Talk:George Insole

Notes on recent edits

Nice job. Just a few notes:

• Wikipedia style is to use double quotes (") first around quotations, but to keep original punctuation inside the quote if it exists, and outside if it's added. See MOS:QUOTEMARKS.
• I like to remove unused parameters in templates, but it's no big deal.
• Book titles in title case. See MOS:TITLE.
• I removed some links and added others. It's a judgement call about what's likely to be helpful to the reader. I thought everybody already knows what London is, but might not know what coke is.
• "The first coal staiths" looks like an internal wikilink, but it's not and that feels deceptive. The link could be a reference for that fact though.
• Usually don't capitalize the in the middle of a sentence, but sometimes you do. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Capitalization of The.
• Each reference should stand on its own, so we don't use ibid or similar.

Hope that helps. I've learned some new things today. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Very helpful, many thanks - I've learnt new things today too! I will work through all your suggestions and clarification notes.

The 'File:' link in the 'Entrance to the West Docks' image caption is currently red but adding a pipe after the filename inserts the actual picture into the caption. I wanted the link to go straight to the image rather than the image's Commons page, so that's why is I used the file name as I did - is there a better way to achieve this? RLO1729 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I got that "this view" wrong, and it works now, but I'm not sure the right way to do that. I don't do much with images. Generally using a full URL to a sister project location shouldn't be necessary.

Also box quotes are polarizing on Wikipedia. At Template:Quote box it says "this use is not advised in articles" (emphasis in the original), so don't be surprised if someone objects to them. (They don't bother me.) In James John Joicey, there's a place where a box quote and a block quote bump up against each other and it's unclear that the block quote is a quotation, so that's a problem.

You've already run up against some of the limits of my knowledge, but I'm happy to contribute where I can. Keep it up. SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again - yes, that was the only work around I could find for the image link within the caption. I've also moved the Joicey box quote slightly so they don't bump quite as much, but thanks for the heads-up. RLO1729 (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I noticed you removed the URL access dates in book citations with URLs but not in journal citations with URLs. Is there a style-guide that covers this? RLO1729 (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

There's no need for an access date if the material is dated and we have the date in the reference. I should have removed them from the ones for journals too. Wikipedia officially has no standard way of doing references (see WP:CITEVAR), but at cite web, cite journal, cite book, etc. there's explanations for the way most things are usually done. SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

C-class assessment

I assessed this as C-class to get the ball rolling, as it was previously Unassessed even though a candidate for Good Article status. May I suggest someone uses the B-class criteria to check if it could be promoted to B as the next step? It certainly seems to be a worthy article, but I am not experienced in detailed assessments. welsh (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:George Insole/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 18:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

This looks like an interesting article and I look forward to reviewing it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Intro and infobox

• Great job summarizing the article. It is concise, but hits the high points from the article. Thank you for the the citations for the claims in the intro.
• Please add a link to Colliery.

Thanks and done.  ~ RLO1729^💬 02:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Early life

Looks good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Coal merchant

• I am not understanding the use of multiple citations. The first paragraph has five citations, all at the end of the paragraph. Only one is needed, two or three perhaps to cover the content, more that that is overkill and make it harder to verify the information. In this paragraph, are some applicable only to certain sentences?

I struggled with this a little too. All citations are needed to cover all the information included in the paragraph. However, some citations cover more than one piece of information across the paragraph. In the end I thought it was cleaner to simply place all the relevant references at the end of the paragraph than cluttering it with repeated uses of the same references in different combinations throughout the paragraph for each specific item mentioned.  ~ RLO1729^💬

• Link first instance of Glamorganshire Canal please.

Let me know if I'm missing something but I think the first instance is already linked.  ~ RLO1729^💬

Yes, I missed that somehow. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• The piped name for "Thomas" could be widened to "Robert Thomas" by using Lucy Thomas#As an industrialist as the link (or creating a redirect). Just a thought.

Done.  ~ RLO1729^💬

• Regarding "Situating his offices in Cardiff at the mouth of the Glamorganshire Canal he continued as agent for Waun Wyllt coal and contracts were written to supply London-based coal merchants." shouldn't there be a comma after "Canal"? (I am an American, and here we would have a comma between a phrase and would would otherwise be a full sentence.)

Comma added.  ~ RLO1729^💬

• It would be nice to have the author in the quote box. In this case, I would use E. D. Lewis, "Pioneers of the Cardiff Coal Trade". It helps provide context for the quote.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Done.  ~ RLO1729^💬 03:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Great, this section is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Coal producer

• Comma after "In 1832" please.
• Comma after "Up to 1847" please.

