Talk:O. G. S. Crawford/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 08:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 08:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Initial comments

• Overlinks: linking Britain, London, Vienna or Christian is a no-no: see WP:OVERLINK. Personally I think it's silly to link such familiar or self-explanatory terms as geography, bullying, science, civil service, fan letter and edited volume, which nobody will ever need to click on. Duplicate links to Ordnance Survey, Graham Clark, Avebury, progress and astronomy should be removed; in my view the last two don't need linking once, let alone twice.
  • I couldn't find any links to Britain, although have removed the links to London, Vienna, Christian, bullying, and science. Some of these, such as edited volume, I would rather leave in however for I think that many readers, particularly those with no experience of academia, may not be familiar with the specific scholarly concept of the 'edited volume' which differs a little from a simple anthology. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I've also removed the duplicate links. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• Lead
  • "authored" – is in the OED, but is a much inferior word to the plain English "wrote". There is another outbreak in the third para of the lead.
    • I am rather fond of "authored" but your point is taken; I've changed both instances to "wrote". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "First World War" "Second World War" – but later you write "World War I" and "World War II" (and even III). I much prefer the form you have used in the lead, which is the normal BrE (WWI etc being more usual in AmE) but I think you should be consistent one way or the other.
    • Agreed and standardised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "the Stonehenge Avenue" – you capitalise the definite article in the main text, but not here. Lower case looks more natural to my eye, but either way you should be consistent.
    • I totally agree, and have placed the definite article into the lower case. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "…remained of use to archaeologists into the 21st century, when he was made the subject of a biography by Kitty Hauser" – I think you're trying to pack too much into the one sentence. It would read more cogently, I’d say, if you recast on the lines of "… into the 21st century. A biography of Crawford by Kitty Hauser was published in XXXX".
    • Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• Childhood: 1886–1904
  • "Mackenzie died a few days after her son's birth" – I don't think you can call her Mackenzie at this point, because she was Crawford by then. In family paragraphs like this forenames are permitted, and are often easier for the reader to follow.
    • Agreed; I've replaced "Mackenzie" with "Alice" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "when he was aged three months old" – one word too many: either when he was three months old or when he was aged three months.
    • Removes "aged". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Like his father, they were devout Christians … and under their guardianship Crawford had little contact with other children" – the two parts of this sentence don't seem to go together. It doesn't follow that having devout aunts necessarily causes a child to be isolated, surely?
    • I see your point, and have split this article into two separate ones. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• University and early career
  • "Fellow archaeologist Mark Bowden" – you have so far nobly refrained from false titles, and it would be nice to refrain here, too.
    • I've gone with "Crawford's fellow archaeologist", however does this still constitute a false title? This is an area that I'm not too clear on. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
      • No, that's fine. It's fine to call him C's fellow archaeologist, which he was, but just "Fellow archaeologist" on its own is tabloidese nonsense. It's the difference between my calling you "My colleague Midnightblueowl" which makes sense and "Colleague Midnightblueowl", which doesn't, unless "Colleague" ever becomes a genuine title like the Communist "Comrade". I could be "Comrade Riley" but not "Colleague Riley". Tim riley talk 18:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "in order to return to Britain" – and did he? If so, I'd make this "and returned to Britain".
    • Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• First World War
  • "at Wells' home in Dunmow" – as we're in BrE, the normal BrE form of possessive would be preferable here: Wells's rather than Wells'. Likewise for Watkins', later.
    • Sounds good to me. Changing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• Ordnance Survey and Antiquity
  • "discussing geographical methods for delineating cultures, however it did not attempt" – comma splice; and if you must have a "however" here you need a comma after it. Perhaps "although" would be better here.
    • I've removed the comma and added "although" in place of "however". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "His expertise resulted in him being invited" – if I'm being pedantic this construction requires "his" rather than "him" – as "being" is a gerund here.
    • Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "involved him undertaking much fieldwork by travelling…" – this gets a bit tangled: it could be simplified as "involved him in much fieldwork, travelling…"
    • Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "previously-recorded sites … previously unknown barrows" – I am never altogether confident about hyphens in such phrases. I don't think you want one here, and you certainly don't want a hyphen in one but not in the other.
    • Agreed and removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "producing 'period maps' in which" – double, not single, quotes wanted here and later in the para. (MoS)
