Talk:Caroline Brady (philologist)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 13:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Great topic - I'm not sure how many GAs we have on philologists, but it surely won't be many! Josh Milburn (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, first thing I want to ask is about the death date - I wonder what steps you've taken to identify a death date? It's not the end of the world for GAC purposes, but I'd be interesting to know!
 * There's a fairly lengthy discussion about the death date—and other unknowns—on the talk page. The end result is that, without much doubt, she died on 5 November 1980 in Bellevue, Washington. We would have to cite this to the Social Security Death Index, which, given that it's a minor point about the article (and generally substantiated by other means), I would be fine doing if you like.
 * Yes, I would add it. Someone with her name and DOB in the right city dying around the time we know she died - basically must be her. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * I'm also a little concerned about the use of a non-free image. There is no previous publication information (or information about the author/copyright holder), and we have two free images further down the article. Both of these are problematic from the perspective of the non-free content criteria.
 * The photograph is from the American Association of University Women, who were happy to have it used here (although they preferred not to release it under a CC license). Incidentally, it is the only item in their file on her. The other photographs are out of copyright, but being as they are from Brady's undergraduate days, they are not representative of her as a scholar.
 * I understand the thought, but I think the argument would carry a little more weight if her appearance was highly significant for some reason, and/or her appearance had significantly changed. We could request a third opinion, if you like? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think her appearance has clearly changed, which is not surprising, considering that in her yearbook she is 22, and in the other photo, she is around 47. This is also the only good photograph of her that I know about (some particularly bad ones, perhaps still under copyright, can be found here and here); it is otherwise unpublished, and would be a shame to be left that way.
 * I'll request a third opinion. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks., considering your many image reviews on featured article candidates, would you be interested in weighing in on this point? --Usernameunique (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The newer image is not known to have been published anywhere? Is it known who the photographer or copyright holder was, or where it is likely to have been taken? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , it is not known to have been published anywhere. It was the only item in the American Association of University Women's file on Brady; the organization named her their 1952–53 Marion Talbot Fellow, which came with a $2,200 grant for her scholarship. My guess would be that Brady had the photo taken herself (in the United States) and sent it to the AAUW along with her application. Brady, meanwhile, has no apparent heirs (when her sister died after her, only cousins were mentioned as survivors). --Usernameunique (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, so likely an orphan work. Unfortunately then I'm going to have to side with Josh on this one: while the later photo is much nicer, the change in appearance isn't significant enough to warrant a fair-use image when a free one exists. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "were termed by A Beowulf Handbook "three fundamental studies" that were "philological in the traditional sense" and shed light on "the shades of meaning of the diction" used in the poem." Why not refer to the particular chapter author(s)? If this handbook is anything like some I've read, the various contributors will disagree with each other!
 * Good point. See what you think now ("termed by Katherine O'Brien O'Keeffe in A Beowulf Handbook"); I could also remove the references to A Beowulf Handbook, although given the scope of the work—it serves primarily to give an overview of scholarship on the poem (see the preface)—there seems to be less danger of giving a disputed idea disproportionate weight.


 * The article is currently under 10k characters, so firmly in the "one or two paragraphs" lead category, per MOS:LEADLENGTH. I think you could realistically lose quite a few words without losing anything too important. I'd be happy to have a go at trimming it down, if you'd prefer?
 * I've taken a stab at it, though—knowing that you and I have different perspectives on appropriate lead lengths—I wouldn't hold you back from removing some more. Certainly a plus if we can keep it long enough to keep the infobox from bumping into "Early life and education", though
 * I've trimmed it a little further; feel free to revert me if you're not happy! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I've added a small portion which I think is interesting and makes it flow better, but have otherwise left it as is.


 * "His two brothers, John W. and Will P. Brady—Caroline Brady's uncles—both become prominent Texas attorneys and jurists." Check tenses?
 * Fixed.


