Talk:James John Joicey

James John Joicey 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. Review: April 16, 2020. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). Lepidoptera Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of butterflies and moths on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LepidopteraWikipedia:WikiProject LepidopteraTemplate:WikiProject LepidopteraLepidoptera articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was created or improved during the "The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help!

A fact from James John Joicey appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 April 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that amateur entomologist James John Joicey had a collection of 1.5 million butterflies? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/James John Joicey.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. --KenWalker | Talk 03:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Notafly, belated thanks for creating the James John Joicey bio page back in 2007. I've recently enlarged the bio and would appreciate your thoughts. I'd also be grateful for a source for the judge making Joicey promise to abandon collecting orchids please. Thanks! RLO1729 (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work.I am trying to recall where I got the orchid promise info.Not presumably in the entomological journal obits as it's gossip. The note in my card index on entomologists isn't referenced so it is no help. It may have come from Paul Smart the author of Butterflies of the World (and also later bankrupt). I will sleep on it and try a few avenues.Heres hoping Best regards Robert (Nash) aka Notafly (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Robert. RLO1729 (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Eponym Dictionary of Birds 2014 by Bo Beolens , Michael Watkins , Michael Grayson repeats the info but gives no reference.Maybe they got it from Wiki and didn't like to say

I've also seen it here, also not referenced. RLO1729 (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This predates my account ( 9 February 2007‎) and at that time I was a member of the Lepidopterists' Society and so it is a very likely source - Lee D. Miller Presidential address 1984: A tribute to the Amateur Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 40(1). 1986. 1-7 pdf PS Even if it isn't I'd add the ref Robert

Thanks, that is certainly the earliest reference to the story I've seen. However, contemporary newspaper accounts indicate Joicey went bankrupt only twice: 1909 (the £30,000 mentioned by Miller seems to be a misinterpretation of the sums mentioned in that bankruptcy) and 1922 (rather than Miller's "1930s"), and I cannot find any evidence of the orchid story in the quite detailed newspaper accounts of either bankruptcy. This tends to reduce my confidence in the whole story, but there still may be some grain of truth in it and it would be interesting to know Miller's source. RLO1729 (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt we will trace Miller's source.Or mine if not Miller.A lot of my knowledge and Miller's no doubt came from correspondence or conversation.No academic rigour here and certainly not primary sources. Soon I will fill this red link Lee Denmar Miller (1935–2008). All the best Robert

OK, many thanks Robert. I might move the orchid story to a footnote until further corroboration is found, what do you think? RLO1729 (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the best solution. Consider writing though - According to Miller ........ using the ref ^[1]

You read my mind :) RLO1729 (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, let me know if the Note needs any adjustment. I was also slightly worried by the fact that the Wiki bio for

Walter Rothschild does not mention orchids, but this indicates he was interested in them. RLO1729 (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I consider that the article now meets (at least) the B-Class criteria. RLO1729 (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In allocating C-class rather than B-class the reviewer said:

I do not have much feedback beyond that B to featured articles have three paragraph intros in general.

I have revised the introduction paragraphs and also added a summary Legacy section.

I consider that the article now meets (at least) the B-Class criteria. RLO1729 (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review now complete, article upgraded to B-Class (see my talk page). Thanks for reviewing this article Filmman3000. RLO1729 (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @

Thanks SchreiberBike, your edits are helpful and appreciated. RLO1729 (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:James John Joicey/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 11:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Great, thanks, very helpful. Comments below without replies have been implemented in the article; replies/explanations have been added where relevant. (Apologies for the dashes, I did check a number of times while working on this article last year but the wrong ones do seem to keep creeping in!)  ~ RLO1729^💬

• "an enormous collection" slight tone issue there, I would go for "extensive" perhaps.
• No need to link common terms like "museum".
• "held in private hands" held privately.
• "and to have numbered " no need for "to have" here.
• " of the following learned societies: " no need for this at all.
• " by the Natural History Museum, London. " no need to link London. And perhaps say "in London" rather than ", London."
• Not keen on the formatting of that quote in the lead, just put it inline? And I would attribute it too.
• " of Major William James Joicey, a " etc, no external links inline please.
• "née Clark.[7][8][5] " ref order.
• "1921-1932[1][2][3][4]" en-dash, not hyphen. And four references??

