Talk:Brownie (folklore)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 12:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Brilliant topic! Very happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Thank you so much! I put quite a bit of time and effort into it, so I am grateful to you for taking the time to review it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• "the Welsh Bwbach and the Manx Fenodyree" Perhaps links to the articles on the languages, rather than the locations, would be preferable? Or perhaps on the people? Just a thought.

@J Milburn: Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• "domestic tutelary spirits" A little jargon

I have added a link to the article Tutelary deity for the word "tutelary." Hopefully that resolves the issue. The phrase "domestic tutelary spirit" is the appropriate academic classification here and it is used in the sources. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• "The most significant difference between brownies and Lares is that, while Lares were permanently bound to the house in which they lived,[2][5] brownies are seen as more mobile, capable of leaving or moving to another house if they became dissatisfied.[2][5]" Do your sources specifically mention this as a the most significant difference? Sorry to be patronising, but it's setting off my OR alarms!

This is not my own synthesis at all. Both Briggs and Stewart explicitly name this as the most significant difference. I was surprised that they both named it as such. I think it is possible that Stewart may have used Briggs as a source. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Great- no problem at all. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• What's a "tropping fairy"? This sounds like jargon, too!

I believe you mean "trooping fairy"? ("Tropping fairy" does not occur in the copy.) This refers to fairies that travel in troops. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant. I suppose its familiar enough language. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Are you sure you don't mean Overthwaite, rather than Overthwait? And, for that matter, is the Cauld Lad of Hilton or Hylton?

Sorry. "Overthwait" was a typo; the source says "Overthwaite" with an "e." As for the notorious Cauld Lad, all my sources use the spelling Hilton, but the Wikipedia article uses the spelling Hylton. I have used the spelling that is used in the sources for this article. I imagine they are both variant spellings of the same name. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, happy with that. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• We have a very nice article on Witch trials in early modern Scotland that could probably be a useful article to link to.

I have added the link. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• I wonder if the last paragraph of "appearance" more properly belongs in "activities"?

It could perhaps, but my reasoning for putting it under "Appearance" is that being invisible or appearing in the form of an animal is more closely related the a brownie's appearance in my view than the brownie's activities. Really, it could probably go in either section. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's fair. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• "have mown and thrashed to grain for years" Could this perhaps be rephrased? Also, is the semi-colon really appropriate? I'm just struggling a little with this sentence.

  Flagging this one again. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Oh, I am sorry. I missed that one. The "to" was supposed to be a "the." Every time I read it in my head, I read it as "the," the way I intended it. I could not figure out why you were having troubles reading it, because to me it seemed perfectly sensible. Then, after several times rereading it, I finally realized that it actually said "to." I have also removed the semicolon, per your request. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Is a motif merely attested, or is it attested to? ("a motif attested in other folk tales")

Fixed. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• "The brownie of Jedburgh is also said to have desired clothing." A brownie of the whole town? Maybe you could change it to a brownie? You also say the servants... What servants?

This statement is referring to a brownie from Jedburgh. Many of the sources seem to have a habit of referring to specific brownies as "the brownie of (insert whatever town the brownie came from)," which means the brownie came from a specific house in that town, but which confusingly makes it sound like the brownie lived everywhere in the whole town. I have changed this to say "a brownie from Jedburgh." --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• "cream in the church has been dashed" Churn?

Briggs quotes Sikes's description. It is somewhat confusing the way it is worded, but it seems the maid was supposed to put out both a bowl of cream and a churn. The Bwbach would drink the cream in the bowl and churn the cream in the churn. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes; my concern is the word church', which I assume is meant to be churn. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Oh wow. I completely did not notice that said "church." I have no idea what happened there. That must have been autocorrect or something. It is supposed to say "churn." --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• I might like a few more pictures, if possible... Especially of the regional variants! Pictures of notable folklorists is another option.

