Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Postman's Park/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:29, 13 September 2009 [1].

Postman's Park

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 20:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Postmen, Anglo-Saxon kings, shredded corpses, Natalie Portman, bishops, decorative porcelain, German air-raids – there should be something for everyone here. A frozen-in-time snapshot of the social and aesthetic values of the England of the 1900s, and an unusual collaboration between four leading figures in very different artistic disciplines (George Frederic Watts, Ernest George, William De Morgan and Mary Fraser Tytler), with cameo appearances from a broad gallery of Eminent Victorians. – iridescent 20:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I don't know why this nomination has received so little attention thus far. Perhaps it's because the opening paragraph is rather uninspiring. Basically, it informs us that the park is a park, and tells us where it is. It defines the subject, but doesn't explain why it is notable. The most historical and culturally interesting feature of the park, it would seem, is the Watts memorial, and this should definitely be mentioned in the introductory paragraph.
  • More generally, I think the lead is overdetailed, especially in the final paragraph which lists the actors in the film made in the park. This is not lead stuff; the lead should be a summary of the article's major points. There is probably too much detail in paragraphs two and three as well.
  • So, as a start, I would redraft the lead, with a punchier beginning, and trim the contents of the other paragraphs. I also think that the infobox image caption should identify the memorial more clearly. Personally, I would ditch the infobox and use a larger version of the photograph so that the details were clearer, but then I am averse to infoboxes on principle.
I will continue reading the article, and will make further comments. Brianboulton (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree regarding the lead. I was trying to keep it in a strict chronological order (graveyard → park → memorial → film), and thus wasn't mentioning the memorial and Closer until later, but I've restructured it.
  • I've taken the actors' names out of the lead - I agree they weren't necessary there. Regarding paragraphs two or three, I can't see a way to trim them without losing significant information; I don't think the lead needs to give the whole story, but IMO it should provide enough context that a reader who doesn't go on to read the rest of the article would still understand what it was about, and the complicated history (and need to explain the name) makes it hard to summarize more succinctly.
  • I generally dislike infoboxes, but I added one to this article; in this particular case I think it corrals key facts (size, date, location) which could otherwise quite easily get lost. The image isn't particularly inspiring, but it's a "least worst"; we have almost a hundred images of the park, but they're almost all of particular architectural details. This one I think works best of them at conveying the cramped nature of the park (despite being arguably the biggest park in the entire City, it's smaller than a lot of American houses' backyards), and is one of the few to include enough people to give a good sense of scale. – iridescent 20:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support:Leaning to supportOppose: (see below): You've done a pretty good job dealing with my and other editors' points, but I am still troubled by a possible lack of clarity in defining "City of London", despite the link. One of your opening statements says: "...it is one of the City of London's largest parks." Will American (or for that matter, any non-Brit) readers realise that "City of London" and "London" mean two entirely different things? Or will they have the impression that this tiny park is one of the biggest in the whole of London? I suggest amending the start of the article to read something like: "Postman's Park is a park in the historical "City of London", the square-mile district which comprises the capital's main business quarter." - or something similar. You would then have to amend the subsequent text slightly, but the situation would be clarified. My only other real concern is possible over-imaging. The pics are generally well-chosen and apposite, but 19 of them plus a gallery is a bit overwhelming, perhaps? Brianboulton (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm very reluctant to have "explanatory text" regarding City of London, particularly in somewhere as prominent as the lead (I'd have no issue with a footnote, but people would be unlikely to notice that). As per other comments below, most of the readers of this will be speakers of British English, by the nature of the topic, and the "City of Foo"/"Greater Foo" distinction between "original place from which a larger area draws its name"/"larger area" is absolutely standard British English usage (City of London/Greater London, City of Sydney/Greater Sydney, City of Manchester/Greater Manchester, City of Toronto/Greater Toronto, City of Glasgow/Greater Glasgow...). To include an explanation of "City of London" in the lead would IMO be as obtrusive as "The Empire State Building is an Art Deco skyscraper in New York City, the center of the New York metropolitan area on the eastern coast of the state of New York". I'd absolutely oppose "the historical City of London which comprises the capital's main business quarter"; "historical" makes it sound either like it doesn't exist any more, or that it has a significantly higher concentration of historic sites than other areas, neither of which is the case, while "main business quarter" is meaningless in a polycentric city like London. London has 48 official "centres"; the City is the business centre for the Stock Exchange and business linked to it, but Canary Wharf is the centre for the banking industry, the West End is the centre for commercial offices and tourism, South Kensington is the cultural centre, Southwark is the home of City Hall and the centre for local government, the City of Westminster is the national capital...
