Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nigel Williams (conservator)/archive1


 * 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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2017.

Nigel Williams (conservator)

 * Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Nigel Williams was a conservator at the British Museum before conservation was recognized as a profession, and as an early figure in an emerging field, he reconstructed a number of world famous artifacts. When only 23 he was tasked with restoring the Sutton Hoo helmet, regarded as “the most iconic object” from "one of the most spectacular archaeological discoveries ever made", and near the end of his life he took to pieces and reconstructed the Portland Vase, “probably the most famous glass object in the world”. He spent his entire career, and most of his life, working at the museum, and died while in Jordan to work on an excavation.

Like Williams’s life, this article is short but complete. It draws on all the available sources for his life, and for his life’s work. Thorough yet concise, it focuses on someone whose job was to work in the back rooms of a world class institution, and comprehensively details his life, his career, and his contributions to the field of conservation. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed, only a slight change is needed - FUR for File:Nigel_Williams_with_Portland_Vase.jpg should link directly to this article, not a dab. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the (extremely fast) image review, . Fixed the link. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

 * The two works by Williams that are cited should be listed separately, as they are sources for this article while the others are not.
 * Preferably, ISBNs should be standardised in 13-digit form. This is a useful converter.

Otherwise, sources are in good order and of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, . Should ISBNs be 13 digits even if the copyright pages only list 10 digit numbers? Also, do you mean that I should move the two Williams works in question into the bibliography section? It feels a bit odd to break up his list of works. How about instead making "Bibliography" it's own section (rather than a sub-section of references), and making "Works by Williams" a sub-section thereof? --Usernameunique (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The recent trend at FAC is to convert 10-digit to 13-digit format, to achieve presentational uniformity. On the other point, if you wish to keep the Williams oeuvre intact, you could subdivide the list between "Cited sources" and "Other works". Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the explanation. I've reformatted the ISBNs (and added dashes as appropriate, which that tool is also useful for). I'm not quite sure what you mean by "subdivide the list between 'Cited sources' and 'Other works'", but I have reordered the list of works—please let me know if it is appropriate as stands. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from KJP1
Declaring my interest at the outset, I undertook the GAR. I thought then, and think now, that this is a fine article. The prose is of a high standard and, to the best of my knowledge, the article covers the major events of Williams's significant, but sadly short, life. The sourcing is impressive and I am relieved to see that the Sources review has not identified any major issues. The images are well-chosen and the whole article presents a balanced view of Williams's considerable achievements. Overall, an article that merits Featured Article status. KJP1 (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod
Pretty close; I've made small changes. Could do with detail at some points - where in Surrey? Which Roman mosaic (and a link)? Ancient Greek vase painting or Pottery of Ancient Greece need a link. The cryptic "Icon" in the notes needs explaining better. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your edits and suggestions, . Added the links, and changed "Icon" to "Institute of Conservation." Unfortunately Williams's obituaries do not say where in Surrey he was born, or what mosaic he helped lift. Perhaps, who wrote one of them, has an idea? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , from emails with Andrew Oddy, it appears that the mosaic was the Hinton St Mary Mosaic. He said he was "reasonably sure" of this, and I found a contemporary account of its excavation by Kenneth Painter (who wrote the Williams obituary mentioning the lifting of a mosaic) in which he included Williams in the acknowledgements. Citing to this article, I have therefore added that the mosaic was "likely the Hinton St Mary Mosaic, thought to be one of the earliest known depictions of Christ."
 * Oddy was not sure about where Williams was born, as he was only told "Surrey" at Williams's funeral. I could conceivably try to track down the contact information for Myrtle Bruce-Mitford, Williams's partner, but even so, I'm not sure if "personal communication" would be considered a valid reference.
 * Oddy also sent over the unpublished eulogies spoken by him, and by Rupert Bruce-Mitford, at Williams's funeral. These include some nice personal details—Williams relaxed with jigsaw puzzles, for instance, quite appropriate considering his profession—which I will incorporate soon. As these are fairly minor in the context of Williams's life and profession, however, I wonder if your suggestions about the article have been adequately addressed? --Usernameunique (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, given the above. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda
I met the article in a DYK review and am pleased with its growth. Minor points:

Lead
 * "There his work included the successful restorations of the Sutton Hoo helmet and the Portland Vase, in addition to more minor achievements." - For me, the sentence could end after "Vase".
 * Done. Good idea, that sentence has always bothered me.


