Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William S. Clark/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 not promoted by Ucucha 19:41, 20 January 2012 [1].

William S. Clark

Featured article candidates/William S. Clark/archive1

Nominator(s): Historical Perspective (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article meets the criteria. Since reaching GA status, the article has had a subsequent peer review and, as a result, further improvements have been made and the article further expanded. I believe it is just about ready for FA. Given William S. Clark's international importance, his significance to both the history of Massachusetts and Japan, I believe his article would make a unique addition to FA biographical articles. Historical Perspective (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ranges should use endashes
Be consistent in how "quoted in" citations are punctuated, how initials are punctuated, etc - lots of punctuation inconsistencies
No citations to Konishi
FNs 47 is missing full bibliographic info
Be consistent in whether you provide publisher location, and if so what info
Konishi needs date and pages. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I believe I've rectified the above.

Inserted ndashes. If you see any I missed, please let me know.
Fixed punctuation inconsistencies in citations.
Added back the Konishi citation...it somehow got dropped along the way.
Added a citation template for FN 47.
Added publisher info for a couple citations in which it was missing. Due to use of various citation templates (journal, web, news, book, etc.) the publisher info does appear in different formats and may appear inconsistent, but I prefer to stick with the templates.
Fixed Konishi reference.

Thanks again for the comments. If you see anything further, please let me know. Historical Perspective (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes, but there are still some issues here - see for example FNs 60 and 65. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Got those. Thanks. Historical Perspective (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Interesting article, but I spotted a fair amount of prose issues throughout. Here are some examples; no guarantee that this is a comprehensive list.

Education and early career: "The program was not successful, however, and it became clear to Clark that a new type of institution would be necessary if agricultural education were to be taught effectively." "were" → "was"? Not sure whether education can be considered a plural word; then again, I don't edit such articles so I'm not sure.
~~Family: Why is the link to William Richards presented under both William and Clarissa Richards' names?~~
~~Civil War: Period needed after "The gun was the first artillery piece captured by the Union Army during that engagement".~~
~~Massachusetts Agricultural College: "The proceeds from the sale of the land was to support the establishment...". "was" → "were". Watch for singular/plural conflicts like this one.~~
~~"Clark resigned his commission in the army one month after the MAC voted into existence by the Massachusetts Legislature." Missing "was" before "voted".~~
"Clark became president of the college in 1867 and immediately appointed a faculty, completed a construction plan, and in the fall of 1867 MAC admitted its first class of 49 students." The last part of this sentence ("and in the fall of 1867...") doesn't flow that well with the rest when you read it in its entirety. You could try some minor work that involves a semi-colon, or even split it off into a small sentence.
~~What is intended to cite Clark's resignation year? If it's the same cite used for the quote in the same sentence, I see no harm in moving the reference to the end of that sentence.~~
~~"and also a member of other scientific societies." The word "also" is basically redundant and doesn't serve much purpose with "and" already there.~~
~~Japan: Redundancy from one sentence to another in "who enrolled after Clark's departure. In 1877, shortly after Clark's departure".~~
~~Later career: "Clark became interested in a scientific floating college proposed by James O. Woodruff. Woodruff's...". Again, some repetition between sentences that is best avoided.~~
~~The part that goes "made for an unfortunate combination that would lead to disaster" is laden with POV-ish statements. Can it be toned down a little?~~
~~Shouldn't "law suits" be one word?~~
~~"had mismanaged affairs at the company's New York office resulting in firm's collapse." Close would be better as "resulting in the firm's collapse."~~ Giants2008 (Talk) 18:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for these comments. I am a little buried right now with the post-holiday deluge at work, but I will get to these changes as soon as I can. Thanks again. Historical Perspective (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Sorry, but it's been over a week since this comment and no work has been done on the article. At a time when FAC is pushing 50 noms, we can't afford to leave stale nominations here, particularly when prose issues exist in them. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually blocked out this morning to get to this. Working on it now. My comments will be up within the hour. Historical Perspective (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, these corrections have all been made. With the exception of the first. "Were" is correct as it is in the subjunctive tense. I am sorry for the delay in responding...a couple work crises have prevented me from even thinking about Wikipedia recently. But things have smoothed out and I should be able to devote appropriate attention to this nomination now. I hope you might therefore reconsider your oppose. Best, Historical Perspective (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose reconsidered above. I still would like to see one or two others take a look at the writing since one editor can't catch every little nit-picky point. If others indicate that the prose is okay, I intend to support this. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - mostly relating to the time Clark spent in Japan.

