Jump to content

Talk:A History of British Birds

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Good articleA History of British Birds has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 21, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 20, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Thomas Bewick's History of British Birds (example woodcut pictured) was the book thrown at Jane Eyre when she was ten?

A History of British Birds?

Is there a reason the indefinite article is omitted from the book's title? mgiganteus1 (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, just not used to seeing it in article titles. Guess question is, wd it be better for "A HoBB" to redirect to "HoBB" or vice versa? Many thanks - Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the A is retained in all published editions of the book then I'd definitely favour including it in the article title. If not, then I guess it depends on which form is more prevalent in reliable sources. This also applies to History of British Birds (1843). On the Origin of Species is often referred to by its later title, The Origin of Species, but we still have the article at the original, longer title. mgiganteus1 (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAC?

Chiswick Chap, I thought that this might be a better place for comments. My most relevant articles are, I think, Illustrations of the Family of Psittacidae, or Parrots, another Uglow biography, and A History of the Birds of Europe. I'm not suggesting that these are to be taken as models, but I think it helps to compare. Some thoughts

  • with biographies and book articles, I usually put in a "Background" section, to provide a context and show where we are in terms of the development of bird illustration and taxonomy. That could be cannibalised from by my previous articles, although you have covered the taxonomy issue in your discussion of Bewick's struggle with systematics. Uglow mentions that he had access to George Edwards' book (197)
    • Yes.
  • I normally give a potted bio of the illustrator. It need not be lengthy, but just to say who he was without having to refer to his Wikipedia article. You have done the heavy lifting already for that with his GA bio. I think we should also mention Bewick's innovations in terms of shading in woodcuts (Uglow 52, 239), as well as his skill, although we probably don't need the detail I've put in to the Lear and Dresser books.
    • Good stuff.
  • Uglow, unlike some other biographers, rarely seems to have a final section on the legacy of her subjects. You say that this was effectively the first field guide, is that enough? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Uglow is far too reticent given her encyclopedic knowledge. As for Bewick's legacy, the In culture section shows his impact on English Lit. and Romantic Poetry, while the Reception section says much about how widely-admired his work was, even revered, (specially the vignettes) among other artists. So I suppose a Legacy section would overlap largely with those, we need to avoid repeating ourselves but we can certainly reorganise to make the main points more clearly.
    • The first field guide thing is certainly a key point. Ray, Gilbert White, and Buffon used images in different ways but there was nothing remotely resembling a book you could put in your pocket. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chiswick Chap, I'll probably make a start with background, basically adapted from the other book articles and a bit about the author tomorrow or over the weekend, and perhaps have a go at a legacy section. Feel free to adapt, remove or edit my additions however you see fit, I won't object. I think that's probably a more effective way to progress than jointly trying to frame each addition Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chiswick Chap I've had a shot at a potted bio for Bewick, largely constructed from bits of your GA. I think it's about the right length for this article, but please check and add/modify/remove as you see fit. I've also added to the bibliography section the book sources needed for the background section, and Dixon from the Bewick text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've linked all the modern texts. I guess we should also link the Bewick refs to vol 1 and vol 2 (and page numbers may be needed too). The mix of ref styles probably also needs to be addressed in some way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I agree about the ref styles, might as well wait until all the content is sorted though. I guess it might go on the back burner for a few days anyway, I've got to write some blurbs for May's TFAs first. Once we have a legacy section, and any other potential content additions, it might be as well to do an FAC-style self-review to see what reviewers might pick up on Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • eg Of the Falcon (includes buzzard, sparrowhawk) Do we need to make it clear that the bit in parentheses is our addition, or is that obvious? Would square brackets be better than parentheses, and/or do we need a footnote clarifying the interpolations? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes maybe square wd be clearer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_History_of_British_Birds&oldid=1197175943"