Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pasqua Rosée/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 May 2023 [1].

Pasqua Rosée

edit
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Rosée is a slightly ephemeral figure in London history. He lived in London between 1651 and 1658 and little is known about him outside those dates. Not too much is really known about him inside those dates either, except that he opened a coffee shop. It was the first one in London, and probably in Britain, and we've not looked back since. Both Tim riley and SN54129 were kind enough to leave excellent comments at PR, and I look forward to any more. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma

edit

Claiming a spot. —Kusma (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • A very nice article, I have only a few minor comments:
  • Lead: "part of Rosée's duties included" slightly redundant, perhaps drop "part of"
  • You talk about the 21st century to introduce a 19th century house (where the pub is), can probably be improved
  • "The reason ... was that either ... or because of" looks slightly untidy to my German eyes
  • The footnote about company rules would also be fine in the main text.
  • Link handbill?
  • Biography section could perhaps be split into a few shorter sections with more interesting titles; quite a bit is about the coffee shop, not the person
  • "the earliest-known advertisement for coffee" this would benefit from some context; I would be very surprised if there was really no earlier advertisement for coffee in Arabic.
    • There is always a possibility that the studies have been Euro-centric on this point, but it's a straight claim in more than one of the sources that this is the first known one. - SchroCat (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "remembered in doggerel verse under the name Adrianus del Tasso" published under the name Adrianus del Tasso?
  • "sold coffee in Holland in 1664 or Germany" at least an "in" is missing; I assume there is no year associated with the Germany claim?
  • "by 1708 coffee-houses were found in London—with 500–600 in London and Westminster—and several provincial cities" we already know that coffee houses were found in London, so perhaps put the new information first?
  • Does the satire A Broad-Side Against Coffee have a known author or is it at least known to be anonymous? (Either could be mentioned)
  • "The source of the Oxford coffee-house" hmm, it is more the source from which we know about it...

Again, very nice, and I was amazed to learn that London had coffee more than 30 years earlier than Vienna. —Kusma (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Kusma, I'm much obliged to you. Your comments all dealt with in these edits, hopefully to your satisfaction. If there is anything I've not done well, or anything else that catches your eye, I'd be delighted to hear about it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can support now these small things have been dealt with nicely. There is a question whether some of the "Legacy" content (especially the trading and shipping paragraph), while entertaining, isn't a bit out of scope and we should rather do more to send people over to English coffeehouses in the 17th and 18th centuries. On the other hand, currently your paragraph here is much superior to the "Financial markets" section there ("The arrival of coffee triggered a dawn of sobriety that laid the foundations for truly spectacular economic growth", we are told), so we'd do the reader a disservice. If you manage to find a way to not have several rather short paragraphs at the end of the Legacy section, that will also improve the article further. But I think it is acceptable as it is. —Kusma (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken on the short paras, which I've rolled together. I'll have a look over the trading para in legacy and see if I can trim it a little too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

I will do a full review later, but as a place-holder, I would suggest changing "The source of the coffee-house in Oxford, Ellis states, is from the Oxford antiquarian Anthony Wood who wrote....." as this reads like a specific coffee house in Oxford has already been mentioned, but it hasn't been. Maybe "An earlier coffee-house may have existed in Oxford; Ellis states that the Oxford antiquarian Anthony Wood wrote....."....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It was some confusion from the lack of clarity in the preceding sentence - I've rectified that, and tweaked the second sentence, so this should all make more sense now. - SchroCat (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edwards left Smyrna in late 1651 to return to England; he was accompanied by Rosée; this was" - two semi-colons in one sentence looks a tiny bit odd to me. Any way to rejig?
  • "so many visited to taste this novel drink" - any way to briefly mention a bit earlier (maybe at the end of the preceding paragraph?) that coffee had only arrived in Europe in [whenever it was]?
  • "Coffee houses soon grew" - earlier, "coffee houses" had a hyphen....?
  • "Markham Ellis writes that" - earlier, his forename was Markman......?
  • Think that's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Chris. I’ve still got one point to cover which I need to go back to the sources to get some info. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Chris, I don't think we can say when it began being drunk in Europe (depending on where you drawn the boundary, it was probably not long after the Turks were drinking it). The Venetians had it before everyone else because of their extensive trading, but it would also have been available in Greece and Croatia from a point the records don't show. It was certainly available in the early 1600s - Clement VIII gave a papal pardon to coffee in 1615, so it would have been a few years before that. There's no real date it was available in the UK either - there may have been other traders like Edwards who brought some back for personal consumption, but the only record we have is of Edwards - and that's because of Rosee and his coffee house. I think we may just have to leave it as "novel drink" here, without the origin story! - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Hi Nikkimaria, the map was originally my doing, so I'll field this. Hexen #800020 and #E4E4CB are now AA and AAA compliant, I believe, although I've made it solid colour as the cross-hatching might weaken the contrast? (Not sure about that.) Should've thought about it at the time, of course. SN54129 15:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