Unfortunately, there are very few illustrations of brownies in the public domain. I have included pretty much all of the ones I could find in this article. I am, however, reasonably talented at drawing and, since we have such detailed descriptions of what brownie variants are supposed to look like, I have given some thought to trying to draw them based on those descriptions. My main concern is over whether or not producing my own illustrations based on traditional descriptions would qualify as original research. That, combined with the amount of time it takes to create a drawing, are probably the only reasons why I have not done this already. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes; I share your concerns about the drawing. I think we're OK with the Rackam illustration and similar. Pictures of important authors/scholars is a possibility; they won't necessarily add to understanding, but they can add a little visual interest. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Everyone in the locality known about Charlie" had known or knew, perhaps?

That was a mistake. I have now corrected it. Thank you for pointing that out. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Lob-Lie-by-the-Fire is the name of a large brownie who was said to perform farm labor." Where?

The source does not specifically say. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• I wonder if "regional variants" is an appropriate title when Silkies and the Ùruisg seem to be somewhat different. "Regional variants and similar creatures" or something?

This was actually the one issue with this subject that I thought would be the most problematic: What exactly demarcates between a "brownie" and a "creature in folklore that is similar to a brownie". Most of the sources, however, seem to essentially treat Silkies and Ùruisgs as regional variants of brownies, so that is how I have treated them here. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I am certainly a fan of "go with what the sources say", but your discussion of Ùruisgs effectively opens with an explanation of how they're not Brownies! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Denton Hall in Northumberland" Could you check this? There seem to be a few Denton Halls around, but I'm not sure if any are in Northumberland

The sources says "Northumberland". --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Modern scholars, however, categorize brownies as household spirits, which is usually treated as a subcategorization of fairy" Again, I'm just wondering about OR; what does the source say precisely?

This is exactly what the source says. In fact, I actually disagree with the source on this, because I do not think household spirits are a subcategorization of fairy, but that is what the source says they are usually treated as. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the confirmation! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Banshee or banshee?

Different sources use different capitalizations. I have standardized the uses in this article as all lower-cased. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• What does sonsier mean?

It is an obscure dialectal Scottish word that means "thriving" or "fortunate." I initially had no idea what it meant either until I looked it up. I have added a link to the Wiktionary page for it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Great. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• "In the 1890s, so-called "brownie-mania" swept across the United States." This stuff belongs in the lead!

Maybe, but it really applies more to Palmer Cox's brownies than the original brownies in English folklore, who are supposed to be the subject of this article. We have a separate article about Palmer Cox's brownies, so I figured I would try to limit the amount of information I included about them here. There is actually a lot more that I could have written. Apparently Palmer Cox basically invented the concept of brand licensing and his brownie characters were practically the late nineteenth-century equivalent of Mickey Mouse. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand the reference to Mr Dobbs. I have edited that sentence a little, so apologies if I've made a mess of it.

I just removed the sentence because neither of the sources it was cited to were reliable (see below). That sentence was left over from before I came along. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Is there perhaps a little bit too much about the Spiderwick Chronicles?

Sorry. I did not think it was too excessive. If it is excessive, that is probably because The Spiderwick Chronicles was the book series that first introduced me to brownies roughly ten years ago, so my view of its importance may be slightly skewed. I can trim some of the information about it, though, if you think it is too much. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Your call! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I will go ahead and keep what I have written. It is all reliably sourced and certainly one of the most notable pop culture appearances of brownies in the past few decades. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Amy A. Collins. "'Brownies' scouted future for Port Arthur founder, spoke in nighttime visitations". Beaumont Enterprise." I can't access this source; what is it?

It probably is not reliable. I have removed it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• " Chris Roberson. "Arthur Edward Stilwell and the Brownies". The Myriad Worlds of Chris Roberson." Not the best source.

I have removed it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Emick, Jennifer (2010). The Everything Celtic Wisdom Book: Find inspiration through ancient traditions, rituals, and spirituality. Adams Media. p. 143. ISBN 978-1440521706." and "Llewellyn, Chandra Alexandre; Barbara Ardinger; Blake Octavio Blair; Deborah Blake, Boudic (2012). Llewellyn's 2013 Magical Almanac: Practical Magic for Everyday Living. Llewellyn Worldwide. p. 77. ISBN 978-0738715155." These look like those terrible "Mind, body, and spirit" books that are in every Waterstones. I really don't think they're good sources.

