Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Doubleday (restorer)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2018 [1].

John Doubleday (restorer)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Doubleday had several careers. In private life he was a dealer, but he is remembered best as the British Museum’s first specialist restorer. His “immortality as the prince of restorers”, as it was put at the time, was assured when a drunken young man smashed the Portland Vase, one of the museum’s most famous treasures, and Doubleday pieced it back together. Doubleday was also called upon to restore Babylonian clay tablets—the results were catastrophic—and to testify in criminal trials, including when another young man (this time sober) stole thousands of pounds worth of coins from the museum.

Doubleday’s life is enigmatic. Despite research by myself and others, all that can be said of the first 30-odd years of his life is that he was born between 1796 and 1800 in New York, and that he worked at a print shop in his youth; at the other end of his life, the disposal of his estate is curious. This article nevertheless represents an exhaustive look at the available sources, and has benefited by the input of multiple people. There is little more that can realistically be asked of this article, which is ready for FAC. Usernameunique (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Nikkimaria, sorry for the delay in responding. Also pinging Stefan2, who gave helpful advice in the now-archived post at WP:MCQ. It's possible the photograph was published before 1989 (have just sent the BM an email asking for clarification, and have also asked on the Portland Vase talk page), but I haven't been able to find any evidence of it. The 1989 book was a British Museum publication by a British Museum conservator (Nigel Williams) who had himself just restored the Portland Vase (and, incidentally, published a photograph of himself in identical pose—see Williams's article), so the publication of the Doubleday photograph was germane then in a way that it would not be for most previous publications. Of course, I may have just missed an earlier publication, especially as I'm not familiar with much of the Portland Vase literature. The 1989 copyright appears to be valid ("© 1989 The Trustees of the British Museum"). If this nearly 200-year-old photograph is still copyrighted in the US, would it still be under copyright in the UK, or would we need distinct license tags? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would not necessarily still be under copyright in the UK, but that doesn't really matter if it is in the US - we'd need to host it locally, and locally we only care about US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have we resolved this one? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, after another long discussion, it appears that consensus is on the side of the image being in the public domain. I have added an appropriate US copyright tag. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have to say I'm not convinced by the arguments made in that discussion - the image was published, just not (as far as we know, unless you got a reply to your queries?) early enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From my reading, there is one argument in favor of the photograph still being under copyright, and three favoring it not being under copyright. The former argument (expressed by Nikkimaria) is that we do not currently have evidence of any pre-1989 publication, and so we must treat 1989 as the date of first publication. Opposing views are that:
1) The photograph probably was published in some capacity close to its creation, and requiring the leg-work to track down a mention of a 150+ year old publication is unduly burdensome. (View expressed by Slowking4 and Rodrigo.Argenton)
2) As the photographer/copyright holder is unidentified in the 1989 publication, which was presumably done without consent, the publication did not serve to establish copyright. (View of Prosfilaes)
3) In old cases such as these, where tracking centuries-old publications is onerous if even possible, the common law generally finds that copyright has lapsed, even in lieu of evidence that a literal reading of the black-letter law would require. (Prosfilaes again)
Stefan2 has also weighed in, but I hesitate to categorize those helpful comments among the above viewpoints.
The first two arguments in favor of copyright having lapsed are, as I see it, compelling. (I'm not well versed enough in copyright law to speak to the third.) Just who would hold copyright is ambiguous: Doubleday, the photographer, or the British Museum. As the Corbould lithograph demonstrates, Doubleday had a history of presenting the museum with images of himself, and one can see him wanting to commemorate what was likely his finest moment. It's also a reasonable belief that the museum as the time did not have a staff photographer, supporting the idea that they have never been the copyright holder. Further, it is likely that the photograph was displayed near the date of its creation. The breaking, and the remaking, of the Portland Vase were noteworthy events, and Doubleday frequently spoke about his work; during the reconstruction, he is known to have displayed the Shepherd watercolor of the fragments to the Society of Antiquaries of London. If proud of his ongoing work he was undoubtedly prouder of its completion, as was the museum, which gave him a £25 bonus (more than £2,500 today) at the end of the task. It is likely that Doubleday, the museum, or both, displayed the photograph soon after its taking. Taken individually or in tandem, these ideas support the notion that whether or not the copyright clock started ticking in 1845, the 1989 work had no legal effect. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

Primarily looking at sourcing and source formatting, at least on this pass. First impression: you might want to think about two columns for the Bibliography.