Can we have a photo of the statue of Clark on the Hitsujigaoka observation hill? This is an iconic image in Japan not only for Clark, but for the whole of Sapporo. Have a look at this Google Image search for "クラーク" (Clark) for a taste of what I mean. There are already a few images on Commons: [2][3].
~~The "oyatoi" in "oyatoi gaikokujin" isn't a proper noun (it just means "hired"), so it should be lower-case.~~
~~Can we have a bracketed figure in meters after "at an elevation of 3,200 feet"?~~
The origin of "Satemo" as a Japanese expression could do with a little clarification. In the source it only says that Clark thought it translated to something like "all right", not that this was actually a rough translation. In one of its senses it could have this meaning, as in "all right, let's start" - a general intention to do something. However, it also seems to have a couple of different meanings, and the "mo" isn't often appended in speech today. It might be best just to say that Clark thought that was the translation, rather than what it actually is.
About "the slogan is included in most Japanese schoolbooks with a biography of Clark" - this is ambiguous at the moment. Does this mean that if a Japanese textbook has a biography of Clark, then most of them include this slogan? It could read that most textbooks for every subject in every school year throughout the Japanese school system have both a biography of Clark and include this phrase. The latter doesn't seem likely to me, but I do think the phrase is famous enough that it could be included in multiple textbooks for multiple subjects for multiple school years. I'm not aware of the actual extent, though, so this could do with clarification.
~~When mentioning the Sapporo Independent Christian Church, could you also mention that it was a forerunner to the non-church movement? I found a source that mentions this too.~~

Also, if you need any help with Japanese-language sources or with local research, I may be able to assist. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the comments. I particularly appreciate your perspective relating to Japan and the Japanese language. Responses to your comments follow:

The statue of Clark in Hokkaido is indeed an iconic one and it was once included in the article. However, when the article was peer reviewed, the image was deemed to have a copyright issue as it is a photo of relatively new artwork. So I removed it. You can see that peer review here. Perhaps it might be worth submitting the question to the Commons help desk and seeing what they think. I will pursue that.
Took care of oyatoi.
Added a meter conversion.
Reworded the "Satemo" sentence along the lines of your suggestion.
The sentence about textbooks was confusing, I agree. The ambiguity was derived, I think, from my paraphrasing Maki's statement. So, I added a quote and let Maki speak for himself as to what appears in Japanese textbooks. I also simplified the statement by saying that "many" textbooks carry this information about Clark, avoiding, I hope, the implication that he is covered in every book.
Kanzō is mentioned in the Japan section and I added a reference and wikilink to the non-church movement in that section. Also the citation you provided. Thank you for that.

Best, Historical Perspective (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shame about the Clark statue - after reading the peer review I have to agree, though. Those Clark statue photos should probably also be removed from Commons, unless we can get permission from the copyright holder. I found out that the sculptor of the Hitsujigaoka statue was Tandō Saka (kanji: 坂坦道, hiragana: さかたんどう） from this link, and then from his studio website I found out that he died in 1998. Judging from the Commons page linked to in the peer review, it looks like the statue will become public domain in 2048, but for now I assume the copyright is held by his relatives.

Also, thanks for the various fixes - I like the way you've rephrased things. I only have one more thing to add, relating to the Sapporo Independent Christian Church. My main reason for bringing up the non-church movement was because the mention of the Sapporo Independent Christian Church in the "legacy" section doesn't give much context or links to further reading. I've been looking around at some sources, though, and the church looks notable (if not all that famous), so I think we can just create an article on it and put the relevant context in there. I'll go ahead and create a stub - would you mind linking to it? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 20:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, created the stub at Sapporo Independent Christian Church. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 22:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the wikilink to your new article. Thanks. I also got an answer back from the folks at Wikimedia Commons. Unfortunately, the pictures of the statue definitely cannot be used. Too bad. But the law is the law, I suppose. If interested, you can see the copyright discussion here. Historical Perspective (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independently of this discussion, I created deletion request for various statues of him, and found this page because a person posted a link to this page from the deletion request. You might wish to comment there. For your information, since the date of death is now known, I have added some wiki code to the images on Japanese Wikipedia so that ja:Template:屋外美術 automatically is replaced by ja:Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons in 2049. This will also strip ja:Template:写真の著作物 from the licence statements on Japanese Wikipedia in 2049. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I will add comments here as I go through the article.

