Joseph Merrick
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Joseph Merrick, aka The Elephant Man. I've listed this article for peer review because I've added a lot of content to it recently and it's just had a copyedit. I'd really like to get it to GA, and ultimately FA, so any comments or suggestions would be very much appreciated.
Thanks, Beloved Freak 19:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Doing...
Esuzu (
talk •
contribs) 15:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Comments from Esuzu - Hello! I'm Esuzu and will try to help you with this article. Please respond directly below each of my comments so I/we can easily see what has been done and what hasn't. I will strike them when they are done. If you can try to comment on other Peer Reviews while you have yours listed here. Cheers, Esuzu ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC) (sorry for currently being kind of slow to respond. I will continue this review as soon as possible. Esuzu ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- That's ok, I'm thinking this is going to be kind of a long-term project for me anyway! Appreciate the comments so far.-- Beloved Freak 21:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- First look
The lead is way to long. It should no be no more than four paragraphs long. It will need to be shorter.- Yep, it's very long. This is the longest article that I've tried to summarise in a lead before. As per WP:LEAD, the whole article should be summarised with appropriate weight. I feel that it is (although if you disagree, please say), but obviously this needs to be balanced with the need to have a manageable lead. I'm reluctant to chop bits out that are relevant, just to shorten it, but I will have a look. If you could make any specific recommendations, they would be appreciated.
There is no need to put the same reference in consecutive sentences. Just add it at the end of the sentence block instead.- I do have a tendency to overcite, but if you don't mind, I'd rather wait until I'm a bit more comfortable with the overall structure before I remove too many citations. I don't want to start moving things round, if that's suggested, and find that I've lost where certain bits have come from.
- Looks better now.
Is the Michael Jackson quote in the end really necessary?A picture of something connected to the legacy could probably be better.
- I don't know, to be honest, possibly not. The quote was left over (I think) from before I started editing it, and I just left it in. I'm not totally happy with the source for that either, so I wouldn't mind losing it. I don't know what picture would be appropriate. Any of the film would be fair use and difficult to justify for this article I think.
- Pictures of the film would be hard but perhaps you could find one of Bowie, Anglim or Lynch?
- Most of the article is built upon the Howell & Ford book. Is there no other reliable references you could use to "mix it up" a bit?
- From what I can gather, (and I've only been working on this a relatively short time, so I'm open to being corrected!), the Howell & Ford book is by far the most reliable source on Merrick. Most of the other biographical work is based on Frederick Treves' memoirs which have been shown to have errors. Several works mentioning Merrick, for example, call him "John", as they took this directly form Treves. I have used the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article, and could add a few more cites to that if you think it would help. That was based partly on Howell & Ford's book, partly on Treves, and a bit on primary sources I think, so it is good as an alternative, but is not very in-depth. I would like to get hold of Ashley Montagu's book, for comprehensiveness, although I wouldn't like to use it for any of the facts about his life, as it also has been found to be somewhat unreliable. Do you have any other suggestions? thanks for your comments so far.-- Beloved Freak 16:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- llywrch writes
Following up on Esuzu's comment about the lead paragraphs, I'd like to point out that what is needed here is to simply present the essential points about Merrick & his significance to us. These are: he suffered from a disfiguring disease which led to his ostracism; confirmation that he had a career as a side-show freak; his relationship with Frederick Treves, which led to him living at London Hospital for the rest of his life; common errors about him (such as his name frequently being incorrectly given); & his effect on contemporary popular culture. -- llywrch ( talk) 21:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. I know you're both right. I'm going to have a look at it and try and hack some bits out.