Talk:Ralph Merrifield/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 20:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Happy to take a look. I'm a bit all over the place at the moment, so I don't think this'll be a "full" review initially! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• I think three paragraphs in the lead is too many for an article of this length
  • Would you advise me merging two of the paragraphs or you instead feel that there is information that should be expunged? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• "catalogue which he had helped catalogue" Repetition
  • I've changed the first to "collection". This was just a silly error on my part, I'm surprised that I didn't pick up on it in my read-through. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• "that were present in Britain's past" How about something like "in historical Britain" or "in the history of Britain"?
  • My choice of "past" here was chosen because it better reflects the fact that we are dealing with an archaeological subject here. While "history" is used as a synonym for the past generally, the discipline of "history" deals specifically with the past-as-recorded-in text, as opposed to archaeology, which deals with the past-as-recorded-in-material-culture. For this reason I would favour the use of "past" so as to avoid confusion between the two meanings of "history". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, good point. I'm not convinced that it's completely clear- at the moment it's ambiguous about whether these are beliefs (at an unclear time) about past witchcraft or past beliefs about witchcraft generally. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
      • How about "It was during this that he developed a keen interest in the archaeological evidence for both religion and for the magical practices that took place in Britain's past." ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Better. I worry that the phrase "magic practices" is a little pro-magic, but maybe I'm being over-senstive! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Personally I think that the wording is okay there. We know that people perform magical acts, and have done for centuries (and probably a lot longer), regardless of whether or not there is any objective reality to magical forces themselves. It is a similar situation to prayer; we know that people pray, and have done for a very long time, regardless of whether or not there is actually a deity acting upon those prayers. Thus, I believe that using the term "magical practices" here does not provide a judgement on the actual efficacy of said practices, any more than saying "prayer" would be a judgement of the reality of a particular divinity. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
            • Yes, that seems fair. I'll get to the last issue later today. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Royal Exchange is a dablink
  • Changed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• "the city's archaeological community were largely preoccupied with salvaging" I'm not sure about this, but should that be was largely preoccupied?
  • Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• "In 1951 he married Lysbeth Webb, and together they had one son and one daughter." You should specify Merrifield here; also, do you have dates of birth? Even if not, the current phrasing seems to suggest that they were born in '51
  • I've changed this to "In 1951 Merrifield married Lysbeth Webb, and together they went on to have one son and one daughter." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Why "day of independence" and not "independence day"?
  • I felt that the term "Independence day" implied a day of commemoration (as with U.S. independence day), whereas the date in question was the actual day in which Ghana became an independent state. Hence the proposed wording, although I'm certainly open to alternatives. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Gotcha. How about, rather than "for Ghana's first day of independence" something like "for the day of Ghana's officially achieved independence" or something akin? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I've changed to your proposed wording. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• "further predicting where further archaeological remains were likely be be found by future investigation" Too wordy!
  • I've changed this to "further providing suggestions for where additional archaeological remains were likely located." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• "During this period, he designed the Museum's first Roman gallery." What period?
  • I've merged this sentence into the previous one and changed the specific wording here to "and being responsible for designing the Museum's first Roman gallery." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Did you manage to have a look at Studies Presented to Ralph Merrifield? It's not cited, but I do note that it's in my university library, so I could go and pick it up tomorrow for a flick through. Its full title is apparently Collectanea Londiniensia : studies in London archaeology and history presented to Ralph Merrifield, and it was edited by Joanna Bird, Hugh Chapman and John Clark.
  • I hadn't thought about that, but it would be good to consult it. If you wish to do so that would be appreciated, although alternately I could easily consult a library copy (although I would only be able to do that in a couple of weeks time) - I wouldn't want to distract you too much from your doctoral work! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I picked it up; there are forty odd chapters! There is a two-page biography of Merrifield by W. F. Grimes which is probably worth citing, just as another reference if nothing else- I'll scan it for you tomorrow. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• "Endorsing these views" Which views?
  • I've changed this to "Concurring with Merrifield's assessment about this widespread neglect," Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• You don't really have much on his personal life in the personal life section.
  • That's true. Perhaps a term like "Personality" would be preferable? Or do you think that this section could just be termed "Legacy"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Merely "legacy" would be fine, or you could move information about his marriage and children down. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I've changed it to "Legacy". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• A few more citations wouldn't go amiss- you mention this one, I think! Have you seen this obituary? An old book review? Another? Another? Another (also, this suggests that the book was coauthored, which isn't mentioned in the article)? Don't worry about including everything ever for GAC, but reviews of one or two of the Roman books would be a nice balance to the review comments you offer for the magic book, and another obituary would help establish significance.
  • I had searched for additional obituaries in academic journals like Antiquity (to no avail) but had't thought of looking in the mainstream media - I have added The New York Times reference into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks mostly fine to me! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, please double-check my copyedits. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Your copy-edits look fine to me, Josh. Thank you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay- my workload has shot up. The scanner was having an off-day when I came to scan the biography, but having looked through what it says, it looks like your obituaries may have been based on it anyway. If you happen to be in a library where there's a copy of the book, it might be nice to pick it up (add a few citations for the sake of completeness), but I've dropped it into a further reading section for now. My one worry was that there may be too much of a focus on his magic/religion work at the expense of his London work, but the former interest is actually mentioned in the biography by Grimes, so it's certainly not a minor part of his career, even before he published the book. As such, I'm happy to promote at this time. Great work, as ever. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@J Milburn: - many thanks! I hope to be able to check out Collectanea Londiniensia later this week, if possible. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)