The references cover each of the four volumes of the Bulletin and provide links to them all in one place for easy reference.  ~ RLO1729^💬

• "at The Hill in " that is one heck of an Easter egg link.

Agreed, link removed.  ~ RLO1729^💬

• In footnote [a], "He is also listed in London electoral registers from 1920 to 1925 at Marble Arch as Admiral Joicey." is unreferenced.

Thanks, reference added.  ~ RLO1729^💬

• "at age sixteen he " either "at the age of sixteen" or "at sixteen" sounds more natural to this BritEng ear.
• No need to link British. I'm not even particularly convinced you need to link butterfly but since the article relates, I can let that one slide.
• "Europe, India, China, Japan, Burma and America"" no need for all these to be linked. Common geographical places.
• "£10,000 a year " any chance of inflating this so we can judge it against today's standards?

Value estimates added.  ~ RLO1729^💬

• "(council member 1920—1923),[20][16] " ref order and that should be an en-dash, not an em-dash.
• "be a man of leisure" a little colloquial for an encyclopedia.

Revised text.  ~ RLO1729^💬

• "the exorbitant interest rates" again, a little POV in tone.

Deleted "exorbitant".  ~ RLO1729^💬

• "By 1919, Joicey was spending nearly £10,000 a year on the collection..." you already said this.

Deleted.  ~ RLO1729^💬

• "Mr. Joicey was also generous" the article has quite a few quotes, in different formats. This one, who said it? I'm not sure how much it adds to the encyclopedic content of the article.

Deleted quote. Other quotes attributed.  ~ RLO1729^💬

• "head keeper" what's that?

Revised to "head curator".  ~ RLO1729^💬

• If you wish to link estate, do it on the first usage.
• "aged 61.[41][42][14]" ref order.
• "The primary object " no attribution for this quote.
• "assistants.[51][6]" ref order.
• "c.1913" space after circa. I think using the {{circa}} template enforces this.
• "1918—1920 endash not emdash again.
• ""over eighty feet long by twenty feet wide"" not sure why this needs to be in quotes. It's pure fact.

I would like to leave this as a quote as it is the estimate given by the author of the cited source and may or may not be accurate.  ~ RLO1729^💬

• feet/miles/inches, all could use conversion to metric.
• "Joicey Collection Examples" examples lower case.
• Type (biology) is overlinked.
• " London.[14][58][46][59]" ref order.
• "295-301" etc, page ranges should be en-dash, not hyphen.
• Same for year ranges, e.g. "1929-1940" in the refs.
• "Obituary - Mr. J. J. Joicey - Gifts to " en-dashes. Check others.

All dashes checked in Source View.  ~ RLO1729^💬

That's a first quick pass. Once we've addressed these issues, I'll give it a more thorough going over. So, it's on hold for now. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, let me know if I've missed anything. Looking forward to the next iteration.  ~ RLO1729^💬 14:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still a few external links being used inline there... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. Also thanks for your recent direct edits.  ~ RLO1729^💬 15:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "his 1922 book on" this is still an inline external link.

Hmmm - missed it because it doesn't show as an external link on the page and its URL doesn't start with http. Fixed now.  ~ RLO1729^💬

• "The Bulletin of the Hill Museum, 1921–1932[1][2][3][4] and Alfred George Gabriel[55] published " feels like something is missing from here, e.g. "with". And there probably needs to be a comma after 1932. I would also move [55] to the end of the sentence because with the red link and the mid-sentence ref, it looks unpleasant.

Revised.  ~ RLO1729^💬

• "Butterflies from the Joicey collection i" this is a fragment so no full stop. Also, for consistency, shouldn't that be Collection rather than collection?

Done, and made all "collection"s lower case as there isn't really an entity called the "Joicey Collection".  ~ RLO1729^💬 00:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was an issue with references which I HOPE I've fixed. Please do double check that I haven't blown anything. Otherwise, I'm more than happy with this so I'm promoting now. Cheers, good work. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I've checked and everything seems in order. Your edits have been very helpful and it has been a pleasure working with you.  ~ RLO1729^💬 08:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your copy edits 84.64.237.205, excellent work again!  ~ RLO1729^💬 02:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]