Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mandell Creighton/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 not promoted by Ucucha 14:10, 2 January 2012.

Mandell Creighton

 * Nominator(s): Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems appropriate, on Christmas day, to nominate the Wikipedia article on Mandell Creighton, ecclesiastical historian and former Bishop of London, to FAC. The article has a tangled and fitful history. It first appeared here in October 2009 in an unsuccessful nomination, by user:Iridescent, for which I was one of the reviewers. During the following weeks, looking at first to simply add more material, I read James Covert’s superb biography of the Creightons, and ended up completely rewriting the article. I then put it on the back burner whose flame eventually sputtered, leading the article to go cold. This may have happened because I became overwhelmed by real life, but also because I felt conflicted. Eventually, in April 2011, fearing that the article, like its protagonist, might become extinct, I put it up for peer review. I received one (and it takes only one) insightful review from user:Tim riley, which breathed new energy both into the article and into my flagging resolve. Although I let the article lie fallow for another six months, I found, as if by magic, all sorts of helpful infoboxes, links to wikiquotes, wikisources, and the like appearing upon my return. The work of Wiki-gnomes is seldom acknowledged. I now await critical comments from the FAC reviewers. I am grateful (even in seeming antagonism) to user:Iridescent for bringing Mandell Creighton to light first on these pages. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  18:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Note - Please check the image captions for stray periods. Graham Colm (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Did find a missing period in an image caption, but no strays, but my eyesight is no longer what it used to be.  Perhaps someone else will take a look.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:CAP, I have removed the periods from the ends of captions that are noun phrases. Graham Colm (talk) 09:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Good point.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape check - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I am most interested to see this here (see my own humble effort), and intend to post some detailed review comments when I am a bit less sleepy. One immediate comment on image sizes: why are most of them so huge? There is no need for this; they are perfectly clear in their thumbnail format. As it is, the images are over-dominant and tend to distract from the text. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome aboard. The images are huge, now that you mention it.  My handiwork it is, apparently.  All reduced now to WP default size.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The images are appropriately sized, now, but there may be an issue with the licencing of those scanned from A Victorian Marriage: Mandell and Louise Creighton. For these to be PD in the US we need to establish that they were first published before 1923; this requirement supersedes the "life + 70 years" which is the basis of the current licencing. I strongly advise that you consult one of Wikipedia's images experts, e.g. User:Jappalang for advice about the appropriate licencing for these images. Brianboulton (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on Jappalang's talk page. The photographs have been credited (in Covert) to the wife of a Creighton grandson.  That strongly suggests they were not published elsewhere earlier.  Have my fingers crossed.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By "credited" I take it you mean she has given the book permission to use these. If she holds the copyright, then there could be problems reproducing them here. But let's see what the experts say; I am rather a novice in such matters. Brianboulton (talk) 14:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. The photograph captions have her name, Christian (Kisty) Creighton, in parentheses at the end; however, nowhere does "© Christian Creighton" appear.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Further comments: On more general matters, this article looks promising, being fluently written and evidently comprehensive. It could have done with a detailed prose check before its nomination, as there are numerous prose niggles throughout the text. Rather than fill up this page, I am posting these to the article's talk page. Beyond prose glitches I have so far (I'm about half way through) identified  the following issues for attention:-


 * Over-citation: E.g. a single citation at the end will cover the whole first paragraph of the Early life section — Brianboulton   — (continues after insertion below.)
 * Yes, a bad habit (in this context) arising from working on articles that are controversial. Will unify in fewer cites.
 * Done — Fowler&fowler   — (continues after insertion below.)
 * "Cumbria" as a region did not exist before 1974, Until then, Carlisle was in Westmoreland. — Brianboulton   — (continues after insertion below.)
 * This I didn't know. Will amend. Done —  Fowler&fowler   — (continues after insertion below.)
 * I'm not sure about the Durham Grammar School; "the" isn't normally used when the first word in a school's name is a place. You wouldn't, for example, say "the Eton College" or "the Charterhouse School", though you would say "the Royal Grammar School, Guildford". — Brianboulton   — (continues after insertion below.)
 * What you say sounds right, but a quick check in Google books suggests that "the" has been used with "Durham Grammar School," in the 19th century, in the 20th, and in the 21st. But I'm happy to remove it if it doesn't sound right.  Please advise. —  Fowler&fowler   — (continues after insertion below.)
 * As a matter of curiosity, how did a schoolboy qualify for a postmastership, which term normally designates a senior undergraduate? — Brianboulton   — (continues after insertion below.)
