Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Golding Bird/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 promoted by Ian Rose 21:24, 13 March 2012 [1].

Golding Bird

Golding Bird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Golding Bird/archive1

Nominator(s): SpinningSpark 00:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been through GA, PR and GOCE. It is about an important figure in the history of medicine. I believe it is now ready for FA. SpinningSpark 00:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "In his electrotherapy, Bird used both electrochemical and electrostatic machines (and later also electromagnetic induction machines) to treat a very wide range of conditions, such as some forms of chorea. Treatments included peripheral nerve stimulation, electrical muscle stimulation and electric shock therapy. Bird also used his invention, the electric moxa, to heal skin ulcers." - source?
  • The sources are at the end of the paragraph. Is there a specific problem.electric moxa section. The paragraphs immediately following the "Electricity" heading are an introduction to what follows (a mini-lede if you like) and contain no information that is not referenced in what follows (other than the reference to the New Frankenstein magazine).
• Use a consistent format for Bird's own articles
  • Done
• Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
  • The bibliography is consistently last name, first name where alphabetical listings are of some use to the reader. Elsewhere the natural form of names are used.
• FN 30 and similar: there are two works with that title
  • Done
• Why not include both authors for Payne?
  • Done
• Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • Done
• FN 72: why not put this in Bibliography?
  • Done
• Ranges should use dashes
  • Done
• Be consistent in whether or not months are abbreviated
  • Done
• Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations
  • Done
• FN 19: formatting
  • What is the issue? I don't see the problem.
• Don't include page numbers in Bibliography book entries
  • The only one that (now) has page numbers is Steel. This is because a specific, named chapter is being referenced.

In general, citation/referencing format should be more consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have gone through putting ref elements in a consistent order. SpinningSpark 01:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC) to 13:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• tentative Support Comments (it has engaging prose and impresses as comprehensive, and formatting looks ok. I can't seeany actionable opposes but con't exclude that others will find things to fix. I'll keep an eye on developments but I think we're tentatively over the line here) - I'll jot some notes below and copyedit as I go. Feel free to revert me if'n I inadevertently change the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and was advanced enough to deliver lectures to his fellow pupils at school. - I'd change "advanced" to "precocious" as it has a more specific meaning which I think is what you're trying to get at here.

I did mean "advanced" and this is my understanding of the sources, in the sense that Bird was knowledgable through his own self-study. It was certainly also precocious of course.

.. at a private school that was not very interested in science - hmm, "interested" one usually thinks of students not schools, I'd go with " at a private school that did not promote (or teach?) science"

"promote" is acceptable, "teach" is not, afair the sources do not directly state science was not taught. Science is not included in the classics so this is implied, but it would by synthesis to say so.

This must be a record - nine (9) consecutive paragraphs in the Life and career section begin with "Bird...". I will change a few.....

It was only eight before it was copyedited but that still leaves me 83% to blame! SpinningSpark 13:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, oops! I've never seen this problem before, and completely overlooked it. Thanks for dealing with it, Casliber. --Stfg (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now incorporated Casliber's second suggestion in the article. SpinningSpark 10:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering whether the first 3 sentences in the The electric moxa section (which are a bit repetitive) can be somehow folded in together. If you can't do it, I'll take a look later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried something. The flow seems better now, in that one sentence deals with the name alone before we return to the main business. I'm not quite happy about the position of the "roughly two decades ..." clause yet. What do you think? --Stfg (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I am struggling to identify what you think is being repeated. The three sentences are addressing very different points: the date of invention, etymology of moxa, and link to electroacupuncture. The second sentence is about just the element moxa and needs to distinguish its subject from the whole phrase electric moxa. The cleanest way to do this is to start a new sentence, admittedly leaving a very short first sentence. The third sentence is already quite long, would become difficult if merged with the second sentence, and needs to disambiguate that the whole phrase rather than just moxa is being discussed. Sentence one and three could be run together, and may even read better, but with the disadvantage that the reader now has to wait for the next sentence before understanding why acupuncture is being discussed at all. SpinningSpark 10:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stfg. If you would prefer the exact date of the introduction of electroacupuncture, it is 1823 (Simpson, already cited). SpinningSpark 10:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reads better now. It wasn't strict repetition per se, I just thought it could be more economical with wording when I read it and I feel it reads better now...now where was I....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were right:) --Stfg (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...for which Bird carried out an analysis of the milk of the porpoise and a dog bitch - I was going to suggest "...of the milk of the female porpoise and a dog", but then I think it is obvious it'd have to be female so maybe female is redundant. Either way, I think it is better than the current wording, which (oddly) specifies the sex of one animal and not the other....(?)

It is "bitch" because strictly speaking "dog" refers to the male of the species but I am happy for bitch to be deleted if others think that "dog" is acceptable. SpinningSpark 19:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's acceptable: "bitch" has a gender but "dog" is the whole species. How about "... analysis of porpoise and dog's milk"? Hmm ... now why do I want dog to have 's but not porpoise? --Stfg (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting grammatical question - am tempted to shift the animals from possessive to adjectival - "dog and porpoise milk"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that works. (Interestinger and interestinger :)) I've gone ahead and put it in. Is that OK, Spinningspark? --Stfg (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the term "Collateral sciences" - and google searches seem to bring up Bird alot of the time. Did he come up with the term? If it is more of a historical one, then it needs to be noted as the way it reads now it gives it as a term in current use....