*I'm sorry, but reluctantly I must oppose on this. All readers, not just "speakers of British English", are entitled to understand your article. If there was a small district within New York City called the "City of New York" it would be necessary to explain this to non-American readers. That is the analogy you should be considering. You don't have to use my wording, that was just a suggestion. Find your own phrasing by all means, but make the clarification. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though it would be awkward, how about "the City of London in central London" or similar? I am really reluctant to get into an essay on the differences between City of London/County of London/Greater London/London, especially in the lead, and I really don't believe that "City of London" causes any confusion in this context. The City of London and City of Westminster have had these names - and (aside from a few minor changes) the same boundaries - for over a thousand years; "Greater London" is a purely administrative set of lines-on-the-map drawn up in 1965. – iridescent 17:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might just do if you extended your wording to "the City of London district within central London." Otherwise I suggest you ask Moni, as a non-Brit reviewer, whether she thinks that your present wording will make it clear to non-British readers that "City of London" refers to only a small part of "London" (less than 1% of the metropolitan area), and that Postman's Park is one of the largest parks in this small area. Brianboulton (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? It makes it clear that "City of London" refers to the formal city boundaries, not the whole Greater London sprawl, without getting too long-winded. – iridescent 19:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that should do it. I have struck oppose and changed to support. (I did this nearly 24 hours ago but for some reason my edits didn't register). Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't agree regarding overuse of images. This is effectively an article on civic planning, architecture and the visual arts, and images are necessary to illustrate all three aspects. As I know from writing the alt-text, most of the concepts illustrated by the images are very difficult to explain verbally. There are only three images in the article which I'd consider non-essential (the infobox image, discussed above; De Morgan's portrait, which isn't necessary but I think provides context in illustrating one of the key figures; the Watts Mortuary Chapel, which doesn't relate directly to this article but shows Mary Watts's design style, as well as illustrating the complex design which ended up diverting all her time from the Postman's Park project)—every other image directly illustrates a specific point. – iridescent 11:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't oppose on the question of images, but as you are evidently admitting that three are non-essential it might be an idea to drop these. The article would still be very generously illustrated. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The sentence: "Following the 2004 film Closer, starring Natalie Portman, Julia Roberts, Jude Law and Clive Owen, itself based on the 1997 play Closer by Patrick Marber, key scenes of both of which were set in the park, Postman's Park experienced a resurgence of interest." reads awkwardly, there are too many commas. Can the "starring" be ommited, and possibly "itself based on the 1997 play Closer by Patrick Marber" be changed to "based on the 1997 play of the same name"? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It could, but I can't see an improvement. Unless you mean taking the cast list out altogether – which I'd be reluctant to do, as it's the four stars who provide the context that this is a big-budget studio blockbuster, not some obscure British indie film (I assume most readers' assumption regarding a film adopted from a play about a stripper stealing her identity from a memorial to dead Victorians) – "starring" would have to be replaced by "featuring", which is even longer. I really don't like the idea of "based on the 1997 play of the same name", which would mean inserting an easter egg link. Not sure what others think of that one and I'll defer to the majority here. – iridescent 19:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually second thoughts - are you referring to the listing of the stars in the article, or in the lead? My reply above is in the context of listing in the article body; if you mean the lead, I agree and they've been removed per Brian above. – iridescent 20:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I did mean the lead, sorry I should have specified. I've done a little rewording myself, please tell me what you think of it. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure I agree – "following Closer, there was renewed interest; key scenes were set in the park" breaks the chronological and causal development of the original "following Closer, of which key scenes were set in the park, there was renewed interest" – but it's not something I'd editwar over. – iridescent 21:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well previously it was "key scenes of both of which", which personally sounds awkward. The way I formed the current revision was to leave the mention of key scenes to the end, to emphasise the fact that the interest resurgence was as a result of them being filmed actually in the park itself. Feel free to change it back if my explanation doesn't suffice, I'm not one who gives a hoo-ha over "edit wars" or the like. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Moni3

  • First of all...dude, gross. Secondly, it's quite fascinating.