    • Good point. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "resulting in Crawford being contacted" – another gerund: it strictly needs "Crawford's" rather than "Crawford", but that makes the prose flow like glue, and it may be best to leave it as it is and to Hell with grammar.
    • I'll leave it as is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "among them Stuart Piggott … Grahame Clark" – is there any particular reason for the order in which the seven names are given? If not, I'd be inclined to go for alphabetical order, which has a nicely neutral appearance.
    • I'm not sure why the order of names is thus way (perhaps I was just copying the source?). Whatever the reason, I have rearranged the names into an alphabetical order. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
• Foreign visits and Marxism
  • "with the prominent Marxists Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin" – didn't Marx specifically deny being a Marxist?
    • If I can recall correctly, Marx was in disagreement with what some self-proclaimed "Marxists" were doing, and said "If that's what Marxism is, then I am not a Marxist". However, he is still regularly cited as the founder or co-founder of Marxism and I think it legitimate to describe him thusly here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Un-patriotic" – not usually hyphenated, but perhaps you are using the hyphen for extra emphasis. I just mention it.
    • There was no particular reason for the hyphen here. I'll remove it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
• World War II
  • "destroy all of his leftist literature lest he be persecuted for possessing them" – singular "literature" has become plural "them" by the end of the sentence.
    • Good point, changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "exacerbating his pre-existing anger" – a touch tautological: it couldn't have exacerbated something that didn't already exist; I'd lose the "pre-existing".
    • Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
• Later life
  • "involvement with the Labour Party, however he elsewhere" – another comma splice and dubious "however". I suggest replacing "however he elsewhere" with "although he". The prose would be better for the removal of the "However" at the start of the next sentence, too.
    • Done and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "At the invite" – "at the invitation".
    • Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "He later followed this" – tautology: the "later" is not wanted.
    • "Later" has been removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "which has been described as" – this would be better if ascribed in the text: "which xyz has described as…"
    • Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "which proved popular and resulted in him receiving a range of fan letters" – another gerund: " him" needs to be "his". And we could do with a citation for the statement. The broadcast itself can be confirmed here.
    • Changed "him" to "his", and added citation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • As per his instructions – rather smacks of commercialese. I'd recommend "In accordance with his instructions"
    • Changed to your proposed alternative. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "couldn't sympathise" – "couldn't" should be "could not" (it's in the MoS somewhere, but I can't lay hands on it)
    • A very good point. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Wheeler – who considered Crawford to be "one of my closest friends" – claimed that the latter…" – you could, if you wanted, streamline this: "Wheeler – who considered him "one of my closest friends" – claimed that Crawford…"
    • My concern here would be that the text might not be crystal clear as to who the "him" being mentioned actually is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
• Reception and legacy
  • The MoS bids us discreetly edit the punctuation within quotations to make it consistent with the rest of the article and with the MoS: so the spaced em-dashes in "1918 and — say — 1955" should be changed to spaced en-dashes.
    • Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
• Bibliography
  • Somewhere in the MoS I recall reading the suggestion that "Bibliography" is best avoided as a heading, because it can confuse the reader about whether the list is of books by or about the subject of the biography. For such lists my own practice is to head them "Books by XXXX" or "Publications by XXXX"
    • A fair point, although if possible I'd rather leave it as "Bibliography", at least for now, in large part because that standardises it with other archaeology biographies I have put together and which have reached FA/GA (Mortimer Wheeler, Margaret Murray, V. Gordon Childe etc). A change to one would presumably necessitate a change to them all. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Having incurred my mild expostulation for linking everyday words, bless me if you don't hit us with "festschrift", which is not an everyday or even an everydecade word. A link would be a kindness. I see, by the bye, that our WP article says the word is Anglicised enough not to need italicising but not enough to start with a lower-case f. I rather concur, though the OED admits both Festschrift and festschrift.
    • I've removed the italicisation and added a link! Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing of any great moment in that little list, but please consider the points made and then we can get on to the ribbon-cutting.

Thank you very much Tim! If there is anything else, then please do let me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC

All now excellent. On to the formalities:

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Another fine article in this series, and I hope we shall see more in due course. Informative, readable and well sourced. Tim riley talk 19:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)