Those were left over from before I came along. I must admit that I did not really look closely at them. I have now removed them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Could you tell me a little about this reference: "Monaghan, Patricia (2004), The Encyclopedia of Celtic Mythology and Folklore, Facts On File, New York City, New York: InfoBase Publishing, ISBN 978-0-8160-4524-2"? Again, it doesn't strike me as ideal!

Infobase Publishing is a publisher of specialist reference works for high schools and universities. My high school librarian always preached about their comprehensiveness and accuracy and repeatedly encouraged us to use them, instead of (supposedly) hopelessly unreliable online sources like Wikipedia, which is, of course, the ultimate indefatigable bogeyman of all high school librarians. Ironically, there was one instance a while ago when I had to remove a reference to a book published by them from the article Hypatia because it contained inaccuracies. That book, of course, was by a different author than the one who wrote the book cited here and Hypatia's life is inevitably a subject matter that abounds in misinformation. I tried not to rely too heavily on Monaghan when writing this article, although she is cited quite a few times, mostly as a supporting source for information that is also found in other sources. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, good enough for me. It's something that might get quizzed at FAC if you decide to take this there, but I'm happy with it for GAC purposes. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• File:Palmer Cox-Brownie.jpg is tagged as being PD because the author died over 100 years ago, but he didn't. This needs to be sorted.

The image used here was originally published in Brownies Around the World in 1894, so it would be public domain anyways, since it was published in the United States before 1923, would it not? --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

If the book was first published in the US, then yes, that would be fine. Could you update the image page, if you haven't already? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I have now updated it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• The sourcing on File:19th Century goblin illustration.jpg is very poor.

I had a source that explicitly identified this particular illustration as a brownie and gave information about its origin, but I forget what it was called, so I would have to find it again. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I was meaning the source of the image; as in, information about its provenance. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to flag this one again; I'd appreciate some better sourcing. The source of the image file is provided (though it's a deadlink!) but there's no information about original publication/authorship. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I told you earlier that I had a source on this one, but I cannot find it. I have looked and looked over and over again, but I still cannot find it and I do not remember where the source said it came from. The only thing I can do right now to fix this issue is just remove the image from the article entirely. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• File:Vettii.jpg also has poor sourcing

I have added an English description of the image to the page on the commons. The image was uploaded by its creator in September 2005. I am not completely familiar with what information image pages on Wikimedia Commons need to include. If there are any specific details that need to be mentioned on the page that are not given there already, I would appreciate it if you would tell me what they are. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok; could it be made a little clearer on the image page that the image was uploaded by its creator? Commons:Template:Self could be useful. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I have added the template, exactly as you have requested. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I really enjoyed this article. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I am glad you enjoyed this article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've left a few replies inline, and it looks like there are a few other points you haven't responded to. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Unless I am mistaken, I believe I have responded to and remedied all your complaints except for the one about the provenance for the brownie illustration. I found a source that gave the information about the brownie illustration, but, unfortunately, I did not use it when I had it and now I cannot seem to find it anywhere. I believe I have fixed everything else you have mentioned, though. If there are any problems that I have missed or overlooked, please point them out. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the note. I'll look into this soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I've left some replies in bold on a few outstanding issues. 18:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I have now left replies to all your bolded comments. All the issues except for the lack of sources for the nineteenth-century illustration have been fixed. Regarding the brownie image, I cannot find the source that talked about where it came from, so all I can do to fix this issue right now is remove the image. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Great; I have removed the "goblin" illustration for now, but hopefully once better sourcing is provided it can be reinstated. I'm happy to go ahead and promote now. There are a couple of questions that I would recommend thinking on before pursuing FA status (the reliability of the source I questioned, the "variants" versus "related stories" thing, illustrations) but I have no doubt that this makes a very good GA as it stands. Midnightblueowl has a real interest in British folklore and has taken a good few articles to FA status; she may be an interesting person to talk to if you haven't already. And, again, great work - this is a fantastic topic to have an GA on, and I'm really pleased that you've put the time into it. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

It's quite tricky to work out where this one belongs; I've put it in the "Myths, mythology, and miracles" section of Wikipedia:Good articles/Philosophy and religion, but I've no objection to it being moved elsewhere. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Thank you so much for all the time and effort you have put into this review. I really appreciate it! --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)