Oppose until the following resolved: Support with some work on the lead taking place on the talk page.

  • You've got a lead within a lead here. The first paragraph is a summary of the lead. Can you simplify?
  • Cite the notes, please, per Alice Ayers.
  • In the William De Morgan memorial tablets section, we have the Great 2009 Battle of MOSIMAGES Guideliness. The image of Morgan looks right so it should be on the left. The Alice Ayers tiles sandwich the text and it's distracting. I think it would be fine to knock Morgan's image under the 2nd level section header to give it more room. I don't know the reason for that rule anyway. Does anyone else?
  • Similar sandwiching is done in the Postman's Park after the death of Mary Watts section. I'm not sure what it is, but the sandwiching thing makes me completely lose my rhythm in reading. Maybe it's the movement of the eyes, used to whole lines, half lines, whole lines. I get more ADD and I didn't think that really possible.
  • Cheesman Park in Denver was a public park/burial ground for squatters and the homeless until the early 20th century. I vaguely recall stories of vandals and thieves digging up the graves to steal jewelry and whatnot, and it was quite mismanaged, causing careless graverobbers to leave open coffins or remains on the city streets. Savannah too had a yellow fever epidemic so severe that bodies were simply stacked in the squares and not buried. But I heard that on a ghost tour, which I think is half full of lies anyway. At any rate, very interesting. --Moni3 (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead-within-the-lead is the result of a rewrite per Brianboulton above. Initially, the first paragraph was just a simple "it's a park in the City of London" summary. The lead has to mention the memorial, since it's the most significant thing there, but merging paragraph 3 on the memorial with the "It's a park. It used to be a graveyard." paragraph 2 would, I think, overwhelm it - I can't see an obvious way to trim paragraph 3 further.
  • Notes all cited (except for one which I've removed as I decided it wasn't relevant).
  • I'd happily move De Morgan up to under the level 2 header, but (while I have no idea why) that seems to be one part of MOSIMAGE that's strictly enforced; I've moved him up anyway as I agree that, aside from anything else, a picture of someone should be next to the paragraph about him. I know the Ayres tile is distracting but I think it's necessary to have a picture of one of the tiles in this particular section, as there's so much talk about the design. If necessary, the De Morgan picture is expendable, although I think it's nice to give an idea what he looked like.
  • I've removed two photos from "After the death of..." - it's a shame to lose File:Christ Church Greyfriars, August 2009.JPG as it's a very striking image, but it's not of the park itself. File:Postman's Park London.JPG was there mainly to keep the left-right alternation in place, and thus allow the very long and tall image of the drinking fountain (which I think is necessary) to stay on the right and thus not interfere with the headers. – iridescent 23:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps Brian can participate in this part here on the FAC or the talk page. I might try a rewrite of the lead, somewhat simplified and maybe we can reach a compromise.
  • Consider my idea for Alice Ayers, that if you have so many images some of them might fit in a gallery. Personally, I found this one striking and I'm glad you kept it in. --Moni3 (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is very odd; my impression has always been that the guideline was for all headers from level three downwards, and that only level-two headers were excepted, presumably due to the line and large font size. Indeed, this is what the Manual of Style says. However, the wording in Accessibility has remained been pretty much the same since the guideline appeared in November 2007. I can only attribute this to a lapse, and, for the sake of consistency and common sense, I have taken the liberty to adjust the sentence in question. Waltham, The Duke of 03:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportComments from Maralia
  • Some of the images were sandwiching text, and/or impinging on subsequent section headers. I made a single edit to tweak their positions within each section; undo if you hate it, but I think it's an improvement.
