Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mortimer Wheeler/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2015 [1].

Mortimer Wheeler

edit
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most prominent British archaeologists of the twentieth century, who specialised in Roman Britain and in the archaeology of the Indian subcontinent. He was also an officer in the British Army and saw action in both the First and Second World Wars. The article has previously received GA status and undergone a peer review in January 2015. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

Very readable. Definitely a worthy topic for a FA. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to do a full source review right now, but if you're committed to using the Daily Mail source (and it's hardly of the caliber of your other sources!) you need an accessdate. Also, your Vasudevan source lacks a location. (And, a recurring comment I know, so ignore it if you prefer: I personally don't see the need to list publishers for academic journals. I can't remember ever having seen it outside of Wikipedia.) Josh Milburn (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a long shot, but remember that if you have any images of him which were published before 1923 (plausible, given the fact that he seems to have been a vaguely prominent figure even back then) they will be PD under {{PD-US}}. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. After mulling it over, I'm happy to support this article (with the caveat that I may have missed something). Everything looks very strong to me. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Josh! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ssven2

edit

Great job on the article, Midnightblueowl. Hope to see it as an FA soon. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sven. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commments Support from Hchc2009

edit
  • Close to a support on an interesting character, but a couple of issues from me...
  • "in his personal life he was often criticised for bullying colleagues and sexually harassing young women" - the material in the main body of the article suggests that this wasn't really strictly a "personal" issue but extended to his professional life: he gave attractive women preferential treatment in the workplace, had many one night stands with his students and was allegedly responsible for groping and bullying his work colleagues. I wasn't sure that the "personal" label here or in the section title was really accurate/appropriate.
  • "The Wheelers' work for the cause of the museum has been seen as part of a wider "cultural-nationalist movement"" - I couldn't work out who the quote was from: could it be attributed in-line?
  • "Wheeler had been expecting and openly hoping for war with Nazi Germany for several years; he believed that the United Kingdom's involvement in the conflict would remedy the shame that he thought had been brought upon the country by its signing of the Munich Agreement in September 1938." - the two halves of the sentence don't quite match, as the Munich agreement was only 12 months before the outbreak of war.
  • "he was recognised as a ruthless disciplinarian" - could this simply be "he was a ruthless disciplinarian"?
    • My concern here would be that concepts such as "ruthlessness" are a little subjective, existing in the eye of the beholder and all that. Stating that he was "recognised" as such takes away the problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AustralianRupert

edit

G'day, I only had a look at the military parts. Overall, they look quite good to me, but I have a couple of points/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "promoted to the position of acting major..." --> "promoted to the rank of acting major" (major is not a position, it is a rank. Officer commanding is a position, which a person of the rank of major might fill...);
  • "Wheeler's unit was transferred to the 42nd Mobile Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment..." (is transferred right here? Or was it in fact used to form the regiment, along with a couple of other batteries?)
  • "Wheeler and three of his batteries..." this seems to jump without explanation from him commanding one battery to three. So, he had effectively become commander of an artillery regiment...do you know which one? Could it have been the 42nd as mentioned above? If so, I think it should be clarified that he was in command; I assume also that he had been promoted to lieutenant colonel at this time, so this could probably be said here, too, if your sources say so;
  • "...better understand what it was like to be against an anti-aircraft battery" (this seems a little awkward, perhaps this might be smoother: "...better understand what it was like for aircrew to be fired on by an anti-aircraft battery"?)

Image review

Support Comments from Tim riley

edit

I'll be supporting, but a few minor quibbles first:

  • Spelling
    • "As the article is in BrEng, "enroll" (twice) should preferably be "enrol" and "panelist" should be "panellist". (In fact both the current forms are admitted by the OED, but the ones I recommend are more usual in British usage.)
  • Childhood: 1890–1907
  • First World War: 1914–18
    • "he maintained correspondence" – reads rather oddly. As there was a correspondence with his wife, another correspondence with his sister and a third correspondence with his parents it would probably be best to write "he maintained correspondences".
  • National Museum of Wales: 1919–26
    • We might allow Sir Flinders Petrie his title.
      • Do we have a policy here at Wikipedia governing this sort of thing. Something in the back of my mind is telling me that there is a policy that recommends we do not use such titles in the text, but that may of course be absolute nonsense... Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think what you have in mind is perhaps the guideline that we are sparing in our use of academic titles, such as Dr John Smith or Professor Wilfred Thyng. But for titles such as knighthoods, peerages etc we certainly do give them (and pipe them properly, for preference, as e.g. "Sir Flinders Petrie" rather than the slightly scrubby "Sir Flinders Petrie" though being careful not to give them before they were bestowed.

Many thanks for your comments Tim! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. All fine with me now. Adding support, above (but do look after the leader writer and Sir Flinders). Tim riley talk 19:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

Coordinator note: Has this had a source review? And I see an unresolved item from the image review. --Laser brain (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mortimer Wheeler: I can't do anything with this until you resolve the image concern above. Please ask Nikkimaria, GermanJoe, or find guidance on Wikipedia:File copyright tags. --Laser brain (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone else has already fixed this. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikkimaria. And apparently I pinged the subject of the article instead of Midnightblueowl. --Laser brain (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – this is my first attempt at doing one, so please be indulgent. I don't think I have ever seen an FAC with so many book refs and so few web ones. Impressive, but:

  • There are more than 200 refs to Hawkes, but, I think, enough to others such as Carr, Guha, Moshenska and Pigott to make the referencing adequately wide.
  • In the list of sources I could have done with an OCLC for the 1960 Clark book (3465005, since you ask).

And that's all I can find to quibble at. – Tim riley talk 20:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So a month has now passed since I initiated this FAC, and we now have five editors expressing their support, another expressing support on prose, and none expressing opposition. That's a pretty good result, so I would like to thank everyone who offered their comments. It is appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2015 (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/Mortimer_Wheeler/archive1&oldid=1258019641"