Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joseph Priestley


 * 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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Joseph Priestley
Joseph Priestley was an eighteenth-century polymath—a theologian, scientist, educator, political theorist, and clergyman—and wrote over 150 works. Writing a concise biography of him has been near impossible. This has been one of the most difficult articles I have worked on at wikipedia, but, with the help of a wonderful group of editors, I believe it is now worthy of featured article status. Ragesoss has assisted with the scientific explanations, Scartol has ruthlessly (in a good way!) copy edited the page to reduce its size (we are now at around 8,000 words/50 kb), and Finell has meticulously checked the article for adherence to the MOS. Additional editors have carefully reviewed the article at both a peer review and a scientific peer review which greatly clarified the article. This article demonstrates the best of wikipedia's cooperative editing. Awadewit | talk  21:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support I participated in the scientific peer review, and looking over the article in the state it is today, this is definately a quality biography article. It seems to pass each of the criteria at WP:WIAFA in spades, and I can see not a single reason for myself to object to it.  Good job!  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  21:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Any particular reason why the top image is on the left side? Wrad 21:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:MOS, "Start an article with a right-aligned image." Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed at length on the Talk page. All portraits of Priestley are right-facing and should therefore be left-aligned. Flipping the portrait has been suggested (and even done), but would be downright criminal in my humble opinion :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I thinks it's necessary. The intro looks pretty weird on my computer. Flipping it won't make him turn over in his grave, will it? Wrad 22:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What's your screen resolution, if you don't mind my asking? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought you might ask. 1280 x 800. And I'm using Firefox. The text is just getting smashed between the image and the TOC and it just looks unnatural and odd to me. (Unnatural meaning no what you normally see on wikipedia). Wrad 22:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's odd. I'm 1024 &times; 760 (ugh) also on Firefox and it's always looked fine to me (by fine I mean "not unnatural" :) For the record, some text will be "smashed" between the image and the TOC even if it's right-facing. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Could I see a screen shot? For me the TOC is below the text and image. It was supposed to be that way. That is why there is a "clear" code. By the way, I find the practice of flipping images amazingly irresponsible. These paintings were designed to be shown in a particular way. To flip them is to distort the art work. Wikipedia has a very conservative policy regarding changing quotations - it should obviously be consistent and not alter images either. There is also a very good aesthetic reason for not placing right-facing images on the right of the screen - it leads the reader off of the page. It is not practiced by art historians and we don't practice it here (see WP:MOS). It is very distracting to look with Priestley off of the page. One other option was to place the TOC in the first section. You can look at a diff for this at Talk:Joseph Priestley. Awadewit | talk  23:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (kind of copied from Sandy's Talk page) In all fairness, and if this is indeed a make-or-break point for others, Priestley is facing right but looking outwards. Again, I still personally favor keeping the image as is, and I still vehemently object to flipping it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, to make that single issue the make-or-break point on this article seems rather petty. As has already been pointed out by several others, the MOS is ambiguous on this one: Right facing images should be left-aligned, while it also recommends that images should be right-aligned when placed directly under a header.  The point is, there are two equal ways to do this, each one contradicts the other, so it seems like one could not object to EITHER alignment.  Honestly, the prose is fantastic, the referencing is superb, the organization and flow of the article is great, and the images are apporpriate to the article, and all follow image usage policy.  To hold up this articles featured status over an issue that the MOS can't even agree with itself on seems unreasonable.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  00:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I personally Support anyway. I just personally think the image should be flipped and moved to the right. Wrad 00:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was serious about the screenshot, by the way. We all obviously want the lead to look good, but most of us are against flipping the picture since it would violate the artwork (like changing a quotation would - you wouldn't remove the poetic breaks in Shakespeare's lines, for example, right?). We just need to figure out the best layout with the image on the left. I had set up three other options at the link above and I still think this is the best of the three, but if it is showing up strangely on other systems, we need to know that. Thanks. Awadewit | talk  02:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Um (*face turns red*) how do I do a screenshot? Wrad 02:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem - I just