Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/O. G. S. Crawford/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) 00:47, 31 October 2016 [1].

O. G. S. Crawford edit

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a prominent early to mid 20th century British archaeologist. It reached GA status earlier this year and now I'd like to see it sit alongside Margaret Murray and Mortimer Wheeler as a Featured Article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM
  • Is "Notes for Beginners" the same thing as Notes on Archaeology for Guidance in the Field? If not, what is it? A pamphlet? Article?
    • I think that they are the same thing; I've standardised this so that the text mentions "Notes on Archaeology for Guidance in the Field". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He followed this with a range of further maps in the 1930s: 'England in the Seventeenth Century', 'Celtic Earthworks of Salisbury Plain', 'Neolithic Wessex', and 'Britain in the Dark Ages'." Why single quotes? If they're titles, it should be in double quotes; if descriptions, plain text.
  • "the spring and summer 1924" Shouldn't that be "spring and summer 1924" or "the spring and summer of 1924"?
  • "Crawford himself was known as "Ogs" or "Uncle Ogs" to a number of these individuals,[84] who shared his desire to professionalise the field and take it in a more scientific direction and away from the domination of antiquarian hobbyists." The comma is throwing me a little, here; perhaps this sentence could be rephrased?
    • I've made some changes to both this sentence and to the structure of that paragraph: we now have "They shared Crawford's desire to professionalise the field, thereby taking it away from the domination of antiquarian hobbyists and into a more scientific direction. To a number of these individuals, Crawford himself was affectionately known as "Ogs" or "Uncle Ogs"." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In one place, you suggest that he never became involved in "organised politics", but, in another, you suggest that he had some affiliation with the Labour Party
    • A pertinent observation. I'll have to go back to Hauser's original text here in order to see if I can clear this issue up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "taken on by Daniel" Ambiguous; several people by this name have been mentioned.
    • Ah, I see the confusion. "G. E. Daniel" and "Glyn Daniel" are the same person. I've amended the prose to make this clear. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no dependents" No human dependents, presumably; he had cats!
  • "Wheeler and Daniel." As above
  • "Daniel characterised" Again
    • Same as above. 12:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • What is meant by "functionalism" in this context?
  • I wonder if an explanatory footnote at the first mention of Bloody Old Britain would be helpful given that it is both the name of an unpublished book by Crawford and the name of a biography of him.

A very engaging read. I made a number of edits; please do double-check them. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time to read and review the article, Josh! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is very well-written and referenced. A relatively brief delve has revealed no major sources missed or possibility of a free lead image, but I will watch the page to make sure no one else finds anything we should be worried about. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

No view right now on comprehensiveness, spotchecks not done.

  • Why are you using {{cite contribution}} for Ascherson? It makes it slightly inconsistent with the other journal sources.
    • I have no idea, but however that got in there, I have changed it to the more standard {{cite article}}. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's still inconsistent; compare the page ranges. Why not {{cite journal}}? On that note, you vary on whether you drop the hundreds; compare "139–143" to "382–86". It doesn't matter which style you adopt as long as it's consistent! Josh Milburn (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good point on both. I have made corrections that hopefully sought both of these issues out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clark 1951 and Myres 1951: Is "eds" not reserved for multiple editors? Elsewhere, you use "ed.".
    • Well spotted. That was juts a silly mistake, which has now been corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reported the DOI error; hopefully that will be resolved.

All sources are appropriately scholarly. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Stonehenge_1877.JPG is tagged as lacking description, and what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the issues with this image, I have replaced it with File:Stonehenge, Condado de Wiltshire, Inglaterra, 2014-08-12, DD 09.JPG. This image has the disadvantage of having been taken over a century after Crawford's early visits to the site, but at least it should have no copyright problems. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim edit

This is certainly good enough for FA as it stands, so I'm happy to support, but two minor points for you to consider

  • I'm always wary about "however" and "nevertheless", please check each occurrence to make sure it's necessary
    • I've had a look and taken out one example of "however" and two of "nevertheless". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it was suggested by another reviewer, but "human dependants" is nonsense. If a social security form asks for dependants, you don't write "Moggie and Fido". I realise you're stuck in the middle with this, so I'll leave it to you
    • I'm probably going to keep "human" in there, if that's okay. It's certainly not essential, but Crawford did have cats and under some definitions (if not the legal definition, perhaps), they would count as his dependents. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)I confess it seems bizarre to me to talk about someone with companions as having no dependents; I would point out that the word "dependent" has connotations other than the legal ones (which, of course, vary from situation to situation). Given Jim's worry, however, I'm happy to let MBO go with whatever she things best. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck, Jimfbleak (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support, Jimfbleak. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dank edit

  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
  • "subsequently": I'm not sure if this word works anywhere, but I know it doesn't work on Wikipedia, because it's given a variety of contradictory senses by Wikipedians, in roughly equal proportions: soon, later, consequently, not consequently, etc. Often, it's best just to delete it. Please search for the word throughout and replace it with one of those words, or nothing, or something else.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod edit

  • Support Nothing came to mind, but clearly FA standard, Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment edit

I noticed a few instances of seasonal references ("summer", "spring and summer", etc). Tweaked a couple of these but it would help our antipodean readers (and others too I think) if more precise timings involving months of the year could be used wherever possible. Won't hold up promotion on that account but pls have a look. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point, but in most cases the reference to seasons rather than months is based on the statements in the original sources (unfortunately). Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2016 (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/O._G._S._Crawford/archive1&oldid=747188224"