 * Fixed. — JackLee 23:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Tony  (talk)  10:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've taken your suggestions on board, and my replies are above. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 23:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks; but have you had someone go through the rest of it? I immediately happened upon:


 * "Molyneux emigrated to Amsterdam with his wife in 1596–97." What, it took them two years to do it?
 * Fixed: They emigrated to Amsterdam in 1596 or 1597. I've inserted the word "or". — JackLee 29 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Emery Molyneux is regarded as being both the maker of"—Can you remove "being" without changing the meaning?
 * Fixed.
 * "the only way to caste [anything] whatsoever in perfecte forme... and yt is the perfectest and trewest waie of all wayes... and this was the wai that Mullenax did use to cast flowere [flour] in the verie forme".—Are the ellipsis dots in the original, or did you insert them? If the latter, please read MOS on the spacing. Perhaps you need to insert in square brackets if WP's dots, or if in the original, put a note after the quote saying [our ellipsis dots].
 * Fixed: The ellipses were in the source quoted. I've added a space before the ellipses as required by the MoS. I don't think it's necessary to add "[our ellipsis dots]" or anything similar, since MoS doesn't require this. — JackLee 29 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "greatly-expanded"—No hyphen after "-ly"; see MOS.
 * Fixed, although I'm doubtful about this rule. I would have thought that all compound adjectives should be hyphenated, whether they incorporate an adverb ending in "–ly" or not. — JackLee 29 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Tony is correct. "Greatly" is an adverb, so no hyphen required. qp10qp (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a very good article; let's polish it, yes? I'm sure Sandy would like it out of the road as soon as possible. Tony  (talk)  12:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've asked the GA reviewer if he will cast a pair of fresh eyes over the article for readability. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 13:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have now given the article the thorough copyedit requested by Tony. But I would argue that this material requires the sort of close, careful detailing that precludes bounding prose. A certain pedantic accuracy is essential for topics like this, and there's no way round that. I have made one or two more comments about the wording, etc. on the talk page.


 * Tony, I would very much appreciate it if you could have another look, since not only have your points above been addressed, but the thorough copyedit you requested has been done (I have never worked on this article except to copyedit). A glance at my contributions will show how long it has taken. Others have been copyediting too.qp10qp (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is still quite a bit of unstruck concern; has Karanacs been asked to revisit? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've left a message on his talk page. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 21:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What a shame this article hasn't been much reviewed. I have no doubt about its quality. qp10qp (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. Well-written, well-referenced and engaging. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * "The globes were the first to be made in such a way that they were unaffected by the humidity at sea, and they came into general use on ships." Would the meaning of the sentence change if this was reworded to "The globes were the first to be unaffected by the humidity at sea..."?
 * I'm not sure the first two paragraphs should fall under the "Construction" sub-heading. I'd suggest pulling those two paragraphs out of the "Globe-maker" section and placing them before under a separate heading, such as "Background" or something similar.
 * "Thomas Cavendish also appears to have helped Molyneux with his globes, or it is possible that Molyneux..." Are the two mutually exclusive? Also the reference you give does not explicitly state either of these claims; it just says that he recorded Cavendish's tracks. Do other sources shed any light on this? Ah, I did some more reading, and it looks as if this came from Markham xxx. I was about to put this in myself, but noticed that your formatting of the abbreviated "Introduction", Tractatus de Globis does not give the author's name. Is there a particular reason for this?


 * I found this a little awkward too and have said something about it on the talk page. I changed "or" to "and" because I agree that the two are not mutually exclusive. My guess is that this sentence is trying to say that Cavendish's voyage has informed the map but that it is not clear whether that is because Molyneux was on the voyage or not. qp10qp (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "were published after some delay in the late months of 1592 or some time between January and March 1593" Ambiguous position of "after some delay"; sentence should be recast. On first reading, I thought the dates referred to the delay instead of the publication.


 * I've simplified this to: "were published in late 1592 or early 1593, after some delay". qp10qp (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "When she was presented the celestial globe at a second entertainment, she said," Maybe it's just me being paranoid, but I'd prefer it if this would mention again that this quote is according to William.


 * I've copyedited this part heavily. That particular bit is now: His son William later reported the Queen's words on accepting the terrestrial globe: "The whole earth, a present for a Prince..."; and on accepting the celestial globe: "Thou hast presented me with the Heavens also: God guide me, to Govern my part of the one, that I may enjoy but a mansion place in this other." qp10qp (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "In 1595 the merchant Robert Parkes purchased..." Should this be sourced to the DNB?


 * Try to be consistent in comma use after introductory clauses. For example, I spotted "In the 1590s, Molyneux..." and "In March 1593 Molyneux..."


 * I've gone through and made this consistent, I think. qp10qp (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What style is used in the citation format? I don't think I've encountered the square bracket notation for abbreviated author names before. This is just out of curiosity more than anything.
 * Since you give the full citations for some of the sources in the "References" section, I don't see a particular need to repeat them in the "Notes" section. Giving the abbreviated form would be just fine, in my opinion.
 * Please provide page numbers for paper references where possible.
 * At times, the prose skirts a bit too close to the original sources for my tastes. I'd be more comfortable if either those sentences are further rephrased or they are edited to employ quotations for phrases that are lifted directly from the original sources. Budding Journalist 01:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * RE: "Recusants" I think this may be just a case of the ODNB exhibiting confusing phrasing. From the notes of the Privy Council, they were indeed worried about recusants collaborating with the Spanish, but it's clear that the mention of Molyneux is in reference to a possible invasion from Spain. I have pasted the relevant text below:
 * Advice [by Lord Burghley] upon the best mode of defending the realm, on advertisement of the preparation of a Spanish navy ; viz. : [...] All recusants to be committed, even women if they are house-holders, and their houses and arms seized ; the parents of children fled out of the realm to be bound not to correspond with or relieve them ; the former forces of the clergy to be renewed ; all cattle and food removed from the sea coasts where the enemy offers to land, and the grindstones taken away from the mills ; field pieces to be drawn with horses, on first view of the enemy, to hinder their landing ; the roads blocked up, fresh water disturbed, fire-works prepared to burn their ships in the haven, and other means considered by the Lord General and council of war; the Lord Admiral to speak to Molyneux, Bussy, and the two Engelberts about their offensive engines. Budding Journalist 06:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I imagined it was something like that. The recusants were recused from the article a couple of weeks ago, I think. qp10qp (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.