|Gerardus Mercator has been listed as a Geography and places good article under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do, and if it no longer meets these criteria, it can be reassessed.
Review: September 18, 2016.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Regarding Heresy Charge
- 2 When was Mercator's Atlas published?
- 3 Modern impersonation?
- 4 Dutch descent
- 5 Pairs of globes
- 6 Pronunciation
- 7 Belgian?
- 8 Insert reference to his boyhood in Gangelt ?
- 9 Globe making
- 10 Mercator Museum
- 11 Proposed Change to "Life and works"
- 12 Major revision
- 13 GA Review
Regarding Heresy Charge
Why was Mercator charged with heresy? Just that remark alone is not going to tell us much. — Shinobu 10:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
- This is a notable and relevant fact, in and of itself, which should be included. I have an excellent source that I will check with regard to this question and will add it as a reference to further verify and validate the claim. ChristineBushMV (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
When was Mercator's Atlas published?
According to Paolo Novaresio(in The Explorers, 1996, Stewart, Tabori and Chang, ISBN 155670-495-X), "the Atlas by Gerhard Kremer, a.k.a Geradus Mercator; published in 1596" - as of now, the article claims he was dead by this time, and that in 1595 further sheets were published by his son. This should be dealt with, by some explanation of the apparently complicated publishing history of the Atlas. (The book also claims the atlas was 24 pages, BTW.) JesseW(not logged in) 01:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I move that the 'modern impersonation' picture be cut. It doesn't really look like him, plus we don't have much of an idea of what Mercator looked like anyway. Isn't the portrait at the top enough?
What is meant by "Dutch"? It seems to indicate that his descent was different from where he was born or lived. The Netherlands in this period included Flanders. "Dutch descent" seems meaningless unless his descent would be non-Flemish, in which case it should be more specific. It's like saying that Churchill was an Englishman of British descent.
- I've removed the Dutch descent, if anyone puts it back please be more specific. Piet 14:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Pairs of globes
this seems an odd usage...
"Twenty-two such pairs of Mercator globes have survived."
Are there 44 surviving globes? I've never heard anyone refer to a globe as "a pair" as one might with pants or eyeglasses.
How is the name Mercator supposed to be pronounced? I've habitually used /mə'keɪtɚ/, probably partly influenced by Parallel 9, though I'm guessing this isn't the true pronunciation. I've more recently heard /'mɜ:kətɚ/. Can anybody provide evidence of how the name actually is supposed to be pronounced? -- Smjg (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I changed the nationality in the intro from Belgian to "France and Holy Roman Empire". The reason is that Belgium did not exist in the 16th century; it was founded in 1830. Mercator's birth place was in France; he then moved to Duisburg in the Holy Roman Empire, so naming both of those countries is the best solution. Of course, there was really no concept of nationality in the 16th century, so this must remain somewhat arbitrary; but it would certainly be misleading to refer to a country that didn't exist yet. Chl (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Insert reference to his boyhood in Gangelt ?
Hi, I've just been reading Nicholas Crane's book on Mercator and note that, although he was born in Rupelmonde near Antwerp, he spent the first five to six years of his life in the town of Gangelt, in modern Germany. His parents had gone to Rupelmonde to escape the effects of a failed harvest in 1511 and returned to Gangelt in 1512, before finally returning in 1517. I suggest that this be worked into the article. Scartboy (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The method of making globes out of papier-mâché was not developed by Mercator but was already being used by Johannes Schöner at the beginning of the 16th century. Schöner was the first to mass produce printed pairs of globes (matching celestial and terrestrial globes) and Gemma Frisius, who taught Mercator how to make globes, copied Schöner's globes. Thony C. (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The Mercator Museum has been reported by an earlier anonymous visitor to be located in Rupelmonde. This might be an interesting path of further inquiry worthy of inclusion here. ChristineBushMV (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Proposed Change to "Life and works"
I would like to modify the opening of this section to read:
The reason for this change is to avoid the cliché biographical opening which asserts one is born with a name and breaks a long sentence into two, easier to parse sentences. ChristineBushMV (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Seems good to me Thony C. (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. ChristineBushMV (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I intend to make a substantial revision (and extension) of this article over the course of the next few weeks. Please bear with me if it looks a little scrappy at times and includes inevitable typos. I have made a start by making a (first) redraft of the lead. I intend to say more on the problems of Mercator's nationality in the first of the main sections. Peter Mercator (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- This reconstruction has taken a lot longer than expected! I have removed the "under construction" banner but I have more material to add on globes, mathematical instruments and magnetism. The text could benefit from copy editing and polishing. The references need double checking and provision of archive links where appropriate. All of this will happen over the forthcoming weeks (and months). Feedback and comments would be welcome and I hope the article may be upgraded from "start" class. Peter Mercator (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Gerardus Mercator/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
General comments The article is interesting and well-structured, but contains quite a few claims (whole paragraphs included) that are currently uncited. I expect that many of these simply require existing refs to be repeated. I have marked up some examples. Several images are very large, and almost none are of the default size. We use images at default scale wherever possible (with the parameters |thumb|upright|... for portrait images), and only stray larger in the lead and exceptional cases. I can see there is a desire to portray the maps extra-large, but this too seems overdone, and in the case of other images there seems little justification to avoid the defaults. A double-page spread may possibly need to have double width, but I'd try it first at the default, and only go wider and write a justification (use a comment <!--put reason here-->) if absolutely necessary. Much the same goes for the use of multiple images, which make maintenance difficult. Best to use single images; if several are really needed, best to use a gallery. When a pair of images definitely belong together (like Palestine and the detail) then it seems reasonable; in other cases, less so.
Lead: please wikilink disciplines, sciences and technical terms, e.g. astrolabe, globe, astronomy, etc etc. Do the same for first usages of such terms throughout the article. Please link Monachus in the caption of the image in the Antwerp section. Please label the Palestine map in the Louvain section with its date; I think all the maps including this one should state who made them, as not all are Mercator's. Further, when a map is from an atlas or other book, that should be named also. Please ensure that all paragraphs are cited - I have marked up some that are not. Link Rupelmonde both in text and image caption. Link Mechelen. Is Antoine Perronet the same as Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle? If so, correct and link. Please fix the formatting error in "Mercator describes them in q:Gerardus Mercator#Letter to Melanchthon (extract) a letter to Philip Melanchthon " "witty epigram" - according to who? If it's an editor's opinion, we should drop the adjective. Same for the various "dangerous", "deadly", "fulsome" - these should be cited directly, if need be by repeating a reference right beside the adjective, even if the sentence or paragraph is already cited. Otherwise they look like personal opinion. "Many cities have a statue of Mercator" is cited to a list of images, not really evidence. It would be better to say "Cities including Duisburg, Louvain, ... have a statue ..." and to cite each claim to a reliable source. The same goes for the other refs in that paragraph. At the moment they come across as an editor's personal knowledge.
- (nom has commented out the whole paragraph)
- @Peter Mercator: So now the statues are not to be mentioned at all? Surely they are relevant? Reliable Sources exist, for example The Independent. I'd have thought that this website was also fine for the purpose.
- (nom has commented out the whole paragraph)
Mercator's works. A list is fine, as are headings, but all comments on the works are text and require to be cited as usual.
This is a well-crafted, detailed, and now properly-cited article on a major but poorly-known historical figure. The article is a significant contribution to Wikipedia, enhancing it as a global encyclopedia, and is a worthy addition to the list of Good Articles. Congratulations! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)