  • Done.
  • I really don't understand when you choose to use {{free access}} versus {{open access}}. In my mind, open access represents a source published under the open access model, as distinct from one where a freely-accessible copy now exists. In any case, there's no clearly consistent rule being used here.
  • Open access is being used when the source is in the public domain, free access when it still might be under copyright but is nevertheless available to read for free online. This is per Firebrace's advice here, which is based on Open access#Gratis and libre open access.
  • Book-format sources that lack an ISBN (such as due to age) should have an OCLC identifier, when possible.
  • Which ones are you thinking of? I include an OCLC if it neither has an ISBN nor is available online (such as the 1856 auction catalogue), but if it’s an out-of-copyright work that’s available online (such as on Google Books), there’s no real point in double providing the bibliographic information.
  • Periodicals typically only require a publisher when that would be necessary or useful to identify the work in question (although you certainly have more cause to do so when citing 19th century publications). Publication location is discouraged for periodicals except where necessary for identification (it's fine with The Morning Post, for example). In any case, although there are some aspects of editorial discretion here, you should check the list for consistent application one whatever rules you set.
  • Added locations, and a few publishers, when possible. There are a few for which I'm unsure what the correct information is (e.g., Petrie, Sharpe & Hardy), and a few for which it seemed some information would be entirely redundant (such as the Report of the Architectural Society of the Archdeaconry of Northampton), but I've added a fair amount.
  • If you retain publisher locations, "Saonara" will absolutely need to include country.
  • Done.
  • Volume XXXII of Archaeologia doesn't display the volume number in bold. Honestly, I'll admit – I have no idea what is going on here. The rest of the entries display normally, and the template is formatted exactly the same.
  • Yep, this annoys me too. Apparently bold cuts out when the volume number is too long, so XXXI gets bolded but XXXII doesn’t. Solving this probably requires a template edit, which I have no idea how to do.
  • ISBNs should ideally all be presented as correctly hyphenated ISBN-13s.
  • All post-2006 books have the 13 digit ISBN. Is conversion necessary for those published before 2007?
  • Any particular reason why it's best practice? Sorry if I sound incorrigible here; I don't mean to be, just feels weird to cite a book with information that's not contained within it.
  • If you need to cite the 1851 English census, is it possible to do so directly, rather than a summarized excerpt at FamilySearch? Consider whether there's a need to directly cite this sort of primary material rather than, for example, the National Picture Gallery capsule (already referenced elsewhere) that appears to include much or all of the same content.
  • I'm open to suggestions—just tried using {{cite census}}, but turns out that's particular to the US censuses. I think it's worth having in some form, for a number of reasons: there are very few primary sources about Doubleday, this provides a fair amount of information, and some of it (such as the names of Doubleday's daughters) is not included on the National Portrait Gallery page. Another option would be to link to Ancestry, which actually has a photograph of the page, although that requires a paid account (FamilySearch requires a free account).
  • Is there a reason you are citing two editions of The English Cyclopædia: Arts and Sciences for what seems to be the same fact? Should you list "British Museum, The" as the internal section / chapter cited?
  • Not a good one: removed. Added the chapter.
  • What is the benefit of referencing Timothy Miller Limited's commercial auction site for three specific example pieces? Contrariwise, are any of the images available of Doubleday's work outside of the British Museum distinctive enough to be worth a non-free use inclusion to illustrate his work as a dealer?
  • The benefit is that the links have good, detailed photographs of the items Doubleday sold, and they are also the only source for "Shakespeare's tree" and the lead seal. I’ve emailed both Millett and Shenton to see if I might use their photographs, but didn’t hear back. I would much like to add "Shakespeare's tree" if you think the non-free use is worth it—the images will also be undergoing a bit of a shuffle in a day or two, as I'd like to add an image of Doubleday's headstone to "Personal life".
  • There is some inconsistency about when you include a page number in the reference. At first, I thought you were omitting the page number when the reference was a single page (which I wouldn't do, but which is probably acceptable if done consistently). But at least in the case of the Notes and Queries reference, you include the (single) page number in the references. Personally, I'd prefer to see page numbers in the references for anything paginated, but what really matters is that your citation style is consistent.
  • That's what it was supposed to be, but you're right, Notes and Queries was inconsistent. I've gone through each footnote, and that's the only one that I could find to change. Three others might look inconsistent, but are that way for particular reasons: with Williams 1989 I'm citing to the entire book, Williams 1993 doesn't have the page numbers included in Google Books for some reason (I could ILL it if necessary, but it's a minor point in the article; tried asking Google Books, but their full copy doesn't have page numbers either), and Pickup 2017 (for which I have only a word doc version that Pickup emailed me, not a scan of the work as published).
  • I don't have access to the Panzeri & Gimondi work, but I do have a couple of questions about it. Is the content you are citing from this book independently authored and/or titled? Are you certain that the title is half-Italian and half-English? Indices I was able to find seem to list the book primarily as Amplius Vetusta Servare. Primi Esiti del Progetto Europeo Archivio Storico dei Restauratori Europei. Likewise, is the cited content in English? If it is Italian, it will need a language tag.
  • Good point. It's an independently authored section (by William Andrew Oddy), in English, that takes up a page or two in the book. I won't be able to add the details for about a week and a half (I'm travelling and the scans are at home), but my memory is that there are two titles pages, one in Italian and one in English, and that the English one retains the Italian title but translates the subtitle (see Princeton's catalog entry, e.g.).
  • Squeamish Ossifrage, I've just taken a look. First, I've added the correct information about Oddy being the author of that section. Second, there's only one title, but both the cover (see here) and the title page list subtitles in four languages (it's even more confusing than that, since there are two subtitles—First results of the European Projet and Historical Archive of European Conservator-Restorers—which are each given in four languages). Perhaps just eliminating the subtitle would be the best bet in the face of this confusion; alternatively, using the second one might work, as it is more apposite when considering that the portion used in this article is about a conservator-restorer. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Caroline Shenton's blog a high-quality reliable source?
  • Surprisingly, the answer is probably yes. She wrote a book on the subject, The Day Parliament Burned Down, which is cited repeatedly in the featured article Burning of Parliament. Though Doubleday is also mentioned in the book, the blog has the benefits of being illustrated, and free to access.
  • The sale of his library probably needs a footnote given the rough equivalent of that value in modern currency; I know there's a semi-automated template providing that service for American dollars. I'm not sure if we have one for British currency.
  • Done.