I don't think he coined it, references to it go back to 1800, if he did he would have had to have had an influence on the great many journals that used it in their title from a very early age. However, I am not surprised his name comes up often, it was very much his thing. At least one of my main modern sources (Coley) uses the phrase as if it were current, and gbooks has a lot of hits from books published in recent years. SpinningSpark 19:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah, typing it in the singular seems to change what has come up. Hmmm, ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pulvermacher's main market for these devices was the very quack practitioners that Bird so detested, but it did actually work as a generator. - plural to singular subject (can be remedied by these type of devices if that is what is meant, or making it singular "The main market for this device..." (note I think the first word is repetitive and unneeded too.

Done as suggested. A clear improvement. --Stfg (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow had previously investigated arsenic poisoning when he and several fellow students were taken badly ill after a new process for preserving cadavers was introduced by Snow at the suggestion of lecturer Hunter Lane. -two snows in the one sentence, try and remove one if possible.

Done. It only needed turning into the active voice and the second Snow could become a he. Can't think how I let it pass last month. --Stfg (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

• Picture of GB medal should be moved down, adjacent to the paragraph that discusses it.
  • Moved picture down to paragraph above. Moving right to the end para causes push down into next section
• Section title "Controversy" could be better, more specific. Something like "Pulvermacher's chain" or "Endorsement controversy"
  • Done
• Prose is very good quality.
• "A bemused Bird pointed out ...". Is "bemused" from a secondary source? or the interpretation of a WP editor?
  • "Bemused" is perhaps too kind a characterisation of Bird's reply. I have changed it to "In a reply full of anger and sarcasm, Bird pointed out..." I think it only right that out readers should get a flavour of the tone of Bird's letter. This is hardly a synthesis, as a reading of the letter will surely show to anyone.
• Cite: minor formatting inconsistency: When using WP:CITEBUNDLE approach, the individual items within a single footnote should all terminate the same way: either with a period, or semicolon, or nothing. This article mostly uses nothing, but FN #19 has some items that terminate in period. My personal preference is a period for all, so readers dont have to guess where one item stops and the next starts.
  • The format used in this article is that short citations are treated as sentence fragments and do not have a terminating period (just as we do not use periods in an image caption that is just aentence fragment). The footnotes are nearly all short citations, but a few are given as full citations where the reference is not an article or book and does not appear in the bibliography. In those cases a period is used for consistency with the bibliography section.
• FNs 80, 81, 83 end in periods: others dont.
  • As above.
• Paragraph: "Bird was vain, with a tendency to self-promotion, and his driving ambition ..." that paragraph has a lot of disparate facts, and the end of the paragraph lists about five sources. Either (a) distribute the footnotes throughout the parag, or (b) parenthetically note within the footnote which source represents which fact.
  • Not done. The citation style would need to be changed throughout the entire article for consistency.
• "Bird designed and used a flexible tube stethoscope and in 1840 published the first ...". Do you have the year that he designed it?
  • Done
• Note 1 (not footnote 1) is a bit odd. Some issues (a) it is the only non-cite footnote; (b) the Journal Articles section looks odd with that footnote at the top; (c) it is indented farther to right that the following list of articles; (d) the Note is numbered (1) identically to the footnote (1) ... could use a letter instead. Probably the best resolution is to just eliminate Note 1. Many articles have "Works" sections, and they dont have a need for a footnote saying "and here are his works..".
  • Done. Seems to be a leftover from a previous organisation of the article.
• Pic caption: "Electrotherapeutic treatment to stimulate facial muscles, 1862". Who is the doctor in the photo? Need to state whether it is Bird or not.
  • I have no information on people in the picture, however, it is clearly not Bird as it is dated after his death.
• Alt text for pics: My understanding is that the alt text should describe the photo, so seeing-impaired users of the encyclopedia can grasp the contents of each picture. The Alt text now doesn't meet that need.
  • My understanding is that the main purpose of supplying alt text is to prevent the screen reader from reading out the image filename. To quote from WP:ALT: "Often the caption fully meets the requirements for alternative text." Under those circumstances, the most useful thing for a viually impaired reader is to keep the alt text to a token word or two so the screen reader immediately goes on to read the caption. A detailed description is only necessary where this is needed for an understanding of the article and is not supplied by the caption.
• Very good article over all (though the subject is a bit dry :-) Leaning to support.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for reviewing, responses are above SpinningSpark 20:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC) to 21:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is looking pretty good. My only concern is the "multiple sources bundled into one footnote at the end of the paragraph" issue. The purpose of the WP:INTEGRITY guideline is to help readers (and future validators) correlate the sources to the material in the article. WP:INTEGRITY and WP:CITEBUNDLE suggest that it is better to either: (a) have the cites per-sentence; Or, (b) use a single footnote at the end of the paragraph, and the multiple sources (in that single footnote) should have parenthetical comments identifying which source goes to which fact. For instance, if you have a 6 sentence paragraph, with a single footnote at the end containing six separate sources: how is the reader/validator to know which source corresponds to which sentence? What is the harm of adding small (one word per source) notes into the footnote to establish that association? --Noleander (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the benefits of this system, but it is much more than a trivial amount of work to carry out. I am not able to comply at this time. If that is a deal breaker, then so be it. SpinningSpark 21:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two scenarios illustrating why WP:INTEGRITY is so important: (1) imagine in the future that another editor edits Golding Bird and splits one of your paragraphs into two. How will that editor know which of the six sources in the original footnote go to each of the two new paragraphs? (2) Imagine that the same editor moves a sentence from paragraph A to (a more appropriate) paragraph B. How will that editor know which source (in the original footnote) to carry with the sentence? You, now, are in the best position to help that future editor by correlating the sources with the sentences. You have all the sources at your fingertips. If it is not done now, it will never get done. No other editor is going to fetch all the sources, read them, and update the footnotes. I'm not saying this is an obstacle to FA status, but why don't we see what other reviewers say? --Noleander (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I'm uncomfortable with the citation style, as it makes verification quite a bit more difficult. However, I seem to be in the minority in that I would consider opposing the nomination based on the citation style; therefore, I will not do so.
• "He received this licence without examination because of the reputation he had gained as a student at Guy's" Guy's should be re-introduced and re-explained here. The lead should summarize the body of the article, but should not be considered an integral part of the narrative.

