Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Urania's Mirror/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2015 [1].
- Nominator(s): Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Urania's Mirror, considered one of the most attractive sets of star charts from the early nineteenth century boom in such things. I believe it covers all major sources. A peer review was done, but somewhat died out before being that productive. I looked into expanding the lead, but honestly think it covers everything to a detail appropriate for the coverage. Delayed nominating this because I wanted to at least look at the Familiar Treatise that was included with the cards before nominating. I have done so now. To do: create an article on Richard Rouse Bloxam for some spillover information, but I think, honestly, this is an excellent article. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So what is Urania's Mirror actually? Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnbod: Er... is that a serious question? It's a set of star charts with a unique gimmick. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well you should tell them that if you want reviews. most, like me, won't be bothered to go and look. Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, point. Been a while since I've last done an FAC. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well you should tell them that if you want reviews. most, like me, won't be bothered to go and look. Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Its certainly attractive and an enjoyable read on the publication and technique. It seems short at 1100 words and overly reliant on Ridpath - are there more sources that could be used to expand. Ceoil (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I've used all the major ones. Since it's a star atlas, there's a limit to things that can be said. P. D. Hingley is the other big source, there was one other source referenced by Hingley, which I didn't locate, but which I don't think would be likely to have substantially much Hingley did not. Indeed, I passed on some very minor things I discovered to Ridpath while writing this - nothing unsupported, of course, just I was able to find an advertisement that, with a little more research on Ridpath's part, set the initial publication date with a lot more precision than was available before. Nothing unsupported by evidence, of course, but Google keeps digitising old books, so advertisements not readily findable hitherto are, in recent years, locatable easily for the first time. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be surprised is 1100 words covers all that needs to be said about the box-set; though that's easier said than done of course; have *scanned* google books but will look a bit more to see if I can find gaps/areas you might cover. One thing - the "Constellations depicted" section is a bit unweildy and listy for an FA; would spin it out. The gallery is a bit overwhealming; I cant believe I'm saying this, but could their size be reduced and more order and structure brought. Maybe break into sections with accompanying commentery.Ceoil (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ceoil: Well, the order is from the set itself. About the only thing I can think of for commentary is to talk about the material on each in A Familiar Treatise... which may end up being wildly WP:COATRACK-ish, as it's on the constellations, not the art. Unless you have a suggestion? I think this is, unusually for FAs, a more visual article than most. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm between two minds, but not happy with the current. Need to dig more. Ceoil (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll check around too. It's been a year, and it's possible more material is now available. I just don't want to promise anything, as I can't guarantee more sources. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, let's see. I found two possible sources on Google Scholar, but they don't really seem very likely to have much new - [2] will be one of the early sources making a tentative attribution of who the atlas might have been by; it's possible it might have something of incidental use. [3] may have something, but I wouldn't count on it. I don't have access to these, though, to check. The one source that looked somewhat promising but that I never found was
- I'll check around too. It's been a year, and it's possible more material is now available. I just don't want to promise anything, as I can't guarantee more sources. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm between two minds, but not happy with the current. Need to dig more. Ceoil (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ceoil: Well, the order is from the set itself. About the only thing I can think of for commentary is to talk about the material on each in A Familiar Treatise... which may end up being wildly WP:COATRACK-ish, as it's on the constellations, not the art. Unless you have a suggestion? I think this is, unusually for FAs, a more visual article than most. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| “ |
Telescope, volume 61, page 398. Publication Date: 00/1981. Origin: S&T; KNUDSEN.
|
” |
- I don't think it will have much the other sources haven't covered. I'll check Google books as well, and review the Hingley paper and its references. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Citations aren't necessary in the lead since those same facts should be cited somewhere in the prose. Disc Wheel (T + C) 00:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a couple minor facts don't reappear. I'll check and work them in. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If they dont reappear, take out and place below. Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure it'd be appropriate. it's some of the basic information, like publishing date - though, that said, there's an obvious place to put that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure the article passes the comprehensive requirement, and knowing that my issue with the "Constellations depicted" sect falls within IDONTLIKEIT re lists; not supporting this time. More variery in use of source material, a more nunanced retelling of the publication history and restrained use of images; would be pleased to revisit. Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ceoil: I suppose my problem is that I've worked quite hard to find sources, and, so far as I'm aware, there's little information that isn't included that I know of, and it's not like anyone's come up with another source that's shown new information. Some subjects are naturally smaller, and I suspect this article is one of them, particularly as, as mentioned above, I actually found sources that hadn't been known to researchers hitherto, which helped clarify the exact time of first publication.
- Quite simply, if there's a concrete suggestion, I'm really happy to act, but it's hard to act on vague suggestions.
- And I'm not helped by having developed a bad cold, of course. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ceoil: I suppose my problem is that I've worked quite hard to find sources, and, so far as I'm aware, there's little information that isn't included that I know of, and it's not like anyone's come up with another source that's shown new information. Some subjects are naturally smaller, and I suspect this article is one of them, particularly as, as mentioned above, I actually found sources that hadn't been known to researchers hitherto, which helped clarify the exact time of first publication.
- I'm not sure the article passes the comprehensive requirement, and knowing that my issue with the "Constellations depicted" sect falls within IDONTLIKEIT re lists; not supporting this time. More variery in use of source material, a more nunanced retelling of the publication history and restrained use of images; would be pleased to revisit. Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure it'd be appropriate. it's some of the basic information, like publishing date - though, that said, there's an obvious place to put that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If they dont reappear, take out and place below. Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator note: Unfortunately this has failed to gain consensus for promotion after being open for over three weeks—it will be archived shortly. You may renominate after the standard two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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. --Laser brain (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.