In general, this is a very thorough examination of 19th century sources, but seems like it may be light on more recent scholarship. Julian Reade's article in this conference proceeding discusses Doubleday's conservation work with bronze artifacts from Nimrud, and contrasts his (admittedly unknown) technique with those of his contemporaries. I don't have access to this paper, but I'm fairly sure that someone will be able to help you out with a copy; indications elsewhere suggest there's some retrospective commentary on his failed attempts to conserve the clay tablets. Doubleday created a fairly impressive amount of cast copies of seals and coins; is there any discussion of their fate in the modern numismatic press (that answer might very well be "no"; I certainly didn't have much luck). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for those; information from both is now included in the article. I haven't seen much on Doubleday recently—the 1993 Catalogue of Seals in the National Museum of Wales considers him briefly but uncritically—and until the two articles you provided, had thought I had done an exhaustive search of the available materials; have just done another full search on jstor without turning up much. There's also what looks to be a self-published work (link) from December that has more specifics (e.g., DOB & date of baptism), but these appear to mostly be larger leaps of faith taken off the same primary documents. How did you turn up the two articles?


Thanks for taking a detailed look, Squeamish Ossifrage. Bit of a drawn out undertaking today, and sorry for that, but I think I've now responded to all your comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Squeamish Ossifrage, have you any further comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Tentative support by Cas Liber

[edit]

Ok, reading through now and most reads nicely. I must say I am not fond of the last sentence of para 1 of the lead - can it be reworded without quoting? e.g. "He was most proud of his 1845 restoration of...."

