Wikipedia:Peer review/Robert Stephenson/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Robert Stephenson[edit]

Previous peer review
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I closed the previous PR with no comment a couple of weeks, as I needed to take a wiki-break. I've re-listed this article because after writing a number of articles about historical railways, I thought I'd write a biography. I would like to get this FA; please let me know if you think anything is missing or the a section of prose really doesn't work.

Thanks, Edgepedia (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from David Cane

  • Introduction
    • Without looking at the reference "The only son of George Stephenson, who has been called the "Father of Railways"" is ambiguous as to whether it is Robert or George who has been called the "father of railways". I suggest that you change to "The only son of George Stephenson; he has been called the "Father of Railways""
      • Done
    • Avoid putting information only in the introduction. It should summarise information from the rest of the article, so should not need citations.
      • Doing, need to consider best place for this... ++
  • Early life
    • "to a two rooms in a cottage" - remove the "a".
      • Done
    • Explain why it is relevant that Robert's right arm was stronger.
      • From the phrasing in Jeaffreson I take this to mean he was left handed, but this is not clear; I'll see if I can't find anything in Ross about this. I might take it out.
        • Frustratingly, Ross just quotes Jeaffreson without coming to a conclusion. Edgepedia (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Betrothed" and being "summoned back to get married" seem archaic. I suggest "engaged to be married" instead of betrothed, although this, her literacy and her church attendance seems tangential to Robert's life story.
      • (1) Rephrased and (2) I mention Robert's faith later, so I considered he faith of his Aunt and father important, as they probably influenced this
    • When did Robert first go to school in Long Benton?
      • This is not known (Ross p. 31).
    • Is there a reason why "(Tommy)" is inserted into Thomas Rutter's name? Is he particularly known by this name?
      • Some sources say Thomas, some Tommy
    • Link picks so it is clear there was a degree of burdensomeness in his task. The age at which he was doing this might be interesting, though it does seem as if his biographers were attempting to imbue him with heroic stature.
      • Done, from Ross, taking pickaxes to smiths was a common task for young boys at this time.
    • "George was promoted in 1812 to be enginewright at Killingworth Colliery with a salary of £100 per year; he built his first steam locomotive, Blucher, in 1814 and the following year was earning £200 a year." Needs to be split into sentences. At the moment it covers three years without a pause. I suggest a full stop after "£100 per year".
    • You use both "per year" and "a year".
    • Give a current equivalent for £100/year and £200/year.
      • Done these three; I though we only need one conversion as the second is clearly double the first
    • Lost most of his accent. State what accent he would have had (Tyneside?).
      • Done
    • A comma is needed before the "but" after "(16 km)"
      • Done
    • "his father and him" - change to "he and his father"
      • Done
    • "after school" following "in the evening" seems redundant
      • Removed
    • Make the piece about the sundial a new sentence. It does not naturally follow the designing of steam engines so a semi colon is not a strong enough break.
      • Removed
    • If Elizabeth's brother stated that he introduced George and Elizabeth in 1818 or 1819 and the Smiles biography was corrected for this, wouldn't that seem to be more reliable than the later biographies that may have just repeated Smiles' original error?
      • Just covering all the bases and allowing the reader to form an opinion. See if I can get other views.
        • Thinking about it, my concern is that if we leave it out, others will add it. Edgepedia (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Start a new sentence at "unable to buy a mining compass..."
      • Used 'and' to join the two clauses together instead
  • Stockton and Darlington Railway
    • "Ways were investigated in the early 19th century to transport coal from the mines" and "canals had been proposed". Who investigated and proposed?
      • Isn't too much detail for this article? This is detailed in the Stockton and Darlington Railway article
    • "Welsh Engineer" -> "Welsh engineer". A link to Wales here might be appropriate.
      • Done
    • Is it necessary to state that Edward Pease was a Quaker? Put this in the note with the other information on Quaker backing.
      • I mention Quaker (once) again. Perhaps we consider both together?
    • Was Pease just a backer or the instigator of the scheme for the S&DR? Did Overton make his survey for Pease or for others?
      • Pease backed a already formed scheme, I believe. Will see what I can dig up. No, Pease was a prompter at the meeting; this is not clear in Allen, but is in Tomlinson.