 * "Bessie Dollar" Can I recommend against the link?
 * Changed to a redlink, Bessie Dollar, and may create an article at some point. Seems to have had an interesting history, including involvement in a United States Supreme Court case, Scharrenberg v. Dollar Steamship Co.


 * Do we know who supervised her studies?
 * Arthur Gilchrist Brodeur chaired her dissertation committee and is one of two dedicatees of the book form of her dissertation (and mentioned first in the acknowledgements), but I don't know of anything specifically stating that he supervised her studies.
 * Perhaps worth a mention - it situates her, at least? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * If it's an article, it should surely be "The Synonyms for 'Sea' in Beowulf", rather than The Synonyms for "Sea" in Beowulf. The same with the other articles; MOS:MINORWORK specifies that titles of "Articles, essays, papers, or conference presentation notes (stand-alone or in a collected larger work)" should be placed in double quotes, rather than italics.
 * Done.


 * Could we perhaps have a bit more about what was important about Brady's book? We have lots of quotes saying how original she was without really explaining what was novel about the thesis.
 * See what you think now. It doesn't seem that her thesis has caught on much (even the positive reviews are unconvinced by it); the work has been noted more for its breadth.


 * "are described by A Beowulf Handbook as" As above. Can I also suggest that you cite the chapter, rather than the volume as a whole?
 * Done.


 * Generally, I think I would like to hear a little more about the content of her monograph.

The references look fine for GAC purposes. Interesting read! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, . Responses are above. I hadn't realized how few GAs there are about philologists until you mentioned it (Carl Joachim Hambro (philologist), but hopefully also Stephen J. Herben Jr. in time). This one was particularly interesting to write, especially given the many intriguing parts of Brady's life about which little is known: being born in China and the "von Egmont" in her name, for example. Moreover, other than a few publications, I still have no idea what she did after 1952. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, I'm happy to promote once we've resolved the image issue. We disagree about MOS:LQ (judging from the editing back and forth), but that's not part of the GAC criteria, and while this article is arguably not MOS:LEAD-compliant, the section in question is sketchy, and doesn't seem to be followed in practice at FAC, so being a stickler at GAC seems counter-productive. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments,, and apologies for not responding earlier. As you have seen, I have also asked for another look at the photograph issue before removing it. It would feel a shame to remove it, but of course I will defer to consensus. I'll have to take another look re: logical quotation. I had thought I was following it, but looking again now, it appears I may not have appreciated a difference in guidelines for quoting full sentences versus fragments. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I've taken another look for logical quotation. It seems you've caught all the ending punctuation; I only made one change, to put a period within a quotation when the full sentence was being quoted ("Miss Brady ... in Beowulf."). The photo discussion has certainly ballooned a bit, as you have said. I'm happy wait for its resolution before moving on here, or to move on and just let it play out, whatever you think is best. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no rush from my perspective; let's let it play out. My reading is that the current infobox image is probably going to wind up deleted on sourcing grounds. The question then becomes whether you support uploading a different non-free image in its place (which I would oppose). It's not impossible that the newspaper photographs are actually PD, perhaps based on this or this. That would need looking into, though. If they were PD, I would naturally have no objection to them being included. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, . --Usernameunique (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , seems like the image discussion has been concluded. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have no plans to appeal deletion or upload another image or anything, I'm happy to go ahead and promote. The only thing I'd say is that it may be worth moving one or both of the yearbook images to the infobox. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't thought that far ahead,, but in any event, the only reason that that image would be added again is if there is a consensus to do so; in that case, the non-free concerns would have been adequately met. As to the college photos, I don't think they make much sense as the lead image, so I'll leave them as is for now. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, great, I'm going to go ahead and promote. Good working with you, as ever. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image
Just going to add a link to WP:MCQ for reference since it deals with the infobox image and some opinions on whether it meets WP:NFCC. Since there appears to some difference in opinion, it might be helpful to seek out more feedback by starting a discussion at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)