  I've tried something. Is it enough? --Stfg (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is "materia medica" not italicized? I see that it is inconsistently italicized in its article. MoS seems to call for it being italicized.

  That article appears not to have had any kind of review yet. I agree with you and have italicized it. --Stfg (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "He died on 27 October 1854 at St Cuthbert from a urinary tract infection and suffering from kidney stones." Parallel structure is needed here. I could not think of a way to reword it that would leave the meaning intact. Maybe "suffering from a urinary tract infection and kidney stones"?

  There's a subtlety to watch for here. If the two conditions were joint causes of death, it would be better to have your wording without "suffering" -- he simply died from them. If the infection was the cause and the stones were merely aggravating his discomfort, then any parallel structure would mislead; in this case I would suggest "from a urinary tract infection. He was also suffering from kidney stones." --Stfg (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "For some years previous to his death, Dr. Bird had suffered from disease of the heart; a short time before that event, he had an attack of haematuria, which soon 'became associated with other and unerring evidence of renal calculus.' This was followed by pyelitis, which ended his career on the 27th of October." (The Medical Examiner)

  "By the month of October it was evident that his case was a hopeless one. Nausea, vomiting, oedema of the feet and face, haematuria, pyelitis, and vesical pain, all indicated that life was drawing to a close." (Balfour)

  "The causes of his death are thus summed up - acute rheumatism, valvular disease of the heart, jaundice, irritability of stomach, calculus, and pyelitis. (Balfour)

  SpinningSpark 08:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bird himself certainly believed so." Something about this bugs me—maybe it's the wording that suggests he had feelings about his death after the fact. I know that's not what's meant. Maybe it's no big deal.

  It bugs me too, now you mention it. This is a reason why the citation style is a difficulty. I would have gone to the sources to look for what was said and then looked for a suitable wording, but which source? --Stfg (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ironically, this is one of the few places where I did provide in-paragraph citations because of the likelihood of a challenge.

  "It is God's will, and the mandate is sent in mercy; but my broken health will, ere many weeks have expired, cause me, before seeing forty years, to retire from this position of honour, usefulness, and, indeed, of affluence. My success has been my bane, for I have done too much, and neglected my health." - Bird to Dr. Cormack (Balfour).

  "Bird's health was always delicate and it is likely that his tireless mental energies, spurred on in his early years by an overriding ambition, led him to drive himself too hard in his ardent desire to achieve recognition in the highest circles of his chosen profession." - (Coley).

  SpinningSpark 08:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry about my oversight, and thanks for these quotes. I've tried something. Does it do? --Stfg (talk) 11:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only made it through Electricity—will return shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with a couple additional comments. This is quite good—thanks for the opportunity to read and review it. It's an interesting portrait of a man of whom I was previously completely ignorant.