Otherwise nothing is really jumping out at me prose-wise. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Casliber. I’ve reworded the sentence you mentioned, taking out both quotations. —Usernameunique (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - supporting now as it seems comprehensive and lacking any prose clangers, but I concede I know little about the subject. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

This nom has been open six weeks without consensus for promotion developing; I'll list it under the "urgents" but if we don't see anything more in the next week then I think we'll need to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by J Milburn

[edit]

Support. I had my say at GAC, and the article has only improved since then. There are plenty of gaps, but I think that this is acceptable in an article about a figure who, according to reliable sources, is little-known. My only worry is that you provide a "translation" into dollars in the final line of the article, when surely pounds would be more natural. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Josh. Good point about the sign. It looks like by a quirk of the template the numbers were in pounds, but the symbol itself was incorrect. It’s now fixed. Regarding logical quotation, the punctuation marks were actually in the quoted sources. I’ve changed the last one back (the others are now moot as I’ve changed them in other ways, e.g., by removing the quotations, for a variety of reasons). This (you moving the punctuation marks) seems to be a recurring theme, although I’ve tried to adhere to logical quotation since someone (probably you) told me about it. Is this just to be careful, or for consistency do you prefer the punctuation to always be outside of the quotation marks? No worries either way, I’m just curious. —Usernameunique (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:LQ says the following: "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if [note that this says only if, not if] it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark. For the most part, this means treating periods and commas in the same way as question marks: Keep them inside the quotation marks if they apply only to the quoted material and outside if they apply to the whole sentence." I may have been wrong to move punctuation outside quotemarks in a few cases, but I think it's much more common for punctuation inside quotemarks to need to be moved out than punctuation outside quotemarks that needs to be moved in! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"I think it's much more common for punctuation inside quotemarks to need to be moved out than punctuation outside quotemarks that needs to be moved in!" True that. It’s always seemed a bit odd (coming from a system that doesn’t use logical quotation) to effectively change quotations by inserting new punctuation within the quotation marks, but conversely logical quotation looks inconsistent without advance warning. I frequently try to bridge the difference by attempting to quote material in ways that make use of the original punctuation, but of course the only way for a reader to know for sure that the correct style is being used is to check the sources. —Usernameunique (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1

[edit]