-- Beloved Freak 21:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Following up on another of Esuzu's comments -- which nagged at me as I fell asleep last night -- is the heavy reliance on Howell & Ford here. I suspect if you look more closely at their work, you will find that they made use of earlier research -- which you should then examine & see if the findings/conclusions there take priority -- or differ -- from what Howell & Ford write. Another approach to take is to look at the reviews of Howell & Ford's book: academic reviewers are always eager to point out mistakes in books like these -- even if the "mistake" is nothing more than an opinion or interpretation they disagree with. I also would be surprised if the local history society in Leicester/Leicestershire hasn't published something on their famous onetime resident. If nothing else, pointing to the sources used in Howell & Ford would help -- as you have begun to do with the autobiographical pamphlet & the 1930 Illustrated Leicester Chronicle article. (Adding the date & page of its publication would help regardless.) I know that additional information exists out there; if the government archives of the local government in Leicester are comparable to the rest of England, they should have numerous mentions of Merrick during his life in Leicester. This would include his birth (from the parish records), his schooling, any encounters he had with the law, & the workhouse & Poor Law records. However, approaching these primary sources directly yourself would only be a last resort, & not just because of the rules involving original research: "John Merrick" & "Joseph Merrick" are very common names, & it would be very easy for a non-expert to either misidentify -- or fail to identify -- Merrick in the official records. Still, it would be quite rewarding to have a link to the primary sources which mention him -- or his family -- before his later fame/notoriety, such as a policeman's report of Merrick being at the center of a disturbance due to his appearance or a newspaper write-up of one of the medical presentations at London Hospital. (This is something an intelligent reader would truly appreciate, because it would allow her/him to continue to research beyond Wikipedia.) -- llywrch ( talk) 16:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- I fully agree with this.
Esuzu (
talk •
contribs) 17:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the great suggestions. I definitely agree that the article will need a wider variety of sources before it gets anywhere close to FA. The ODNB and Howell & Ford both use primary sources, so I can try to incorporate those findings more in the article. I'm sure that Howell & Ford mention census returns and workhouse records, for example, so I can mention those. I must admit I hadn't thought of the Local History society, but that's a great idea, I will definitely look into that. I will also get hold of Ashley Montagu's book at some point to try and incorporate that.-- Beloved Freak 10:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Joseph Merrick
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Joseph Merrick, aka The Elephant Man. I've listed this article for peer review because I've added a lot of content to it recently and it's just had a copyedit. I'd really like to get it to GA, and ultimately FA, so any comments or suggestions would be very much appreciated.
Thanks, Beloved Freak 19:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Doing...
Esuzu (
talk •
contribs) 15:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Comments from Esuzu - Hello! I'm Esuzu and will try to help you with this article. Please respond directly below each of my comments so I/we can easily see what has been done and what hasn't. I will strike them when they are done. If you can try to comment on other Peer Reviews while you have yours listed here. Cheers, Esuzu ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC) (sorry for currently being kind of slow to respond. I will continue this review as soon as possible. Esuzu ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- That's ok, I'm thinking this is going to be kind of a long-term project for me anyway! Appreciate the comments so far.-- Beloved Freak 21:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- First look
The lead is way to long. It should no be no more than four paragraphs long. It will need to be shorter.- Yep, it's very long. This is the longest article that I've tried to summarise in a lead before. As per WP:LEAD, the whole article should be summarised with appropriate weight. I feel that it is (although if you disagree, please say), but obviously this needs to be balanced with the need to have a manageable lead. I'm reluctant to chop bits out that are relevant, just to shorten it, but I will have a look. If you could make any specific recommendations, they would be appreciated.
There is no need to put the same reference in consecutive sentences. Just add it at the end of the sentence block instead.- I do have a tendency to overcite, but if you don't mind, I'd rather wait until I'm a bit more comfortable with the overall structure before I remove too many citations. I don't want to start moving things round, if that's suggested, and find that I've lost where certain bits have come from.
- Looks better now.
Is the Michael Jackson quote in the end really necessary?A picture of something connected to the legacy could probably be better.
- I don't know, to be honest, possibly not. The quote was left over (I think) from before I started editing it, and I just left it in. I'm not totally happy with the source for that either, so I wouldn't mind losing it. I don't know what picture would be appropriate. Any of the film would be fair use and difficult to justify for this article I think.
