Talk:Theresa Goell/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 21:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I have done a little copy editing; revert anything you aren't happy with.

• Link "ancient Commagene" in the lead.
• Could you link "dig" to Excavation (archaeology) at first mention.
• Link Brooklyn.
• Is "Erasmus High School" the same institution as Erasmus Hall High School? If so, could you link it?
• Link "majoring" to Major (academic). (Many non-Americans will not understand what "majoring" means.)
• "Goell met and married her husband, Cyrus Levinthal." Delete "her husband"? I think that can be assumed.
• Link "lip-read" to Lip reading
• Link "Institute of Fine Arts" to New York University Institute of Fine Arts.
• "she also worked to contribute to the American war effort" possibly specify what this was?
• "Goell returned to Nemrud Dagh, and began to arrange for an expedition there" "there" refers to Nemrud Dagh, but a reader could easily assume that it meant Nemrud Dagh. Could you clarify? Please ignore; my misreading. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• "Antiochus I of Commagene" is duplinked.
• Link "Congress for Orientalists" to International Congress of Orientalists.
• Link National Geographic.
• Link University of London.
• Link "geophysical probing " to Geophysical survey (archaeology).
• "At this period" Could the reader be told when this was?
• "Goell turned her attention to the ancient city of Samosata, directing an investigation into the stratigraphy of the mound" Could you give an explanation of what a "mound" is in this context, for the non-expert reader.
• "and to go to Persepolis" Optional: "to to" → 'visit'.
• "In 1973, Goell visited Nemrud Dagh itself for the final time" Delete "itself".
• "and then in her sister's house in Florida" Optional: the first "in" → 'at'? To avoid "in" twice in five words.
• It would be nice if we could be told if the report was ever published, and if so, when; and if the tomb of King Antiochus has yet been found, and if so, something of the circumstances.
• It seems a little odd to me that there is no mention of the documentary about her in the main text. Possibly, with the two suggestions immediately above, there is scope for a short concluding paragraph?
• No images of Goell available? (Eg this from here.)

What a fine little article. I enjoyed that. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - I will try to get back to them properly tomorrow evening. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, first pass through done, and the easy points addressed. A few things will require more thought:

• I will see if I can say something about what Goell did during WWII – I think I have seen a mention of it in one of the sources...

Sanders & Gill, bottom of page 485.

Ta, added. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• l have tried to clarify the point about the mound at Samosata. What think you?

This is GA, so I don't insist, but how would you feel about "directing an investigation into the stratigraphy of the sixty-meter high mound at the site" → 'directing an investigation into the stratigraphy of the sixty-meter high mound which had been created by generations of occupation of the site' or something similar?

Hmm, made a little edit. How does it look? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Spot on. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• To the best of my knowledge, no final report has ever been published, and the tomb of Antiochus has never been found. I can't find a source saying either way, but I assume if the tomb had been found I would be able to find a source saying so. (Our article on Nemrud Dagh says, sans source, that Subsequent excavations have failed to reveal the tomb of Antiochus. This is nevertheless still believed to be the site of his burial.)

Fair enough, re Antiochus. It is difficult to even present this negative information, as there isn't a cite. (A quick search turned up several papers analysing the "massive tomb", but not a mention of a grave.) And I can only find the periodic reports, and no mention of whether or not the final report was published posthumously, so you seem to have nailed "broadness" down pretty solidly.

• I was sure I had written something about the documentary, but clearly it wasn't actually in the article. Let me see if I can dig it up...
  • Can't find it, but I've added a little at the end here... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

OK. That all looks good. I have marked a couple of the points which you have neither actioned nor commented on in green. There are these two, plus three of the four points you have flagged up left. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Somehow managed to miss the two points you flagged up. Added the link to University of London.

Re. the image: I have emailed Jon Goell, TG's nephew who is a professor of photography and photographed her 1970 Samosata expedition, asking if he has a suitable photo which he would license under creative commons; if not we will have to go with fair use and one of the images I can find online... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Reflecting, the article is well illustrated and has a good infobox. There is no GA requirement that you provide an image of the subject of a biography, so I was probably getting a bit pushy there. That said, if you can get one, it would enhance the article and your approach seems a sensible one.

That all looks very good. Well up to GA in all departments and I am happy to promote. Good work there, and a fine article as a result. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed