From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleO. G. S. Crawford is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 28, 2017.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 20, 2016 Good article nomineeListed
October 31, 2016 Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Citation errors

Just a quick drive-by comment: some of the links in your footnotes numbered 84 and 144 aren't going anywhere. Josh Milburn ( talk) 18:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC}

Noted but not checked for GAN review. Midnightblueowl to follow up if still necessary. Tim riley talk 20:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply


GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:O. G. S. Crawford/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley ( talk · contribs) 08:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply


Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 08:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Initial comments

  • Overlinks: linking Britain, London, Vienna or Christian is a no-no: see WP:OVERLINK. Personally I think it's silly to link such familiar or self-explanatory terms as geography, bullying, science, civil service, fan letter and edited volume, which nobody will ever need to click on. Duplicate links to Ordnance Survey, Graham Clark, Avebury, progress and astronomy should be removed; in my view the last two don't need linking once, let alone twice.
  • Lead
    • "authored" – is in the OED, but is a much inferior word to the plain English "wrote". There is another outbreak in the third para of the lead.
    • "First World War" "Second World War" – but later you write "World War I" and "World War II" (and even III). I much prefer the form you have used in the lead, which is the normal BrE (WWI etc being more usual in AmE) but I think you should be consistent one way or the other.
    • "the Stonehenge Avenue" – you capitalise the definite article in the main text, but not here. Lower case looks more natural to my eye, but either way you should be consistent.
    • "…remained of use to archaeologists into the 21st century, when he was made the subject of a biography by Kitty Hauser" – I think you're trying to pack too much into the one sentence. It would read more cogently, I’d say, if you recast on the lines of "… into the 21st century. A biography of Crawford by Kitty Hauser was published in XXXX".
  • Childhood: 1886–1904
    • "Mackenzie died a few days after her son's birth" – I don't think you can call her Mackenzie at this point, because she was Crawford by then. In family paragraphs like this forenames are permitted, and are often easier for the reader to follow.
    • "when he was aged three months old" – one word too many: either when he was three months old or when he was aged three months.
    • "Like his father, they were devout Christians … and under their guardianship Crawford had little contact with other children" – the two parts of this sentence don't seem to go together. It doesn't follow that having devout aunts necessarily causes a child to be isolated, surely?
  • University and early career
    • "Fellow archaeologist Mark Bowden" – you have so far nobly refrained from false titles, and it would be nice to refrain here, too.
      • I've gone with "Crawford's fellow archaeologist", however does this still constitute a false title? This is an area that I'm not too clear on. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 12:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
        • No, that's fine. It's fine to call him C's fellow archaeologist, which he was, but just "Fellow archaeologist" on its own is tabloidese nonsense. It's the difference between my calling you "My colleague Midnightblueowl" which makes sense and "Colleague Midnightblueowl", which doesn't, unless "Colleague" ever becomes a genuine title like the Communist "Comrade". I could be "Comrade Riley" but not "Colleague Riley". Tim riley talk 18:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • "in order to return to Britain" – and did he? If so, I'd make this "and returned to Britain".
  • First World War
    • "at Wells' home in Dunmow" – as we're in BrE, the normal BrE form of possessive would be preferable here: Wells's rather than Wells'. Likewise for Watkins', later.
  • Ordnance Survey and Antiquity
    • "discussing geographical methods for delineating cultures, however it did not attempt" – comma splice; and if you must have a "however" here you need a comma after it. Perhaps "although" would be better here.
    • "His expertise resulted in him being invited" – if I'm being pedantic this construction requires "his" rather than "him" – as "being" is a gerund here.
    • "involved him undertaking much fieldwork by travelling…" – this gets a bit tangled: it could be simplified as "involved him in much fieldwork, travelling…"
    • "previously-recorded sites … previously unknown barrows" – I am never altogether confident about hyphens in such phrases. I don't think you want one here, and you certainly don't want a hyphen in one but not in the other.
    • "producing 'period maps' in which" – double, not single, quotes wanted here and later in the para. (MoS)
    • "resulting in Crawford being contacted" – another gerund: it strictly needs "Crawford's" rather than "Crawford", but that makes the prose flow like glue, and it may be best to leave it as it is and to Hell with grammar.
    • "among them Stuart Piggott … Grahame Clark" – is there any particular reason for the order in which the seven names are given? If not, I'd be inclined to go for alphabetical order, which has a nicely neutral appearance.
  • Foreign visits and Marxism
    • "with the prominent Marxists Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin" – didn't Marx specifically deny being a Marxist?
      • If I can recall correctly, Marx was in disagreement with what some self-proclaimed "Marxists" were doing, and said "If that's what Marxism is, then I am not a Marxist". However, he is still regularly cited as the founder or co-founder of Marxism and I think it legitimate to describe him thusly here. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 12:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • "Un-patriotic" – not usually hyphenated, but perhaps you are using the hyphen for extra emphasis. I just mention it.
  • World War II
  • Later life
  • Reception and legacy
    • The MoS bids us discreetly edit the punctuation within quotations to make it consistent with the rest of the article and with the MoS: so the spaced em-dashes in "1918 and — say — 1955" should be changed to spaced en-dashes.
  • Bibliography
    • Somewhere in the MoS I recall reading the suggestion that "Bibliography" is best avoided as a heading, because it can confuse the reader about whether the list is of books by or about the subject of the biography. For such lists my own practice is to head them "Books by XXXX" or "Publications by XXXX"
    • Having incurred my mild expostulation for linking everyday words, bless me if you don't hit us with "festschrift", which is not an everyday or even an everydecade word. A link would be a kindness. I see, by the bye, that our WP article says the word is Anglicised enough not to need italicising but not enough to start with a lower-case f. I rather concur, though the OED admits both Festschrift and festschrift.

Nothing of any great moment in that little list, but please consider the points made and then we can get on to the ribbon-cutting.

Thank you very much Tim! If there is anything else, then please do let me know. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC
All now excellent. On to the formalities:

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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

Another fine article in this series, and I hope we shall see more in due course. Informative, readable and well sourced. Tim riley talk 19:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Citation errors

@ Midnightblueowl: Just to let you know that references in footnotes (at time of writing) 84 and 144 don't point anywhere. Josh Milburn ( talk) 14:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

@ J Milburn: Many thanks for letting me know! I don't know how I missed this (or your previous comment on the matter). I must be getting unobservant in my old age. Will fix these issues right away. Best, Midnightblueowl ( talk) 14:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on O. G. S. Crawford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:O._G._S._Crawford&oldid=1212978540"