Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Homer Davenport/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 promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Homer Davenport

[edit]

Homer Davenport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Montanabw (talk), Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because… we think it meets the criteria. Homer Davenport's cartoons in the 1896, 1900, and 1904 presidential races played were influential, affecting how people perceived the candidates. But that was just one facet of his life, as his interest in animals, especially his importation of Arabian horses in 1906 following an epic journey in the Middle East, may be an even greater legacy. He died young after a life not entirely happy, but his name lives on in political cartooning and the world of horses. Enjoy. Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Quadell

[edit]
Comments from Quadell

Preliminary impressions:

  • The references really need to be cleaned up. I found "pp." statements with a single page, hyphens and en-dashes intermixed for page numbers, capital "P." instead of "p.", references giving pages without "p." at all, miscellaneous spacing issues, two authors separated by "and" in one instance and "&" in another, etc.
  • We'll start taking a whack at that, also have no objection if you want to dive in. Personally, my eyesight is poor and it is extremely difficult for me to spot spacing issues, so anyone who can help there is most welcome to do so! --Montanabw
  • Quadell, I did a run through of the p and pp issue, I THINK I got them all, but if not, can you possibly either just tweak those or point me to the problem ones? I found only one spacing issue... like I say, my eyesight sucks and I rely heavily on word searches... --Montanabw
  • On the & issue, I think the only place I see this is Huot & Powers in the citations?? Are there others?? If only that source, I shall defer to Wehwalt, as that's his book. --Montanabw
Yes, I can help with reference formatting. I actually enjoy that sort of thing, but I don't usually make such edits to FACs unless I'm invited to do so. I'll go through it in the next few days. – Quadell (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consider yourself invited! Wikignoming is always helpful from my end! Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 21:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, cool. I've standardized the references as well as I can. There are only two possible issues left. (I did not fix them, since I wasn't sure how you wanted them handled.) First, the "Huot & Powers" reference uses an asterisk [late edit: ampersand! Doh!] for multiple authors, while the "Carver, Charles and Jeanne" references spells out the word "and". Second, different references format years and dates differently. (Compare "Wells, November 1905, p. 416" with "Fowler, J.A. (May, 1905)...", or "Retrieved 2013-10-13" with "Retrieved September 7, 2012".) – Quadell (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll clean up the access date formatting. I'll just put "and" with Huot and Powers. On the other, I don't think we really have to fix that IMHO, as the differences there is one uses a template at the cite and presents a full citation, while the other references a book listed down in the sources section and is thus a short form citation. But if that is still an issue we can discuss? --Montanabw
In my opinion, all reference-formatting issues have been resolved. (Some FAC reviewers may be more picky, however.) – Quadell (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it complies with our MoS to have a "See also" link to a section in an article, with an em-dash in the link, the way it is done here. (I could be wrong about this...)
    Can you check the MOS? If you are correct, we'll gladly change it. As it sits, though, it is a help to the reader to have the piped link, so let us know if it's must the em-dash that troubles you or how we can better format the piped link. --Montanabw
    It seems I was thinking of the MoS on disambiguation pages. Nothing in the MoS specifically discourages links to sections of articles in "See also" sections, nor can I find suggestions on how to do so. Spaced em-dashes are generally frowned upon, though. I suspect there is a cleaner way to link to this, but I'm not sure what it would be. Unless someone comes up with a specific suggestion, though, that's not really actionable. – Quadell (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you use the "city, state" wording, the state is a parenthetic. It therefore requires a comma after. (See Wikipedia:Basic copyediting#Parenthetical comma.) Several such errors are in the "1897–1901" and "Legacy" sections, and possibly other sections as well.
    I'm slightly confused, can you just demonstrate what you mean? --Montanabw
    In that (above confusion), I don't see the need for a comma after Silverton, Oregon in the Legacy section, as that would be illogical form. I'm doing it anyway, but it looks positively bizarre to me, I hate comma splices and it now looks like one. I think I shall wait on hunting down the others until wehwalt takes a peek at this. --Montanabw
    (ec) Sure. Consider "Davenport was sent to Carson City, Nevada to cover the heavyweight championship". "Nevada" is functioning grammatically as a parenthetic, giving more info about "Carson City", so it needs commas both before and after ("Davenport was sent to Carson City, Nevada, to cover the heavyweight championship"). It looks odd to many writers, I know, but most style guides (including our own) require it. The same goes for "Davenport went to Asbury Park, New Jersey[comma needed] to watch Corbett", "Silverton, Oregon[comma needed] gives tribute to Davenport", etc. If you like, I'll fix them when I come to them as I do a more full review. – Quadell (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I do see the logic. Still looks weird, but go ahead and fix them. I get it  ;-) --Montanabw
  • While on the subject of commas, most of the article uses the serial comma, but a few places omit it. (The infobox lists his children as "Homer Jr., Mildred and Gloria", and the "Personal life and other interests" section ends a list with "...Buffalo Bill Cody, Frederick Remington and the Florodora girls".) Should I assume the article should use the serial comma throughout? – Quadell (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe so, yes, eats, shoots, and leaves! --Montanabw
  • I'm really not a fan of the multiple galleries of large editorial cartoons interspersed through the article, for several reasons. They have to be larger than MoS-recommended image sizes to be recognizable, and many still can't be appreciated without clicking to see full resolution. The four-wide galleries look awkward when the window size is not what you would expect. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images recommends "Rather than including an image gallery on an article, which could add significantly to the download size, consider creating a gallery/category on the Wikimedia Commons instead" (which of course already exists). Now having said all that, I'm not sure I'm right; I understand that Davenport's primary importance lies in these cartoons, and if the majority of commenters here feel the galleries are warranted, I won't insist. I'll just opine that I think the article would be better with a few select cartoons in appropriate sections, and a link to the rest on Commons.
    Hi, Quadell, we already considered this issue during an informal peer review, here, and if you'd like to skim my answers there, it will probably save us all some time - in short, I did an extensive review of art articles that are FA class before creating these. This type of small gallery with selected images is used in other FAs about artists, and given that Davenport has hundreds of cartoons (we have quite a few more at commons), we are barely scratching the surface here. --Montanabw
    Thank you for the link. I certainly agree the format you use is clearly better than the ones used at Adolfo Farsari or, worse, John Michael Wright. I still feel that this article would be improved by removing the galleries and including only as many images as will fit with the flow of the text (covering the works more fully, perhaps, at something like List of works by Homer Davenport or somesuch). This should not, however, be read as an actionable issue that is required before I will support, but only as one opinion to weigh along with those of other reviewers. – Quadell (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll let it sit for now, then and thank you for your kind words about our formatting. We originally had it set up the way you suggest, but to make the images clear enough for the article required the "upright" parameter and we wound up with absolutely horrid formatting and insufficient images. This gallery question was very carefully considered, though we are open to further discussion on the details. As for a list, given that he was a cartoonist, we have a problem of abundance... lol! --Montanabw
    Now that I have read the entire article, I concede that it is difficult to imagine the article functioning as well without the diverse array of cartoons as described in the text. Since I don't see any better way to arrange the images, I think I'll have to agree that the galleries are appropriate. – Quadell (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to fully review the article later on. – Quadell (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing, Quadell, I have a few comments and replies above. We are glad to discuss any issues with you. Montanabw(talk) 20:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you also. I think most of what is being seen is fallout from having two people working on different parts of the article. I looked at the p. and pp. I think we are OK. I agree also on the galleries with Montanabw.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, two people, one of whom (moi) refuses to get bifocals and has depended heavily on wikignomes for every FAC I've ever had! (#busted!) Montanabw(talk) 19:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the necessary, actionable items above have been addressed. A full review follows.

This article is quite a strong candidate. The lead is excellent, and the prose is quite vivid. I've identified the following issues. – Quadell (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • In my opinion "and then population 300" would be clearer as "and then with a population of 300"
    Tweaked, see if my rephrasing is acceptable --MTBW
  • Linking "Portland" might help clarify which Portland. (Though I admit, it would have to have quite a famous community band to have travelled to the other Portland, not to mention the other other Portland.)
    Swapped later link to link at first use. --MTBW
  • I think a better verb than "did" could be found for "impressed by doodles that Davenport did while waiting".
    Fixed --MTBW
  • I have nothing against semicolons, but the second paragraph in "West Coast years" uses them in three sentences in a row. That's a bit much for "engaging" prose "of a professional standard". (I personally find the seven semicolons in the first five paragraphs of "1896 election and Mark Hanna" distracting as well, but that could just be me.)
    Killed one of the three and did a little rephrasing in the 1896 section, tossed a few, kept the rest. (Wehwalt, revert me if that was not properly done) Good enough? --MTBW
    This (along with all issues raised above) is fine now. – Quadell (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "public prejudice against the Democrats" a fair way to characterize it? It sounds POV to me.
    Wehwalt: This is your source, can you take this one? (FYI, I suspect it is the view of the source material and being historical, is a legitimate factor, but this one is Wehwalt's call) -_MTBW
I think it's a matter of historical fact. The Panic had started in 1893, Cleveland's response (repealing the Sherman Silver Purchase Act) was deemed inadequate, and the Democrats lost both houses of Congress in the 1894 elections. There were even Republican congressmen in Kentucky and North Carolina, and Populist ones further South. There was popular prejudice against the Democrats. People were starving, and they were blamed.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not comfortable calling opposition to a political party "prejudice" here. To give a parallel example from just this week, I am a tad disheartened that my favorite candidate was not elected to city council, and I may honestly believe that my fellow citizens are prejudiced against third-party candidates. I might say so to my friends. But I wouldn't expect such a statement to be considered NPOV in a featured article. – Quadell (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased by a couple of people.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider this sentence: "In 1905 and afterwards, Davenport traveled on the Chatauqua lecture circuit, sketching on stage, and gave engaging talks." This is really minor, but since the talk were a part of the lecture circuit, the sentence would be improved with a rewording. (If I say "He did A, doing B, and did C", one would assume that B is a part of A but C is not.)
    Suggested rephrasing?? (given that someone inevitably will argue the other direction if we reword too dramatically)? --MTBW
    Either "In 1905 and afterwards, Davenport traveled on the Chatauqua lecture circuit, sketching on stage and giving engaging talks" or "In 1905 and afterwards, Davenport traveled on the Chatauqua lecture circuit where he sketched on stage and gave engaging talks" would work fine. – Quadell (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've rephrased. I don't think it is coming through as clearly as I might have hoped that the sketching was part of the talk, so I've taken a shot at it in my own words, see what you think.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Davenport's son is referred to in the infobox as "Homer Jr.", with no comma. The footnote calls him "Homer, Jr.", with a comma. The article body only ever calls him "Homer Clyde", implying he was not a junior (since his father was Homer Calvin). There should be a clear and consistent way to refer to the boy.
    Fixed to Homer Clyde throughout. --MTBW
  • There seems to be a typo in "...there are also some preservation breeders whose horses have bloodlines remain exclusively descended...".
    rephrased to "...have bloodlines that are entirely descended from ..." does that work better? --MTBW
    Yes, great. – Quadell (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a typo in this? "Davenport's efforts... allowed the Arabian horse in America to be bred with authentic type and pure bloodlines." I don't know what "authentic type" is in this sentence. (This could be due to my ignorance of horse-breeding terms.) I am also confused by the claim that the hores Haleb "was also crossed on Morgan and Standardbred mares". Is that a typo, or a phrasing I'm not familiar with?
    Clarified "authentic Arabian type" and linked "type" to our horse glossary. On the other, which word? Crossed? Wikilinked that to crossbreeding. Does that clarify? --MTBW
    Is a horse "crossed on" another horse? (I know very little about horse breeding, but the preposition sounds odd to me.) – Quadell (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    One breed of horse is crossed on another breed of horse to create a crossbred. Ditto dogs (see, e.g. Designer crossbred) I rephrased to "crossed with," which is slightly more precise. --MTBW
  • Regarding footnote [b], why don't the other horses Davenport imported into America, such as Haleb and Wadduda, have their names preceded by asterisks?
    Oops! Will fix that! Also moved endnote to Wadduda, the first time the asterisk is used. --MTBW
  • I think these commas are doing too much confusing work in this sentence: "They had three children, two daughters, Mildred, born 1899, Gloria Ward, born 1904, and a son, Homer Clyde, born 1896." The sense is clear in context, but the grammar is confusing.
    restructured and re-punctuated, better now? --MTBW
  • This is not a requirement, but consider making the parenthetical aside regarding Zadah into a footnote.
    OK, made it an endnote, easy enough (Wehwalt, revert me if you disagree on this, not a big deal to me, either)--MTBW
  • I think this sentence could be improved: "Davenport's cartoons have had a lasting impact on the public image of Mark Hanna, and how he is remembered." (The final clause doesn't clearly fit in anywhere.) My impulse would be this: "Davenport's cartoons have had a lasting impact on the public image of Mark Hanna, both on how he was perceived at the time and on how he is remembered today." What do you think? Too flowery?
    OK, used your phrasing (Wehwalt, revert or discuss if that doesn't work for you, no issue for me either way) --MTBW

I look forward to your replies. – Quadell (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is now resolved, except for "prejudice", "sketching on stage", and perhaps "crossed on". – Quadell (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have rephrased the "prejudice" angle.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(End of comments by Quadell)

Support. This article is truly among the best Wikipedia has to offer, and it fulfills all our FA criteria. – Quadell (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patient work with us.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

[edit]

SupportLeaning to support: My prose concerns were largely addressed in the peer review. I haven't read the article through at FAC yet, though I will do so. In the meantime, here are a few non-prose concerns:

  • The first and third cartoon galleries have been sized reasonably, the middle one seems unnecessarily large and thus a bit "shouty". Is there a reason why this can't be reduced to the same size as the other two?
    Hmmm. All of them appear exactly the same size in my browser, all are set at 250px, I am not opposed to fixing this, but as it might be a browser issue, is there any markup syntax for galleries akin go the "upright" parameter for individual images that we can use to standardize all three galleries across all browsers and prefs settings? --MTBW "Follow up': When I alter the size in that second section (I went from 250 to 240 as an experiment), the images reload and shrink for a second, then re-reload to exactly the same size as before in my browser. If they are way bigger in yours than the other two galleries, we may have one wonky image or something. We may need someone who knows markup syntax to help here. Any nominations for someone we can call upon here? --MTBW
    You could ask User:Ruhrfisch, who has helped me with image issues in the past and is generally obliging. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Very odd. My laptop at home (running Chrome on Windows 8) shows the images in the middle gallery as much larger than the others. But my desktop at work (running Chrome on Windows 7) shows all images at about the same sizes. – Quadell (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    At present, on my display, the first two galleries are showing giant-size, while the third is normally sized. What is the position on other displays, e.g. MTBW and Wehwalt? It may be the fault of my browser – but the comment, above, from Quadell is a bit disturbing. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    On my laptop (Mac running Safari) I get four images that precisely fill the width of a standard screen. What's weird, though, is that when I've played with size, the first set won't resize down, they load smaller, then instantly pop back up large, the second and third sets will resize, but too dramatically so... I'm also using monobook skin, would that be a factor? I've pinged ruhrfisch, hope he can figure it out. Montanabw(talk) 23:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ampersands in citations: I think this point was raised by an earlier reviewer, but he used the word "asterisk" and I think the point got lost. There are inconsistencies in the citations between, for example, "Huot and Powers" and "Haskins, W. R., Taube, M. S., & Davenport, H." which ought to be regularised. On balance I prefer "and" to the ampersand.
    We shall search and (&) destroy all ampersands! (If we miss any, feel free to stomp them yourselves! LOL! (However, ""Arabian Horse History & Heritage" IS the title of that article, so do we tweak that one or not??) --MTBW "Fixed' I think and if not, tell me or feel free to fix.
    If it is part of a formal name or title. the ampersand should stay. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publisher locations: Missing in the cases of Conn 1972, Davenport 1949, Edwards 1973, Vogt 2000. There are inconsistencies between "New York" and "NYC"
    Not all books list publication location, but I shall check worldcat and see if there is help there. --MTBW Follow up:Fixed, if not, ping me and shall tweak.
    Davenport 1910 still has "NYC" rather than "New York". Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • State name abbreviations in sources: For the sake of non-American readers it would be better if these were fully spelt out. "Oh", "Wash", "Kan" and "Wis", for example, are not informative to most non-Americans. Some of them don't appear to accord with the official abbreviation.
    Good point, will fix. --MTBW Follow up: I believe I got them all? If not, ping me and shall tweak. Presumed Boston, New York did not require more (neither would London, Paris, Hong Kong, etc...) --MTBW

Brianboulton (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several state abbreviations (Oh, Wash, Cal) are still there, and should be fixed. I'm just doing my final readthrough before the expected upgrade to support. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed that now. I've delinked New York, Boston, Baltimore, and done the standard postal abbreviations for the others.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, other than the gallery sizing problem (which is some sort of bug, I think, and I've pinged Ruhrfisch about it), have we now addressed all of your other concerns? Montanabw(talk) 22:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have indeed addressed my concerns (the image size problem is a separate matter unrelated to the issue of support). I am about two-thirds-way through a final reading of the article, and hope to finish before I go to bed tonight (it's 11.30 pm here as I write). Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Looking forward to the rest. Montanabw(talk) 23:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have upgraded to support, with a few final quibbles:
  • The format "Dr. Russell Trall" is unfortunate. Is he really worth a redlink? Whether or not he is, you should drop the title
    OK, delinked and dropped. Unless we learn more about him, you are probably right. --MTBW
  • An AmEng query: You have "help Timothy clerk at the store", and on the next line "required Homer to milk the cows". To my mind, "help Timothy to clerk at the store" would be more natural, certainly more formal, and would make the phrases consistent. What is the AmEng angle on this?
    I'd say in AmEng it's six one way and a half=dozen the other. "to help to clerk" sounds clunky to me. --MTBW
  • "Desert journey" para 4: Over-repetition of "Sultan" – the odd synonym ("ruler", perhaps) could be used.
    FIXED --MTBW
  • "he died there two weeks later on May 2, 1912": Does "there" refer specifically to Mrs Cochran's apartment, or to New York generally?
The apartment. I will clarify. I wonder if she saw it coming?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And so to bed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your most kind support. I think we've addressed all the comments now.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Cirt

[edit]

There are a lot of images and all check out except for two. And those two are fine as far as licensing, just some minor points. Therefore I won't list all the images in the article here, just those two:

  • File:Hcd02.jpg - this one could be moved to Wikimedia Commons and standardized with commons:Template:Information.
    I flagged it as OK to go, but the tool wouldn't move it. I'm not sure if there is a simple way to do this or if the bot will move it now? --MTBW Follow up: I got it moved, manually, and renamed the file to something more descriptive. Anything else needed there? --MTBW
  • File:HomerDavenportCaricatureHearst.jpg - this one could be standardized with commons:Template:Information.
    Not sure what you mean by "standardized": What is missing or wrong? (Glad to fix, but not sure what you are trying to tell us here). --MTBW Follow up: Never mind, I figured out the template. Maybe next time, instead of "standardize with" just say "add template foo to the image," eh?  ;-) --MTBW

Otherwise, rest of image review checks out okay. Please comment, below, after above two minor issues are addressed, and I'll revisit. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK Cirt, I think I got it. Check it out, feel free to make any minor tweaks if needed. Montanabw(talk) 19:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Looks much better, thanks for being so responsive. :) Image review complete. Everything checks out alright now. — Cirt (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review from Cirt

[edit]
  • Random Source Check - Ref 64. confirms Davenport left his office in a "highly nervous state". Ref 79. confirms that the best war mares were not for sale at any price. Ref 104. confirms he had three children. Ref 121. confirms definition of CMK. These were all randomly picked, and were all completely accurate. (Credit to Gen. Quon for some of my review wording here.) Done. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I checked the page on a PC running Windows 7 with Internet Explorer 10 (1st gallery was 307 pixels tall, 2nd gallery 327 px tall, and the 3rd was 250 px tall), Google Chrome (all images the same height), Mozilla Firefox (304 px, 324 px, and 250 px tall). I also looked at the page with Apple Safari on an iPad and, while all the images appeared to be the same height, the first two galleries wrapped (3 images across, with the 4th below). I tried pasting the code for the 1st line of the third gallery as the first line for the 1st and 2nd galleries, and also tried making sure the spacing and caption lengths were consistent, but nothing worked. The next thing I would try is Template:Gallery instead of <gallery> Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to have done it, although please feel free to play with it. Thank you for your expert help..--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I just did a quick check with Firefox, Chrome and IE and all three galleries are now the same height. One thing that is often an issue is the need to bypass your cache, as the old version (especially with images) is often stored and re-loaded by browsers to reduce server calls. The one image has a caption in it - , which is illegible at resolutions used in the article and is redundant to the caption used in the article. If that caption were cropped out, the image itself would display a bit larger. I am really not an expert, but glad my feeble efforts worked. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm delighted to say that the solution works for me, too – all galleries showing at the same reasonable size. So the Ruhrfisch touch still has the power. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yay Ruhrfisch! You rock, man! Montanabw(talk) 21:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I tried tweaking the first gallery, making the first image narrower and the third image wider, but it did not work (on my monitor at least). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cirt

[edit]
Threaded discussion about pull-quotes moved to talk page by Cirt. — Cirt (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belated comments from TRM

[edit]

Really nice article, some things:

  • "Ohio Senator Mark Hanna. Although he had..." the "he" refers to Davenport, not Hanna, perhaps some reword for precision.
Tweaked.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does info box caption really need to reiterate his full name?
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he first wandered from job to job" reads a little colloquially for me.
Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider linking "West Coast" since that means little to most of the world.
Piped.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't "the San Francisco Examiner" really "The San Francisco Examiner"?
  • "New York Journal American" ->"New York Journal-American".
Both papers done.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In this period" - you previously mentioned Christmas, was it just a seasonal thing?
Developmental. Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1870–1871" (and others, including section headings) see WP:YEAR.
I read it, but I don't think it's universally, or even that widely followed. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt's I'm staying out of that one, youse guyz can sort that out. That said, just personally I'm not fond of "1870-71" as an alternative in a heading title, but I won't quibble. JMO. But what did you have in mind? Unclear if your concern is the four-digit dates only, or other things? Montanabw(talk) 05:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have been clearer, and per User:Eric Corbett's recent episode, while you're not fond of reducing the range in characters, that's what our MOS says. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Far be it for us to question the great one! (snark) I'll tweak to remove the hyphens and replace them with "to" in the section headers, tweak the photo caption per MOS--MTBW
Love to know where that snuck into the MOS as every TFA blurb on a bio is noncompliant.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Maybe we need to edit the MOS (/snark) --MTBW
  • "Following his mother's death, both of Davenport's grandmothers helped raise him,[7] but Homer and his father moved to Silverton when the boy was seven years old..." might just be me but so many family relations in a few words.... any chance of a reword?
Split and somewhat rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "first jobs were not successful. His first position" repetitive "first".
Initialized.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You link "horse liniment" and "jockey" but not "linseed oil", seems strange to me.
Linked "linseed oil." Montanabw(talk) 05:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " lest he be plunged into despair." this may well be true but it's hardly encyclopaedic writing, it could be a quote…?
It's paraphrasing a letter from Davenport to one of the Geer relatives and is not a quote but I am away from home until Saturday.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll defer to Wehwalt on this one unless I'm struck with inspiration, he has the source material--Montanabw Reworded, OK with both TRM and Wehwalt?? Montanabw(talk) 06:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for doing a poor job" - yuck, "doing"... reword.
Reworded. Better? Montanabw(talk) 05:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In that time..." what time?
Took that out, reworded, different punctuation. Better? Montanabw(talk) 05:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " to wed him" to marry him?
Yes, rephrased to "for the wedding" (Wehwalt: your source - is that correct?) Montanabw(talk) 05:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a definite implication that she went there to woo and win him, so to speak. I've rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was able to regain his" ->" regained his"
FIXED. Montanabw(talk) 05:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The year 1896 was a presidential election year" repetitive use of year, I know you're avoiding starting a sentence with a number but this is weak.
Rephrased. Better? Montanabw(talk) 05:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rougher&emdash:Davenport " obvious fix needed!
Fixed the emdash. Better? Montanabw(talk) 05:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " to rest his feet upon" new para, who is "he" here?
Rephrased, "The resultant caricature of Hanna ..." Better? Montanabw(talk) 05:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Spanish-American War " needs an en-dash, not a hyphen.
FIXED Montanabw(talk) 05:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's half-way, if it's helpful I'll continue once I get the chance, please let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's helpful, thanks, look forward to your additional comments! Montanabw(talk) 05:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Part deux:

  • " ran a few times" doesn't seem particularly encyclopaedic to me.
  • Similarly "A few days after..."
I think the word "few" is sufficiently formal.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can tolerate it, it's still vague and non-encyclopedic however. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure source material allows more specificity, or, sometimes the opposite problem is TMI to be useful. But Wehwalt may be able to explain reasons, it's his sources, I did some minor rephrasing, though --MTBW
I'll check against sources when I'm home Sunday. The despair thing too.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the following February" potentially lost track of what year we're in, three paras into this section.
    Tweaked --MTBW
  • "and his boss" is "boss" usually found in an encyclopaedia?
    Yes, and in the thesaurus too! (grin) Particularly where we are talking cartooning. "Employer" sounds so boring...  ;-) We like a little sparkle--MTBW
  • "the prodding of U.S. Senator" has tone issues for me.
    Very common in US English, "to prod the government into action" is actually the example provided in my thesaurus. --MTBW
    Ok, it's euphemistic prodding which means it may not be clear to all readers, but it's nothing that I'd fall on my sword for... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "R-NY" no idea what that means, I'd guess at Republican for New York, but to a non-expert it's jargon.
    Good point, will fix --MTBW
  • "Cartoons." [51]" remove space before ref.
    FIXED --MTBW
  • "pounded a drumbeat for war" again, not an encyclopaedic tone.
Used in two prior FA's I've done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like a tabloid. Sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hearst's newspapers did read like tabloids at times, actually. And Wehwalt really likes that phrase. Can't we just keep it, please? --MTBW
I should add that this is what they were doing, not an exaggeration. While the famous "you supply the photographs, I'll supply the war" telegram is a bit dubious, Hearst was using his newspapers to push for public and political pressure for war with Spain. In other words, they were pounding a drumbeat for war with Spain. What is unclear to the reader here? And the reason why they read like tabloids is because they were. This is one of those times you just run with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1905, in 1906, in 1905.. seems a little odd.
    Throughout or just in one spot? Clarify? (If throughout, it is standard usage...) --MTBW
    I just meant the out-of-order chronology. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh! I see. FIXED. --MTBW
  • "In 1905 and afterwards" -> From 1905?
    Rephrased, better? --MTBW
  • "Haleb, the "Pride of the Desert," imported to America by Davenport in 1906." no period required.
    Fixed. --MTBW
  • What is the asterisk in a horse's title? If it's part of their name then it should be included in the link, if it's not, then it should be explained.
    Means it's an import to the USA, not foaled here. See the endnote after *Wadduda. But (Big sigh) we had it by *Abu Zeyd, but someone else missed that endnote and wanted us to put it with the first instance. Shall we insert it all three times it's used with each horse? I'll do whatever you need here. --MTBW
    I think it'd be best to use it each time since it's only thrice. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm up for that, does anyone know how to do the {{efn|info here}} syntax so the same endnote appears each time without having three identical endnotes at the bottom? Montanabw(talk) 22:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've addressed that, I think, using the "name=" parameter within the {{efn}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you did! Thank you! Montanabw(talk) 01:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Find it a little odd that "hay" is linked, as is "mare", but not "stallion". Worth a run through trying to check that the horse jargon is linked first time and no assumptions are made.
    Will fix, thought I had. Understood. --MTBW Fixed let me know if more horse jargon jumps out at you. --MTBW
  • "newly–imported" hyphen, not en-dash.
    Fixed. --MTBW
  • "The Davenport farm in Morris Plains, NJ, circa 1901–1905" ->"The Davenport farm in Morris Plains, New Jersey, circa 1901–05"
    Done --MTBW
  • "pull his life together " not encyclopedic.