    • The new route would have required a new bill to be presented. Use "an Act" rather than "the Act" this first time and link to Act of Parliament.
    • Note 5: Presumably Wood is Nicholas Wood, though it is not mentioned previously that he was involved with the S&DR proposals. How was he involved? Where had Stephenson and Wood "travelled down" from?
      • He travelled with George from Killingworth. Don't think he wasHe wasn't involved with the S&DR, just a travelling companion and witness.
    • Why was Pease concerned about Overton's competence?
      • I'll see if I can find any details; perhaps these would be better in the S&DR article?
        • I've removed it, it's not in all the biographies. Will see if I can find something for the S&DR article. Edgepedia (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which "work was hazardous" to Robert? Presumably working down the mine, but coming after the mention of his father surveying a new route this is ambiguous.
      • Changed to his work
    • Current equivalent for £660/year. George was now pretty affluent so an indication of what this would be worth would be useful
      • Done, although a comparison with the average wage could be more useful
    • Why did Robert spend only six months at Edinburgh University? Was that the intention or did he leave early to help his father on the S&DR? What did he study? Explain why it is relevant that Robert met George Parker Bidder there.
    • Change "whilst" to "while". Americans have a big problem with this at FAC.
      • Found two and changed them
        • It's not only Americans. I wage a guerilla war against whilst, amongst, amidst and other over-long fossil words. Tim riley (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "On 23 May 1823 the second S&DR Act received Assent"; put a comma after "1823" and change "the" to "a". Add "Stephensons' proposed" before "deviations".
    • In June 1823, Robert Stephenson was not yet 20 years old. Current equivalent for £200/year.
      • It seems Rolt miscalculated, so I removed it.
    • Hagger Leases branch, needs a bit more explanation.
      • Not quite sure what you were asking for, clarified a bit [1]. Is this what you meant? Edgepedia (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chronology is getting out of sequence. Put the sentence about the locomotive order after the bit about the branch line act.
      • Done
    • Remove last sentence as it pre-empts the next section. I suggest you just state that the line opened on 27 September 1825.
      • Ok, I've joined the sentences together.

- More to follow. --DavidCane (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DavidCane, done some of this, doing the rest ... Edgepedia (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Think I've covered or made on comments everything above, except for the lead which I would like to come back to at the end. Edgepedia (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First batch of comments from Tim riley
  • Lead
    • First para – "has been called" twice in successive sentences
      • Good catch, will see if I can't rephrase
        • Re-rephrased here, removing the even bigger mistake: it's George who is known (among others) as the Father of Railway! Edgepedia (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "but she died" – not sure that "but" is called for here, and indeed I wonder if his married life is important enough (to us, not to him) to warrant mention in the lead. Just my two-penn'orth.
      • There's a question on the talk page about marriage on children. I've rephrased.
    • "British Knighthood" – I'd lower-case "Knighthood" and perhaps pipe a blue-link to Knight Bachelor.
      • I was wondering what to link this to, as the English or British Knighthood system is complex (with Knight Bachelor and the orders of garters). But one source said British Knighthood, and that (AFAIK) must be Knight Bachelor. Will link in lead and body.
  • Early life
    • "usually known as Fanny. Fanny was twelve years" – to avoid the repetition of the name I think "She" would be OK instead of the second one.
      • Done
    • "Eleanor was engaged to be married before travelling to London" – the chronology isn't quite clear. If all this happened before she moved in with George and his son, perhaps "had been engaged" would be clearer.
      • Yep, the tense was wrong
    • "1½ miles" – nothing to do with this review, but I mentioned at the Babe Ruth PR that I thought the neat little fraction (such as I have just typed) is not approved of for reasons of accessibility for screen-readers etc, and that your large 1/2 is preferred. I suspect I may have picked that up from an earlier PR of an Edgepedia article. If so, I wonder if you have chapter and verse to hand? Ignore me if I'm barking up the wrong tree.
        • For accessibility reasons, {{frac|1|1|2}} → 1+1⁄2 is preferred. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • (ec) I'm using {{convert|1+1/2|mi}} => 1+1⁄2 miles (2.4 km) here. {{fract|1|1|2}} => 1+1⁄2 gives the same without the units and conversion, but there's a different syntax. The link to the MOS is MOS:FRAC.
