Talk:Georges Dumézil/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 01:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Starts the Good Article Review. The review will follow the same sections of the article. -- Whiteguru (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)  

---

Lead

1. Is it reasonably well written?
   1. The Lead is quite long, six paragraphs; a synopsis of the life and works of Georges Dumézil.
   2. Having made this observation, it is a clear and concise overview of Dumézil and his works.
   3. The lead mentions worldwide philologists and historians that Duméil has influenced.
   4. The lead is excessively linked. I don't know that we need links to the French Army, World War I nor World War II, nor Judeo-Christian society. Comment is invited.

Early Life and Education

1. Is it reasonably well written?
   1. Encyclopedia Iranica does not confirm the following: which had fallen somewhat into disrepute after many of the theories of Max Müller had been shown untenable.[2] - the encyclopedia mentions several persons, including Georges Fraser, who had all either fallen into disrepute or found to be inadequate due result of advances in anthropological method. Consider.
   2. The section is a good summary of the early life and education of Dumézil upto the reception and hostility towards his PhD thesis and its (apparent) leanings.

Early Career

1. Is it reasonably well written?
   1. The reference to the Nart Saga is instructive as it the seed of much of what is to come.
   2. Early reflections and conversations on what was to become the trifunctional hypothesis is noted.
   3. Wikander and Widengren (and the friendship) are noted among several sources, as is the strong influence each has on the other's unfolding research. A strong section of the article.

 

 

This is a review in progress. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Return to France

1. Is it reasonably well written?
   1. It may be useful to reference that at EPHE, Dumézil was director of studies until his retirement in 1968.

Formulation of the trifunctional hypothesis

1. Is it reasonably well written?
   1. This section makes short work of the generous coverage given by Encyclopedia Iranica and the Edinburgh Encyclopedia.
   2. It is interesting the Edinburgh Encyclopedia charts a part from the Roman Gods to the Celts, and then the Vedic mythology.
   3. Nonetheless, good work and referencing - inclusion of texts, mythology and Vedic mythology. The Ashwin Kumars !

 

 

This is a review in progress. -- Whiteguru (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

---

 

 

Career during World War II

1. Is it reasonably well written?
   1. Simple coverage of Dumzéil's postings during WWII
   2. Freemasonry is used to separate Dumzéil from EPHE
   3. An account of his war writings are given.
   4. It seems that Dumzéil forced an hypothesis on Indo-Iranian gods that heretofore did not exist.
   5. The influence of Rome and Roman gods is noted.

 

 

Expanding the trifunctional hypothesis

1. Is it reasonably well written?
   1. The influence of Naissance des archanges is noted;
   2. The role of Aryaman is noted along with the rise of Ahura Mazda and demotion of other Iranian gods.
   3. Most notably, Dumézil was fluent in the languages and mythology of numerous indigenous peoples of the Americas - I'd like to see a citation for this claim. Edinburgh Encyclopedia is unclear on this point.

 

 

Retirement

1. Is it reasonably well written?
   1. There is an extensive account of awards and memberships accorded to Dumzéil
   2. Continuing with research and study is observed.
   3. Later criticism is well-known and accounted for.

 

 

Death and Legacy

1. Is it reasonably well written?
   1. Entretiens avec Georges Dumézil is an appropriate inclusion;
   2. Scholars alleging Fascist and Nazi sympathy are encountered;
   3. His formulation of the trifunctional hypothesis ... as one of the most important scholarly achievements of the 20th century;
   4. Neat conclusion: the Académie Française awards the annual Prix Georges Dumézil [fr] for a work of philology

 

 

This is a review in progress. -- Whiteguru (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

---

 

 

End Matter

References

1. Is it reasonably well written?
   1. References all examined.

 

Sources

1. Is it reasonably well written?
   1. Sources all checked and relevant

 

Further Reading

1. Is it reasonably well written?
   1. Adds to robust scope of the works of Dumzéil's canvas on philology

 

Is it is Broad in its coverage?

1. 1. Given that Dumzéil studied many languages, served in both wars in Europe, and taught upto his retirement and into his retirement finally wrote 75 books and has an annual philology prize named after him by the Acadamé Francais, yes, this is both a precise yet broad overview of Dumzéil and his works.

 

1. 1. Works Cited: all examined.
2. It follows the neutral point of view policy: Yes, stable writing from an academic point of view.
3. Is it stable? 4068 page views in the last 30 days. Page is 16 years old, created 20 March 2004 by editor Bacchiad. The page has had a total of 338 edits. Eamining page history, there is little - if any - evidence of edit warring.
   2. Top editors are Krakkos, Rorybowman, Alcaios, and Alex Golub. Citation bot has been on the page, sigificantly.
4. It is illustrated by images : yes, plenty of images, all appropriate and well placed.

Overall

• Review is on hold, pending resolution of queries. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

 GA on hold

Thank you Whiteguru for this very thorough and helpful review. I have now made an attempt an modifying the article in accordance with your recommendations. Krakkos (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Krakkos for your edits.

GA Result: ✓ Pass

Thank you, Whiteguru. Your suggestions have enabled a significant improvement of the article. Well done. Krakkos (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)