Talk:Theodora Kroeber/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: I'll have a go at this one. Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 19:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• I've done a little copy-editing.

  Definitely jumping the gun here, but the "had" in this case was meant to reflect the fact that Kroeber had developed an interest in Native American cultures before her mother in law asked her to return to California. Thoughts? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

  OK, well, maybe find a way to make that clear then.

  Tweaked.

• The lead tells us she's "best known for her accounts of several Native Californian cultures". I think we should hear a little more of that work and what other anthropologists thought of it, probably in a new section; it needn't be long. Unless you mean the two pictorial works? If so, better make that clear in the lead. But "her anthropological writings" seem to need a little more explication.

  It presumably refers to the pictorial works and to Ishi in Two Worlds, but really is just what the source says; I'm not keen on second-guessing the source, though. Pretty much all of the available review of her work focuses on Ishi in Two Worlds, which is already given a lot of weight here.

• A New Objective Method for Showing Special Relationships by Forrest E. Clements, Sara M. Schenck and T. K. Brown, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1926), pp. 585-604 seems to be "her first academic work". Might be worth citing, and even glossing as something like "a paper on a new method of analysis of ethnological data".

  Added.

• Yahi people - maybe add "of northern California" or some such.

  Added.

• "She later took ..." "The couple later ..." - suggest drop both "later"s (we know it was later).

  I've dropped the second; the first reads smoother to me...

• "when the couple entertained them" - perhaps "entertaining them" would work better.

  That construction sounds stranger to me...

  I've tweaked the 'remained' to 'kept' which seems to me to fit better, but perhaps the reading of this sentence is a Yank/Brit thing.

• "In 1959, she published" - I think it would be worth stating her age at this point.

  Added.

• "a biography of Alfred Kroeber titled Alfred Kroeber" - perhaps "a biography of her husband...".

  Done

• "John Quinn, working at the time" - do you mean "John Quinn, who was working"?

  Yes, changed.

• Perhaps the lead should mention Quinn.

  I'm not too certain about this, but okay, added.

• I guess we ought to wikilink peace rally, nuclear weapon.

  Done

• Surely everyone would really like a family photo with Ursula and Karl. You never know, the family might give us one.

  I have been intending to contact the family, if only for a free-use picture of Kroeber that can be displayed at a decent resolution. However, such a process could take a while: I'd really rather not have the GA held up for that. I'm quite certain I've scraped through all that commons has to offer, and I cannot justify a second fair use image. There's several images of Ursula Le Guin, of course, one of which could be added, if you would like.

  Well, it ought to be of her as a girl, in that case! I don't see one of those on Commons. The GA certainly needn't wait for such photos, but the article would definitely be improved with some such.

• A photo of the "large redwood house" would be really apposite, too.

  See above.

That's about it. The images and refs are fine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Thanks: I think I've responded to everything. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, I think this is clearly up to the required standard, good work (from a very low base, I see). Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)