Indeed there are gaps, but I'd agree that these are inevitable, and likely never to be filled. You've done a grand job of gathering and sifting such sources as there are, and it's an interesting article indeed. I look forward to Supporting, but a few comments/suggestions first. KJP1 (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "he engaged in several roles with the museum," - perhaps, "He undertook various duties at..."?
  • Done.
  • "he was labelled a "Forger" - does Forger require capitalisation?
  • Changed. It was capitalized mid-sentence in the source, so I removed the quotation marks as well.
  • "Doubleday's early life, family, and education are otherwise unknown" - does this add anything to the first sentence of this paragraph?
  • I'll remove it if you think best, but it's being used to emphasize how little is know of the first 30 years of his life.
  • "left behind a wife and five daughters, all English," - not sure of the purpose of the "all English" comment. And, with an American father, is it accurate?
  • It points out (in conjunction with "the eldest daughter born around 1833") that by the early 1830s Doubleday's life was rooted in England, not America, and it suggests (though not conclusively) that Doubleday may have met his wife in England, after sailing over. There's some other information to this effect (curiosity dealer by 1832, large donation to the BM in 1830), but not in the lead. Can remove if you think it's unnecessary. Regarding accuracy, I'm not sure what the laws were then, but as Doubleday was a British subject (per 1851 census—he may have been a dual citizen), and his wife was born in London (and therefore very likely a British citizen), the children almost certainly were citizens too.
At the British Museum
  • "his death was described as vacating the museum's post of restorer" - I wonder if the second use of restorer is necessary. Perhaps, "his death was described as leaving the post vacant"?
  • Done.
  • "it was noted that "[h]e was chiefly employed in the reparation of innumerable works of art," - I think I'd put the "he was" outside of the quote, to avoid the clumsy "[h]e".
  • Done.
Portland Vase
  • "A new base disc of plain glass, polished outside and matte inside" - link "matte", I certainly didn't know it? Although the link's not great. Would "matt" not do?
  • Linked to paint sheen since that article actually explains what a matte finish is, albeit in passing, but you're right, neither link is great.
Other work
  • "Timolean Vlasto, a moustachioed twenty-four-year-old from Vienna of fashionable appearance and good family" - this reads oddly to me. What, if any, significance has his moustache? And does Wikipedia recognise the terms "fashionable appearance" and "good family"? It reads a little like a character description from a Victorian melodrama. I see it's a near quote. I'd suggest either presenting it as such, or trimming back to "a twenty-four-year-old man from Vienna".
  • Rephrased with specifics (son of a count/diplomat), and removed "moustachioed" (much as it's a cool word).
  • "had been introduced to Charles Newton (later Sir) and described as a person interested in coins" not quite getting this. Does Sir Charles's role, as BM's rep. in the Levant, need explanation, and was it Sir Charles who described Vlasto as "interested in coins"? Could it be clarified?
  • I don't think his role in the Levant needs explanation, since that was a few years after the theft, and the "(later Sir)" already indicates that his career became important. Do you think I should add his role at the time (assistant in the department of antiquities)? Other than that, I've clarified the language slightly. (If you were wondering, it's not entirely clear from the source whether the friend was a friend of Newton, of Vlasto, or of both.)
As a dealer
  • "More unique pieces he sometimes exhibited to the Society of Antiquaries of London, either himself, or by the hands of Sir Henry Ellis" - I became confused here. Does the end clause belong earlier, i.e. "More unique pieces, either his own work or that of Sir Henry Ellis, he sometimes exhibited to the Society of Antiquaries of London"?
  • Rephrased and reordered. It means that sometimes he went to a society meeting himself, and sometimes he gave the items to Ellis, who then showed them to the society.
  • "He was well known among collectors, and also sold to lyceums" - an odd term for an English language article, even with the link. Did you mean museums?
  • The word is used in the source ("He also has large orders from country gentlemen and Lyceums, in all parts of England"). I'm not sure whether it's being used in a specific or general sense in the source, which is the main reason I didn't chance it; Doubleday also took casts from (and probably sold to) foreign institutions, so the specific meaning is possible.
Personal life
  • "Little is known about the life of Doubleday, and nothing about his family or education" - do you mean "upbringing" or "background"? Something is clearly known of his "family" as you go on to talk of his wife and children.
  • Changed to "upbringing." I had meant family to mean consanguineous family, but I agree that it was unclear.
  • "By 1832 he was listed in directories as under the header "Curiosity, shell & picture dealers"" - is the "as" necessary? And "heading" rather than "header"?
  • Done.
  • "His entire estate was left to Elizabeth Bewsey, the daughter of a deceased bookkeeper; she was apparently an Elizabeth other than his wife, making it "an unusual bequest" that left nothing for his wife or daughters." - I find this confusing. What's the purpose of the "an Elizabeth other than his wife" observation?
  • Rephrased. There are three Elizabeths relevant to Doubleday: his wife (Elizabeth Doubleday), his daughter (Elizabeth Doubleday), and whoever Elizabeth Bewsey is. (There's also another daughter named Eliza Doubleday.) The point of that clause is to acknowledge the room for confusion (other people have conflated Doubleday's wife with Elizabeth Bewsey), but indicate that Elizabeth Bewsey is probably a distinct person, to whom Doubleday was not married.

Hope these minor suggestions are useful. KJP1 (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review, KJP1. I've adopted most of your suggestions, with responses above. Please let me know what you think. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support from KJP1 -with great pleasure. The amendments are fine, and the suggestions were only ever minor. When you're looking for another helmet, may I suggest Süleyman the Magnificent's Venetian Helmet which Johnbod, others and I lifted from Afc. Sure, it doesn't exist anymore, but it's still much more striking than some you've worked on! All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJP1 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, KJP1. That's a very cool helmet (and ever so slightly more elaborate than the Shorwell helmet)! I just added it to the helmets template, and will keep it in mind; definitely looks like it could be expanded out a bit. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

