Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peter van Geersdaele/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 December 2019 [1].

Peter van Geersdaele

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter van Geersdaele was, as a colleague remembered him, among "the last of the team of conservators and specialist craftsmen who responded to a challenge that had left archaeologists daunted". Spending the bulk of his career at the British Museum, he led the moulding, and subsequent fibreglass reconstruction, of the impression of the Sutton Hoo ship-burial. He later worked briefly for Parks Canada; retiring after a final move to the National Maritime Museum, he was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire in recognition of his services to museums.

This article is a concise and complete account of van Geersadele’s recorded contributions to archaeology and museums. It attracted the support of The Rambling Man when nominated before, but few other comments; the nomination thus failed, 1 vote for and 0 against. Hopefully the nomination will attract more attention this second time around, for it is, I believe, featured article material. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from The Rambling Man

Support as noted in the nomination comments. Nothing has changed for me here. And for what it's worth, if the nominator needs any help with addressing any comments to get this over the line, please don't hesitate. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, The Rambling Man. Much appreciated. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Fiamh

Try to avoid duplicate refs.
- Try: After school... 1951.[1][3] all as one unit.
  - Moved.
- Para that starts: In the early 1950s... is all sourced to the same reference, so it should only have one in-line citation at the end of the paragraph.
Ditto with Van Geersdaele.. 1993.
- I generally prefer to cite after every sentence; among other benefits, it maintains clarity when revisions are made and further sources are added.
6. van Geersdaele 1969. Shouldn't this have a page number?
- The entire article is being cited, since it's the article he wrote about the subject of the sentence.
He was remembered by colleagues Should be directly attributed to the one colleague that said it.
- Good point, attributed to Andrew Oddy.

Other comments

a project in which, as with the Sutton Hoo ship,[10] he was assisted by Nigel Williams,[11][12] This reads really awkwardly. If he was assisted by Williams in a prior project and it's worth mentioning, why not put it back where you're discussing the other project?
the Anglo-Saxon burial is widely identified with Rædwald of East Anglia what does this mean?

Image review

File:SHIP MED.jpg should have an OTRS tag or link to website with free use license
Other image OK Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 02:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review, Fiamh. Looking at the edit description of the file, it appears to have been uploaded by a family member: "Screen capture of image from home movie, shot by Harold John Phillips, of 1939 excavation of Sutton Hoo burial ship. Permission for unlimited use granted by son William Phillips. Uploaded by grandson Jeremy Gilbert". --Usernameunique (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Anyone can post such a comment claiming to be a family member. Without OTRS permission it's impossible to confirm that this is indeed the case. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 07:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ceoil

Support on prose. Very nicely written. Ceoil (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, thanks for your support and thoughtful edits. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

I have looked at the previous nomination and at the state of the article at the time, and I am sad that not enough reviewers looked in first time round. I hope the same won't happen this time. This seems to me a top-notch article of its kind, and I am happy to add my support. A few thoughts:

I could do with a little trimming of the paragraph about the punch-up over the Council Tax (it is really rather yawn-making) but I don't press the point.

Yeah, can't really argue that it's a gripping paragraph. Trimmed a bit, and combined two of the sentences. Interestingly, the Daily Telegraph partly copied this paragraph in their obituary of him ("In 2003 he was one of a group of pensioners who protested against a steep hike in council tax by Suffolk County Council, and the following year he was summoned to court for having insisted on paying his tax in 12 monthly instalments, rather than the required 10.").

If I'd been writing the list of van Geersdaele's publications I wouldn't have put his name in each entry - it seems unnecessary and over-repetitive - but we all have our own ways of doing these things, and again I don't press the point.

This is a bit of personal preference, although given the number of coauthors, it probably would be a bit hard to include a line for repetitive author names, as some others do.

But I would definitely suggest changing the heading "Bibliography" in the citations area: to many people a bibliography in a biographical article means a list of the subject's publications rather than a list of cited works. "Sources" is the usual form in WP articles, in my experience.

I've changed "Publications" to "Works by van Geersdaele," a subsection of "Bibliography." This also has the advantage of placing it below "References," since a number of the references link to van Geersdaele's publications.

I am no doubt showing my ignorance when I ask why the subject is "Van G" (capital V) at the start of a sentence in the main text but "van G" (lower case v) at the start of each line in the list of publications. I merely mention the point, and am happy to go with the nominator's judgment on the matter.

That's a good point, and not one that was arrived at by any great deliberation. It looks, however, as if this is actually correct (link 1; link 2).

Nothing of any great import in those few points, and I am happy to add my support. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 20:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, Tim riley. I've responded to all your points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I hope there will be more supports this time. They will be well deserved. Tim riley talk 21:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

I fixed a typo in the lead (mold). I'm happy to support, just a couple of suggestions that you are free to ignore Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer the section heading to be just British Museum

Good point, done.

Perhaps link bracken?

Done.

Thanks for the comments and support, Jimfbleak. Adopted both of your suggestions. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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