Talk:Margaret Murray/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 21:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Happy to take on this review- someone I've heard of (and not just through reading your articles on Wikipedia!) but not someone I know much about. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: Early Modern, or early modern? Also, wikilink for Folklore Society?
    • With "Early Modern/early modern", both are technically correct, but the lower-casse tends to be favoured within history, and the upper-case in other disciplines like archaeology - in that case I can easily change it to the lower-case, but ultimately I don't think it matters too much. Regarding the issue of wikilinking "Folklore Society", I've checked and it is already wikilinked on the first time that it appears in the lede; it is on the second use of the term that it carries no link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her Indian childhood left an influence over the rest of her life, as with her continued affection for curry as a cuisine," This doesn't flow so well
    • I've changed this to " The historian Amara Thornton has suggested that Murray's Indian childhood continued to exert an influence over her throughout her life, expressing the view that Murray could be seen as having a "hybrid identity" that was both British and Indian." Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ancient Egyptian and Coptic languages" Links?
  • "Referring to her students as "the Gang", among some of her early individuals were Reginald Engelbach, Georgina Aitken, Guy Brunton, and Myrtle Broome," Could this be rephrased?
    • I've gone with "Referring to her students as "the Gang", a number of them, including Reginald Engelbach, Georgina Aitken, Guy Brunton, and Myrtle Broome, went on to produce noted contributions to Egyptology." Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • This still doesn't quite work; the subject of the opening clause is "her" (IE, Murray), but the subject of the second clause is "them" (IE, the Gang). How about "Among Murray's students—to whom she referred as "the Gang"—were several who went on to produce noted contributions to Egyptology, including..."? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Murray did not have legal permission to excavate the site, instead spending her time transcribing the inscriptions from ten of the tombs that had been excavated during the 1860s by Auguste Mariette." Tense shift- how about "and instead spent"?
  • "in the Folklore journal" How about just "in Folklore", with a Wikilink? Or "in Folklore, the journal of The Folklore Society"?
  • " From this publication, she cut out or toned down what she saw as the more unpleasant aspects of the witch-cult, such as animal and child sacrifice, and began describing the religion in more positive terms as "the Old Religion"." Do you mean "For this book", or perhaps just "In this book"?
  • Who are "Guest and Caton-Thompson"? They're never introduced.
  • "resulting in her publication, Corpus of the Bronze Age Pottery of Malta" This doesn't quite work- you could just remove the comma, or you could change it something like "another publication, Corpus..."
  • "diffusionist perspective" Jargon?
  • "The issue contained contributions from various scholars paying tribute to her, with papers dealing with archaeology, fairies, Near Eastern religious symbols, Greek folksongs, but notably not about witchcraft, potentially because no other folklorists were willing to defend her witch-cult theory." You could perhaps break up this sentence more easily using dashes?
  • "In May 1957, Murray had championed the archaeologist Thomas Charles Lethbridge's controversial claims that he had discovered three pre-Christian chalk hill figures on Wandlebury Hill in the Gog Magog Downs, Cambridgeshire. Privately however she expressed concern about the reality of the figures." I'm not really clear what this has to do with anything
    • It shines a light on Murray's relationship with one of the other noted mavericks of 20th century British archaeology, who was also one of her most public supporters. Given that, I think it relevent to this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm certainly happy to take your word for that, but if you're looking towards FAC, you may want to think on how to include that factoid in a more natural way. Perhaps you could use it make a more general point about her status in academia at the time. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know if it was something in particular which caused her death? I appreciate that, especially at that age, there's not necessarily a particular cause!
    • I'd have thought that something would have been written down as "cause of death" on her death certificate, but if it was then Sheppard's biography doesn't state it so we can't include it in the article at this stage I'm afraid. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a pervasive dying-and-ressurecting god myth" What does this mean?
  • "In her thesis, Murray claimed" I know "thesis" can mean a few things, but this doesn't quite work, for me.
    • I've switched this to "argument", does that work ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • "In the course of her argument" or "Murray further argued that", perhaps? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "neophyte" is unexplained jargon
    • I don't really agree on this one; I'd say it was a fairly widely understood term, but if you think it very important than I could try to find an alternate term. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm happy to defer. It's a term I know, but it's not really one that's part of my vocabulary. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that paganism had" This is your first mention of "paganism" outside of the lead- what does it mean in this context?
    • I've changed this to "a pre-Christian fertility-based religion", which I think is a little clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose in the paragraph starting "Murray followed this book" could probably be tightened a little.
    • I've edited this paragraph quite heavily, and it's now in much better shape. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "albeit none of whom were experts in the witch trials" How about "albeit none who were experts in the witch trials"?
  • "recanted doing so" This reads as if he recanted the claim that he had supported- could it be rephrased?
  • "a reader of Frazer of [Robert] Graves" I don't follow?
  • "review for the Folklore journal" As before- why not just "Folklore"? (There are other examples.)
  • "work as "hopelessly inadequate" and full of "numberless and appalling errors"" In context, "full of" and "numberless" mean the same thing' how about "work as "hopelessly inadequate", containing "numberless and appalling errors""
  • You "introduce" Hutton several times.
  • From the lead: "with the Folklore Society subsequently distancing itself from her." This doesn't really seem to be explicitly stated in the main article.
    • Fair point. I've removed this passage from the lede entirely, although perhaps it could be replaced with something that more accurately reflects the situation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Were there any 'Sunday newspaper' covens before 1921?"[162]" What does this mean?
    • It's a reference to the fact that in the 1950s and 60s, it was fairly common to have "exposes" and the like on Wiccan covens in the tabloid press; in doing so, Merrifield is suggesting that Wicca was developed off the back of Murray's books rather than being a centuries-old religion (and of course he has been shown to be right on that issue). Is there a way of conveying that in the prose or shall I remove this particular passage ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's actually really interesting- I suspect it should be kept in. Perhaps you could indirectly quote, allowing you to expand on what he's saying, or use a footnote to explain what is meant? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2005, Noble suggested that "Murray's name might be all but forgotten today if it were not for Gerald Gardner".[184] Prominent Wiccan Doreen Valiente described Murray as "a remarkable woman".[185]" This feels a little like just a list of quotes.