• "Treatment was applied in several sessions of around five minutes, often causing skin eruptions." Jargon needs linking or explaining: "skin eruptions"
• Clarification needed: "bringing on menstruation where this had failed" How does menstruation fail? Do you mean temporarily (like a late cycle) or menopause? --Laser brain (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the support and I'm glad you enjoyed it. changed "skin eruptions" to "blistering the skin". On menstruation, the first case is meant - added a link to the condition, amenorrhoea. SpinningSpark 19:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support [following comments and discussions below from 23:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)] Carcharoth (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming in rather late to this review, but I saw that it hadn't had a lot of comments, and the article caught my attention when it arrived at FAC, though I didn't have time to review it then. I'm going to leave some initial comments, and then try and return to this at or before the weekend and say some more depending on the responses. Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I too stumbled on "Bird was advanced enough to deliver lectures to his fellow pupils" - advanced does seem wrong here, but it is difficult to think of smoother wording. What I would probably do here is remove "advanced", just state the bald fact in the lead that he gave lectures at school, and leave the detail to later. The body of the article says: "Bird, who seems to have been far ahead of his teachers in science, gave lectures in chemistry and botany to his fellow pupils." This is less forceful than the way it is presented in the lead ("advanced enough"), so possibly the lead needs rephrasing. SpinningSpark
  • I cannot agree that "advanced enough" is more forceful than "far ahead". It reads just the opposite to me. I do not think it is acceptable just to state he did it, an indication that this is out of the ordinary is needed. Not to do so could leave readers with the mistaken impression that this was standard practice in 19th century schools, which is not the intention at all. SpinningSpark
    • I agree that "advanced enough" is weaker than "far ahead of his teachers", because one could be even a little behind one's teacheers and still know enough to give lectures. Something somehow feels a bit awkward about "advanced enough" as a phrase. I've tried replacing it with "far enough advanced". Does it help? --Stfg (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That does read better. About the main body of the article versus the lead, I wasn't clear enough. What threw me was the switch from "seems to have been far ahead" to "was advanced (enough)". In the main article body, there is less certainty ('seems') than in the lead ('was'). But I've struck the above point as mostly addressed. If more is done on this, it can be done independently of my commentary here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at the lead as a whole, I think it needs to be heavily rewritten, possibly from scratch. Currently, it doesn't do a good job of summarising the article, and there are no dates in the lead at all. Someone reading only the lead should still be able to get an idea of the critical dates of his life other than birth and death. Currently, the reader has to read the main body of the article to find out when the events mentioned in the lead happened. Mentioning his age when he died would be a standard addition to the lead. I would suggest looking at the lead section of other FA-level biographical articles for more ideas on how to improve the lead section here.
  • If the lead is not an adequate summary, you should be able to specifically state what you think is missing. I have added has age and some dates, hopefully Stfg will check for any copyediting issues. SpinningSpark
    • adding the age at death makes the whole parenthesis need rephrasing, and none of the eight other biographical FAs I checked does it, so I hope I can be forgiven for removing that. The only other thing I saw (very minor) has been dealt with. --Stfg (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The years being added has helped a lot. Tomorrow, I'll go through the comments I made here (and the new ones I'm about to add) and strike the addressed points. For now, to explain where I'm coming from on the lead section (as I was rather critical of it, probably unfairly), I would mention the year of marriage, number of children, and place of birth and death, and something brief on his death. This may be just a matter of style, though, with some preferring to pack details into the lead and others preferring to leave details until later. One thing I would definitely do is remove "a well-known teaching hospital usually referred to simply as Guy's" - that is best left until the first mention of Guy's in the main text.

