Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna Blackburne/archive1

Add links
From 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 March 2024 [1].

Anna Blackburne[edit]

Nominator(s): —Kusma (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the earliest woman naturalists in England, a notable collector of specimens who corresponded with Linnaeus and Pennant, among others. —Kusma (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Family image is missing alt text
    Added
  • Avoid sandwiching text between images
    Moved all to the right, which has other downsides. (I use large images, where it is normal to have left and right images on the same height; I do not understand the "no sandwiching" thing as that is very much dependant on settings, and often less bad than other options). Happy to hear furtrher feedback, especially from people using standard settings.
  • File:Eurasian_wren,_raspberry,_wood_lice_and_pupa_from_the_Natural_History_Cabinet_of_Anna_Blackburne_(1768)_painting_in_high_resolution_by_James_Bolton._(51927517051).jpg: the description indicates this work is PD, but the tag used is CC? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the work is PD as indicated by the Yale library holding it, for example. The version in the article is cleaned up and watermarked by some company that then put a CC-2.0 on it, possibly in the belief that their cleanup work entitles them to it? I am not sure what the best thing to do is here; I could just download a non-watermarked version from Yale and upload it if you think that's better.
    I do - we should be avoiding watermarks anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. —Kusma (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nikkimaria for the image review! —Kusma (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Pickersgill-Cunliffe[edit]

  • While she called herself "Mrs", I don't think it counts as an honorific prefix as Wikipedia understands it.
  • Remove the disambiguation from her father's name in the infobox
  • Should be birth name rather than other name
  • I assume at the time of her birth Orford Hall was not in fact inside Warrington, so perhaps add the full link in the infobox
    All done. I'm not an infobox person so I'm terrible with them :)
  • Suggest beginning the first section with her full name rather than just the surname
  • I thought I'd have a look for any portraits of her. Didn't find any, but have added them for John, John, and John.
    I don't think there is anything except for the lost painting by Hamlet Winstanley that shows her "aged 15", the sources say. The painting is from 1741 after her mother died in 1740, but Winstanley had a technique of painting just the heads from life, then sending them to London to be put together on a large canvas. [2]. For the botanist, you may enjoy the ghost pineapple, see [3].
  • There's a slightly confusing tendency to swap between calling her "Anna", "Blackburne", or "Anna Blackburne". I understand that we want to keep readers from being confused about which Blackburne is being referenced, but for example in the "Johann Reinhold Forster" section all three names are used, making me at least more confused about who exactly I'm reading about.
    Tried to make it better
  • "Anna Blackburne eventually became the mistress of the manor" do we know when?
    From Wystrach, it is only clear to me that it was after her mother's death, which is in 1740. moved to a different place because we don't know the "Mrs" for sure before the 1771 letter to Linnaeus.
  • Priestley is only mentioned in the article as being replaced by someone else. I don't quite see why he needs mentioning at all if this is the extent of his contribution.
    Name dropping removed.
  • "On 29 June 1771..." try not to start paragraphs with dates
    Rearranged.
  • Was Fairfield Hall a new-build specifically for Blackburne, or was it an existing house adapted for her use?
    New build.
  • I think the caption for the warbler image could be expanded slightly
    Longer now, but I'm not sure what to write
  • Did she learn Latin in order to read Systema Naturae or did she learn Latin and then also read it? The lede and main text differ on this wording
    The lede has it right: the motivation was botany.

