Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Doubleday (restorer)/archive2


 * 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 by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2018.

John Doubleday (restorer)

 * Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Talented as he was, the British Museum's first restorer owes his renown to the actions of a drunkard. John Doubleday is best remembered as the man who restored the Portland Vase after it was smashed by a young man at the end of a week-long bender; along the way, he also testified in criminal trials, traveled internationally, and sold Shakespearean artifacts. Or at least so he said.

In its previous nomination this article attracted the support of three reviewers (thanks,, , and ); the decision to archive it was both surprising and, I believe, poorly considered. This article is thoroughly researched, well written, and by far the most comprehensive take on Doubleday available anywhere. It is featured article material. Usernameunique (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

 * I'll have a look soon, hopefully some of the earlier reviewers will return first. I ran the citation bot, and though it may seem like a screw up that it removed the publishers, it is apparently discouraged to include those when citing journal articles. Of course, feel free to revert that, but the bot did some other useful things too that could be kept. FunkMonk (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the placement of the lithograph and the shards should be swapped, so that it fits the order they are mentioned in the article?
 * Done. Ideally the watercolor of the shards would go a section earlier (Portland Vase), but there isn't enough room as it stands. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "The vase was next restored by J. W. R. Axtell in 1948–1949, and then by Nigel Williams" What is meant by this? Why did it need to be restored again?
 * Added a bit more info. The adhesive used by Doubleday grew increasingly visible over time, while Axtell's grew both discolored and weak. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "John Doubleday with his restoration" Could mention date of photo in caption.
 * Reworded to "around 1845," since that's probably the date, but isn't known for certain. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * " making it "an unusual bequest"" According to who?
 * Reworded. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It seems a bit unusual that his personal information is featured last rather than first, but I guess there is good reason.
 * Normally I'd do a section on his early years and then personal life later on (example), but this seemed like a better approach since almost nothing is known of the first 30-odd years of his life. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

of" Does "of" really have its own line on the stone?
 * "To the memory
 * Yes, although it's centered and has a line on either side of it (————of————). You can make it out if you squint a bit at the full resolution photograph. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - looks good to me now, I can't imagine further commentary would make me change my mind. Little is known about this man, so we can't be less ambiguous than the sources. FunkMonk (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt
Just a few comments:
 * "By taking casts in sulphur and white metal " Is this somehow a combination of sulphur and white metal, or are they separate items, or is something else meant? I understand white metal, in British speak, to mean either a non-silver alloy or silver alloy that has not been tested at an assay office and found to be sterling.
 * Some in sulphur, and other in white metal. I've added some clarifying language ("casts in coloured sulphur and in white metal" ... "He sold sulphur and white metal casts, the former which he coloured in different hues"), and linked white metal. If you're interested, there's a description on pages 74–75. In part: "He also copies silver coins in white metal, but although the copies are as accurate as those in sulphur, the metal has the color rather of tin than of silver, and I did not like them so well; still they are very fair imitations of the originals. It is his custom, when copying silver and gold coins in sulphur, to distinguish them by different colors, making the gold a deep red, &c.—he also labels them."
 * "had been introduced to Charles Newton (later Sir) by a friend," maybe the parenthetical (later Sir Charles)?
 * Done.
 * "and the 1851 census as a New York-born "artist" who was nonetheless a British subject, " I might make clearer this is a British census, rather than US.
 * Changed the wording in the lead to reflect that; from the context and the piped link, I don't think the the second mention needs the explanation.
 * I don't see anything in my likely numismatic references about Doubleday (I have not conducted an extensive search, simply glanced at the indexes of some of my British numismatic references. In the archives of The Numismatist, I see a an American die engraver named John Doubleday Lovett (1819-1886} who is buried in Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn, if it's of any help.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments and support, . Responses are above. John Doubleday Lovett looks to be someone else; by the time he was eleven years old the British Museum John Doubleday was in his thirties and in London. You don't happen to have a copy of Biographical Dictionary of British and Irish Numismatics (2009) by Harrington Manville, do you? I don't know if Doubleday is mentioned in it, but Vlasto is supposed to be, and I haven't yet got my hands on a copy of it. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No I don't, sorry. I checked my two volumes (Craig and Dyer) on the history of the Royal Mint. I didn't think Lovett was the same person, I was just wondering if there could be a family connection.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from KJP1
Personally, I was happy first-time around, hence my support then. I didn't myself see significant prose issues and as others, including the nominator, have remarked, I think we have to accept that gaps in the record will inevitably lead to gaps in the article. I think it is as comprehensive as it can be, and am pleased to Support again. KJP1 (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate your support both then and now. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Support by Ceoil
With a few minor quibbles
 * but was primarily their specialist restorer - Specialist in what sense; restorer of a particular type of object, or specialist in restoring
 * I read it as the latter, but the source doesn't specify. I should be able to check the source that it cites (Oddy 1993), however, on Monday. (Thanks for that, by the way—couldn't remember why I had Oddy 1993 pulled up on WorldCat until your comment.)
 * maybe first dedicated, or something. 05:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The very realism for which he was lauded - drop "very "
 * Done.