I prefer minimal punctuation in these situations. Unless there is an intervening phrase I don't see the comma as grammatically necessary. There are many similar cases throughout the three articles under review and other editors who have made copy edits on these articles have not commented, so can we consider it a stylistic choice and leave them as is please?  ~ RLO1729^💬

• Nice images in this and the preceding section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, some of them took quite a lot of negotiation to arrange copyright permission.  ~ RLO1729^💬 03:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, this section is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Death and legacy

• I would add: "The Cardiff and Merthyr Guardian", 4 January 1851 — as the author for the quote box.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Done.  ~ RLO1729^💬 03:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Great! This is done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Selected histories

No comments.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

GA criteria

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Yes, it is well written, absolutely concise, and clear.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes, it complies with the MOS.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Yes, the sources are verifiable, but it is a little difficult because there are sometimes five and six citations used for the cited content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Great sources. Please look at the years in citations 14 and 16, I think there is a typo (or you are a time-traveller).
	2c. it contains no original research.	There is no evidence of original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	From spot-checking books and the copyvio detector, there is no evidence of copyright violations.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article covers the main aspects of Insole's life.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Absolutely no unnecessary detail.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes, the article is neutral.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Yes, the article is stable.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Yes, the images are properly tagged.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes, the images are relevant to the article content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

Great job!

Please take a look at the years for citations 14 and 16.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Revised year for citation 16 - thanks for picking that up and many thanks for your very helpful review.  ~ RLO1729^💬 03:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I just realized that the numbers for 14 and 16 were issue numbers, in parentheses like a year. I have never seen that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Great job on the article! It passes.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that George Insole (1790–1851) was largely responsible for the introduction and early success of South Wales steam coal in the London and international markets? Source: Citations following this statement in the article lead section.

• Reviewed: NA (5th DYK nomination)

Improved to Good Article status by RLO1729 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Good to go. KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• What an interesting article! I had never heard of this person and the article certainly gives good information.
• I see from the discussion above I use commas more than you do. Partly this is an individual style choice and partly an international thing. American writers use far more commas than UK ones. I'm not sure where Australia lies on this continuum... I've added a couple of commas where I thought it might aid understanding.

• Thanks, I prefer minimal punctuation in my own writing but am quite happy with your edits.  ~ RLO1729^💬 02:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• What did he die of?

• Cause of death added to article. I had previously considered it didn't add anything to the narrative, but, on reflection (thanks), the fact that he suffered from heart disease for "many years", i.e. while running his business, is relevant.  ~ RLO1729^💬 02:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Wales/England; again, it's a judgement call how much emphasis we place on geography. There will be readers who have no idea where or what Wales is (and was); the question is, how far this article should go to educate them. It would seem slightly ridiculous to say "Worcester, England" on first appearance; we certainly don't need "Worcester, Worcestershire".

• Yes, I also struggled with this. British Commonwealth citizens (generally) have some understanding of English/Welsh geography but (as you suggest) this may not be true of Wikipedia readers in general. The fact that there is a US Worcester was a particular consideration in deciding to err on the side of more detail rather than less, and the consistent use of "town, broader location" in the article led to the seemingly redundant (at least to "British" ears) "Worcester, Worcestershire", as distinct from "Worcester, Massachusetts" for example. Though not particularly euphonious, I don't have such a problem with "Worcester, Worcestershire", it is an accurate geographical description after all. On balance, given the obvious geographical context of the article, and that "Worcestershire" is linked in the lead, and that "Cardiff" now also appears without a broader location, I'm happy to go with just "Worcester" on first reference.  ~ RLO1729^💬 02:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Images should not be hardcoded per WP:IMGSIZE.

• Thanks.  ~ RLO1729^💬 02:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Possessives; again this is partly a US/UK thing. Americans are far more in love with using just ' at the end of a name; I was taught at school that it is only used for famous historical figures (Jesus, Moses, Archimedes etc). An article on a UK subject should use "Thomas's" rather than "Thomas'".

• The BBC grammar website indicates either is acceptable. As it would seem to be just a style issue, I prefer the minimalist apostrophe.  ~ RLO1729^💬 02:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is the big one. When sources disagree about the significance of a person or an event, how do we proceed? Was or wasn't Insole a key figure in the development of the industry? I think with the spread of sources you already have, you should be able to craft a more elegant treatment of this.

• I'll reflect on this and see what I can come up with.  ~ RLO1729^💬 02:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I hope the above and the minor edits I made will be helpful. --84.64.237.205 (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, much appreciated!  ~ RLO1729^💬 02:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

No bother. MOS:POSS may be of interest. --84.64.237.205 (talk) 07:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, after reading that article and the recommended "For thorough treatment of the English possessive, see Apostrophe", I'm going to go with what is most comfortable to say (though I realise that may be subjective), so will use Thomas's as you suggest, but, for example, stay with Wilkins' and Stephens' in other articles. :)  ~ RLO1729^💬 07:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)