That's all I have for now. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • My apologies to Kusma for leaving this hanging! Happy to support based on these changes and the responses to the other reviews. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • In both the lead and the main article "had an extensive collection of natural history specimens". Is is known how this came about. Eg, did she assemble it herself, inherit it, receive it as a gift or series of gifts or what? For the lead I would suggest replacing "had" with 'assembled'.
    Changed in the lead, need to do more about this in the body.
Are we still waiting for the "need to do more about this in the body"? If so, could you ping me once it is done? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm done with this in the body after adding some "bartering". —Kusma (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "corresponded with several notable naturalists of her era." I gather from the absence of 'other' that she is not herself considered a notable naturalists of her era? Indeed, I note that the article avoids describing her as a "naturalist". Is that a reflection of the sources' view?
    Hm. She is often described as a naturalist, or as an amateur botanist. Wystrach says "She was not a significant contributor to the botanical or ornithological literature, but she was well regarded by her contemporaries as a knowledgable collector of considerable importance."
The lead now describes her as a naturalist, but the main body doesn't.[?]
I used "botanist" in the lead now. I think "naturalist" fits better, but that's not what the sources say. —Kusma (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where Anne likely studied botany". Is there a reason for the USvar English in an article about an Englishwoman? ("likely" rather than 'probably'.)
    My personal biography (English as second language, two years in the US, a decade in the UK) tends to make me mix varieties.
No worries. I do it myself. And get picked up at FAC for it. My excuse is too much reading of US light fiction.
  • " Thomas Pennant studied these birds in Blackburne's collection". Pennant needs introducing.
    done
  • The lead is long in relation to the article and would benefit from condensing.
    Dropped Pallas and reduced to two sections.
  • "and her museum". What museum?
    Introduced earlier
  • "produced salt in Cheshire and at Salthouse Dock in Liverpool". Did they "produce" salt in Liverpool?
    Fixed.
  • "following her mother's death". Is it known when this occurred?
    Fixed.
  • "Anna's surviving siblings left Orford Hall". Are their number and sexes known?
    I think all were men, but it is a bit unclear. In the footnote to the claim that Anna was the fifth child in Wystrach's paper, he mentions six sons and three daughters, with Anna the fourth child. From [4] I gather people cared little about two of the other daughters (not even their names are given). This is another source mentioning eight children and naming seven. I changed the "fifth child" to "fourth or fifth".
So little is known about those who survived her? Ok.
  • Could "natural history" be both defined and Wikilinked.
    Wikilinked yes. A definition would need to explain that at the time, it mostly meant geology and biology, but I haven't got a citation for that right now.
Page 2 of Allen (1994) would give something like 'Natural history was not a precisely defined term but was understood to include the study of natural objects and organisms'. What do you think?
The coded source would be Allen, David Elliston (1994), The Naturalist in Britain: a social history, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, p. 270, ISBN 0-691-03632-2
Thanks. I use p. xviii, is that what you had in mind?
  • "she obtained most of her specimens from her widely travelled family members." I am absolutely ORing here, but it seems highly likely that merchant captains who worked for or contracted with the family on business realised that gifts of exotic organisms brought back from their journeys would ingratiate them. Anything in the sources to suggest this sort of thing.
    • When I was a kid, my father had a client who was a seafarer. Every so often, my father would come home in the evening with a pocket full of coins from exotic places. I have no idea how it affected their business relationship, but I've kept them to this day for the memories. I just went and poked through the pile and found 5 Spanish Pesetas, 50 Philipine Centavos, 50 Mexican Pesos, and 100 Milimes (not sure if I read that right) from someplace Arabic. Thank you for reminding me of this. Sadly, I suspect the gifts of exotic organisms also included exotic microorganisms causing exotic diseases which were previously unable to cross oceans. An early example of the unintended consequences of modern technology. RoySmith (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Roy, SusunW recently took me down memory lane on my talk page. I am unsure what this says about our mental functioning. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing to suggest this. I know she used the family's merchant captains to help her trade specimens with Pallas in Russia, but that is all I know about them.
A shame, but can't be helped. The bit about merchant captains and Pallas is, IMO, worth mentioning.
  • "presented his lectures on entomology to her". I am unsure what is meant by this. Presented her with the transcripts? Gave her private lessons? Something else?
    Private lessons where he read the content to her, I think.
  • What is a folio copy?
    Explained more and linked.
  • "Forster dedicated one genus to Blackburne and her father". Is it known what it was a genus of?
    Plants.
  • "including a young musk deer". Dead or alive?
    I strongly suspect it was dead, but the source doesn't say (neither Wystrach nor the Pallas-Pennant correspondence see a need to specify).
  • "She had a herbarium". A brief in line explanation would be helpful.
    done.
  • "After her father's death". Perhaps insert 'in 1786'?
    added
  • "She also had plans for a botanical garden, but was unable to carry these plans out due to health issues." Suggest deleting the second mention of "plans".
  • Interestingly, St Oswald's Church, Winwick featured in one of my recent FAs.
    Neat!
  • "Her collection was inherited by her nephew". Which of her siblings was he the son of?
    Thomas. [5] (but I can't figure out how to cite that, so I cite something else).
  • Is it known what happened to her collection - both the part taken by John and that not. Is any extant?
    Very little is known and very little seems to be extant (some specimens in a herbarium in Liverpool, and the Bolton watercolours in Yale). Added.
  • Hoare needs a publisher location. As do Urness and Williams.
  • The titles of books should be in title case. Eg Shtier.
    Done the ref issues.

Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you! A lot of things fixed, some still need to be done. —Kusma (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a skim, it looks good so far. Could you ping me when you have finished responding to my comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, thanks again. I have finished responding, and also added a mention of Blackburne's cousin Ashton Lever. —Kusma (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly there. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, I think I have addressed the remaining points. —Kusma (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (support)[edit]

For now, just a few random comments.

  • In the lead, you refer to her family as merchants. I tend to think of that as meaning a shopkeeper, not somebody who "owned merchant ships". Maybe there's a better word that could be used here?
    Haven't found one :( Even for Jakob Fugger the Rich, the word is "merchant".
      • Properly, a merchant is a wholesaler/importer/trader etc, rather than a retailer (whatever they put on their shop signs). Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first big thought upon reading this was, "Why is this only talking about who she corresponded with, and not about what she did herself?" Reading the Wystrach paper, I see the reason: "She was not a significant contributor to the botanical or ornithological literature, but she was well regarded by her contemporaries as a knowledgable collector of considerable importance". It might be worth mentioning her lack of authorship so as to head off the same question that our readers might be wondering about.
    You are right, I added something.
  • On the topic of the Wystrach paper, Figure 1 is a contemporary drawing of the Blackburnian Warbler. I assume this is out of copyright; maybe it would make a more interesting illustration than the 2010 photograph?
    I was thinking of using File:Robert Havell after John James Audubon, Black-throated Green Warbler, Blackburnian Warbler and Mourning Warbler, 1837, NGA 32540.jpg, but that raises the question of the history of the scientific name of the warbler, which I would prefer to avoid.
  • You mention that she learned latin. Wystrach says, "Anna Blackburne discloses that she was essentially self-taught in Latin, but admittedly not very fluent" which is worth mentioning.
    Mentioned "self-taught".

OK, going through the whole article this time:

  • "had an extensive collection of natural history specimens" I'd make it clear that she did the collecting as opposed to having been the passive recipient of the collection as a gift.
    Not sure where this was, but I tried to clarify at some point.
  • I kept mis-reading "Orford" as "Oxford", leading me to be particularly confused when I got to "Occasionally, Blackburne visited London and Oxford", i.e. if she lived there, why did she only visit it occasionally? I don't know that there's anything useful that can be done to make the distinction more obvious to the reader, but if you can think of something...
    Not really. Something like "the southern cities of London and Oxford" also sounds awkward.
  • "Blackburne collected insects, shells, minerals and birds", Clarify whether you're talking about Anna or John here.
    Done.
  • You've got Ashton Blackburne redlinked. Is there reason to believe he's notable on his own and thus the link might turn blue at some point?
    After looking through Wystrach again, there is probably currently not enough known about him for a separate article.
  • "Thomas Pennant studied these birds" When somebody says they "study birds", I tend to think of live birds. If you're studying their dead bodies in a naturalist collection, I think "specimens" is a better word, although I can see the desire not to be overly repetitious with the word. I don't feel strongly about this, so I'll leave that up to you.
    Tried with extra "specimens".
  • "After her father's death, Blackburne and her museum moved to nearby Fairfield Hall." This is the first time you mention a museum. I'm guessing that's just another way of saying "her collection", but it's a little confusing.
    There's a lot more "museum" now.
  • "and the Blackburnia pinnata, now called Zanthoxylum pinnatum", I'd tell the reader what this is, i.e. "and the flowing plant Blackburnia pinnata, now called Zanthoxylum pinnatum", just like you did with "the beetle Geotrupes blackburnii"
    Is "plants" enough?
  • "the fifth of nine children of John Blackburne ..." I would have written "... to John Blackburne" instead of "of John Blackburne". Maybe it depends on what that phrase is suppsosed to be modifying. I read it as modiying "was born", i.e. "Anna Blackburne was born (in 1726 at Orford Hall, Warrington, as the fifth of nine children) to John Blackburne (1693–1786) and ..." Not a big deal either way.
    Rearranged. I am not sure anymore that she was the fifth, as Wystrach is contradicting himself in the footnotes.
  • "exotic plants including pineapples and cotton." To me, cotton is not an exotic plant, but I guess it could have been in 18th century England. Maybe it's worth saying something like, "he grew pineapples and cotton, neither of which were native to England" Or maybe just link "exotic" to Introduced species#Introduced plants, and that'll be enough.
    Linked. Cotton is exotic in Europe, and has always been imported.
  • " In the years following her mother's 1740 death, Anna's surviving siblings left Orford Hall; eventually, only Anna, who became the mistress of the manor, and her father remained" Many of those commas could go away. Also, I'd link "mistress of the manor" to Mistress (form of address), lest somebody think you're talking about Mistress (lover).
    I love commas. Reduced a bit and linked as suggested.
  • "surprised the bystanders with the extent of her botanical knowledge" It would be interesting if you could give some specific examples of what she knew that the gardeners didn't.
    Unfortunately not much other than it was about the geranium; I think this episode is only known through the exchange of letters between Blackburne and Linnaeus.
  • "She collected various natural history specimens", no need to say "various"; that's implied by the list of things she collected.
    done
  • " In the early years of her collection, she obtained most of her specimens from her widely travelled family members" This comes back to my earlier comment about being the actual collector vs being the passive recipient of the collection. Was she ever out in the field getting her hands dirty digging up plants and bugs and picking up dead birds? I'm guessing a high class lady from a wealthy 18th century family never got her hands dirty doing anything, but if she did, that would be the most interesting part of her story. In that respect, this reminds me of Margaret Sibella Brown.
    She did no field work. I assume that also the botanical gardens were tended to by others for her. No un-ladylike dirty hands seem to have been reported.
  • "The claims in her obituary that Blackburne was a "friend and constant correspondent of Linnaeus" or that he named a plant after her are inaccurate." That seems like a strong statement to say in wiki voice. It should be attributed, something along the lines of "biographer V. P. Wystrach argued that..."
    I've gone for "exaggerated". None of the newer literature repeats such a claim (it would be in the excellent ODNB article [6] if there was any basis for it).
  • "Her collection was inherited by her nephew John Blackburne, who moved selected parts of the collection to his seat at Hale Hall" I don't know what "seat" means in this context.
    WP:ELVAR, tried to avoid saying "residence" as in the source, replaced by "manor".
  • "she bequeathed a total of more than", just say "she bequeathed more than"
    done.

