This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jacquetta Hawkes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
A fact from Jacquetta Hawkes appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 December 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Classical Committee, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Classical Committee articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's Classical CommitteeWikipedia:WikiProject Women's Classical CommitteeTemplate:WikiProject Women's Classical CommitteeWomen's Classical Committee articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article was created or improved during the Women's Rights GA edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Green project in October 2021. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in GreenWikipedia:WikiProject Women in GreenTemplate:WikiProject Women in GreenWomen in Green articles
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hawkes and Priestley remained physically, emotionally and intellectually close until their deaths.
Referenced, yes, but a bit OTT in my view. I think we might settle for ‘Many noted that it was a deeply fulfilling union.’ Valetude (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Career would benefit from being split into sub-sections. There's an unresolved {{cn}} tag. What's going on with FN 47? Looks to generally be in good shape, I'll look some more on the morrow Eddie891TalkWork 00:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks @Eddie891: I've added some sections, changed fn 47 (I don't what happened to that one either!) and added some clarifications. I've made a note of the exisiting CN tag (I put that there to remind me as the text was already in the article, but unferences), I'm struggling to access this article https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/carnal-knowledge-tlmgjvq0hlj as I think it might give context for her memoir. Thanks for looking it over so quickly to start with, much appreciated! Lajmmoore (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Lajmmoore have you asked at WP:REX for access? Someone would likely be able to send it over Eddie891TalkWork 20:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Lajmmoore: coming here from the request at the WiG meetup/October editathon. I see Eddie891 has flagged a number of issues already. My immediate reaction is it is definitely not a quick fail and I would consider it a strong nomination. My main immediate concerns would be (a) per WP:MOSLEAD the lead needs to be a more complete summary of the entire article (at present, somewhat more than one-third is listing her publication titles), (b) Why is her marriage to J B Priestly a subsection of her career? (I understand they were collaborators) ... it might be better to simply convert all these to sections themselves (c) this stood out regarding A Quest for Love: "Perhaps the least popular of her works" ... but the reference is to a contemporaneous single review from 1981; ideally should have a reference here which is assessing her works overall (d) there are two citations from "100 Objects from Special Collections at the University of Bradford" which is a wordpress blog; I assume there is no alternative for these? In my case as a reviewer I would probably accept these if there is no alternative and they are very necessary for the article; but another reviewer might question their reliability (which is reasonable to question in the case of a Wordpress site which for Wikipedia purposes is classified as self-published and hence unreliable) (e) her role in the CND is given very short attention; given she was a founder, a founder of Women CND and in the initial leadership, given the significance of the organisation to British politics during the Cold War there should be some more of her role (f) she was active in campaigning for the decriminalisation of gay sex through the Homosexual Law Reform Society, this should be included. Hope this was helpful, I'll mark the mini review as complete. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Excellent image available on commons to use and the Creative Commons licence is correct. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
This is SUPER HELPFUL. Thank you very much Goldsztajn - I'll address the points you raise over the next week or so, then submit it into the GA Women in Green page. Lajmmoore (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks @Goldsztajn: - I've looked at each point in turn:
a) Lead - removed the list of publications and created a better summary of the article. Leads aren't my strong point, so pointers are very much appreciated.
b) Headings - done as per your suggestion.
c) A Quest for Love - so what I've done here is removed "perhaps the least popular" but added additional positive and negative criticism of the work.
d) In the case of the WordPress blog, I had thought it was borderline since its an official University of Bradford blog? What I've done is removed both links as references, but added them to external links. This included removing the sentence about the progression of her practice you can seen in the archives, but on reflection that's probably obvious anyway.
e) Added more details on CND - there's now a full paragraph.
f) Added more details on HLRS and Hawkes role - its mentioned now! Thank you for the hint. This section does have a wordpress link back to a University of Bradford blog - but the blog refers to specific material in the archive, rather than opinion, and I struggled to find an alternative source for the infomation, so I hope the reviewer can recognise it has some reliability.
Once again, thank you much for the help, I'm going to go over to WIG and submit it shortly. Lajmmoore (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
I will review this article; initial comments shortly. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
First pass through:
Done The article is inconsistent on how to render initials: "J B Priestley" vs. "J. B. Priestley". MOS:INITIAL says that it should be the latter.
Done I noticed a couple of instances where the article deviates from the usual chronological ordering in a way which was jarring to me. In particular:
We hear about her graduation from Cambridge before the Colchester excavations from during her time at university
The mention of the birth of Nicholas in 1937 before jumping back in time to discuss her work from 1934 and 1935
Done "From the Roman section, the visitors met a recreation of the Sutton Hoo ship burial.": I initially read this as saying that the Sutton Hoo recreation was in the Roman section! Perhaps "After the Roman section" would be less ambiguous?
Done "In 1953, after her divorce from Christopher Hawkes": the article hasn't mentioned that she has divorced Hawkes yet! Perhaps something like "Jacquetta and Christopher Hawkes divorced in 1953; she married Priestley the same year"?
Done "moving to Alveston": I'm British and hadn't the foggiest idea where Alveston is; perhaps specify "Alveston, Gloucestershire" in text?
Done "Priestley's letters in the work were set in a brash new America in Texas": "brash new America in Texas" comes directly from the source, and needs to be in quotes to comply with WP:PLAGIARISM.
Done A bunch of the sections don't know whether they want to be chronological or thematic, and it's confusing me. What has the paragraph beginning "After the couple's move to Alveston in the early 1960s" to do with Hawkes' involvement with the HLRS, for instance? I've added an extra heading to separate the activities in this instance.
Regarding the main GA criteria, I don't have any major concerns. Looking at the sources, I'm not seeing anything worrying. Plenty of inline citations. Spotchecks don't turn up any concerns re. verifiability or copyvio. Images are all fine – I was worried about the Festival of Britain poster, but it's conveniently ex-Crown Copyright. Aside from my previous comments (which, I think, shouldn't take major work to fix) this article looks good. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hello from another participant in the WiG editathon! I was interested to read this entry (fascinating!) and went ahead and made a couple small punctuation edits per the above while I did. Will tick them so it’s clear which but @Lajmmoore of course if you disagree please change accordingly! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hello both - thanks so much for the review Caeciliusinhorto - very much appreciated and I'll work on the changes this week, do I just ping you when they are done? Thanks too to Innisfree987 really kind of you to help out. Lajmmoore (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hello Caeciliusinhorto I've made the changes you suggested, and added an additional heading "Research in the 1950s". Thanks very much for your help and support. Lajmmoore (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Lajmmoore (and Innisfree987): my apologies for the delay in getting back onto this. I've had a little fiddle about with the section layout – consolidating the various sections on activism in the late 50s/early 60s into a single one, and retitling the section "A Land" because it discusses Hawkes' other archaeological work of the period. How does that look to you? Fundamentally I think this is a good article either way, though, so I'm going to go ahead and promote it and you can feel free to revert my changes if you think it was better the way it was before. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Caeciliusinhorto Thanks so much! My first Good article - thanks so much for your support. Lajmmoore (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- Its a GA with lots of good refs. The first hook and second hook are supported by the refs above.is cited. Its neutral. QPQ done. The photo is (IMO) superb at full size and OK at this smaller size and freely licensed. Any of the three hooks are good. I prefer the 2nd and 3rd but let the picker pick. Another fine contribution to Women in Green and what an interesting person. Earwig did notice some "similarity" but this was due to the names of things or quotes. Thanks Lucy. Victuallers (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}
Done The article is inconsistent on how to render initials: "J B Priestley" vs. "J. B. Priestley". MOS:INITIAL says that it should be the latter.
- Its a GA with lots of good refs. The first hook and second hook are supported by the refs above.is cited. Its neutral. QPQ done. The photo is (IMO) superb at full size and OK at this smaller size and freely licensed. Any of the three hooks are good. I prefer the 2nd and 3rd but let the picker pick. Another fine contribution to Women in Green and what an interesting person. Earwig did notice some "similarity" but this was due to the names of things or quotes. Thanks Lucy. Victuallers (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)