The English language is very rich, and phrases like that are appropriate English. Better than spending twice the number of words expressing the thought half as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but how does this translate into all versions of English? It's not plain English. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. To me it is. In colloquial terms, we might now say "got his shit together," but that's even less encyclopedic! (LOL!) Wehwalt has the source material, and I am not sure we can say he was "cured of depression" or anything like that without venturing into OR or SYNTH land; but clearly, Davenport became severely depressed during the divorce, went to California, stopped making any money for a while, then managed to "pull it together" enough to start cartooning again. I truly cannot think of a better way to phrase it, but I'm open to ideas. --MTBW
Outside comment. I do understand why TRM might see the idiom as less formal than the surrounding text. But I can't think of a good substitute. ("Recover" doesn't quite suffice.) It does seem like a very minor issue to me. – Quadell (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look at the source, though I don't expect much of a revelation (when I get home and over jet lag) but again, this is one of those circumstances where you just go with the English language. I am inclined to let it stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all good with going with the English language but some phrasing just seems to be non-encyclopedic to me. I just can't imagine the Encyclopedia Britannica using the term "pull his life together", instead I would have expected a rephrase into more formal language. But as above, it's not something I'm going to insist upon (nor could I), it's just something that sticks out as odd to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
US English is odd, I suppose. If you have any ideas for "more formal" English that doesn't go into SYNTH territory and conveys the proper nuance, feel free to propose. Montanabw(talk) 22:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a 5-star pedant here, and while I'm still mildly bothered by the odd prose issue (as noted above), I also accept that less is more, many times I've read dull prose and thought "ok, it's encyclopaedic, but yawn", and in this case I'm reading it as "ok, it's great prose, but not encyclopaedic". I'd prefer the latter to the former, so I haven't really a leg to stand on. Support a nice article, well written, nicely illustrated, and actually nice to work with nominators who are accommodating to pedantic review comments. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I look for people to be picky. That's what reviewers are for, and you've done your job well. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you TRM. Your vote of confidence is much appreciated. Montanabw(talk) 02:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • I felt the lead/infobox could stand a little tweaking and edited accordingly.
  • Oddly, the dablink checker revealed one instance, Asil, but in the article it didn't appear the page was linked after all (just a pipe)...

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Anything we need to do? Thanks for looking at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well probably not, I was more curious as to whether you had any thoughts on this phantom dablink -- have you seen it before (or have I missed something obvious)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks "phantom" to me and I don't want to change the language right there as I'm not expert on Arabian horses. Let me see if I can ping Montanabw.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not suggesting you should change anything, was just interested in a reality check as I've never seen this tool make an error. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nor I, actually.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry to be late to the party here. Asil was originally linked to the dab page which contains the simple definition (means "pure"), and when the dab issue came up somewhere in our FAC prep, I changed that and directed it to an article that explains what the word means in better context, Al Khamsa. Davenport actually used the word "chubby" in his book, but I have never seen that word used by anyone other than Davenport. May be that the dablinkchecker has a long memory. Montanabw(talk) 02:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that's it... Anyway, not something to hold up promotion -- now you've got this one out of the way, hope to see you chaps tackling Thomas Nast some time... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2013 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Homer_Davenport/archive1&oldid=1083676753"