Talk:Charles Green (archaeologist)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Charles Green (archaeologist)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 20:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Happy to take a look. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• "Much of East Anglian work was carried out" his East Anglian work?

• Yup, fixed.

• Are any of the organisations mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead notable? Don't be scared of redlinks!

• Three of them may well be, so I've redlinked them.

• "began with a position of assistant" This is a really odd way of putting it!

• Truly. Reworded: He began his archaeological career as an assistant at the Royal Museum in Salford.

• "understaffed and difficult work" Is the work understaffed? How about something like "the ministry was understaffed, and the work difficult" or something?

• Reworded: During the 1950s, Green carried out many excavations for the Ministry of Works, difficult work for an understaffed department.

• "From 1958 to 1960, Green worked on for the Ministry of Works,[8] of a nearly plough-destroyed barrow cemetery in Shrewton, a village near Stonehenge.[1]" Worked on of?

• Reworded: From 1958 to 1960, also for the Ministry of Works, Green excavated a nearly plough-destroyed barrow cemetery in Shrewton, a village near Stonehenge.

• Articles should be in "Speech Marks"; italics is reserved for books.

• Done.

• Thinking aloud: I find the pulling out of the Sutton Hoo material so that the career section isn't chronological a little odd.

• I've reordered it to be more chronological, and created a new section, "organizations," to include his memberships (for which we are largely missing the years). How does it look now?

• "It benefited from his considerable experience in boat-handling along Western Ireland and the entirety of the North Sea" Slightly jarring, as these things haven't really been mentioned.

• Hopefully this is less jarring with the reorganization. The source doesn't mention when he got this experience, so it is hard to fit it in chronologically otherwise.

• A line or two of context on the Sutton Hoo ship burial would be helpful, I think

• Added that it was a high-status grave from the seventh century. Do you think it needs more?

• In the publications section, I assume you mean Barnes and Noble?

• Fixed.

• What's The Walsingham Archives? Definitely reliable?

• It appears to be a website maintained by the Anglican Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham. Agutter, meanwhile, is a local historian (bio; her website). I included it because I think it could be used as a starting point for excavations at Walsingham Priory, and because it contains some information on Green's role, although I wouldn't feel comfortable relying on it for much more—footnote 3, for instance, is glaringly false. I'll remove it if you recommend doing so.

• I wouldn't bother including publishers for journals, but do it consistently if you're going to!

• Added the two that were missing.

• I don't think "East Anglian Archeology" is a journal, but I may be wrong. The sources are presented as "reports", so you could use "cite report", which would look something like this:
  • Darling, Margaret J.; Gurney, David (1993). Caister-on-Sea: Excavations by Charles Green, 1951–55 (PDF) (Report). East Anglian Archaeology. Vol. 60. Dereham, Norfolk: The Norfolk Archaeological Unit. ISSN 0307-2460. {{cite report}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)

I think that's ugly, though, so I'd just use cite book if I were you:

• Darling, Margaret J.; Gurney, David (1993). Caister-on-Sea: Excavations by Charles Green, 1951–55 (PDF). East Anglian Archaeology. Vol. 60. Dereham, Norfolk: The Norfolk Archaeological Unit. ISSN 0307-2460. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)

• Changed them to book cites.

• Category:English naval historians, perhaps? I don't know if this counts as "naval history"...

• Makes sense to me; he may have been more concerned with boats than navies, but there's some overlap.

That's about it. Sorry if this is all a bit picky! (I like the Lancaster connection - I lived there for a few years.) Josh Milburn (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

And please double-check my edits! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your review, J Milburn. I agree with all your edits, and have responded to your other points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok; I've made some final edits, and I'm happy to promote. I'll let you have a last look before I do so, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The edits look good, J Milburn. The only one I wonder about is the free access/open access template. My understanding is that "free access" signals only the ability to freely access the content, while "open access" signals content over which certain rights exist to reuse it (e.g., out-of-copyright works). Per Template:Free access, "Use {{free access}} to indicate manually that a publication is available to be read freely. Use {{open access}} for open access publications." Meanwhile, per Template:Open access, "Use {{open access}} to indicate manually that a publication is available under open access", where open access says that it "is a mechanism by which research outputs are distributed online, free of cost or other barriers, and, in its most precise meaning, with the addition of an open license that removes most restrictions on use and reuse."

Because of this, I tend to mark pre-1924 works (and others that are clearly licensed for reuse) as open access, and works that still appear to be in copyright and not licensed to be free access. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok; if you're happy with that, I am. I don't tend to think of public domain works as "open access" (i.e., I'd think of them as simply "public domain"), but that's probably just me. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

And sorry if I've messed up your templates; are you happy they're all as they should be, now? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good, J Milburn. I've changed all of them to {{free access}}. As a matter of fact, one of them was erroneously marked as {{open access}} beforehand, so this discussion has helped correct it. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Great! I'll go ahead and promote now. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)