Talk:Gerardus Mercator/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 12:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC) I'll take this one on.[reply]

General comments

• The article is interesting and well-structured, but contains quite a few claims (whole paragraphs included) that are currently uncited. I expect that many of these simply require existing refs to be repeated. I have marked up some examples.

• Several images are very large, and almost none are of the default size. We use images at default scale wherever possible (with the parameters |thumb|upright|... for portrait images), and only stray larger in the lead and exceptional cases. I can see there is a desire to portray the maps extra-large, but this too seems overdone, and in the case of other images there seems little justification to avoid the defaults. A double-page spread may possibly need to have double width, but I'd try it first at the default, and only go wider and write a justification (use a comment <!--put reason here-->) if absolutely necessary.

• Much the same goes for the use of multiple images, which make maintenance difficult. Best to use single images; if several are really needed, best to use a gallery. When a pair of images definitely belong together (like Palestine and the detail) then it seems reasonable; in other cases, less so.

Specific comments

• Lead: please wikilink disciplines, sciences and technical terms, e.g. astrolabe, globe, astronomy, etc etc. Do the same for first usages of such terms throughout the article.

• Please link Monachus in the caption of the image in the Antwerp section.

• Please label the Palestine map in the Louvain section with its date; I think all the maps including this one should state who made them, as not all are Mercator's. Further, when a map is from an atlas or other book, that should be named also.

• Please ensure that all paragraphs are cited - I have marked up some that are not.

• Link Rupelmonde both in text and image caption.

• Link Mechelen.

• Is Antoine Perronet the same as Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle? If so, correct and link.

• Please fix the formatting error in "Mercator describes them in q:Gerardus Mercator#Letter to Melanchthon (extract) a letter to Philip Melanchthon[44] "

• "witty epigram" - according to who? If it's an editor's opinion, we should drop the adjective. Same for the various "dangerous", "deadly", "fulsome" - these should be cited directly, if need be by repeating a reference right beside the adjective, even if the sentence or paragraph is already cited. Otherwise they look like personal opinion.

• "Many cities have a statue of Mercator" is cited to a list of images, not really evidence. It would be better to say "Cities including Duisburg, Louvain, ... have a statue ..." and to cite each claim to a reliable source. The same goes for the other refs in that paragraph. At the moment they come across as
  an editor's personal knowledge
  .

(nom has commented out the whole paragraph)

@

Reliable Sources exist, for example The Independent. I'd have thought that this website

was also fine for the purpose.

I've thought of a sensible compromise - have added a photo of his statue in Brussels, which surely makes the required point. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Mercator's works. A list is fine, as are headings, but all comments on the works are text and require to be cited as usual.

Summary

This is a well-crafted, detailed, and now properly-cited article on a major but poorly-known historical figure. The article is a significant contribution to Wikipedia, enhancing it as a global encyclopedia, and is a worthy addition to the list of Good Articles. Congratulations! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]