    • "£100 per year" – a matter of taste, I admit, but I prefer to keep Latin with Latin (£100 per annum) and English with English (£100 a week), with a strong personal preference for the plain words of the latter.
      • Will change and see if anyone wishes for "£100 a year"
    • "with a salary of £100 per year (worth approximately £5,600 in 2012)" – I'm doubtful about this. Are we using the RPI here? If so, I think it's the wrong measure. You want to compare against typical incomes rather than retail prices. £100 a year in 1814 was a very good salary for a newcomer, I suspect. Your chosen site gives alternative measures of £95k and £323k. I know that one of my mentors on Wikipedia, User:Brianboulton, has Views on such measures and I hope he'll add a word or two on this.
      • Ok, I was asked for this by DavidCane, will do some further research and wait for review. Agree the RPI is probably the wrong measure. I covered equivalents with a footnote in other article, this may be way to go here.
        • My view on this one point is that present-day values of ancient sums are best avoided. The social and economic structure is so different now from 1814 that such calculations are almost meaningless, and any method you use is likely to be questioned. If as Tim indicates, different methods provide sums as varied as £5,600 and £323,000, something is obviously amiss. I don't think it's particularly important to have an up-to-date equivalent of Stephenson's 1814 salary and, in my view the comparison is best omitted. Brianboulton (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agreed. Using the calculator at [2] and comparing 1812 with 2012 and a salary of £100 gives an "historic standard of living equivalent" of about £5,600 but an "economic power" of £317,000. I was going to source an average salary – the same website gives £34.27 for 1812 that could be rounded to £34 – but perhaps this would encourage unfair comparisons. Edgepedia (talk) 05:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not so much unfair as questionable comparisons – the whole area is dotted with confusion. Even the term "average salary" is capable of misinterpretation, unless we know how it was calculated. In 1814 a very small proportion of the population enjoyed enormous incomes, and a very large number lived on pittance wages. In such skewed distributions, "averages" are generally meaningless. As a matter of interest, £34 a year is roughly what Scrooge paid Bob Cratchit in A Christmas Carol (15 shillings a week if I remember rightly) – but I'm not suggesting you use this as a reliable source. Brianboulton (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stockton and Darlington Railway
    • "and the scheme was prompted" – not sure about "prompted" – advocated, promoted?
      • I've confused promoted with prompted
    • "when there was underground explosion" – "an underground explosion"?
    • "Wood was asked to release" – and, I infer, consented. If so, then perhaps "Wood agreed to release…"?
    • "George was elected Engineer by shareholders" – not sure about the capital E here, and the measure for the salary seems dubious, as above.
    • "he wished that Robert not become a gentleman and work for his living" – this needs to be made clearer: at present the last five words say the opposite of what you mean. Perhaps "he did not wish Robert to become a gentleman, but to work for his living".
    • "with Stephensons' deviations" – I suggest "with the Stephensons' deviations", for clarity.
    • "Robert was also surveyed the route" – either "R was also surveyor of…" or just "R also surveyed…"
      • Done last six, apart from the conversions

I am enjoying this very much. So far Robert seems a thoroughly delightful man, and I look forward to spending more time in his company. More soon. Tim riley (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Tim : Using ++ to mark the to dos Edgepedia (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tim and DavidCane, I've removed the inflation as the RPI/CPI figure is the wrong one to use. Will look into this, and see if a footnote comparing these salaries with today's figures can't be created. Edgepedia (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I'm up to date with everything, other than DavidCane's comment about references in the lead. Edgepedia (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second lot from Tim – to end of Liverpool and Manchester Railway
  • Colombian mines
    • "to say goodbye to his son" – I'd be inclined to blitz the last three words.
      • Done
    • "Rolt was not satisfied" – this is the first mention of Rolt, and you really must give him a few words of introduction here. I'd like to see something on the lines of "In his 1984 biography of the Stephensons, L.T.C. Rolt takes issue with earlier writers' suggestions…"
    • "However, Davis … whereas Ross" – I'd lose the "however" and "whereas", replacing the comma with a semicolon. And you need to introduce these two authors, too. Perhaps something like, "Of other biographers, Hunter Davis (1975) argues that Robert wanted to escape from a controlling father; David Ross (2010) considers that Robert could have been asserting his independence." And (Lord, how I go on!) you could argue that these two statements are so similar that they could be be combined: "Of other biographers, Hunter Davis (1975) and David Ross (2010) argue that Robert was seeking to assert his independence from the control of his father". You are absolutely at liberty to tell me where to put my suggestions, of course.