learned myself a few weeks ago - it is very helpful at wikipedia. Start with screenshot and see if that helps. The people at the wikipedia IRC channels showed me how. :) Awadewit | talk  03:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong support. I have been following this article since before its listing as a GA. I participated in the Peer review at Awadewit's request, and any concerns I had were addressed then. The article was painstakingly researched over several months, is based upon the best, most reliable sources available, is comprehensive (it was so comprehensive it had to be trimmed for the sake of length :), makes the best use of summary style possible, excellent use of images, has been extensively copyedited by several contributors and adheres to the MOS as closely as this editor (perhaps not discriminating enough) could wish for. I've said it on Awadewit's Talk page, I've said it at PR, and I'm saying it again—this is one of the best-written, most comprehensive articles I've come across on Wikipedia. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Agree with everything Fvasconcellos said. My mind boggles that one person could achieve so much (I refer to both Priestley and Awadewit). Something Wikipedia can be proud of. Colin°Talk 20:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 06:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support The extraordinary care that has been lavished on this article by several editors, especially Awadewit, truly shows. A superbly written summary of a seminal scientist and thinker.  Willow 18:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong support. Outstanding work by Awadewit, as always. If there were a category higher than FA, this article would deserve to be in it. By the way, Awadewit overstated my contributions. I did not do a thorough MOS review, but I did do some grunt work to fix some departures that I found; others helped in this process as well. Finell (Talk) 05:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)8


 * wardward Support (a word rebus). – Outriggr § 07:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Quality work in every dimension.--ragesoss 17:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support superb, wish all the FACs were this good. Sumoeagle179 22:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support—Well done. Tony   (talk)  14:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Extremely well done - I have two questions (which do not detract from my support). 1) Why isn't universal salvation wikilinked in the section "Early life and education (1733–55)" (especially when election is linked just before it)? 2) The caption on the picture of Priestley's Pennsylvania house (which in the interests of full disclosure I took) now reads "The Priestleys expected a small community to spring up around their home in rural Pennsylvania, but the community did not materialize.[133]". While I understand what it is trying to say, I think it is misleading, and wonder if there is any better way to express it? I think it refers to the desire to establish a utopian "pantisocracy" (equal rule of all), which failed to materialize. It makes it sound though as if they built a house in the woods and no fellow settlers came to live nearby. Northumberland, Pennsylvania had been a village for about 20 years before the Priestley's arrival and had about 100 houses when they moved there. It was no Birmingham or Leeds, but it was a small community that materialized before the house was built and continues to exist to this day (the population was 3,714 in 2000). So could this caption please made clearer?  Thanks, Ruhrfisch  &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have linked universal salvation.
 * The reason the whole situation in America isn't explained more is because we were trying to cut down on space. Apparently we cut down a bit too much. What do you think about this sentence: The Priestley's expected a small utopian community to spring up around their home in rural Pennsylvania, but the expected emigrants could not afford the journey. Awadewit | talk  19:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I am fine with that caption. A slightly more concise version such as 'The Priestley's rural Pennsylvania home never became the center of a utopian community, as the expected emigrants could not afford the journey. Not sure if that is any better - as you like it, thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg;' 20:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Using your version - I'm a wordy writer. :) Awadewit | talk  20:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Support, my only quibble being the excellent in the "excellent explanations of early optics experiments" sentence in the Natural philosopher section. Ceoil 15:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources say the explanations are excellent, so I just repeated that. It isn't my personal evaluation of them or anything. Awadewit | talk  18:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Grand. Ceoil 18:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support – well-written, carefully referenced. Having participated in one part of the review process, I can also attest to the great care taken by the article's main authors in dealing with reviewing editors' suggestions. --Markus Poessel 17:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Well, Awadewit and co, you have succeeded in the impossible by making this dreary chap almost interesting. I'm so impressed by the improvement in the pace of the article since I last read it; it seems to me now a concise summary of all the many fields in which the man dabbled. I congratulate Awadewit on a tremendous feat of reading, synthesis, judgement, and patience. It has all paid off outstandingly. -- qp10qp (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.