 * "in his early- to mid-twenties" sounds overly precise, for the lead at least.
 * I see what you're saying, but to me this language reinforces the previous sentence, which says "from an early age was given responsibility over high-profile objects."


 * "Other objects, including the shield, drinking horns, and maplewood bottles were likewise reconstructed." Did he do it? Then better active voice.
 * Changed to "He likewise reconstructed other objects from the find, ..."

At the British Museum
 * "Williams also proved skillful ..." - the sentence grew to too much complexity, - split perhaps?
 * Split with a semicolon.


 * "Between these achievements Williams was also known for piecing together ..." - Was he known for it, or did he just do it, without publicity?
 * Changed to "Williams also pieced together...", although it was shown by the BBC.

Sutton Hoo
 * "As the re-excavation ..." - the year in the middle of the sentence seems a bit in the way of the flow.
 * Put the sentence at the beginning.

HMS Colossus
 * It's the second link in the body for the Portland Vase. If an additional link, I would link in the image caption of the infobox, where many readers may see it first.
 * Done.


 * "Beyond that too little generally survived" - it takes too long to find out what it refers to.
 * Reworded.

Portland Vase
 * Can we have his promotion to Chief Conservator in chronology, instead of mid-sentence?
 * How would you rephrase it? It's an aside to the general topic of the Portland Vase, so I don't think it should be the focus of a sentence unless it's in a different section.
 * Was it mentioned before, except in the lead? If yes, no need to repeat here, if no, perhaps better at the beginning, with a year instead of relative 5 years? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Personal life
 * "She herself contributed" - can we avoid "herself"?
 * Changed to "She likewise contributed"


 * "Williams and Bruce-Mitford had a daughter together" - do we need "together"?
 * Removed.

Death
 * "Williams "made a great contribution ..."" - I'd like to know who said or wrote that, not only a reference.
 * Added.

Thank you for highlighting an unusual life! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those thoughtful comments, . I've incorporated all but two of your suggestions, and responded to them individually above. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Support. Need sleep ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, ; it's always nice to see that bolded "support," which makes it feel as if the article is one step closer to that shiny gold star. Per your advice above, I've moved the mention of Williams being made Chief Conservator to the general paragraph about his time at the BM. Hope this didn't ruin your Christmas—or your sleep! Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Quite the opposite: reviewing is refreshing! I like his quote, says a lot about the person ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

 * His schooling was unfortunate "unfortunate" in Wikipedia's voice is editorialising, and that doesn't seem like the most appropriate adjective in any case.
 * Removed and reworded.


 * If his academic achievement was poor, as implied in the previous sentence, do we know how he got into the Central School of Art and Design and why he was specifically recruited for the BM?
 * It's not clear that it actually was poor. The source said "unlucky," which has slightly different connotations than "unfortunate" (another good reason to remove that word). Regarding the recruitment, according to the unpublished eulogy from his old boss (recently obtained, as discussed above), "He had been recommended to us by the Central School of Arts and Crafts, where he was excelling in his metalworking course." I've now incorporated that into the article.


 * "the abiding passion of his life." The full stop should go outside the quote marks unless it's an integral part of the quote (MOS:LQ)
 * The period is part of the quoted source. Is that what you mean by integral?
 * If it's in the quote then it's fine. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Can we try and group references at the end of paragraphs or at least sentences and maybe reduce some redundant ones for information that isn't particularly controversial? Refs in mid-sentence create a lot of visual clutter that impedes readability.
 * I've removed a few, and put a few others at the end of the sentences when possible. I generally find it much more useful and efficient to have citations after the part of the sentence that the support (though after a clause whenever possible). It makes it significantly easier to verify cited facts, since one can seek out the particular source(s) without having to wade through half a dozen others first. It's particularly important when a work isn't easily available online; ILLing one book is a lot easier than ILLing six.