Looking through JSTOR, I see a bunch of sources you don't use that at least mention Blackburne (although most don't say much). Just want to make sure you've seen these.

Green Languages? Women Poets as Naturalists in 1653 and 1807 Author(s): Donna Landry Source: Huntington Library Quarterly , 2000, Vol. 63, No. 4, Forging Connections: Women's Poetry from the Renaissance to Romanticism (2000), pp. 467-489 Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3817613

Gender, Science and Physical Geography in Nineteenth-Century Britain Author(s): Cheryl McEwan Source: Area , Sep., 1998, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Sep., 1998), pp. 215-223 Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20003898

Making Natural History: Doing the Enlightenment Author(s): Bettina Dietz Source: Central European History, Vol. 43, No. 1 (MARCH 2010), pp. 25-46 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of Central European History Society Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40601018

WOMEN TRAVELLERS, ROMANTIC-ERA SCIENCE AND THE BANKSIAN EMPIRE Author(s): Carl Thompson Source: Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London , 20 December 2019, Vol. 73, No. 4, Special issue: Rethinking Joseph Banks (20 December 2019), pp. 431-455 Published by: Royal Society Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26858986

  • Thank you for the review! These JSTOR sources are like many of the mentions of Blackbourne in books, where she is mentioned as an example, but without any usable details. I have dealt with some of your comments already, and will respond to all of them after some more sleep :) —Kusma (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:RoySmith, all done I think. —Kusma (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All your changes look good. I have no strong opinion on replacing the 2010 photo, so do what you feel is best there. Nice job! RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/source evaluation by SusunW[edit]

Gog pinged me about walking him down memory lane, I got intrigued and thus here I am. It will take me a bit to peruse, but I will add comments as I see needed.

  • Info box shouldn't contain anything not cited in text and I was curious about that "Baptised 3 January 1726". Wystrach p. 164 says her birth is commonly shown as 1740 but that calculating from age 67 at death she was "actually born in 1726" and that he was unable to find records in the archives of Warrington or Winwick churches. Thankfully, we have digitized records. Per p 44 (Sorry about the ancestry link with proxy, but I don't know how else to show it.) of the Church of England Register of Christenings, Marriages, or Burials for Warrington, Lancashire 25 February 1720-27 March 1727, we have under the heading "January 1725" 3rd line: "Anne Daughter of John Blackborne of Orford Esqr. and Catherine his wife 3rd" I think the year is likely in error, as January 1725 follows December 1725, which if one is listing things as they occurred in a registry book is illogical. However, Christenings: Warrington, Lancashire, England, March 1701—March 25, 1760 (from the Norman Collection, Salford, England) (1961) Salt Lake City, Utah: Genealogical Society of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, p. 65, Microfilm 823699 image 72 also has it listed in 1725, and a couple of pages further (68, image 75) on the page labeled 1726, I found on 12 February the christening of William son of John esq and Catherine. So maybe 1725 is correct? I also note that the ancestry record says it is a "bishop's transcript" so I am wondering if that means that it is a master list of the various individual priest/vicar's registration books, which would then make sense of the date duplicates? SusunW (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The year was known as 1725 when this was written, as it is an Old Style date (so "March 1724" is followed by "April 1725" in the record). January 1725 is indeed the month after December 1725 :) I decided to follow the ODNB, who apparently use the New Style year together with the Julian date. —Kusma (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, right, forgot that bit about when the year started. Perhaps you need to mark it as New Style if you are using 1726? SusunW (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying not to do too much OR here and not cause too much confusion; I don't have any source explicitly saying this is New Style and Julian. —Kusma (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but we do have the actual record, made before the Gregorian calendar was adopted in England and before 1752 when England changed the start of the year to 1 January.[7] and as the Julian calendar was in effect at that time, it isn't OR and to my mind would eliminate the confusion that currently exists (in my mind anyway). SusunW (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have used a version of Gog's footnote and clearly stated the register says "1725". —Kusma (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edmondson gives no dates or places of birth for Anna – consider removing it here. Wystrach p. 150 gives only 1726 and calls her 5th of 9. Shteir (ODNB) should be added. States born at Orford Hall, Warrington, Lancashire 5th of 9 kids and gives baptism date of 3 January 1726 in Warrington. (Were it me, methinks I'd clip/upload the registry page to avoid confusion of what year.)
    Should be "Edmondson and Rowley 1998", sorry. Wystrach's footnote has her as fourth child, with very confusing information on how many children.
  • Text reads "fourth of fifth of nine children", 1st of should be or. If you are going to list her as or 4th, you need a source. Your Hale Hall given above shows on p. 34: Thomas 1720, Jonathan 1721, John 1723, William, Ann, Mary, Asheton, infant with no dates on the last 5, but we know from the baptismal records above that William was younger than Anna/e. Were it me, I'd make 4th or 5th a separate statement so it can be cited and explained.
    Footnote of Wystrach is cited for "fourth".
  • Edmondson and Shteir (ODNB) and the baptismal records show mother's name as Catherine, Wystrach p. 150 says Katharine. Perhaps show Catherine and change parenthetical to (Katharine Assheton)?
    Done. —Kusma (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do we know the hothouse was "coal-fired"? Shteir (ODNB) says he grew pineapples in a hothouse. Blake p. 37 says it had lead-glass windows, was a "wonder of Lancashire" and grew pineapples and cotton.
    We know it was heated, but indeed coal-fired is OR. See File:John Blackburne (1693–1786).jpg for the chimney. Here is a source for artificial heating, but I think "hothouse" in the context is sufficient.
  • "Little is known about Anna's formal education" ... Rosove p. 617 says Forster tutored her in "biology, entomology, minerology, and other sciences", between 1767 and 1770. Easterby-Smith p. 87-88 also states that she may have attended classes at Warrington Academy which unusually allowed women to attend classes (but not enroll), and notes that even if she didn't attend classes, she benefited from the close relationship of her father to its instructors and students.
    Went for "early education". She is in her mid-30s and 40s by the time things get interesting at Warrington Academy. —Kusma (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pennant obtaining shells is not on Wystrach p. 157, but is on p. 158
    Indeed, thanks.
  • Characteres generum plantarum in the source is in title case, which per the MOS is how English works should be cited. Looking through ref section in general, case seems to vary and is not standardized, nor is title case used consistently. This is a handy tool.
    The book is in Latin, though, where I don't think there is a unified concept of title case. In general, title case is an abomination and should be burned with fire (most languages do not have such a concept), but I will try my best. All {{cite book}} are now in title case. I have been taught to use sentence case for titles of journal articles -- do we have other conventions here? I couldn't find a MoS page about that. —Kusma (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles of works#Capital letters "In titles (including subtitles, if any) of English-language works (books, poems, songs, etc.), every word is capitalized except for the definite and indefinite articles, the short coordinating conjunctions, and any short prepositions". (Although my writing training was decades ago, the title of "any work" should be in title case, i.e. newspapers, journal articles, etc., for English, but for other languages varies.) SusunW (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but it allows the use of citation styles where the title case is for the journal name and the article title in a journal is in sentence case, as I am trying to use. (This is what most of the maths journals where I write professionally use). —Kusma (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine with me. As long as they are consistent. It isn't how I would list them, but my preference doesn't have to be yours. SusunW (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "publish his work.[31][28]" flip refs
  • "it is instructive."[44][19]" flip refs
    Sorted all refs; as I don't put any meaning into the ordering of refs, they can be in ascending order without harm.
  • Perhaps I am splitting hairs, but "skins sent to Blackburne by her brother Ashton" does not seem supported. Wystrach p.609 doesn't indicate that they were skins, but rather specimens. Do we know that he skinned them? (Admittedly, I have zero clue how one obtains bird specimens, but I clearly remember pickled frog specimens from biology class and those were definitely not skins, but whole critters.)
    No idea why I said "skins", perhaps trying to stop saying "specimens" all the time.