      The reason some articles probably don't mention age at death and spouse and children in the lead section, is because those are present in an infobox. My view is that articles don't have to have infoboxes, are often better without them, and I oppose absolutely those who go around adding infoboxes for the sake of infoboxes. However, if there is no infobox, then the lead section should help the reader who doesn't want to have to scan through the whole article looking for basic biographical details such as name, place and dates of birth and death, profession, family, and so on. Carcharoth (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • I have added something on his death to the lede. In my view, children, marriages and exact place of death do not belong in the lede. This is not what Bird is known for; none of these things would be mentioned at all on Wikipedia if he had not been notable for other things. Whether in an infobox or the prose, it is just clutter in the lede detracting from what the article has really got to say. On the question of Guy's, the disambiguation was added at the request of a previous review. As far as I am concerned, Guy's is famous enough not to need any disambiguation or explanation and the link is good enough. However, if it is going to be explained, it has to be done at first mention in the article and cannot be relegated to the body. SpinningSpark 12:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. I agree that Guy's doesn't need explaining. I'd put the glossing of Guy's in a footnote, rather than in the text, but the lead has improved enough for me to strike my objections. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The phrasing "Born [...] to a father" is awkward. Is there a reason more standard phrasings haven't been used?
  • Amended. --Stfg (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It may be worth being explicit about the age he left school and become an apprentice apothecary. It was normal for those times, but modern readers will not all be aware of this.
  • The age would be 14. I will leave it stfg to work that in nicely. SpinningSpark 11:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Worked in. --Stfg (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be better to maintain chronological order and put the 1836 apothecary licensing after the 1832 commencing of medical studies at Guy's. There is no need to jump back and forth in time, as that only confuses readers.
  • Withdrawing this objection, after reconsidering it. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• No explanation is given for the sudden switch from London to Scotland (St Andrews). If the details here are sparse, it is best to say this in the text, rather than fall silent and leave gaps. Maybe "St Andrews required no residence" means he gained this degree while still living and working in London? If so, that should be said explicitly.
  • Done. SpinningSpark 11:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I really dislike "Adjusted for inflation, this amounts to a spending power of about £76,000 now." This misses the point entirely. What you need to do, if this is to make any sense, is to compare with spending power then, not spending power now. What was typical incomes then? That sort of thing. Also, "At the end of his career" could be just "at his death x years later".
  • Ok, but at least the inflation template automatically calls up decent reliable sources. What sources should be used for your suggestion? I don't want to do a random google search and come up with something dubious or OR. SpinningSpark 11:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My view has always been that side digressions into matters of economics and wealth should be relegated to a footnote, much as digressions on name pronunciation and name variants and names in different languages. The whole point is to give the reader an idea of where this wealth placed Bird in the society he lived in. My vague impression is that he (like most doctors) was able to make a very good living, but he was not among the most fabulously wealthy. But this is obvious from his purchase of property and other things mentioned in the article. Consider, when people end up in poverty, there is no such strained attempt to convert monetary values, they are just said to have died destitute and in poverty. Quite why so much effort is spent converting monies received into 'present-day' values I'm not sure. Sometimes I think it would be better to say nothing, and just give the value of his wealth, remind the reader that it was a lot of money for that time, and let the reader investigate further if they will. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't agree that readers should be left to work out for themselves that this was a lot of money, many will be unable to do so without some kind of yardstick. Simply saying it is a lot of money without one of the sources actually saying this would be OR. It may well be that I am not using the best yardstick (although it is something commonly seen in newspapers) but it is the only reliably sourced one currently available to me. I am an electrical engineer and as far as economics is concerned I wouldn't know a reliable source from a confederate dollar. Alternative suggestions welcome. SpinningSpark 16:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, the DNB article on him by Payne (published 1885) had this to say: "He was very successful in practice, and there are few instances of a London physician having earned as large an income as he did so early in life." FWIW, that wasn't kept in the updated version in September 2004 in the ODNB. Carcharoth (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Bird was a member of the Linnaean and Geological Societies, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of London." - it should be trivial to find the years when he was elected to these societies, and this should be included.
  • Done for Royal Society, looking for the others. SpinningSpark 11:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Geological Society page is currently offline with a problem but does state it is still accessible to members. So unless a member is watching this page, we will have to wait for that information. The Linnean Society website does not seem to have details of members: I have e-mailed them and await a response. SpinningSpark 12:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found mention of the election to the Geological Society [books.google.co.uk/books?id=sT0iAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA414 here]. That is in a volume of that society's proceedings, covering the period 1833 to 1838. Not been able to work out which year that was (those pages are loading slowly for me here), but it should be possible to pin down the details from that. Note that he is stated there to already be FLS, so the election to the Linnean Society came first. Carcharoth (talk) 03:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've put it in, but linking the ref to a better site than google books. I also removed the "of London" qualifier to the Royal Society which was difficult to keep with the new sentence structure. This was requested at a previous review but its notability does not really need it, is consistent with its own article title, and the London context of Bird makes it self-explanatory. Anyone disagreeing can feel free to put it back in, but it would really need to be done for all three societies. SpinningSpark 12:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with the removal of the 'of London' qualifier for the Royal Society (and noticed the updating of the categories as well). A couple more minor points on societies, did Bird use the postnomials much? I looked at one edition of his book, and he did use some of them. I can't remember what the guidance is here on Wikipedia for which ones to use, but posssibly some of them should go in the lead? I also noticed a list of foreign societies he was a corresponding member of. I only looked up one (the 'Philosophical Institute of Basle') and noticed that he was elected to that at the same time as Faraday, and it was rather celebrated at the time. Possible a sentence noting that he was also elected to membership of foreign learned societies (probably quite a few, as the book title page ends with 'etc.'), but it depends more what your sources say. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Can't say I've taken much notice of what he used. Looking at one letter from the refs at random he used his medical degrees but not the learned societies, although this was pre FRS. The relevant guideline is WP:POSTNOM but it is unclear to me from that whether or not learned societies are to be included (possibly it means the more notable ones - and then we have to decide...). I don't recall his membership of foreign societies being mentioned in any of the sources. SpinningSpark 16:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not greatly bothered about it, but raise it for stability reasons as you may get people trying to add postnomials at some point. The DNB [slightly modified in the ODNB] does say: "He was also a corresponding member of several learned societies on the continent [in Europe]", but give no further details. The link you provide in the article to the third (1848) edition of Elements of Natural Philosophy has on the title page:

                "AM, MD, FRS, FLS, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians; late President of the Westminster Medical Society; Corresponding Member of the Philosophical Institute of Bale, of the Philosophical Society of St Andrews, of the Medical Society of Hamburgh, etc.; Assistant-Physician to, and Professor of Materia Medica at, Guy's Hospital."

