Talk:Elizabeth Pierce Blegen/GA1

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

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 17:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I will review this article – initial comments shortly. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Initial comments on prose:
 * A single sentence for the lead is *very* short. This isn't a long article, and probably only a single paragraph is needed for a lead, but we can give a bit more information than just a single sentence, surely? -- expanded
 * "consul" or "Consul"? I would suggest that this is a common noun and should not be capitalised, but either way it should be consistent; it may also be worth wikilinking on first mention. -- done
 * "The two women formed an intimate student/mentor relationship that developed into an intimate personal relationship" - the repetition of "intimate relationship" here reads a little clunkily; can this be rephrased? -- done, and also rewritten this whole section after consulting sources again, source 3 not as good as a source as 4 so have prioritised the latter
 * "Davidson house": should this be capitalised as a proper noun? -- done, also corrected spelling
 * "described as a 'Boston marriage'" looks a bit scarequotey to me. -- having checked sources it was a bit scarequotey there so I've removed this

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * thanks ! I will address these along with the full review! Eritha (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, comments on the rest of the GA criteria:

2. Verifiability:
 * Sources are all reliable for the claims they are supporting; spotchecks suggest that sources do properly support those claims.
 * No issues with original research.
 * Can find no issues with copyvio. Earwig flags a few issues, but they turn out to be properly-attributed quotations.
 * It's not strictly required by the GA rules, but there are a few places where it would be helpful to give more precise citations – for instance the title and author for the article in Miscellany News 31 March 2011 is not given, and it would be helpful to give specific pages for Pounder's chapter "The Blegens and the Hills" rather than cite the entire chapter four times. -- added news article details and page numbers
 * Also not strictly required by GA rules, but eight consecutive citations at the end of the second sentence of "Archaeological career and life in Athens" is rather impenetrable – if these all support different parts of that sentence, can they be moved so it is clearer what supports what claim? If they don't all support different things, are eight cites really needed? -- moved to end of appropriate clauses, and deleted some duplicates (online sources cited before I had a chance to consult/cite better offline sources)

3. Broad in its coverage: I have no issues here.

4. Neutral: I can see no issues here. I don't suppose many archaeologists fifty years dead are the subject of serious neutrality issues!

5. Stable: Again, I would expect no issues given the subject, and lo! none are present.

6. Images:
 * The images included are obviously appropriate to the subject.
 * Copyright status of the photo of EP Blegen is unproblematic.
 * I'm concerned about the copyright in the gravestone image. The photo itself is fine, but is the carving on the gravestone copyrighted?  Greece doesn't have COM:Freedom of Panorama
 * Two of the three images are basically the same photo, just cropped differently. Perhaps an image of something EPB excavated would be nice to have instead of one of these?  The obvious thing seems to be Tholos III at Kato Englianos, but I can't find an image on commons.  Alternatively, a photo of Thallon or Carl Blegen?
 * I have replaced the second image of EPB with one of ITH. Eritha (talk) 08:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll put this nomination on hold to give you time to address my comments; do ping me or drop a note on my talkpage if you have any questions. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you, I will tackle these asap! Eritha (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , I've now addressed all your comments (see responses above), with the exception of the gravestone picture - I find it hard to imagine this qualifies as an artwork/monument, but can remove to be on the safe side if you think it best. Images of Greek archaeological sites are certainly subject to strict copyright rules even if one of Tholos III were available. Eritha (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking back over it, I think you at least have a case that the gravestone doesn't meet the threshold of originality. (I'm sure there was a page either on WP or commons which explicitly commented on gravestones and copyright, but I can't find it, so possibly I've hallucinated that!)  At any rate, reading through the article again I don't have any other concerns, so I'm going to promote this now and if Commons decides that the image is unacceptable they can always delete it... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! The only articles I've been able to find are |this and which are both US-specific, but as you say Commons can deal with that if necessary... anyway thanks for your work on the review! Eritha (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)