  • I don't feel that the second St Botolph's Aldersgate image adds much; no offense to the photographer but unfortunately it looks rather more like a portrait of a tree. (oh - I've just refreshed and read Moni's comments and your responses above. Perhaps replace this image with the Greyfriars one you removed?)
  • The conversion figures could use a consistency check (I see "£56 thousand" and "£19,000").
  • A couple issues with the sentence "Hailed as "The last great Victorian", on 7 July 1904 a memorial service was held in St Paul's Cathedral, 300 yards (270 m) south of Postman's Park": (1) why capitalize The? (2) the subject of the introductory phrase is Watts, yet the subject of the remainder of the sentence is a memorial service. Those rubbed me the wrong way too: the dangling modifier is now fixed (I've left the capital "The" as a Victorianism, for contemporary colour). --JN466 02:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm decidedly not asking you to change this, but I wanted to point out that most Americans simply will not get the British usage of "in the event". Just food for thought.
  • "On 13 June 1917, Metropolitan Police officer P.C." - is there a less awkward method than three nouns in a row to communicate that he was a police officer?
  • "The tablets are arranged in three rows"...okay, there are three rows. "directly below in the fourth row"...oh wait, there are four rows. "The first and fifth of the five rows remain empty."...color me thoroughly confused. I've not tried to read/copyedit the remainder of that section since I can't quite understand it yet.

Altogether this is very well done. You've done a fine job of explaining the provenance of the parcels of land—I suspect this aspect might be the most interesting to you. I really can't get over their using the old gravestones to fence in the new park; bullets would fly over the mere suggestion of such a thing in the US. Maralia (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've undone one of the image moves (in the William De Morgan memorial tablets section). Even though it will possibly cause this FAC to fail, I think it's more important for the article to be accessible to the reader, than to comply with a completely arbitrary guideline. There is no good reason for it to be unacceptable to have an image beneath a level 3 header but acceptable beneath a level 2 or level 4 header, and the dubious reasoning behind this guideline ("it disconnects the heading from the text it precedes") would only apply, in the case of a tall thin image like this, if the article were being read at an extreme zoom setting on a tiny screen. Accessibility is important, but it becomes unreasonable when the article is made less accessible to the vast majority of its readers just to pander to a hypothetical reader viewing the article at 1000% zoom. (FWIW, I've tested this particular instance and even on an ipod screen the image doesn't cause the text and header to disconnect.) The other image moves look fine.
  • Disagree about the second St Botolph's image. (Note: I didn't take the photo in question; this isn't me being precious about wanting "my" photo used.) This is a very distinctive building, with its tall thin bell tower, and only including File:St Botolph's Aldersgate.JPG would give a distorted impression that the building is a long low shed. The cramped and irregular shape of the park means there is no angle other than from the park from which another photo could be taken; besides, this is an article on the park, so the illustration ought to show the view from the park - this also shows how the park runs right up to the edge of the church.
  • The "thousand"/"1,000" were due to my being inconsistent in using {{formatprice}} and {{formatnum}} - fixed.
  • "The last great Victorian" is capitalised in that way because that's what was used at the time. Late 19th-century usage of capitalisation differed from modern usage.
  • I can't think of a transatlantic equivalent to "in the event". An Americanism like "it turned out" would IMO look jarring in this context. If anyone can think of a better wording, feel free...
  • I can't think of a way to shorten "Metropolitan Police officer P.C.". Non-Commonwealth readers can't be expected to understand the abbreviation P.C., but British police officers are invariably referred to by their rank (P.C. Smith, Sgt Jones, Insp Brown etc).
  • There are five rows. Rows 2, 3 and 4 are occupied by tablets, making three rows of tablets; the first and fifth row are empty. The paragraph in question is illustrated with this image to make the layout clearer - unfinished things are always hard to describe, as they don't have neat starts and finishes. I've reworded the first sentence to "The tablets are arranged on the second, third and fourth of the five rows", if that makes things clearer; however, this section is a summary style brief-skim of List of tablets on the Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice, and I don't want to go into too much duplicated detail.
