Talk:Robert Jacomb-Hood

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 12:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Jacomb-Hood in 1865
Jacomb-Hood in 1865
  • Source: Herbert, Gilbert; Donchin, Mark (2016-03-23). The Collaborators: Interactions in the Architectural Design Process. Taylor & Francis. p. 29. ISBN 978-1-317-03790-3 – via Google Books.
Berington; Chadwick, E.; Cole, H.; Graham, Peter; Mechi, J. J.; Morley, Samuel; Nicholay, J. A.; Travers, J. Ingram; Le Neve Foster, P. (9 July 1858). "Journal of the Society of Arts". The Journal of the Society of Arts. 6 (294): 537. ISSN 2049-7865. JSTOR 41323670 – via JSTOR.
Created by JacobTheRox (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 09:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Great article. Reads well, long enough, new enough, no copyvios identified. QPQ not required because nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.
  • The hooks are all good. I have a slight preference for ALT2._Marshelec (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marshelec: thanks for the review and for your comments. I've ever so slightly changed ALT1 to use the possessive so its more concise. If alt 2 remains your preference then I'm more than happy with that. Thanks again, JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 11:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: @JacobTheRox: I don't find the hooks that interesting, as they all seem fairly standard for an engineer; I won't be promoting it, but other promoters may disagree. You may want to suggest a new hook. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: would something like "...that Robert Jacomb-Hood dropped out of studying law at Trinity College, Cambridge to become a railway engineer instead?" or "...that Robert Jacomb-Hood defied his father's wishes to become a railway engineer?" be more interesting? I don't think designing a Grade II listed and prominent building is "fairly standard" but I respect your opinion and do see where you are coming from. Thanks, JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 14:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
JacobTheRox, notwithstanding that there are over 350,000 Grade II listed buildings in England, thus making it fairly standard for a 19th-century architect to have built one, the average worldwide reader cannot know that London Victoria is a prominent building and not a small railway station. I think both those hooks are better for DYK purposes; if Marshelec reviews them, I can promote? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SonOfYoutubers and AirshipJungleman29: The three original proposed hooks and the two additional versions are all technically OK, so the selection can consider all five. My preference is no doubt influenced by my background as a professional engineer, and I still prefer ALT2. However, I am happy to leave it to others to decide which of the five alternatives may attract the greatest readership._Marshelec (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Feedback from New Page Review process

[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Good quality and interesting article.

JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
Passed. —Kusma (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert Jacomb-Hood/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: JacobTheRox (talk · contribs) 09:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 10:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Will review this. —Kusma (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content and prose review

[edit]

I will comment on anything I notice, but not all of my comments will be strictly related to the GA criteria, so not everything needs to be actioned. Feel free to push back if you think I am asking too much, and please tell me when I am wrong.

  • Lead: will check for completeness/coverage later
  • Early life and education: careful about the two Robert Jacomb-Hoods: "Jacomb-Hood then demolished the Old Hall building around 1840" is followed by "Jacomb-Hood was born on 25 January 1822". Are these the same person or was the first one his father?
  • Christ's Hospital: was he a boarder? (probably, typical for the English upper classes). Do we know from when to when he was at Christ's Hospital? (I would imagine he was at some sort of primary before?) Do you need to use "public school" and then explain it? JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 14:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sadly his attendance at Christ's Hospital is only referenced in his obituary. Christ Hospital don't have public online records like Cambridge's that I've used, but I've popped their archiving team an email and they may be able to provide some information. I'll add anything to the article that they get back to me with. In respect to public schools, people (especially outside of the UK but even within) confuse public schools with state schools, so I think some kind of explanation is necessary. This can be a footnote if you prefer. JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 14:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • My suggestion was to drop the "public school" altogether, which runs no risk of confusing non-Brits. But a footnote is also fine. —Kusma (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done
        • Our article Christ's Hospital begins with ... is a public school (English fee-charging boarding school for pupils aged 11–18) .... I think we should mention it. Attendance at a public school is usually preceded by attendance at a prep school, a special kind of primary school. But as few of these are notable, it's not worth mentioning which one he went to. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Michaelmas term not usually uppercase? Also, as it is the standard start and of no particular importance here, do we need the explanation?
  • 1846–1860: the railway's new stations at London Bridge and Bricklayers Arms stations the Department of Redundancy Department says hi.
  • total cost of £1300 (£165,000 in 2023): I like to use {{Inflation/fn}} and prefer to say something like "equivalent to".
  • The Council Premium was awarded in 1850, not 1880 (bottom of p. 359). [I was really confused why they would award a prize for a single paper 30 years later!]