      • Liked these two, re-phrased slightly [3]
    • "estimating the cost of a pier as £6,000, but that a breakwater or railway would be uneconomic" – the syntax has gone off the rails a bit between the first and second part of this. How about "estimating that the cost of a pier would be £6,000, but that a breakwater or railway would be uneconomic"? Or even, if the source justifies it, "estimating that the cost of a pier, £6,000, would be sustainable but that of a breakwater or railway would not"?
      • Done
    • "but these proved difficult" – "but they proved difficult" would flow better, I suggest
      • Done
    • "and gave him £50" – to avoid ambiguity I'd make this "and who gave him £50"
      • It was Robert who gave Trevithick £50. I'll see if I can't make this clearer. ++
    • "Everyone was saved, but Robert lost his money and luggage, and noticed that a second-class passenger was given priority in the lifeboats. The captain later said privately that he and the passenger were Freemasons" – this seems to me to break in the wrong places for coherence. Perhaps, "Everyone was saved, but Robert lost his money and luggage. He noticed that one second-class passenger was given priority over first-class passengers in the lifeboats: the captain later said privately that he and the passenger were Freemasons"
      • Done
  • Newcastle
    • "working as the Chief Engineer" – not sure I'd capitalise
      • Ok, this capitalisation is probably archaic
    • "his Quaker partners accused him of neglecting" – is "Quaker" relevant here?
      • See comment below
    • "it took a while" – slightly colloquial phrasing? Perhaps "took some time"? Merely a suggestion.
      • Done
  • Liverpool and Manchester Railway
    • "a Member of Parliament William Huskisson" – I think I'd put a comma after "Parliament", but others may disagree with me on that.
      • Done

More soon. I'm still enjoying this hugely. Tim riley (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Tim. I'm wondering how much to make of the Quakers. I'm sure that George and Robert were financed by and worked with Quakers had an influence, but if I haven't including any details making a passing mention is probably unnecessary detail. Edgepedia (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed the Quakers from the body and left the footnote. Edgepedia (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Last lot from TR
  • Civil Engineer
    • Heading: the capital E is contrary to usual practice and, I think, to the Manual of Style
    • "Chief Engineers" – more unwanted caps, and again below for Locke, Brunel and others
      • removed capitals from all the Engineers here
  • London & Birmingham Railway
    • "started working for Robert" – started working for him?
      • Done
    • "Conder said" – first time we've heard of Conder – we need a phrase of introduction, such as "His friend and biographer, Francis Roubiliac Conder said" or similar.
      • Done. I described Conder as a writer; Personal Reflections is not really a biography is it?
    • "he commissioned a coat of arms from the Herald's College" – I don't think this is quite the way of putting this. He will have applied to the College of Arms for a grant of arms. There would have been a substantial fee, but "commissioned" has the wrong implications. I think perhaps, "to please her he successfully applied to the Herald's College for a coat of arms, paying for it in November 1838, but he never liked it…"
      • Thanks for this. Really was not sure how this worked.
  • Great George Street
    • "meeting Paulin Talabot" – on the grounds that you don't want people to click out of your article more than can be helped, I'd say "meeting the leading French railway engineer Paulin Talabot" here."
      • Done
  • Cambridge Square
    • "the house on Haverton Hill" – the first we've heard of it, unless, as I surmise, it's a typo for "Haverstock Hill"
      • Whoops, fixed
    • "He moved nearer Westminster, to Cambridge Square" – at present (and I imagine it was true in the 1840s) Cambridge Square is technically part of Westminster, not merely near it.
      • Not sure why I wrote that. In the ref I says he moved to be nearer the clubs and town, so I've changed it [4].
    • "but soon after moving" – this dangling participle could be avoided by writing "soon afterwards" or some such
    • "step mother" – usually one word not two
    • "George retired to Tapton House" – "He retired…"?