Thanks @SusunW for your careful reading, very helpful! —Kusma (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps preserved birds to avoid specimens again? Easterby-Smith p 87 indicates the museum had "taxidermy collections" of birds, so possibly taxidermied birds? SusunW (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are very kind. You and I both acknowledge that I am somewhat obsessive about certain things. I appreciate that you humor me. SusunW (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am so not going there. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case it helps, I use the formulation "on 14 October 1747 by the Julian calendar then in use in Great Britain. Following the normal convention, all further dates are Old Style and use the Julian calendar; they also assume that each year starts on 1 January.[1]" as a footnote the first time a date comes up, usually in the first sentence of the lead. If applicable use Gregorian instead of Julian. See eg Second Battle of Cape Finisterre for an example. (Which went through FAC.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You sooooo made me laugh, Gog. Thanks for the suggestion about dates. SusunW (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Daniel Solander as well.[51][10]" flip refs (and yes I know it doesn't matter as far as accuracy, but in FA consistency does.)
  • "cousin Ashton Lever.[52][13]" flip refs
    all done
  • Not sure "Blackburne had a museum" has the same meaning as that she created/assembled/curated it.
    Not sure what you mean here?
  • Had is passive. She didn't just have a collection, i.e. possess a collection someone gave to her; instead, she actively created the museum and carefully curated what pieces she included or gave to other researchers. Happy that you changed it to assembled. SusunW (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "St Oswald's Church, Winwick" Wystrach p. 150 says only in the family plot in the churchyard in Winwick. How do we know that's the church in question? (Although I admit that Edmondson (ODNB) says that St Oswald's is where her father was buried.)
    Indeed that is where her father is buried. Also, it is the only church in Winwick, so people did not feel the need to specify.
  • Cool. As a non-Brit, I had no clue that was the case. Thanks for the explanation. SusunW (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yale Center for British Art.[61][53]" flip refs
    done

Sources: Except as noted above, spot check does not reveal copyvios or problems with attributions. Overall, sources appear to be reliable and given the time-frame in which she lived, contemporary records are likely the best available. For consistency, I note the following:

Publishing houses and locations are not consistent for journal articles, for example Easterby-Smith gives Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, but Edmondson & Rowley, immediately following gives neither. Should be standardized IMO.
Easterby-Smith is a book.
  • Fries language? Trans-title?
    Added.
  • Hoare isbn isn't segmented properly – should be 978-0-7256-0121-8
    Done.
  • Kendrick source says 2nd edition which per worldcat is oclc 561059791
  • Pennant (1774) is oclc 939438039
  • Pennant (1784) is oclc 890812562
  • Rylands is oclc 904223196
    All added.

Thank you for another lovely article on a woman, Kusma. I appreciate your work and enjoy working with you when our paths cross. Overall, well-done. I won't be able to respond again until sometime tomorrow afternoon (on my side of the pond Mexico CST) SusunW (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks a lot again SusunW for the detailed review and for helping me root out remaining inaccuracies! I hope I have answered everything, let me know if I have overlooked a comment. —Kusma (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enjoyed the collaboration, as always. Congrats on another lovely article. Happy to SUPPORT. SusunW (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that SusunW. Just doing my usual belt and braces thing: is that a general support and a source review pass? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to both, Gog the Mild. Should I have said it differently? SusunW (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the instructions suggest "To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s) ..." but we are used to editors being creative. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You usually can follow my tendency to follow my own syncopation, but I'll try to stick to the classical form henceforth. No promises, however. SusunW (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Rodger 2004, p. xix.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Anna_Blackburne/archive1&oldid=1216433910"