edit

Comments to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...preparing and serving his daily coffee" For clarity, I think this would read better as "...preparing and serving Edwards' daily coffee"
  • "the tercentenary of Rosée's shop" Technically a shop cannot have a tercentenary, but the founding or opening of one can.
  • Ottoman Empire is linked twice in the Background and work in Smyrna section.
  • Any particular reason for using "Edwards's" instead of "Edwards'"?
  • "According to Markman Ellis..." You have already introduced him, so you can simply say "According to Ellis..."
    • Somewhat surprisingly for such a niche subject, two of the main writers on the subject are both called Ellis: Markman and Aytoun, so we have to clarify. - SchroCat (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Markman Ellis considers..." Again, just Ellis is okay.
  • "Increasingly they became, as Markham Ellis writes..." see above.
  • "...resulting uproar meant the proclamation was withdrawn" -> "...resulting uproar led to the proclamation being withdrawn"
  • Note e: "...the outline of Suleiman the Magnificent, the tenth and longest-reigning Sultan of the Ottoman Empire between 1520 and 1566 is also a possible influence..." I belive a comma is needed after "1566".
  • Rosée's shop.[47]}}[48]: There is a citation/formatting error here.
  • "in celebration of the tercentenary of Rosée's shop" See point above about this.

That is all from me. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the diligence. I will be happy to support. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TR

edit

Third visit to the article, and continuing to be very happy with it. A few minor quibbles, none of which affect my support:

  • "The original premises of the coffee-house were destroyed ... On its location is a late nineteenth century building": switching from plural to singular.
  • "Edwards and Rosée selected a premises on St Michael's Alley" – two points here. First you should, I think, make up your mind whether the word "premises" is singular or plural. Secondly, for the umpteenth bloody time, as St Michael's Alley was, and still is, in England and not America the preposition you are looking for is "in".
  • "the earliest-known advertisement" – do we need the hyphen here? Not sure, and just asking.
  • "Rosée was not a Freeman of the City of London" – but at the other three mentions of the word "freeman" is not capitalised (correctly so in my view).
  • "In 1698 one trader began publishing share prices from Jonathan's Coffee-House, then from Garraway's Coffee House" – I don't think "then" should be press-ganged into service as a conjunction in formal English.
  • "The original closely built wooden buildings on St Michael's Avenue" – this would be St Michael's Avenue in Winnebago, Minnesota?

That's my lot. A delectable article, meeting all the FA criteria in my view. Happy to support. Tim riley talk 19:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Serial

edit

Had my say at PR; I can't see anything else to comment on that would be more than just my opinion. Great article. The map is especially good  ;) SN54129 18:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • "living in Smyrna in the Ottoman Empire (now Turkey)". Perhaps 'living in Smyrna in the Ottoman Empire (now in Turkey)'? And in the main article.
  • "and he set up Rosée" → 'and so he set up Rosée'?
  • Was the shop open on Sundays?
  • "the clients of which were connected to trade in the Levant". A startling claim. Was it a condition of entry?
  • "A sign hung over his stall, described either as "an image of himself dressed in some Levantine clothing", or a sign portraying his head". It is not clear, to me at any rate, who "himself" and "his" refer to.

Just this trivia. Nicely brewed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very much so. I am impressed yet again at how well you research and relate these recondite topics. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from UndercoverClassicist

edit

I feel I am a bit late to this party, with little to add. Excellent article; one of many fine pieces on history's "little people".

Almost nothing to say:

  • the Oxford antiquarian Anthony Wood who wrote in "Secretum Antonii" that "Jacob a Jew opened a coffey (sic) house at the Angel in the parish of S. Peter, in the East Oxon": a few things here:
Does "Oxford" here mean the city or the university? If the latter, suggest clarifying.

::The city. - SchroCat (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps mildly ambiguous ('Oxford [specialist]' generally means 'an academic in [specialism] at the University of Oxford', though it doesn't strictly have to: would "Antony Wood, an antiquarian living in Oxford" be better? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don’t think it does. I don’t think there is a problem with how it is written. We’ve already said it’s his diary, so it’s not a work about the university. - SchroCat (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is moot: I was trying to draw a distinction between "an antiquarian who lived in the city of Oxford" and "a scholar of antiquarianism at the University of Oxford", but I think Wood seems to have been both. Struck. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"(sic)" could more elegantly be replaced with the template: [sic].
On which: what's the rationale behind giving Coffey a [sic] but not hypocondriack further up?
Fair point: removed. - SchroCat (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain exactly what "Secretum Antonii" is? Should it be an italicised title, if it's a book, newspaper, journal etc? We've italicised a handbill further up.

::It’s not a title, but more a general name by which his diary is known. - SchroCat (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and edited to "who wrote in his diary, known as "Secretum Antonii", in 1671 that": agreed that if it's not a 'proper' title, italicising may not be the right call, but equally I think some kind of introduction as to what this text is would be extremely helpful. Not at all attached to that precise wording: please do edit away. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should "Oxon" be followed by a full-stop as an abbreviation (for Oxoniensis?