- Pictures of the film would be hard but perhaps you could find one of Bowie, Anglim or Lynch?
- Most of the article is built upon the Howell & Ford book. Is there no other reliable references you could use to "mix it up" a bit?
- From what I can gather, (and I've only been working on this a relatively short time, so I'm open to being corrected!), the Howell & Ford book is by far the most reliable source on Merrick. Most of the other biographical work is based on Frederick Treves' memoirs which have been shown to have errors. Several works mentioning Merrick, for example, call him "John", as they took this directly form Treves. I have used the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article, and could add a few more cites to that if you think it would help. That was based partly on Howell & Ford's book, partly on Treves, and a bit on primary sources I think, so it is good as an alternative, but is not very in-depth. I would like to get hold of Ashley Montagu's book, for comprehensiveness, although I wouldn't like to use it for any of the facts about his life, as it also has been found to be somewhat unreliable. Do you have any other suggestions? thanks for your comments so far.-- Beloved Freak 16:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- llywrch writes
Following up on Esuzu's comment about the lead paragraphs, I'd like to point out that what is needed here is to simply present the essential points about Merrick & his significance to us. These are: he suffered from a disfiguring disease which led to his ostracism; confirmation that he had a career as a side-show freak; his relationship with Frederick Treves, which led to him living at London Hospital for the rest of his life; common errors about him (such as his name frequently being incorrectly given); & his effect on contemporary popular culture. -- llywrch ( talk) 21:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. I know you're both right. I'm going to have a look at it and try and hack some bits out.-- Beloved Freak 21:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Following up on another of Esuzu's comments -- which nagged at me as I fell asleep last night -- is the heavy reliance on Howell & Ford here. I suspect if you look more closely at their work, you will find that they made use of earlier research -- which you should then examine & see if the findings/conclusions there take priority -- or differ -- from what Howell & Ford write. Another approach to take is to look at the reviews of Howell & Ford's book: academic reviewers are always eager to point out mistakes in books like these -- even if the "mistake" is nothing more than an opinion or interpretation they disagree with. I also would be surprised if the local history society in Leicester/Leicestershire hasn't published something on their famous onetime resident. If nothing else, pointing to the sources used in Howell & Ford would help -- as you have begun to do with the autobiographical pamphlet & the 1930 Illustrated Leicester Chronicle article. (Adding the date & page of its publication would help regardless.) I know that additional information exists out there; if the government archives of the local government in Leicester are comparable to the rest of England, they should have numerous mentions of Merrick during his life in Leicester. This would include his birth (from the parish records), his schooling, any encounters he had with the law, & the workhouse & Poor Law records. However, approaching these primary sources directly yourself would only be a last resort, & not just because of the rules involving original research: "John Merrick" & "Joseph Merrick" are very common names, & it would be very easy for a non-expert to either misidentify -- or fail to identify -- Merrick in the official records. Still, it would be quite rewarding to have a link to the primary sources which mention him -- or his family -- before his later fame/notoriety, such as a policeman's report of Merrick being at the center of a disturbance due to his appearance or a newspaper write-up of one of the medical presentations at London Hospital. (This is something an intelligent reader would truly appreciate, because it would allow her/him to continue to research beyond Wikipedia.) -- llywrch ( talk) 16:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- I fully agree with this.
Esuzu (
talk •
contribs) 17:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the great suggestions. I definitely agree that the article will need a wider variety of sources before it gets anywhere close to FA. The ODNB and Howell & Ford both use primary sources, so I can try to incorporate those findings more in the article. I'm sure that Howell & Ford mention census returns and workhouse records, for example, so I can mention those. I must admit I hadn't thought of the Local History society, but that's a great idea, I will definitely look into that. I will also get hold of Ashley Montagu's book at some point to try and incorporate that.-- Beloved Freak 10:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)