Talk:Kathleen Freeman (classicist)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 16:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Initial comments
After a first read-through I think this is approaching GA standard. It is short – 857 words – but we don't judge GAs by volume, and if, as it appears, this is all there is to say about Freeman then so be it. In any case, comprehensiveness is required at FAC but is not obligatory at GAN.

Most of the comments below are merely suggestions: they don't affect the promotability of the article, but I hope you will find some or all useful:
 * Lead
 * "was a gay British classical scholar" – unless someone's sexuality is relevant to his or her notability (e.g. a gay activist) there is no reason to mention it in the lead. See MOS:CONTEXTBIO.


 * Early life and education
 * "Charles H Freeman" – I see from Ancestry.co.uk that he was Charles Henry Freeman, but if you prefer to give just his middle initial it needs a full stop (Wikipedia having yet to make it into the late 20th century so far as punctuation is concerned).
 * "and Catherine Mawdesley" – this reads as though the parents were not married, but Catherine Freeman is recorded in the 1911 census as being married to Charles Freeman for 14 years, and if my arithmetic is correct (not a foregone conclusion) that means they were married at the time of their daughter's birth.
 * [Afterthought: I think Freeman's mother may have been Catharine, rather than Catherine. She is the former in the 1911 census return, in her husband's writing, and one assumes he knew. Their marriage certificate has the vowel overwritten, presumably as a correction, but whether to alter an "a" to an "e" or vice versa I can't make out. Can you check your sources?]
 * "become a Classicist of note" – no reason, surely, to capitalise classicist? You don't in the title of the article.


 * Academic Career
 * Lower-case "career" in header, please (MoS)
 * "delivered lectures on Greece to the Ministry of Information" – the preposition seems strange: one might expect "at" or "for", but I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
 * "The Western Mail" – should be italicised.
 * "acted as Supervisor of Studies … becoming the chairman in 1952" – unclear why one post is capitalised and the other isn't.
 * Picture caption – missing possessive apostrophe. (And one picture says "Market Road" and the other "Market Street".)


 * Personal life
 * "lived with her lifelong partner" – "lifelong" seems odd here if they weren't partners until Freeman was in her late twenties.


 * Bibliography
 * It looks strange to give oclc numbers for most of Freeman's books but omit them from five of them.
 * Authors' and publishers' initials: best to be consistent about spacing. We have W.W. Norton but C. H. Quennell
 * It looks as though a line-break and bullet are missing before 1952 Clues to Christabel


 * References
 * Page numbers: best to be consistent: the usual form is p. 531 as in ref 11, but there are several spaceless and dotless p344s and p343s. Citations to multiple pages should be, e.g. pp. 343–344
 * Carty's 2014 book is not as startlingly devoid of capital letters in its title as you represent: see here.

Over to you. Happy to discuss any point if you wish.  Tim riley  talk   16:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tim riley, this is very useful! Srsval (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I've addressed all of your points Tim riley and the article is much tidier as a result Srsval (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you have, too, so:

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria I enjoyed this article, which was a pleasure to review. I hadn't heard of Freeman or − more to the point for a devotee of old-school detective fiction − Mary Fitt, and will seek out her work. Moreover, I enjoyed reading the wonderful Edith Hall's "Invisible Classicist" broadside, so thank you!  Tim riley  talk   12:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

That's great news Tim riley! Thanks so much for your work reviewing this article. Srsval (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)