Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Thompson (surveyor)/archive1

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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 20 June 2020 [1].

James Thompson (surveyor)

Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a short ditty about the man who, in a way, made the "first map" of Chicago. I'd like to thank Hog Farm for reviewing this for GA status and epicgenius for giving a thoughtful peer review. If not an imposition, I'd like this to be TFA on August 4; should that not be possible, I understand and would like this to be a rewarding (and hopefully successful) FAC anyway. As always with my nominations, feel free to make any minor adjustments to the prose as you see fit. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - any chance of an image of the man himself? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the only image I could find was from the Randolph Society, and I'm uncertain as to its provenance/copyright status. I have contacted the Randolph Society for further information on the matter, but for now I don't think one will be forthcoming. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If no freely licensed image can be located, there would be a case for a fair-use one ({{non-free biog-pic}}). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll keep that in mind if the Randolph Society doesn't get back to me. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the Randolph Society, there are no known copyright restrictions on the work. I have thus uploaded it to Commons and added it to the article. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

~~to obtain legal title of their property: shouldn't this be "title to", not "title of"?~~
- Fixed
He was the Probate Judge of Randolph County from 1831 to 1848, when a new Illinois Constitution made the County Judge of a county automatically in charge of probate: does this mean he was also the county judge?
- No, I hope I made that clearer.
The pink line is almost invisible on the plat diagram in the legacy section. Could it be thickened? Or use the upright parameter to enlarge the image?
- Done
  It's still very faint; I'll support anyway, but if you can make the line thicker that would be good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I intend to vectorize the image eventually and will thicken the line then. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can find to complain about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Hope this helps! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There's a minor point left above but it's not significant enough to stop me supporting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1

Lead

"as a young adult" - "young man" seems more natural to me.

Done

I can never keep up with MoS on capitalising offices, but why would Probate Judge be capitalised but county commissioner not be?

Apparently per JOBTITLES, they denote offices rather than titles and should thus be all lowercase.

'associated with the word "Chicago"' - the article on Chicago gives an interesting etymology of the origin of the name. Worth a brief footnote, given the centrality of the place to the article?

Added to prose

Early career

"a road linking Kaskaskia to the state capital of Vandalia" - "to the then state capital", given that it's not now?

Done

Later years

"the County Judge John Campbell thereby assumed probate. In this capacity he dealt with the estates" - I think I'd replace the "he" with a "Thompson". I thought we were still talking about Campbell.

Done

And that is the sum total of my meagre gleanings. It looks good, and there's nothing in the above to stand in the way of Supporting. KJP1 (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Coord note

I've added this to the urgents list but I'm not seeing a source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

If there are no ISBNs for the older books, are there at least OCLCs?

I was able to find one for Andreas but not Montague, I'm afraid.

Aside from that, all sources seem reliable and appropriately and consistently used.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

I left several comments at the peer review, all of which I feel have been resolved satisfactorily. I see no problems with this article as it is; it's short, but very well written. As such, I'll support on prose, per the peer review. epicgenius (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.