Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Margaret Murray/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) 01:04, 28 March 2016 [1].

Margaret Murray

edit
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a prominent Anglo-Indian Egyptologist, archaeologist, and folklorist, known for being one of the earliest female scholars in her subject matter and for establishing the controversial witch-cult theory. It is a GA-rated article and although a recent Peer Review Nomination did not result in any review, I have read through the article to correct any prose issues that were apparent. I think that it is either FA quality, or very close, and thus would like to nominate the article here to see if others concur with my assessment. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments from JM

I've read through down to "legacy", making tweaks as I go. My only comments so far follow:

  • " He also noted that the book's tone was generally "dry and clinical, and every assertion was meticulously footned to a source, with lavish quotation"." Could you check this quote? What does "footned" mean?
  • "historian Jeffrey B. Russell and Brooks Alexander" Russell's a historian, but who is Alexander?
    • Alexander is an "independent writer and editor" (according to his own description here) who focuses on discussing occultism and new religious movements from his own evangelical Christian perspective. Russell had written the book in question, A History of Witchcraft, back in 1980, and when revising it with updated information for the 2007 work A New History of Witchcraft he brought Alexander in to add a chapter on the growth of contemporary witchcraft. I'll add "independent writer" before Alexander's name in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back to look through the remainder of the article later this week. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Josh, it's appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished looking through the article again; overall, I think it's fantastic. My only real concern (and I think I already know what your answer will be) is that there seems to be a strong focus on the witchcraft content at the expense of information about the influence of her academic archaeological work. I assume that her archeological work (for example, her work on Malta) has not really had a significant legacy? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm aware of, to be honest. Vast amounts of ink have been spent discussing her impact in witchcraft historiography, less on her impact in Egyptology, and next to nothing on her impact elsewhere. Then again, I am not really familiar with the archaeology of Malta as a field of research, so must admit that it is possible that his side of her work is discussed in some obscure edited volume or something of that nature which has been published within that academic arena. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, providing nothing major is raised. This strikes me as an exemplary article. Delegates: I was the GA reviewer. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe this article's use of Anglo-Indian, to mean "the wealthy British imperial elite", is outdated (please see Anglo-Indian).—indopug (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article notes that the use of "Anglo-Indian" to describe the British community living in the Raj is a common use of the term. It notes that it is largely a historical term, but then again, Murray was a historical personage; she grew up as a British person living in British-occupied India. Is there a more appropriate term for such people? I'm certainly not aware of any apposite alternative. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've advertised this page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women scientists and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism in the hopes of attracting more reviewers. Apologies if this seems a little presumptuous- I'd just hate to see this FAC fade away. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well written, extremely detailed biography of a significant pioneer in various fields. Pity it still contains so many red links but it is to be hoped these will be covered in due course.--Ipigott (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very interesting article, well crafted and researched. I'm not a FAC reviewer, tho the subject interests me. I spotted two minor things: a typo that I'll correct. Also found this sentence confusing: "The historian Amara Thornton has suggested that Murray's Indian childhood continued to exert an influence over her throughout her life, expressing the view that Murray could be seen as having a "hybrid identity" that was both British and Indian." I went to the source referenced (Amara Thornton's journal article), and to my mind, she is proposing that Murray expressed a hybrid transnational identity, both British and Indian. There's a subtle difference. If it's ok with the primary authors/editors, I'll make that change. This weekend will give the article a deeper read - it's a fine article! Netherzone (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support thoroughly enjoyed reading this well-written and well-documented article. Not sure if there are qualifications to a reviewer of FAC, but it is one of the most detailed articles I have read on WP. SusunW (talk) 04:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- To SusunW and other reviewers new to FAC: First of all, welcome -- we can always use more commentary on nominations! Secondly, there are no specific qualifications to review at FAC but it's important to be familiar with the FA criteria and to judge an article against those criteria. Of course not everyone is comfortable reviewing against all the criteria (some may know the subject intimately and be well versed in content and sources, others might feel more competent judging prose and comprehensibility for instance) so it's helpful for coordinators such as myself when new reviewers state on what grounds (i.e. criteria) they support (or oppose) promotion. As you become better known in the FAC community, such formailty can become somewhat less necessary. All the best, and I hope you will explore other nominations for possible review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had already looked at the criteria and it appears to hit all the bells and whistles in the appropriate manner. I should have been more specific in my earlier comment that the article does reflect that the criteria is met, in my estimation. SusunW (talk) 05:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a month since I nominated this article at FAC, and it currently has four statements of support. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: I'm sad to see that no one has taken up a source review, and so will do one myself. I've been heavily involved in the article as a reviewer, but I could not be called an author in any way. I will not be offended if the coordinators are unhappy with me being the reviewer.

  • You should be consistent on whether you list the publishers of journals (you list a publisher for History of Religions but not others). Personally, I wouldn't bother. Or are you distinguishing between multiple journals of the same name?
  • Judging from the publisher and title, I thought the Faxneld source may not be ideal, but I see that it was based on his PhD thesis and that he is a postdoctoral fellow in religious studies. The information it cites also seems uncontroversial. No objection.
  • I'm guessing that Folklore Society News isn't quite a scholarly journal, but as you're using it for the personal opinion of a notable scholar, the citation is fine. No objection.
  • Relying on Runciman would be questionable given where he was publishing, but the context in which it is used is completely appropriate. No objection.
  • Valiente might raise some eyebrows, but is appropriate in the context used. No objection.
  • Terry Welbourn is not an academic and the publisher isn't what I'd call scholarly. Nonetheless, he's published in decent journals on the same topic for which he's cited here, and the claim is backed up (I assume that's what's going on with the multiple citations in that footnote?) in a more obviously reliable source anyway. No objection.

Other than that, all sources are clearly articles in academic journals (not all peer reviewed, necessarily, but decent nonetheless), academic works from decent publishers or works by Murray herself, so I am happy as regards reliability. I'm moderately confident with regards to comprehensiveness after a previous general search and a previous search specifically to look for information about a particular area of her work. If there are any missed sources, I suspect they're older/of less significance/tertiary or some mix of the three. I have not completed spotchecks; I can find time to do this over the weekend if it is desired. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winick paper used 6 times - material faithful to source.
Williams paper used 4 times - material faithful to source.
James paper used several times - material faithful but source is cursory and refs are combination, so material also derived from other sources. What is there is consistent though.
Davidson paper used once - material faithful to source.
First 4 Murray (1962[1921]) refs checked - all in order...late here and I haven't the time to read the whole book.....
Earwig's Copyvio Detector has one false positive as the goodreads page has some text from the WP article, otherwise all clear.

All material checked so far is in order. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to both Josh Milburn and Cas Liber for their source review and spot checking! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:13, 26 March 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/Margaret_Murray/archive1&oldid=712412269"