    • "However, later that year" – I'd lose the "However". Nine times in ten one's prose is better without a "however".
  • Bridge builder
    • "he accounts" – "he recounts"?
    • "expert witness such Locke" – expert witnesses such as Locke?
    • "The required Act that was given Royal Assent in 1845 included…" – as this is a describing clause (a "non-restrictive relative clause") rather than a defining one, you want commas round it and a which rather than a that at the start of it. Thus, "The required Act, which was given Royal Assent in 1845, included…"
    • "he had just been offered a knighthood, but had declined" – do we know why he declined? Was he anti-titles? Interesting aspect of his personality, if so, especially in those hierarchical times.
      • Thanks Tim. Ross believes this had something to do with George having had turned down a knighthood more than once. (This was my thought too, but I could have half remembered Ross). However, there's nothing constructive, just speculation. Your other points are excellent, and I'll work on them later today. Edgepedia (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Politics
    • "In the summer of 1847 Robert was invited to be Member of Parliament for Whitby" – I suppose in a pocket borough being invited to stand for election was effectively being invited to be the Member, but technically all he can have been invited to do was be the candidate. I see from the report in The Times (31 July 1847, p. 3) that his election address at Whitby consisted of a swipe at the RC church and a sop to the local population in the form of strong support for the Navigation Laws. After the result was declared, "he was chaired through the town, accompanied by a large concourse of people."
      • Changed to "Robert was invited to stand in the election for the Member of Parliament"; will read the Times article
    • "Rolt and Ross differ as to whether he voted for or against the government in January 1855" – I don't know which of them says what, but The Times for 31 Jan 1855 (p. 8) gives a complete list of those voting for and against the Government in the crucial debate on the conduct of the war, and Stephenson is firmly in the pro-government list, alongside members of the cabinet such as Palmerston, Gladstone and Sidney Herbert. They lost, and the prime minister resigned.
      • Thanks will look at the Times article, and will work on this
    • "Société d'Études du canal de Suez" – we have an article on it, short and not very informative, but you should probably add a link to it. I see the article capitalises "canal" (though I personally wouldn't in a French title, or Études, either come to that) and perhaps it would be as well to follow suit here.
      • I have linked to the article as it currently is for the moment
  • The house that has no knocker
    • The two halves of the opening sentence are linked by an "and" but don't seem to have anything to do with each other. You can practically spit from Cambridge Square to Gloucester Square, by the way; I wonder why he bothered to move such a short distance?
      • That would leave two very short sentences. I shall trying moving the FRS up to by the knighthood offer.
        • Removing marker; I did this one yesterday. Edgepedia (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "involved in third" – a word missing: either "one" or "a".
      • done
    • "the America Cup challenge" – the link works all right, thanks to a redirect page, but surely the competition is always called "the America's Cup"?
      • done. Don't know why I missed that, America Cup is a redirect
    • "Chief Engineer … Resident Engineer" – more caps I think you should demote to lower case
      • already done
    • "vice president of the Institution of Civil Engineers … he was elected President" – if the vice-president doesn't get caps then nor should the president.
      • done, now all lower case
  • Notes
    • Note 3: "meeting in early edition" – either "in an early edition" or "in early editions"
      • done
  • Sources
    • "Only one of your older books has its OCLC number given: I think at FAC there will be eyebrows raised if the others haven't been given theirs.
    • I doubt if the titles of the Tomlinson and Wilson books are capitalised (or not) quite as they are here. The people at WorldCat (wonderful though they are) lower-case too many titles, and it's as well to check with the actual volumes if you can. See the capitalisation here for instance.

That's all from me. This article gave me enormous pleasure. I knew about RS vaguely, as I suppose most Britons do, but I have greatly enjoyed getting to know more about him. The shape, length and balance of the article are excellent and the prose is most readable throughout. I don't usually watch the peer review pages of articles that I've reviewed but will watch this one, with considerable interest. – Tim riley (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

        • Thanks Tim. I'm busy in real life and a little stressed, so I'm not able to spend so long on here at the moment. Thanks for the Times references, will look at those with interest. Edgepedia (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks everyone, I will close this Peer Review now. Edgepedia (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Robert_Stephenson/archive2&oldid=607122571"