::Not necessarily - none of the other abbreviations have one. - SchroCat (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:POINTS has "Modern style is to use a full point (period) after a shortening (see § Exceptions) but no full point with an acronym". It seems to quite deliberately stop short of joining the dots to say that articles should follow suit, so I'm happy to defer to your style as far as being consistent either way. However, we're not currently quite consistent: S. Peter has a full stop and is an abbreviation, not an acronym. To me, S Peter doesn't read properly. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly it’s a quote, which has “S. Peter” but also “Oxon”, not “Oxon.” (If it wasn’t a quote, I would have had “St Peter, not “S Peter”). Secondly we have St Michael (not St. Michael) several times above, so we are consistent outside the quote. Finally, I think it would be misleading to have it where we also have the ellipsis: this would look like the end of a sentence, followed by some out of context words. - SchroCat (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All very reasonable. 06:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Note B: "The company's rules were that its members had to be "mere merchants", only involved in wholesale trading, rather than other enterprises": the first comma should be a colon (perhaps possibly a semicolon); at the moment, the strict meaning is the company's members had to be "mere merchants" and were prohibited from being other enterprises.

::I’m not sure we need a colon here, but I take your point on the ‘being’, so I’ve tweaked slightly. - SchroCat (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taking out the parenthesised clause gives us "The company's rules were that its members had to be "mere merchants", only involved in wholesale trading, rather than in other enterprises": for the sentence to be grammatical, this main clause ought to be grammatical as well. I'm just about willing to wear she's in sales, with a strictly-defined field as the noun, as a description of someone's job, but I'm not sure I could stomach I'm in enterprises. A comma would fix: "The company's rules were that its members had to be "mere merchants": only involved in wholesale trading, rather than in other enterprises", since then you have two perfectly good clauses. Otherwise, we need something like "rather than conducting other enterprises" vel sim. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again I am not sure there is a problem with this, unless a reader is trying to force a lack of clarity with something that is clear. To my eye the version with the colon looks grammatically awkward, if not wrong. I have tweaked the sentence again. - SchroCat (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect; it was always a matter of grammar, rather than clarity. Now unimpeachable for both. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note E: "the tenth and longest-reigning Sultan of the Ottoman Empire between 1520 and 1566": meaning is clear, but the Ottoman Empire only had one sultan between 1520 and 1566.

**Yep, now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      • I'm torn on whether there should be a comma after "Ottoman Empire": without it, the sentence could still technically be read to mean the same thing, making it formally ambiguous. I'd suggest compressing "who ruled between..." into a {{ruled}} template in brackets. Otherwise, "who ruled between 1520 and 1566 as the tenth and longest-reigning Sultan of the Ottoman Empire"? Given that it's such a long sentence, I'd suggest swapping the semicolon after "Turk's head" for a full stop, but that's very advisory UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the comments here, they are much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

It seems like there are three references in the references section which use the article title instead of an author or producer+year; dunno if this inconsistency is a problem. Some sources have links, others don't, and identifiers are inconsistent. There are lots of ancient sources here; I presume they haven't been superseded? What little sources I know seem reliable, but I can't speak for most of them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks J-JE. I don’t think the formats of the references is a problem – it’s a format I’ve used before on FAs and is a reflection of the source format, so retains that consistency. When you say some sources have links and others don’t, which links do you mean? The links to Google books or Archive? If so, I’ve linked the issues available for the publication dates I’ve used. For the older sources, you’re right: they’ve not been superseded, or they’ve been used alongside an older reference to give modern reference and a link to the original. - SchroCat (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is cited as a "journal or magazine", rather than a book: is that correct? I understand that the web version is the one cited, but it's still the web version of a fairly chunky series of print books. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it’s fine as is - it’s where it appears in numerous other articles. - SchroCat (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, some have Google Books or Archive.org links and others don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. These are the ones where the works with the right publication dates are available. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by 악준동

edit
This article is mainly about people, but the article center quite a bit is about the coffee shop, not the person.Rule this out，this is A delectable article, meeting all the FA criteria in my view.악준동 (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is about a person not persons and that one person is notable for starting/owning a coffee shop so it would be a magnitudinous maliginancy against the notability and against the neutrality oilicies not to discuss the raison for his notiobility in some depth. We must call upon @FAC coordinators: to promote this page now, as extended commentary like this goes to the weeds. 2A02:C7C:36B1:FB00:8020:995F:DCEA:D15F (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your comments. Yes, there is information about the coffee shop, but that is unavoidable I think, given it’s the heart of his notability - ‘By their deeds you will know them’ seems apposite here.
IP, Thank you for your enthusiasm for the article - I’m much obliged to you. The coordinators tend to leave nominations open for around three weeks, despite the number of supports, which ensures someone doesn’t get their friends to get it over a certain level, and to ensure it’s open long enough for all parties to chip in with comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, can't have all those quick supports giving the nominator a big head... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pasqua_Rosée/archive1&oldid=1157194469"