 * Thousands of his copies filled out the collections - drop "out"
 * I think "filled out" means something slightly different from "filled." The former to me means that individual holes in collections were filled with copies, while the latter means the copies formed the backbone of the collections.
 * Reworded as "gaps in" Ceoil (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok Ceoil (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * He also appears to have been - no need for "also"
 * Changed to "he seems" (there's an earlier sentence in the paragraph that begins "He appears").


 * "a masterpiece of Roman cameo glass" that is "probably the most famous glass object in the world" - this could probably be paraphrased so its not quotes
 * Done.


 * The British Museum awarded Doubleday an additional £25 (equivalent to £2,500 in 2016) for his labours: "for his labours" sounds a bit dated, maybe just "for his work"
 * Done.


 * onetime keeper of Egyptian and Assyrian antiquities at the museum - "former"
 * Done.


 * forever destroying the inscriptions - do we need "forever"
 * Nope, removed.


 * Doubleday first attempted to fire the unbaked tablets to make them hard - this could be more scientifically put, with blue links for fired, baked and hard
 * Linked fire to Pottery. Any suggestions for links for baked and hard?


 * Doubleday twice served as a witness in criminal matters - for the British Museum
 * The first one doesn't appear to have been for the BM—rather, from what I can tell he seems to simply be testifying as an expert.


 * ..Why does Early in February, Timolean Vlasto, a fashionable twenty-four-year-old from Vienna whose late father, Count Vlasto, had been a diplomat need 5 refs
 * Removed two.


 *  Charles Newton (later Sir Charles) - don't need later Sir Charles?
 * I think it says something about the social status of the people Vlasto was dealing with. Interestingly, both Sir Henry Ellis of the BM, and General Charles Richard Fox from whom Vlasto stole, were permitted to sit on the bench and confer with the judge regarding sentencing. This seems like an unlikely privilege had the victims been considered less respectable.
 * Then just Sir Charles Ceoil (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Vlasto was henceforth given unfettered access - drop henceforth, maybe "unrestricted" rather than "unfettered"
 * Removed "henceforth".


 * I'm confused by "Upon inspection many more coins could not be found, some of which were recovered when a search warrant for Vlasto's lodgings was obtained on Thursday" - how could coins that could not be found, be recovered
 * They couldn't be found in the museum's collection on Monday; on Thursday, some were discovered in Vlasto's lodgings when a search warrant was executed.
 * Fine, and reworded but dont like this Monday/Thursday business. Too specific and bordering on padding. Ceoil (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * In private life Doubleday was a dealer, and a copyist of coins, medals, and ancient seals - Not sure "private life" is correct here as private life usually indicated personal life. Maybe just "apart from his work for the BM"
 * Reworded.

A most enjoyable look at a fascinating area of art history (19c restoration). Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments and support, . I've adopted most of your suggestions; full responses are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I can see how the last candidacy alas, did not get through, but unreservedly support the current nom. Ceoil (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Support by Cas Liber
Looks more polished than last time. Well done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from SN54129
I was intending to support this on its previous outing, but my tardiness + archiving stymied the effort. My only potential query was to have been regarding the use of all available sourcing (as part of which, I provided one). This was clearly satisfied then—and, if anything, has only been augmented since—and so I default, without hesitation or guilt, to my original position, which is that whatever occurred before, that was then, this is now, and now Featured Article material stands before us. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 15:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, but this candidate has seven supports—and, in fact, has done since 20 October—although the nominations viewer script would have us believe there to be only one :)  an opportunity to further shorten the "Older noms" list presents itself, methinks.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nominations are required to have image and source reviews before we can consider promotion. The nominator made a request on Oct 30 but we're still waiting. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nudge, ., though I asked for the reviews out of completeness, we could also rely on the first nomination for source and image reviews. The only new image is of the headstone (my photograph, released under an appropriate license), and the sources are fundamentally the same. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy to do a Source Review if required. Don't have the experience for an image review. It will also have to wait - probably until the weekend but no more - as I'm already committed to a Source Review for another FAC. KJP1 (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair point from UNU that one's already been done; it would be a shame to waste it. ——  SerialNumber  54129  19:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll do a formal image review of the grave photo that was added since last review; it is fine, and an additional PD tag for the stone itself isn't needed, since there is freedom of panorama in the UK. FunkMonk (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Support from JM
When I first encountered the article, I thought it made a very good GA, but was (I now don't mind admitting!) skeptical about it achieving FA status. Its development since then has been very impressive; this is now, in my view, a very well-written and admirably comprehensive article about a figure about which little is known. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  15:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.