Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Jump to content

Talk:Ida Lewis: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Rmtait (talk | contribs)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2017: Interesting problem - possible Victorian plagiarism
Line 64: Line 64:
{{edit semi-protected|Ida Lewis (lighthouse keeper)|answered=no}}
{{edit semi-protected|Ida Lewis (lighthouse keeper)|answered=no}}
The picture of Ida Lewis rowing appears to be be Grace Darling by artist Thomas Brooks, not Ida Lewis. refer to www.gracedarling.co.uk [[User:Rmtait|Rmtait]] ([[User talk:Rmtait|talk]]) 23:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The picture of Ida Lewis rowing appears to be be Grace Darling by artist Thomas Brooks, not Ida Lewis. refer to www.gracedarling.co.uk [[User:Rmtait|Rmtait]] ([[User talk:Rmtait|talk]]) 23:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done for now:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> - Interesting problem - the description of this image is that it is a woodcut. It is very similar to the oil painting "Grace Darling: by Thomas Brooks" at [www.gracedarling.co.uk Grace Darling.co], but is even more similar to (but not the same as) the Ida Lewis picture at [http://www.rhodeislandlighthousehistory.info/lime_rock_lighthouse.html at rhodeislandlighthousehistory] which appears to be an engraving. The description of a similar engraving at Quahog.org [http://www.quahog.org/factsfolklore/index.php?id=176 here] describes it as an "Image from a circa 1869 carte de visite"<br />The woodcut includes a lighthouse, not included in either the painting or the engraving.<br />I think we may have a case of Victorian plagiarism - but without more information on the dates of the originals, we do not know who copied who. Darling's famous rescue was in 1838, Lewis's in 1869 so the painting probably pre-dates the others, but variations of that image are used on several websites and publications about Lewis so it is "perceived" to be her. - [[User:Arjayay|Arjayay]] ([[User talk:Arjayay|talk]]) 11:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2017 ==
== Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2017 ==

Revision as of 11:38, 27 February 2017

Former good article nomineeIda Lewis was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 28, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You KnowA fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 22, 2006.

Old comments

The 1827 death date cannot be correct for her fater as it is after the ilness date. Can someone get the right date?

Ooops, my fault - that was a typo. I've fixed it. --AlbertHerring 01:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article nomination

I thought the stub classification unjust, and on studying the classes thought this appropriate. Now to see what others think... J S Ayer 14:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I reviewed the article and while I think that it is a good start I just didn't think that it met the criterion for a good article. I would agree with you that the article is certainly not a stub, I don't think it is a good article either. To make it a good article I would suggest adding more citation throughout the article (many lines with declarative statements go unsourced) and I would add some more information in the middle of the article. You talk about how she became the lighthouse keeper but then you jump to her national acclaim. I would like some more explanation about how exactly that occurred. I hope this is helpful. Timhud 17:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links are all broken or out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.96.23.14 (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 February 2017

Ida Lewis (lighthouse keeper)Ida Lewis – Remove unnecessary disambiguation. Ida Lewis is currently a redirect to Julia Arthur, an actress born under the name of Ida Lewis. Being the birth name of the actress is not sufficient reason to keep this article at this current disambiguation title. After the move, I would place the following hatnote on this article, to wit: {{About|the lighthouse keeper|the actress born Ida Lewis|Julia Arthur}}. The hatnote on Julia Arthur would also need a slight tweak following the move. Safiel (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something is not right

It says that Ida's father took his family to live on Lime Rock in 1857. Ida, born in 1842, would have been 15. But it also says that she made her first rescue when she was 12. This is documented in the National Archives, but nowhere else. Ten American Girls from History says this rescue of four people happened when she was 17, the year before her father died (page 130).

Also, the information from the Ida Lewis Yacht Club says that the unofficial rescue count is 25, not 36, as does the National Archives. TychaBrahe (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is it was vandalized. But I'm too lazy to check. Kiwifist (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further, in regards to the Twitter comment, you've used the word 'commencing' instead of 'commemorating'. The coast guards didn't 'start' her birthday, they honoured it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.58.184 (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it. Kiwifist (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google doodle

is the doodle really an encyclopedic fact worthy of report? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:483:4100:9C0:8CE:F24A:A11F:6841 (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but my answer leans to a yes, I find it worthy. Google has become a large part of (at least Western) world culture and is seen by more than a billion people per month, and probably hundreds of millions of people every day. And my guess is that today's mention increased the world's knowledge of Ida Lewis immensely (I wouldn't be surprised if, worldwide, a thousand times more people know her now than did before); I find that that makes the mention worthy of report. --Jhertel (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering that there already is an article for Google Doodles, I don't see how mentioning she's in one would hurt, or would not be considered "encyclopedic" enough of a fact. Skywalker Kush (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Google doodles frequently direct me to Wikipedia for more information. Without any partisanship toward the company, I find its effort at making currently hidden histories available to be worth noting since despite recognition during her lifetime I did not know about Ida Lewis; thanks to a doodle pointing to this article, now I do.Transportia (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If it wasn't for Google doodles I wouldn't know of all these wonderful women who serve as role models to me and many other women. Also, these doodles enlighten others in how equally powerful women can be. The message has clearly not gotten across to enough people yet and I thank Google for their educational mission.Joan (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I personally recognize google doodles as a high praise, most definitely worthy of report. Thank you. Fordm992001 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. There are few enough of them as to be worthy of note - especially for less-well-known figures such as Lewis. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2017

The picture of Ida Lewis rowing appears to be be Grace Darling by artist Thomas Brooks, not Ida Lewis. refer to www.gracedarling.co.uk Rmtait (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: - Interesting problem - the description of this image is that it is a woodcut. It is very similar to the oil painting "Grace Darling: by Thomas Brooks" at [www.gracedarling.co.uk Grace Darling.co], but is even more similar to (but not the same as) the Ida Lewis picture at at rhodeislandlighthousehistory which appears to be an engraving. The description of a similar engraving at Quahog.org here describes it as an "Image from a circa 1869 carte de visite"
The woodcut includes a lighthouse, not included in either the painting or the engraving.
I think we may have a case of Victorian plagiarism - but without more information on the dates of the originals, we do not know who copied who. Darling's famous rescue was in 1838, Lewis's in 1869 so the painting probably pre-dates the others, but variations of that image are used on several websites and publications about Lewis so it is "perceived" to be her. - Arjayay (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2017

Please delete the picture of Ida Lewis rowing. This is Grace Darling by Thomas Brooks. Refer to www.gracedarling.co.uk Rmtait (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]