                For what that is worth. I wasn't sure how prestigious those corresponding memberships were (the one for Basle, here spelt Bale, does seem fairly prestigious), or how common it was to be elected a corresponding member, so I was hoping your other sources would have more. If not, then fair enough. Carcharoth (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The reference to the London Electrical Society is interesting. It was these electrical demonstrations that (in part) eventually led to the science behind electricity being uncovered, but that's drifting off-topic here.
  • Yes, that's why I redlinked it, it is on my to do list. Going off-topic even further, do you have any good sources for this? SpinningSpark
    • No, but my recollection of this came from that recent TV documentary series on electricity on BBC4, well worth a look if you missed it. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "notable winners of the medal" - the phrasing 'winners' is unencyclopedic here. Medals like that are awarded to recipients, not won. Suggest changing to 'recipients'.
  • "unencyclopedic"? ;) But I agree that "recipients" is the right word here. Done. --Stfg (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my initial comments, having read up to the end of the 'Life and career' section. I've skimmed the rest, and my concern here is that there may be too much material being presented here. The question I'd want to see answered before going any further is whether this article is summarising Bird's life and work, or whether it is aggregating various sources to expand on the shorter accounts provided elsewhere, but falling into the trap of providing too much detail? Could you say which of your sources gives the longest account of Bird's life and works, and whether this article is of comparable length or not? Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Downloading the article as pdf it amounts to 12 pages not including refs etc. My main modern source is Coley at 14 pages. Payne is 2 pages. Of the contemporary sources Balfour is 67 pages (although it has to be said there are frequent sermon-like digressions), the relevant chapter of Steel is 9 pages and Wilks (chapter) is 6 pages. I would also point out that a good deal of material has already been moved to the spin-off articles interrupter and Pulvermacher's chain because of length or excessive detail concerns. The current length seems to me to be a reasonable match to the sources. SpinningSpark 09:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth, just to offer a third opinion as someone who as read through it: I thought the level of detail was appropriate and pursuant to summary style. There were several places where I actually wanted to read more detail, but it would have become too much if added. I get the impression that Bird's contributions to more than one field were quite significant, and the article is appropriately sized. --Laser brain (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, and having now had time to read through the rest of the article more closely I tend to agree. But I am looking for more than just an 'impression' regarding Bird's contributions. I think an article aspiring to FA level, with these sort of sources, should be able to say clearly what Bird's status was during his lifetime and how he is seen now by modern historians of medicine. I'm not yet seeing the clarity and definitive statements that I would expect. This FAC was introduced with the statement that Bird is "an important figure in the history of medicine". The question I would ask is how important? Compared to figures like Thomas Addison and Astley Cooper for instance? The article covers the medal that was founded in his honour, but there is nothing on contemporary reaction to his death. Were there obituaries? Did his colleagues lament his death as a great loss? And how did views change over time (i.e. what is the modern view by historians)? I would at the least expect some direct quotes covering these points.

And to give more of an idea of where I'm coming from on the issue of level of detail, I recently wrote the article on Victor Negus (another medical practitioner from a few generations later), and have been considering expanding that to go into more detail, but it's a balancing act between on the one hand a succinct and readable account of someone's life and career, and a more in-depth look at the work they did. Probably at some point you have to chose to go one way or the other with the article. My concern here was that things may have gone too far towards the in-depth approach, but I'm reassured somewhat upon reading through the article again and from what Spinningspark has said about some of the material being spun off to other articles. I do have a few more specific comments from when I read through it again today, so I'll jot those down now. Carcharoth (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in favour of any major restructuring or additions to the article during the course of the FAC. To do so would only lead to confusion and probably result in the FAC being restarted anyway. If it is a cause for failure it would be better to let it fail now and bring it back later. But pass or fail, if you wish it, I am willing to collaborate with you on the issue after the FAC has concluded. SpinningSpark 13:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very valid point. Practically all the minor points have been struck, and this is my only major point left. I'm not sure I can quite support yet, but I'm not going to oppose as it is a very good article. I would be happier supporting if you could give some indication within this FAC of what contemporary reaction was (why, for instance, did Balfour write a biography of him, was the Christian society connection the motivation there?) and the most definitive quote from a modern historian of medicine that you have available. With that reassurance that there is material there to work on the contemporary status (e.g. the article says at one point that he is famous, without really expanding on that point) and reputation after death (right up to the present day). I'd then be happy to support and leave any further work for after the FAC. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both Balfour and Steel write from a religious pov and sing his praises. The article already mentions Bird's connection to Balfour. However, somewhere in Balfour (can't give page numbers off the top of my head) he also talks about Bird being repeatedly accosted in the street for medical advice due to his fame while he is on holiday. I think the obituaries already cited in the article could well be said to "lament his death as a great loss" and their are probably others (list in a footnote in Coley). Coley (modern source) is perhaps too scholarly to use "famous" but does describe him as a "well-known physician". SpinningSpark 16:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let me take another look at the way in which the sources are handled here. I'm sure the use of the sources (both modern and contemporary) are fine, but I need to check before I can properly support. I am slightly concerned that, not having clicked on the Coley source link before now, I was taken to what is clearly the wrong article: Molecular cloning and sequence analysis of human Na,K-ATPase beta-subunit from 1986? Is that the wrong article ID or something? Carcharoth (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, even putting in the correct article id to that rendering url does not go to the right page any more. I cannot even find a link to that rendering on the pubmed site (clicking the scan or pdf render links gives a similar rendering but with a different url), I can only assume that the ids used by the rendering are temporary and have changed since the article bibliography was written. I have now put in what should be a more stable link to the article full text. Sorry I did not notice it earlier, I have been working from an offline copy - actually, I had even forgotten it was available online it has been so long. SpinningSpark 22:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've now read through the whole Coley article, and the balance and mix seems to have been got right between summarising what Coley said, bringing in other sources, and rephrasing things in your own words where needed, so I'm happy to support. Thanks for taking the time to respond to some of my comments during the review. Carcharoth (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more comments:

• "Bird did not limit himself to challenging his brother-in-law." This should still be "future" here, as not yet married.