 * According to Covert, "Failing to win it (a classical scholarship to Balliol (my parentheses)), he applied to Merton and was elected to a classical postmastership. Postmasters, dating back to the 1380s, were those scholarship students who formed the academic nucleus of Merton. (p. 38)" Other Wikipedia pages, for example, Thomas Fowler (a contemporary of Creighton and later, briefly, vice-chancellor of Oxford) and Louis MacNeice, describe similar transitions from high school to postmasterships at Merton.  But, then, I'm not an expert here. —  Fowler&fowler   — (continues after insertion below.)
 * "he had decided to accept holy orders". Something is surely missing, here. To "accept" holy orders, he must have undergone some form of training and preparation. When did this happen, and what were the dates of his ordination, first as deacon and later as priest? Where was he ordained, and by whom? This information must be on record. —  Brianboulton   — (continues after insertion below.)
 * Good point. Will get back on this.
 * Creighton was ordained deacon by the Bishop of Oxford in 1870, three years after he received his BA and became a don. He preached his first sermon in April 1871.  I have rephrased the "accept holy orders bit;"  will add more. —  Fowler&fowler   — (continues after insertion below.)
 * The article is long; in some cases I feel that there is overdetailing on unimportant matters. One example: "Most visitors stayed at least overnight. In one year, 69 visitors were recorded in the family visitors' book." This does not really contribute to our knowledge of Creighton and could easily be excised. There are other similar cases. — Brianboulton   — (continues after insertion below.)
 * I agree. The article was written quickly in the after glow of having just read Covert's book.  I felt then that no detail was unimportant.  :)  Will prune the fluff.
 * I've pruned some, but I have to say, I'm finding it hard to let go. :) Perhaps if you could identify other excesses, ... —  Fowler&fowler   — (continues after insertion below.)
 * Do we know why the Creighton children were home-schooled, when there were evidently schools available - in which Creighton took a particular interest? —  Brianboulton   — (continues after insertion below.)
 * They were home-schooled during the ten years in Embleton. Will get back on this as well.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Updated  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

More on the way... Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

A few more concerns:-
 * Do we need the long roll call of the people met at the Harvard anniversary? None of these figure elsewhere in the article; a couple of the more distinguished/recognisable names would be adequate
 * Yeah, that does seem long, especially when each gentleman has three names. Will chop.
 * Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fowler&fowler (talk • contribs) 12:27, December 28, 2011 UTC
 * References in the text are to volumes 3 and 4 of the papacy history. But I note in the list of works in the sources section, the volume numbers are in Roman form
 * Oh, ok, will fix.
 * Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fowler&fowler (talk • contribs) 12:27, December 28, 2011 UTC
 * Talking of "perks" seems a bit trivialising. Also, £10,000 a year wasn't just a "comfortable" salary, it was enormous – twice the prime minister's stipend, and worth about £900,000 at 2011 values (the current Bishop of London's annual salary, incidentally, is about £53,000). I'd like to see some further confirmation of what we were paying our bishops back then.
 * I'm happy to take out the reference to salary, but it really was that much. In 1909, the Archbishop of Canterbury was making £15,000, York: 10,000, Bishop of London: 10,000; Durham: 8,000.  (See for example, page 137 of .  The Church of England's yearly income from voluntary contributions totaled £8 million in 1909, and from ancient endowments, another 5.5 million.  If the multiplier really is 90, then the voluntary contributions by worshipers then totaled  GBP 720 million in today's dollars, which is almost the same as what they are today (750 million) when there are likely more parishes with higher costs (infrastructure, salaries, pension funds, ...)