More later! —Kusma (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Victoria station: was he only responsible for the façade or also for any of the interior?
    • Network rail says he designed that half of the station, as does London Victoria station's own article. I'll say that then.
  • 1860–1880: "parliamentary side of railway engineering" anything concrete? but I am happy to believe that; I have a friend who used to have a political railway job...
    • His obituary says "So severe became the pressure of Parliamentary work that, in September 1860, Mr. Jacomb-Hood resigned the post of Resident Engineer to the Brighton Company". This directly suggests that his choice to take up private practice was the parliamentary factor rather than the engineering factor (which he of course continued).
  • "the first professional aquarist"/"largest aquarium": these claims would be better with independent sources.
    • Removed 'first' and changed the demonstration of its grandeur to claims that can be backed up by reliable independent sources.
  • Why is there a split in 1880? The type of work does not seem to change noticeably. 1883 seems to be a more important point?
    • I've juggled round the end to make it more sensible and chronological. It is now 1860–1883 and 1883–1900.
  • Marriage and children: "a successful painter and illustrator, including works of his father" were his father's works the subjects of his paintings and illustrations, or did he illustrate his father's works as in providing illustrations for a book or painting the walls of his train stations?
    • Clarified that he produced works depicting his father.
  • "the second and last member of his family to do so" which of his family members had previously sold Bardon Hall? I don't quite understand.
    • Clarified that he was the second and last person to own the estate, not to sell it.
  • See also: Stevenson/Trevithick/Brunel are of a different generation, I am not sure they are on topic here.
    • I've replaced them with four engineers who were active more during the time Jacomb-Hood was.

Overall a very nice first GA nomination, I am impressed. I will do spot checks and go through the list of criteria a little later. —Kusma (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotchecks

[edit]

Numbering from Special:PermanentLink/1296700630.

  • Random numbers 1 3 5 6 22 26 28 30, 9 c e k m u.
  • 1: fine
  • 3: ok
  • 5: ok
  • 6: could not access, but happy to believe this. While self published, it seems to be used and cited by a few people. Better bibliographic data (like the full name) would be nice. [1]
    •   Expanded the citation information.
  • 9c: more precisely, this is after the line to Crewe had been opened. "he" is Buck here, not Jacomb-Hood.
    • Yes that's what I meant - rephrased for clarification
  • 9e: ok
  • 9k: ok (this is a few years earlier than I had expected, but it is not miselading)
  • 9m: ok
  • 9u: article "He was then employed by Emile Erlanger & Co. to examine the Alabama and Chattanooga Railway in the United States, so that he could to write a report on whether or not it should be purchased. As a result of that investigation, the Alabama Great Southern Railway Company was formed in 1877; he served as a director until 1886." is structurally rather close to the source "a few years later he was engaged on behalf of Messrs. Erlanger and CO. to examine the property and report on a proposal to purchase the undertaking of the Alabama and Chattanooga Railway in the United States. The result of the last investigation was the formation in 1877 of the Alabama Great Southern Railway Company, of which Mr. Jacomb-Hood was a Director until 1886." It is not a deal-breaker because of the age of the source, but generally, you should have a look at our advice at WP:FIXCLOSEPARA.
    • An oversight on my part - I have reworded to remove it. Tell me if it still needs more work to distinguish it. There's kind of only one way to explain the chronological sequence of what happened (he writes a report --> company is formed --> he is director until 1886).
  • 22: could not access
  • 26: note spelling: Tucumán, not Tucunan. Would be helpful to use |lang=es to show the source is in Spanish. Content seems fine together with 9t, but you could split the citations: previous sentence to 9, second sentence to 26 (which does not mention Jacomb-Hood).
    • Changed to 9/26 then 26 because I am using 26 to verify that section of line being part of the central northern railway.
  • 28: ok
  • 30: ok

Source-to-text integrity is fine; some slight concerns on close paraphrasing. —Kusma (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General comments and GA criteria

[edit]
  • Prose: Minor issues already fixed, good enough for GA.
  • MoS: The "famous" in the lead is a WP:WTW; I think the "successful" from the body is better. Otherwise looks good.
    •   Changed to successful.
  • References formatted nicely, good sources in the context (the main source is quite old though). Surprisingly there seems nothing in the ODNB about him...
  • CLOP issue fixed, no other copyvio concerns.
  • Happy with scope and level of detail for GA.
  • No neutrality or stability issues detected.
  • Images: licensing is OK if we assume File:Robert Jacomb-Hood.webp is PD in the US. In the captions, I would indicate who made the lithograph/paintings but you don't have to.
    • It was in 1865 so is far before the PD of 1930. I have expanded the captions.
      • The question is when it was published, whatever that means. See c:Commons:Hirtle chart if you are in need of a headache.

Good answers above, almost done I think. —Kusma (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.