[edit]
  • What does "variously" mean here? "who was variously employed by the British Museum for the last 20 years of his life".
  • "Variously" refers to the belief that he was a part-time employee of the BM, given work when restoration was required. I could rephrase along the lines of "employed by the British Museum, probably in a part-time capacity, for the last 20 years of his life" if you think best, but it may be unnecessarily wordy for what is a minor point.
  • Removed.
  • The wording isn't prima facie logical: "He undertook several duties at the museum, not least as a witness in criminal trials"—were the trials held within the museum?
  • Changed "at" to "for."
  • "At the same time that he was employed at the British Museum, Doubleday was a dealer selling copies of coins, medals, and ancient seals." Always try without "that" to see if it works. But would it be possible to remove my underlined bit?
  • Changed to "While working for the British Museum, Doubleday was also a dealer..." As it's the start of a new paragraph, the mention of the BM is used as a transition.
  • I think so, because ”While working for the British Museum, Doubleday was a dealer” makes it sound as if Doubleday was a dealer for the BM.
  • "He took casts in sulphur and white metal from both national and private collections, and sold them for a fraction of the price that the originals would command."—was the cheap price the whole purpose? If so, perhaps: "By taking casts in sulphur and white metal from both national and private collections, he was able to sell them for a fraction of the price that the originals would command." At the moment it's unclear.
  • It was probably the primary purpose, in addition to creating a substitute for hard- or impossible-to-obtain originals. Changed.
  • "after his death he was labelled a forger, but with the caveat that "[w]hether he did copies with the intention of deceiving collectors or not is open to doubt"."—I'm confused as to whether that is a caveat: doubt is of the negative or positive inference?
  • The source, a bibliographic dictionary, begins Doubleday's entry by stating in no uncertain terms that he was a "Coin-dealer and Forger of ancient and modern coins." Only in the third sentence does the entry acknowledge that Doubleday may not have intentionally forged coins, but that others may have passed off his copies as originals. I would consider that acknowledgement a caveat that the original statement ("Forger") was uncertain.
  • "casting type"—why not unpipe "type" so we know what it means?
  • The source says that he had "to superintend the manufacture of the types." Movable type seems to be the most closely related article, but not necessarily a perfect fit, hence the piped link.
  • "left behind"—remove "behind".
  • Done.

I hope the rest is markedly better than the lead. There's imprecision and ambiguity just when it should be crystal clear. Imagine this on the main page ... Why has it lasted on the FAC list for so long, without withdrawal, renovation, and re-submission? Tony (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Tony1. Responses are above. As earlier discussions (see above) make clear, searching for precision and clarity in the life of a (pre-)Victorian individual is frequently a futile task. Doubleday is believed to have been a part-time employee; he is not known with certainty to have been. He is thought to have been the British Museum's first specialist restorer; again, certainty is elusive. The fact that he was entrusted with the restoration of one of the museum's gems suggests that he was among the best restorers of the day; no contemporaneous sources are available to confirm this. Stating livelihoods as certainties might make for a more satisfying read, but it would be disingenuous. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tony1, responded to your two comments above. —Usernameunique (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: OK, this is a tough one. We have two supports and a tentative support, but I'm taking the review of Tony1 as saying that there is work to do on the prose. Additionally, two of the supporters suggest that there are gaps in the article; while they say that this may be inevitable, I wonder have any reviewers checked this out? If this hadn't been open so long (well over 2 months), and Tony1 hadn't had other reservations, I may have asked for further commentary on that issue. As it is, I wonder is this article best served by leaving it lingering here any longer? I would be slightly uncomfortable promoting as it stands. I think the best course is to archive this now and give it a fresh start.

It can be renominated after the usual two-week wait (at which point, it is acceptable to ping all those who reviewed this FAC to revisit) but if the nominator can show that someone has taken a look at the prose of the whole article with regard to the general issues Tony has raised, ping me on my talk page and I will give permission to renominate early. Sarastro (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1, would you give me a few days to copyedit the article instead? With three supports and some drive-by commentary that has been thoroughly responded to (and has received no further answer), seeing this fail—especially due to vague, little-expressed concerns—feels both surprising and premature. As to the comprehensiveness of this article, I am confident that I have found and added almost all of what is known about Doubleday. Pinging Ian Rose and Laser brain as well. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(If Tony1, who has responded to two minor points but not the thrusy of my response to him, would also like to weigh in, that would be welcomed. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]
If you copy-edit it and let me know (or better, get someone else to copy-edit), you can renominate immediately. I'm sure you have found and added almost all of what is known - but a reviewer really needs to confirm that to cover WP:WIAFA. And as we're still here after more than two months, I'm not sure we can really call this premature. I think a fresh start would be the best option. Sarastro (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1, I consider it premature in that the only concerns that have been raised were raised 5 days ago, and have been responded to (sufficiently, I think). I'd rather not copyedit it immediately (on vacation), but if that would avoid the talk-page albatross of a failed nomination, I would do so happily. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/John_Doubleday_(restorer)/archive1&oldid=856408847"