A really great read- I thoroughly enjoyed it. I'll take a closer look at the images/sources in the next few days. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, Josh! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

  • File:Margaret Murray.jpg: If we are certain that there are no free images of Murray, then a non-free one would be justified. That said, it'd be preferable if it was one with slightly clearer provenance. I'm not going to pick on this for GAC, but, and especially looking towards FAC, you may want to have another bash at finding a free one. There's at least one photograph of her at the mummy unwrapping- anything published prior to 1923 can be uploaded on enwp as per {{PD-US}} (anything uploaded on Commons would have to be PD in both the US and the "source country").
  • File:Osireion.jpg: More details, and especially in English, would be good. Not an issue for GAC, though.
  • File:Nuremberg chronicles - Devil and Woman on Horseback (CLXXXIXv).jpg: Could you provide some context in the image caption explaining the significance of this?
  • File:Bust of Margaret Murray, UCL.jpg: Per FOP, this should be fine (I'm assuming that this is "permanently situated in ... premises open to the public") but you should add a FOP tag and details about the sculptor and date of the work, if known.

The other images look fine. To be honest, I'd be happy promoting without any work being done on the images, but if you clarify this stuff now, it may save you a headache at FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • You provide the publishers (and even location) for some journals, but not others- consistency would be good. I'd personally lean towards not including.
  • Page numbers for the Merrifield source? And is that an academic journal? I can't find much mention of it on a very cursory Google search.
    • Folklore Society News is the newsletter of the Folklore Society, so it is not a journal itself, and is separate from the society's peer-reviewed journal, Folklore. Unfortunately, I added this Merrifield quote all the way back in July 2012, so I don't have the page numbers to hand. I shall try and hunt this down, and if I fail then I might have to remove this quote. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've checked - the Merrifield note is found purely on page 10. I've added this to the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you need to include journal subtitles? I'd personally not bother, unless there are multiple journals by that name.
    • I'm personally favourable to the inclusion of the sub-titles as they provide some extra context on what the journal in question offers; who would for instance know what The Pomegranate or Man were devoted to without those sub-titles ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that- impeccably sourced to up-to-date research. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting[edit]

OK, I'm going to go ahead and promote. This has been one of my favourite reads at GAC for a while; only a very small amount of tweaking (some attention to the images, as I mentioned above, would be good), and I suspect that this will be FAC-ready. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed the article in Wikipedia:Good articles/History#Archaeology and archaeologists, but have no objection to you moving it if you'd prefer it elsewhere. Great work! Josh Milburn (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Josh - I'll have a look at making some alterations to the images, as you suggested. I'm glad that you found the article to be of interest! All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Margaret_Murray/GA1&oldid=665751530"