Wikipedia

Talk:Mortimer Wheeler/GA1

< Talk:Mortimer Wheeler
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Tim riley in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago76 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 21:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply


Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 21:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Tim. Hope you enjoy reading it! All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Some points on the prose:

  • General
    • Duplicate blue-links (see WP:OVERLINK): excavations, Society of Antiquaries, Stuart Piggott, Nowell Myres, University of London, Kathleen Kenyon, Charles Reed Peers, Cyril Fox, Dorset, Yorkshire, Ian Richmond, Oxford University Press, Oxford University Press (again), Antiquity, Royal Archaeological Institute, Max Mallowan, Tessa Verney, Stuart Piggott (again), Arthur Evans and Leonard Woolley.
  • Lead
    • "authoring" – what an unpleasant and unnecessary word! Couldn't we have him just writing them?
      • Oh, I'm a big fan of "authoring" for some reason. But I'm happy to change it if you think "writing" to be better in this instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
        • Well, if there's one thing I hate at GAN it's a reviewer who says "Do it my way or else". If you feel wedded to "author" as a verb, it is clearly not wrong, and the fact that I hate it doesn't mean I can use GA criterion 1a to object to it. On the other hand (switching to an attempt at emotional blackmail) if you change it to "write" you will make an old man very happy. Tim riley talk 16:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • "advocated a more scientific approach" – than what?
      • Than that then dominant in British archaeology. I have rephrased this sentence as "Wheeler advocated a more scientific, methodical approach to excavation and the recording of stratigraphic context than that then dominant: the "Wheeler Method"", so let me know what you think. I'm not entirely happy with this piece of prose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • "re-organisation" – the OED does not hyphenate this
    • "adopting the position of Honorary Director" – didn't he consult anyone about this? Surely someone must have ratified the appointment?
      • I'm not sure whether this wording requires alteration; given that Wheeler was actually establishing the Institute of Archaeology himself, I believe that he largely had free reign to appoint himself to any position that he wanted. Thus, I think that "adopting" works okay here, but let me know if you have any recommended alternatives. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • "most significant" – what did he signify? Or do you just mean "important"?
  • Childhood: 1890–1907
    • "Scotland" – WP:OVERLINK
    • "being the niece of a Shakespearean scholar" – implies a causal connexion that the text doesn't justify
      • Fair point. I've replaced the "being" with "and was" here. Wheeler's biographer thought it noteworthy to highlight the family connection, but it's true that we needn't draw any causal connection between this and her interest in English literature. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • "Their marriage, however" – this is one of no fewer than nineteen "howevers" in this article which is about seventeen too many. Nine times out of ten "however" is unnecessary and weakens one's prose. Be brave and expunge it!
      • I have gone through and removed the majority of the "however"s, although a few remain which I felt were necessary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • "In 1899 … Meanwhile, in 1902" – the chronology seems awry here if "meanwhile" is used.
  • University and early career
    • "for whom he produced" – as it's inanimate, perhaps "for which"?
    • "effected his classical studies" – affected
    • "proceeded to begin" – began?
    • "as later archaeologist" – missing an indefinite article before "later"?
  • First World War: 1914–18
    • "It was during this period that his son Michael was born." – You've already told us this
      • I've deleted the first mention, and moved some of the information from that into the second, which is in the chronologically correct place within the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • "the Brigade was transferred to Italy " – here and below, is the capitalisation wanted?
    • "Castelfranco[disambiguation needed]" – quite so
    • "Here, he was engaged" – the last person mentioned is J Byng, but I assume you mean Wheeler here.
  • National Museum of Wales
    • "he was awarded his Doctor of Letters" – what did he do with him? Or do you mean he was awarded his Doctorate of Letters?
    • "although initially disliked the city" – missing a "he" or "they"?
    • "a new specially-designed to building" – eh? And while here, this is a forty-word sentence, which could do with breaking into digestible chunks
      • I've replaced this sentence with "The museum was in disarray; prior to the war, construction had begun on a new purpose-built building to house the collections. This had ceased during the conflict and the edifice was left abandoned during Cardiff's post-war economic slump." Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • "recognised" – but earlier in your main text (as opposed to quotations) you have "demobilized": either is fine, but consistency needed
    • "Greatly influenced by the writings of archaeologist Augustus Pitt-Rivers" – sudden, uncharacteristic and most unwelcome outbreak of false title here. A "the" before "archaeologist" would remove the pain
    • "he authored full seasonal" – more "authoring" that could be in plain English instead
    • "Keen on training new generations of archaeologists, two of the most prominent students" – the syntax has gone awry here. What is the subject of this sentence? I think you probably mean something to the effect of "Wheeler was keen on training new generations of archaeologists, and two of the most prominent students"
    • "by tabloid newspaper, the Daily Mail" – two things here: first, this is another false title, and secondly the Mail wasn't a tabloid but a broadsheet in those days. You could call it the "downmarket", "middlebrow" or "popular" paper or some such.
    • "the treasurer, William Reardon Smith" – this reads as though WRS was treasurer of HM Treasury rather than the musem, and also that WRS had some say – which he hadn't – over grants from HM Treasury. In short, this bit is factually inaccurate and must be redrawn before GA can be considered.
      • I think that I must have confused myself when authoring the article prose here. I was under the impression that Smith had worked at HM Treasury, but you are quite correct in pointing out that he didn't. I have altered the prose in the article to ensure that it is accurate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • London Museum:
    • "an annual salary of £600, which resulted in a decline in living standards" – if you give his new salary you should surely also give his higher old one
      • I've had trouble with this one. I've searched through Hawkes' biography, and while it refers to Wheeler earning £800 as a major during the First World War and £600 at London Museum, it doesn't mention what wage he was on while working in Wales. It could be that he was earning the same wage in Wales as he was in London, but that his money simply wouldn't go so far (that is certainly the case today, what with the high cost of housing and transport in London, but whether it was the same in the 1920s I have no idea). In this situation, I'd suggest leaving things as they are. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • "L.C. Carr would later comment" – not sure why the subjunctive rather than the plain "later commented"
    • "re-organising" – another dubious hypen
    • "Upon his arrival, the treasury allocated the museum" – if this means HM Treasury it needs a capital
    • "Wheeler convinced them to increase" – "convince to" is good AmEng but bad BrEng, in which one convinces that and persuades to
      • I'm not sure here. Looking at the sentence in question ("In 1930, Wheeler convinced them to increase that budget, as he highlighted increasing visitor numbers, publications, and acquisitions, as well as a rise in the number of educational projects"), I remain unsure as to how to convert this into a British English variant without it coming across as a little disjointed. I'd be happy to leave it as it is, or to see if you had any suggestions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • "Soon after joining the Museum" – lower cased "museum" in the previous para" – better I think
    • "In 1928, he curated an exhibit" – he being Piggott or Mortimer? And was it an exhibit or an exhibition?
      • I've made it clear that it is Wheeler that is being talked about. I believe that the original text used the word "exhibit" rather than "exhibition", although the boundaries between the two are not firm. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • "land owner" – one word
    • "which later archaeologist Stuart Piggott" – another false title
    • "From there, he was invited" – "Wheeler was invited"?
    • "proceeded to take on this role" – weirdly pompous: why not just "took on"?
    • "archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon and architect A.W.G. Lowther" – more jarring false titles
    • "Tessa focused on excavating the inside of the city walls, although Wheeler had affairs with at least three assistants during the project." – this is a glaring non sequitur. Why "although"? I'd replace the comma and "although" with a semicolon.
    • "After Tessa authored two interim reports, the final excavation report would finally be published in 1936" – perhaps in plain English "After Tessa wrote two interim reports, the final excavation report was finally published in 1936"
    • "Myres'" – odd use of AmEng form of possessive rather than the BrEng "Myres's". Other examples later in the text, too.
      • Changed. You know, I never knew that the latter was British English; it might be cliched to say so, but you learn something new every day! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Institute of Archaeology
    • "his intention that the Institute become" – missing a "should" before "become"?
    • "subsequently able to convince" – another AmEng "convince to"
    • "albeit at this point only existed on paper, with no premises of academic staff" – missing "it" before "only" and "of" should be "or" I imagine
    • "Co-directing the project with both Tessa and Charles Drew, the Curator of Dorset County Museum, the project was carried out" – another sentence where the grammatical subject has gone missing and we have a dangling participle.
      • I've moved "the Curator of Dorset County Museum" to before "Charles Drew". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • "a second European conflict was immanent" – not "immanent" (a philosophical and religious term meaning the pervasive presence of, e.g., God) but "imminent"
    • "met Conservative Party politician Winston Churchill" – another jarring false title
    • "Churchill asked Wheeler to aid him in writing about late prehistoric and early medieval Britain" – and did Wheeler oblige?
      • He sure did; I've added a few words to the article to that effect. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Second World War
    • "he was enlisted" – I'd be a bit chary of this phrasing: "enlisted" in the context of the British army means a being a private soldier, rather than an officer; perhaps "assigned"?
      • Oh, fair enough. My knowledge of military terminology and the like is negligible, so I'll make the alteration that you suggest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • "Back in Egypt, he requested that he be permitted" – and was he?
    • "He was also Allied counter-push" – what?
      • I have changed this to "He was also part of the Allied counter-push" Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • "Promoted to the position of brigadier" – if you're blue-linking "brigadier" (very sensibly, I think) why not "major" earlier on?
    • "where he met with various aristocrats" – in BrEng one meets with disaster, approval, success etc but just meets people
    • "director of London Museum" – missing a definite article?
  • Archaeological Survey of India
    • "convinced the government to agree" – another AmEng "convince to"
    • "and proceeded to begin" – this is one of ten "proceeded to"s and I think your readers could do with a great deal fewer. After so many repetitions one starts to notice them a bit.
      • I have dealt with the instance highlighted; will deal with others later. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • "and French archaeologist Jouveau Dubreuil" – false title
    • "he had trouble securing paper and various delays" – why would he want to secure various delays?
  • Between Britain and Pakistan
    • "He also authored … Wheeler would not author" – plain words, again: "write", is surely better? There are ten incidences of "author" as a verb in this article: all would be better if in plain English.
      • I still prefer "author" here but have made the alteration. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
      • I've replaced about half of the instances of "authored" with "written", but left the others. That way there is more variation, which I hope is a little more interesting for the reader. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • "In order to instruct" – "In order to" is always superfluous and wordy: just "to" is always better.
  • Media fame and public archaeology
    • "Wheeler would become famous" – another strange subjunctive: surely he just became famous? There are 45 "would"s in this article, and I think you should go through with a pruning knife. There are three "would"s in the first paragraph of this section.
      • I've dealt with the instance specified. Will look into the others shortly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
      • I have removed many, although not all, of the "would"s in the article. I never realised that I used it so prolifically! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • "Based on American quiz program" – two things here: first, there's another false title here (you need "the American…" and as this article is written in English we want "programme" rather than "program", whatever the Americans called it.)
    • "Rival publisher Weidenfeld" – another false title and AmEng "convince to" and "to author" – a hat trick of unfortunate phrasing
    • "They further published his 1968 book" – how do you further publish something?
    • "for rival tour company" – false title
    • "at the invite of" – what?
      • Changed this sentence to "Pakistan's Ministry of Education invited Wheeler to return to their country in October 1956." Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • British Academy and UNESCO
    • "with archaeologist Max Mallowan" – false title
  • Final years:
    • "although continued" – missing word