 * Removed entirely. Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fowler&fowler (talk • contribs) 12:27, December 28, 2011 UTC
 * On perhaps a more serious issue, I note that of the 146 citations, 124 are to Covert's book (85 percent of all citations). This looks like over-reliance on one source. A reasonable number of sources are listed, together with substantial further reading, so there does not seem to be a shortage of relevant material. Why, then, so much focus on Covert? Brianboulton (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about the same thing today. The problem is that Covert's is the only biography.  The other references have a mention or two here and there, but nothing substantial.  Louise Creighton's biography, Life and letters of Mandell Creighton, of course, has a lot of detail (much reproduced in Covert), but that book was published in 1904.    I pretty much scoured everything that was available in November 2009.  I will be looking at books published in the last two years to see if I can swap attributions.  (See my "to do" list on Talk:MC.)    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I had something of the same problem with the Lang article – a single biography (and that written in 1950). However, Crowder's ODNB entry for Creighton lists a number of sources of a reasonably recent nature. These include: Martin & Highfield: A History of Merton College (1997); G. Carnell: The Bishops of Peterborough (1993); D.L. Edwards: Leaders of the Church of England (1971), and others. And, of course, there is Crowder's article itself; citing basic information to it would help to reduce the reliance on Covert. As a further source, I can consult the British Library's newspaper archive for any interesting contemporary references to Creighton; there are bound to be some relating to his time as bishop. Brianboulton (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops. I completely forgot about ODNB. :) I had read it back in 2009, in fact the previous version of the article had used it too, and I meant to incorporate it once I'd finished Covert, but completely forgot.  Thanks.  That is very helpful.  (Covert's book is part critical biography and part popular and anecdotal.  That mix has trickled into the article.  Crowder's register is certainly more encyclopedic.)  If you can consult BL's newspaper archive, that'll be great.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * PS Should I be taking the article off FAC review, rewriting it, and then resubmitting in a couple of months? (I will be traveling after the 3rd and may have less time after that date.)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This might be the best course. As things are, I doubt there will be a consensus to promote by 3rd January. Withdrawal and resubmission would give plenty of time to get all the niggly things right, and I'd be happy to work with you on this. Your call, however. Let me know what you decide. Brianboulton (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I've left a note below stating my intention to withdraw as soon as the images issues are sorted out. Thanks again for all your help!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Image review concerns (per request stated above): Brian is correct in that the copyright status of the images in the US must be ascertained. The US-side copyrights are determined by US law (which is more interested in publication dates), not by the images' country of origin (the place of publication). To be considered legally published, the work must be authorized by the copyright holder. In this case, the photographs are credited to Creighton's granddaughter-in-law; this means she is credited as the source of the photographs, but perhaps not the copyright holder. For some of the images (e.g. File:CreightonFamilyCarlisle2.jpg, File:CreightonOxford1.jpg, this turns out to be not an issue; for others, it could be as detailed below.
 * File:CreightonAndDaughtersCambridgeA.jpg: UK law is more strict on the concepts of "anonymous" authorship; it demands that one must make reasonable research before one can claim the author is anonymous. Reasonable measures include contact with the provider/publisher of the image.  I do not see these measures as having been taken.  Taken in 1888, the photographer could have reasonably lived till 1943 if he took the photograph in his mid 20s (meaning UK copyright is till 2014).  If the author could be identified, then this also falls foul of US law (70 years pma for unpublished materials with identified authors).  If indeed no further information can be gotten (contact must at least be done), then we could claim this as anonymous and be more assured it is PD in UK (anonymous 70 years post creation) and US (anonymous 120 years post creation) without worry.
 * This was published on p. 368 of Life and Letters of Mandell Creighton, Volume I; it was taken by T. Bennett and Son. The photo studio should be contacted or researched to ascertain who was the author.  If not, uploading this image to Wikipedia and using the local copy would resolve the issue.  Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll first upload it to Wikipedia. Thanks, btw, for your superbly detailed replies.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * File:CreightonAtPeterborough.jpg: Taken in 1893, this is an issue. If of anonymous authorship and not copyrighted to the Creightons (thus unpublished), it would still be considered copyrighted in the US till 2014 (1893 + 120 + 1).
 * This was published on p. 84 of Life and Letters of Mandell Creighton, Volume II, without identification of author. I advise uploading it to Wikipedia instead unless one contacts the Creightons and ascertain they have no knowledge of who took it.  Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Will upload to Wikipedia.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * File:LouiseCreightonB.jpg: Preferable to move this to Commons, where Commons:Template:PD-US-unpublished can be used to signify its status in the US (one could of course copy said template contents to the image here, but seems too much work in the end...).
 * Will do as well.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Mandell Creighton Vanity Fair 22 April 1897.jpg: This should not have been stored on Commons unless F. T. Dalton's have been established to be earlier than 1941. He is said to have flourished during the 1890s and 1900s, which could mean he might have lived till the 1950s.  This image would be best stored on Wikipedia with .  Stored on Commons, it is more likely a policy-violating material.