 * The highlights of his professional life I worry about a statement like that in Wikipedia's voice. Can we attribute it to Williams or whoever said it?
 * Changed to "His most significant work came at the beginning and the end of his professional life".


 * in 1983 rose to become the Chief Conservator This is extremely pedantic, but isn't a rise something one does gradually through a career, rather than the appointment itself?
 * Changed to "was promoted to".


 * The Sutton Hoo helmet was his pièce de résistance Whose opinion is this? It's fine if it's his opinion or the source's, but it needs to be attributed; putting it in Wikipedia's voice is editorialising
 * Changed to "Williams's colleagues termed the Sutton Hoo helmet his ' pièce de résistance ' ". The exact phrase is in both of his obits.


 * considered "the most iconic object" considered by whom?
 * I'm not sure calling the helmet the most iconic object from the Sutton Hoo ship-burial is particularly controversial; I would compare it to calling Tutankhamun's mask the most iconic object from his tomb. Lots of bling in either case, but the "face" stands out. The article on the helmet also has a section on its cultural impact. The three options are 1) to leave as is, considering the above, 2) to say something to that effect without a direct quotation, or 3) to attribute anyway (in which case I would find different quotations, since saying "according to the folks at Google who worked with the British Museum to catalogue their highlights" doesn't quite have the right ring to it). What do you suggest?
 * If the statement can stand on its own, just remove the word "considered" and the quote marks, but if we're keeping them we need to know whose consideration it is. Am I making sense?
 * Rephrased without the quotation/attribution.


 * "was thus reduced to a jigsaw puzzle without any sort of picture on the lid of the box" Great quote and an excellent analogy, but whose is it?
 * Done. (Also added a bit of information from the eulogies.)


 * The crowning achievement Same concern with editorialising
 * Changed to "The crowning achievement to Williams's career, wrote his museum colleague Kenneth Painter, was..." The first sentence in the obit is "Nigel Williams crowned his career with his restoration of the Portland Vase, the most important surviving Roman glass vessel, and one of the greatest glasses from any period."


 * Regarded as "probably the most famous glass object in the world" A less generous reviewer would stick a by whom on that; who regards it?
 * It's in the foreword to the 1990 issue of the Journal of Glass Studies (published by the Corning Museum of Glass), which dedicated the entire issue (~200 pages) to the vase. The foreword, however, does not have a named author. Do you have a suggestion for how to attribute the statement?
 * You could attribute the quote to the journal itself, or if you're confident that the claim will stand on its own just remove the "regarded as" and make the claim in Wikipedia's voice.
 * Attributed to the journal.


 * The restoration of the vase began, was filmed by the BBC, Deconstruction of the vase was achieved etc: can we try and reduce the use of the passive voice?
 * Reworded.


 * The "Works by Williams" section should probably be a section in its own right rather than a subsection of the bibliography—bibliography can be either works consulted or works by the subject but using both meanings in one article is going to cause confusion.
 * This is how it used to be, but I changed it per 's advice (see above). I agree with you that the works should be together, and I would like them to be below the references, since a number of them are cited. Other than that, I'm fine with pretty much anything.
 * I'm happy to defer to Brian. It's not something I feel strongly about. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

These shouldn't be too vexing to address, but I do think the unattributed quotes and editorialising need attention before promotion. Otherwise, excellent work. It was an interesting read. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to read over the article and make those comments, ; good points about editorializing and attribution. I've addressed most of what you pointed out, although left a few questions for you above. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. A few replies inline. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, . Addressed the two points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That looks fine to me. I'll gladly support. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 23:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.