  Done. --Stfg (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 1853 he purchased an estate, St Cuthbert, for his retirement in Tunbridge Wells, but it needed some work, and he could not leave London until June 1854. Meanwhile, he continued to see patients, but only in his house, despite seriously deteriorating health." My impression here was that this implies he was intending to retire, but died before he could. But when I read the ODNB article, it stated that he did retire (can't remember the year). Did the ODNB simplify things a bit here? From memory, they refer to him retiring from hospital work.

  He was officially retired, but seems to have been congenitally unable to actually stop except when completely impaired. He did actually get to St. Cuthbert but it was for a very brief time. The exact sentence from ODNB is "He resigned his hospital appointment on 4 August 1853 and the following year retired from practice." SpinningSpark 14:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A picture of his grave should be possible. Not essential, but would be nice to try and get that picture. It can be seen here. That could be added to an external links section (which currently doesn't exist).

  Added link. SpinningSpark 14:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is Cyril Golding-Bird related? Might be difficult to confirm (I tried and failed), but when the article is written on Cuthbert (who died childless, I think, so maybe a different branch of the family if it is the same family), it would be nice to get all three linking properly with hatlinks and placed on surname pages where needed.

  No idea, but the name is so unusual it is likely. I will make a note of it in Cuthberts draft notes. SpinningSpark 14:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Found his father Rev. Robert J. Golding-Bird and a lot of books by him but got stuck after that. Possibly Cyril is a grandson. SpinningSpark 19:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Continued on your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bird is mentioned in Tracheotomy but that work is not mentioned here. I'm guessing from your draft for Cuthbert in your userspace, that the wrong Bird/Golding-Bird has been credited in that article. If so, might be worth fixing sooner rather than later.

  Yes that's a mistake (apparently my own). That's what you get for letting electrical engineers edit medical articles. Fixed. SpinningSpark 14:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC) and 20:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is Henry Letheby (another article where Bird is mentioned) worth mentioning here?

  It is going a little off-topic. There was a great deal of material here about interrupters but it has been spun out to another article to keep this one focused. SpinningSpark 14:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If Letheby improved on Bird's work, it's not really off-topic, as it puts Bird's work in context (i.e. who preceded him and who followed him). But this is relatively minor, so I'll strike this. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 'frog galvanoscope' is a red-link in this article (though I found your draft). There is an article on something different, called the frog battery with mentions of Bird and a picture of his frog battery. You (Spinningspark) wrote that article (which looks excellent) and uploaded that picture. Is there any reason not to mention and link to it from this article?

  Yes, another spin off, I just had to drop everything else and write that one. Bird certainly covers this topic in his textbook and used it in lectures. But it is not his original invention and so has been left out as not strictly relevant. It is just a piece of laboratory equipment - the Isaac Newton article does not give details of the scales he used for instance, although most likely the information could be found in his writings. SpinningSpark 14:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The article Pathological Society of London claims Bird was a member. Can this be sourced and added to this article, remembering that some sources confuse Bird and the Golding-Birds?

  Yes, the source in that article verifies the claim. SpinningSpark 19:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is another article mentioning the Golding Bird award: D. Bernard Amos. If that can be sourced, is that worth adding as well?

  Done. SpinningSpark 20:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the above from Cyril onwards all found by searches within Wikipedia and using "what links here" (apologies if you knew of most of those already). As I said above, I'll return to this tomorrow and strike what has been addressed, and I may have a few more comments on the latter parts of the article (which I read today), such as pointing out that named people are at times not properly introduced, leaving the reader with little idea who these named people are. Overall, the more I read the article, the more I like it, though it was a bit hard to get into at first. Carcharoth (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments and objections either struck or responded to above. I am close to supporting, but am waiting on a few more replies. I doubt I will have much more to add, as the article looks in good condition. On the CITEBUNDLE issue, I too found it moderately difficult to work out which bits were from which source, and that will make it hard for future editors to make changes and retain text-source integrity. If I ever have reason to consult some of the sources used here that I wasn't able to access during this FAC, I may try and unpack things a bit on the talk page or somewhere helpful (with a link to the version that is being deconstructed). Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: Have just tidied up some source documents at wikisource and created the page Bird, Golding (DNB00). That is the 1885 entry for Golding Bird in the DNB, which is what formed the basis for the updated entry in the ODNB in 2004 (updated again in May 2008). That ODNB entry is referred to in this article as 'Payne and McConnell'. Payne is Joseph Frank Payne. His wikisource author page is at Joseph Frank Payne and there are more details on him here (providing this so it is clear what Payne's credentials are). I've added a wikisource box to the Golding Bird article, so the DNB entry can be accessed that way (it is also available from the ODNB site as well). Carcharoth (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been an image review yet? Ucucha (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images:

• All images are verified in the public domain, except:
• File:Bird stethoscope.jpg - I do have a question about this one. Since this came from a 19th-century magazine, wouldn't it be public domain? If so, is the uploader allowed to apply a more restrictive license to it? Spinningspark has uploaded it and applied a cc by-sa 3.0 license. --Laser brain (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that's an error - I make no claim to this image: licence corrected. SpinningSpark 17:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, sir. All images look good now. --Laser brain (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

• While I can see there's been a fair bit of discussion on citations, has anyone made a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing?
  • Andy, did you do any source spotchecks in your review above? Given Carcharoth looked at some (see below), a brief check/okay from you would help conclude this process... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Re. citations, there are still a couple of instances that seem overloaded at first glance, e.g.
  • Bird was a Fellow of the Linnaean Society, the Geological Society (elected 1835) and the Royal Society (elected 1846).[5][8][13][14] -- given three organisations are mentioned, are four citations really necessary?
  • He is buried in Woodbury Park Cemetery, Tunbridge Wells.[5][13][21] -- bit hard to imagine three sources being required for his burial place.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem perverse to remove refs having done the work of establishing they cover the cited fact. Many of the book sources also have overlapping coverage, but have been bundled into a single inline ref so are not so visible. SpinningSpark 02:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references appearing at the end of the burial place sentence puzzle me. It seems to be a consequence of bundling references at the end of paragraphs, because the three online references there don't give his burial place at all, so presumably the burial place is from one of the book references and the three online references I'm looking at are in fact being used to cite material that appears earlier in the paragraph, but what, I don't know. There are problems with those three references anyway: (i) The obituary from the St Louis medical and surgical journal is all of six lines long. It is not really an obituary, more a death notice. I would strongly urge dropping this as a reference, as from what I can see it provides nothing that is not covered in other sources. (ii) The other two online references are archive records where the archivists have compiled biographical information using biographical sources. It would be preferable (almost required in my view) to use the proper sources here, rather than piggybacking on the summary provided by archives. The archive records should, in my view, only be used to source statements about the archives (that they exist, where they are located, when they were deposited, and what they contain). They shouldn't be used to source biographical details. Both archive records (the Kings College London archives and the AIM25 record of the archives at the Royal College of Surgeons of England) give the biographical sources they have used: "Dictionary of National Biography CD-ROM (Oxford University Press, 1995)" and "Lives of the Fellows of the Royal College of Physicians, Volume 4, 1826-1925, p39 and The Lives of the Fellows of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, Volume 3, Page 332". The former (the DNB entry of 1885) has already been dealt with by linking the wikisource transcription and using the ODNB entry (initially published 2004) as a source. The latter two, the entries in the volumes of Lives from the RCP (written by the same person who wrote the 1885 DNB entry) and the RCS (this likely refers to Bird's son, not Bird himself), should be used directly as sources, as relying on summaries produced by archivists is not ideal. The archival records should really be external links, not sources, and I'm going to add the second one (the AIM25 record) in the external links. What is needed in terms of the article is to be clear what those archival records are being used to cite in this article that can't be cited using other sources. Carcharoth (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The archive summaries were actually used in the early construction of the article, but are now largely duplicated by other refs. The only thing I spotted was the dates for Cuthbert which I have now replaced with a more acceptable ref. SpinningSpark 18:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. As far as spot-checks of the sources go, I don't have time to do that right now, but several are online so I hope someone manages to get to that at some point. I didn't see any issues in the sources I looked at, though I only looked at a few in any great detail. Carcharoth (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Carcharoth. We now have single footnotes for the two statements I noted above, yet the burial footnote still cites three different sources (one of which covers nine pages) for one apparently simple fact. It also concerns me that you (Carcharoth) appear to have found an instance where three citations didn't reference the fact they were supposedly supporting, i.e. the burial place. If I've interpreted you correctly there, we will need a further spotcheck of sources before this gets promoted, in which case I'll be requesting one at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Carcharoth rightly surmised, those references are not specifically for the place of burial, but for the paragraph as a whole and is a consequence of bundling citations. SpinningSpark 00:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa; in the previous version you had three citations that appeared to be only for the final sentence (burial place) because there was another citation immediately before that sentence -- I can see now that's no longer the case, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Spot-check of sources available online:

• Ref 3, OK:

• Article text: "He had four younger siblings, of whom his brother Frederic also became a physician and published on botany."
• Source text: Page range given is a botanical article published by Frederic.

• Ref 24, OK:

• Article text: "This name did not stick, however, and the compound became known as uroerythrin from the work of Franz Simon."
• Source text: "The name of uroerythrin, assigned to this colouring matter by Franz Simon in 1840, has since been generally adopted"

• Ref 70, OK:

• Article text: "The book was well received and was praised by reviewers for its clarity. The Literary Gazette, for instance, thought that it 'teaches us the elements of the entire circle of natural philosophy in the clearest and most perspicuous manner'. The reviewer recommended it as suitable not just for students and not just for the young, saying that it 'ought to be in the hands of every individual who desires to taste the pleasures of divine philosophy, and obtain a competent knowledge of that creation in which they live'."
• Source text: Supports the quotations given and that the book was praised and recommended as such.

Hope this helps. --Laser brain (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does, tks Andy! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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