 * OK, will move to Wikipedia.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Creighton memorial Peterborough Cathedral.jpg: The UK allows freedom of panorama for non-2D works of art in public places. If this slab is considered a work of artistic craftsmanship then FoP would apply and the image is safe.  Otherwise, the permission of its creator's (Henry Harris Brown) estate is required to make the image "free".  Please refer to commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.  Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks plenty artistic to me. :) How is the artistic status decided? (Would have helped if I'd read the Village pump thread first. Thanks for doing this.)   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think JackLee's argument at Commons is convincing. There is a degree of craftsmanship and artistry here so a work of artistic craftsmanship it is in my view.  Jappalang (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Question: Would it be better to have his photograph (e.g. http://www.archive.org/stream/lifelettersofman02creiuoft#page/284/mode/2up) as the identifying image instead of a painting? Would a photograph not be a better and faithful representation of the subject?  Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you make a good point. Will upload that picture.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A question of my own: Does the painting not have the right licensing for Commons? (I see that it does have the PD-US-1923-abroad tag.)  I guess, for me, the painting does have the great advantage of color.  One can see the actual color of Creighton's robes.  I, myself, would prefer to have the painting (if it is kosher) in the infobox and put your image in the London section.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no PD-US-1923-abroad on Commons (which has only PD-1923). Wikipedia has the PD-US-1923-abroad to clarify that such materials should not be moved to Commons without further consideration on whether it is PD in its country of origin.  Jappalang (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Fowler, could you provide the page numbers for the other photographs? It would be helpful for future re-users. Jappalang (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jappalang, That is very helpful. I have provided page numbers and complete citation to Covert's book in each of the photographs.  I can't say that I've clearly understood what I should be doing next.  Should I be contacting the publishers, Hambledon and London Ltd., or the author, James Covert?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Covert retired in 1997. Assuming he was 65 then, he should be pushing 80. In 2003, Continuum Publishers acquired Hambledon and London; In July 2011, Bloomsbury PLC acquired Continuum.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Covert should be the first step (since the person liaising with Ms Creighton would be him). Most probably, he would not know and would refer you to Ms Creighton, but those are the steps UK laws likely require us to take. If he is invalid, then perhaps Bloomsbury might have the contact information. If clarification cannot be obtained, it would be best to remove the first two pictures from the book listed in bullets above. For Louise Creighton, I have implemented a temporary measure. As for the Vanity Fair image, upload it to Wikipedia with the advice above and use the local (Wikipedia) copy. Jappalang (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I just discovered that the first two pictures above were published in, and . That means that "PD-US-1923-abroad" will apply.  For the remaining two, I will implement what you suggest.  These volumes have some more pictures (especially one of the 15 year old Creighton) which I might upload, if they don't have too many jpeg artifacts.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, that is great, so it seems Covert's assumption that the photographs were never published was wrong some of the photographs were already published (since Creighton's wife published his letters with the photographs in 1901, they must have been reproduced with the authors' permission; they were likely alive and prepared to pursue copyright infringement). Better quality (and higher resolution) pictures can be extracted here and here.  I note that Mrs Creighton has listed the photographers in the List of Illustrations for certain photographs; that means investigation must be carried out on their life spans.  It would be safe to have those images (published in those 2 books, but uncertain on whether their authors have died more than 70 years ago) on Wikipedia with  instead of Commons.  Jappalang (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Um... with the discovery of Life and letters of Mandell Creighton, several new PD (at least in the US) photographs are also found and introduced into the article. The end result, however, seems a bit too much (on a 1920px-wide screen, the left and right are all images or quote boxes).  Maybe a bit of consideration on which images/quoteboxes to use should be taken?  Copyright wise, I believe there is no more issues with the images currently used in the article.  Jappalang (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, guilty as charged. I did go overboard.  I've removed the caricature image (per BB's suggestion in review).  I've left the others in for now, but will be keeping your remarks in mind when working on the article again.  Thanks again.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness or distribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't need ellipses at the beginning or ends of quotes
 * Done. Removed all.
 * Don't need to include total page count for books
 * I've removed the page count for all references except those in the subject bibliography (where I think they provide useful information). If it is against MOS guidelines, please let me know.
 * Be consistent in whether you include publisher locations for books
 * Added location to all.
 * Subject bibliography should appear before citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Switched.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nikkimaria, for your comments. Will incorporate soon.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, SandyGeorgia, about the templates. I forgot about not using them! Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  19:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: Since the article relies largely on one source, since other sources have been identified which need to be incorporated, and since I don't have enough time to do this before I start traveling on the January 3, I feel it is best to withdraw the article from FAC review and to resubmit in a couple of months. I will formally let it remain here for a couple of days yet until the image issues have been sorted out.  You are welcome to make suggestions here until that time, but please don't vote (support or oppose).  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Final summarizing note:  I will be working on diversifying the sources and also on making the latter half of the article more nuanced.  I will resubmit in a few months time.  I'm grateful to user:Brianboulton for bringing to bear on the article his outstanding reviewing skills.  The prose review is now complete, although not yet entirely implemented.  I'm also grateful to user:Jappalang for his offering without delay his great expertise on images.  I would like to request the FAC delegates to now withdraw the article from FAC review.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.