Those are my suggestions from my first pass through this article. It is potentially first rate, but needs the prose tightening up, and ambiguities resolving. I'm putting the review on hold to give you time to address these points. Tim riley talk 01:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for going to the trouble of reviewing this article, @Tim riley: would you be averse to me striking out each point as I have corrected it (I know that some users don't mind, but others detest it, so just thought that I'd ask). Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Happy with whatever suits you. Tim riley talk 12:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Tim riley: I believe that I have responded to every comment that you have kindly provided; there are a few I have left untouched because they relate to an American English-British English scenario that I would appreciate some more advice on. I really appreciate how thorough your analysis of the prose and its weaknesses has been; by following your recommendations I have tightened the wording of this article up considerably, and it is much the better for it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

That's greatly improved matters, and the prose now meets the GA standard. To my mind the article is a potential FA candidate, though if you decide to go in that direction I recommend taking it to peer review first. There are some small points of drafting that would need attention for FA level, and the references would want a bit of tweaking (e.g. OCLC number, ODNB sub tag, and you may have trouble getting the Daily Mail unanimously accepted as a reliable source). For now, though, I see no reason to delay promotion to GA:

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    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:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  

I greatly enjoyed this article. Wheeler was a prominent public figure when I was a boy – I remember seeing him on the television frequently – and it has been most interesting to learn more about him here. If you decide to go to PR or FAC please let me know. – Tim riley talk 09:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mortimer_Wheeler/GA1&oldid=1137021495"