Using the old gravestones to fence in the park isn't quite as outlandish as it appears; British graveyards were designed to be reused, which is why there are so few really old gravestones in Britain. Remember, in this particular case we're talking about one of the highest population densities in the world (the entire City of London would fit within Central Park without touching the edges) with two thousand years of history, and an economy and culture based since Saxon and Viking times on asset-stripping other cultures and the ruins of the past. (Until relatively recently, the traditional West European way to source building materials was to dismantle the nearest Roman building.) – iridescent 13:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The one image placement change that you reverted wasn't mine. I too question that clause in WP:ACCESS.
  • I've taken another look at the two instances of "in the event", and I think the phrase could just be excised without any major loss of meaning. Your call.
  • Re "Metropolitan Police officer [[Constable|P.C.]]": I considered "Metropolitan Police [[constable]] P.C." as the term constable is familiar enough, and it does away with the easter egg link—but "constable P.C." may be awkward in its own way.
I had looked at that tablets image repeatedly, yet altogether failed to see the top row. Will take another look at that section. Maralia (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All good in the tablets section now. I found a few niggles in ref formatting, and fixed them. Would still like to see the prose tweaked in the 'last great Victorian' sentence to avoid the misplaced modifier.
I can't imagine being given only 20 days to apply to move a grave, then seeing 20 years pass before they actually finished the damn park. Any hints (I presume nothing solid, or you would have put it in the article) as to why it took so long? Maralia (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Dabomb87 has re-reverted the image-placement; I've asked him here to discuss it since (as previously mentioned) I think there's no reason at all to apply this particular arbitrary style guideline in this case, and compelling reasons not to.
  • I've replaced one "in the event" with "it transpired". The other usage of the term (about the decision to use ceramic tiling) I've kept in; I can't think of an obvious synonym for it that won't be very clumsy. Given the subject matter the vast majority of readers of this article will be British English speakers, who will understand "in the event" as meaning "the end result was different to that originally proposed".
  • I don't think "Metropolitan Police [[constable]] P.C." works, as people familiar with the term (as per above, most readers of this will be British English speakers) will read that as "Metropolitan Police constable Police Constable", which is even more jarring. The problem arises from Metropolitan Police being his employer and Police Constable being his title, and both needing to be mentioned. The fact of him being Metropolitan Police needs to be mentioned; it won't be immediately obvious to anyone not familiar with the area, but it's counter-intuitive that he worked for the M.P., as they don't cover the City of London; that a Met officer was on duty so close to the park is down to a quirk of the old boundaries of the City (Postman's Park is about halfway between the words "City" and "Islington" on the map, near where a spur of Islington used to jut down into the City.)
  • I don't know why they took so long to open the park. I'd assume lack of funds - the British economy was heavily dependent on transatlantic shipping and cotton trading, both of which collapsed in the 1860s due to the American Civil War, and the Great Deflation sent prices haywire in the 1870s - but that's pure OR on my part.
I've rejigged the "Styles of tiling" table to put the photo of the five rows first, and thus next to the explanatory text - hopefully that will make it clearer. – iridescent 14:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would "Metropolitan Police officer P.C. (Police Constable) Alfred Smith" be unacceptable due to its length, complexity, or the expected readership of the article? It seems to solve the Easter Egg problem, and perhaps the juxtaposition of the initialism and the full title will make people not expand the former and thus result in a less "jarring" sentence. If I am wrong, on the other hand, it will be doubly so. :-P Waltham, The Duke of 01:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"P.C. Alfred Smith, an officer of the Metropolitan Police". I think that does it. – iridescent 08:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does. So much for thinking outside the police box. (groan) Waltham, The Duke of 16:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a beautiful, rich and well-researched article. JN466 02:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image comments

The other images look fine, although some seem mighty redundant, that's your issue, not mine :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Postman%27s_Park/archive1&oldid=1138469276"