~~Any reason not to put the date of birth in the body of the article? Per WP:LEAD it should be in the body if it's in the lead, plus this way the source will be apparent.~~
~~"Upon his return to Amherst in 1852": this gives us two "in 1852"s in quick succession. Could we change the second occurrence to "He returned to Amherst that year ..."?~~
A couple more comments about the second and third paragraphs of the "Education and early career" sections. Can we get dates for when the Division of Science was formed, and when it became unsuccessful? And what does it mean to say that it was unsuccessful? Was it dissolved? Do we need "At Amherst College, he ..." when the context is clearly Amherst College? Does Browne give more information about Clarke's search for support for an agricultural college? As it stands that sentence is disconnected from the narrative in the previous paragraph; the dates aren't precise enough to even know which came first.
Looking around on Google Books for sources, I ran across The history of the town of Amherst, Massachusetts, Volume 1 by Edward Wilton Carpenter and Charles Frederick Morehouse -- I don't know if you've already looked at this and discarded it, but I thought I'd pass it along.
~~You mention a memorial to Clark in Amherst; any chance of a picture? I will probably be in Amherst myself some time this year so I can take a picture then, if no other option is available.~~

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the comments. I've addressed them as follows:

I've added his date of birth to the first section and supplied a citation.
I fixed the "1852" duplication as you suggested.
I've supplied dates for the Division of Science and explained that it was discontinued due to lack of enrollment. Supplied a citation for that as well. I edited the final sentences a bit to explain that his involvement in the agricultural education movement came after the dissolution of the Amherst Division of Science and that he found it necessary to work through organizations beyond Amherst to further this effort. I think this better ties the Amherst paragraph to the short paragraph about his involvement in agricultural boards.
That's much better. However, I think you could now absorb that last paragraph into the previous one. How about "It became clear to Clark that a new type of institution would be necessary if agricultural education were to be taught effectively. He was a member of the Massachusetts Board of Agriculture from 1859 to 1861 and was the president of the Hampshire Board of Agriculture from 1860 to 1861, and later from 1871 to 1872, and he used his position in these organizations to seek support for an agricultural college in Massachusetts." The only thing this would omit is "sought involvement"; do the sources say that he specifically sought these positions in order to advocate? If so, more tweaking would be needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a picture of the Memorial, but I think per copyright laws it cannot be used...unfortunately. The artist is still living.
I keep forgetting that the US doesn't have freedom of panorama; it amazes me every time I'm reminded of it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if these changes look good and if I can address anything further. Thanks again! Historical Perspective (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ran out of time today; I will come back to this tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have combined the paragraphs as you suggested. Thank you, I think that reads much better now. The sources are clear that he used these organizations to advocate for an agricultural college. And while we might infer that he sought involvement specifically for that purpose, the sources do not really spell it out that way. So, I think it reads properly the way you've suggested it. Historical Perspective (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments. I've read through a couple more times, and although I have some nitpicks with the prose, my main concern is that the article seems quite short. The Maki biography (from what I can see of it on Google) seems fairly detailed, and I wonder if more could be brought in from that source. I looked through it to see if I could find examples of material that would be helpful. How about mentioning Maki's suggestion that the time in London in 1850, and particularly the visit to the Linnaean Society, were instrumental in cementing his interest in botany? Or mentioning that he also studied mineralogy and German when he was in Göttingen? Or the topic of his dissertation? Or his work for the fundraising committees and library fund? Perhaps not all these points are worth mentioning; I understand that you have to exercise some selectivity in choosing from the sources. Still, I am concerned about the comprehensiveness of the article. Do you feel that it could be usefully expanded, given the sources you have? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:40, 20 January 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.