Talk:Mick Aston/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 12:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Happy to take this on. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "and commenced writing regular articles for British Archaeology magazine until his death" When did he start?
 * Ah - 2006! I've added this information to the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "he worked on the sites and monuments record" What does this mean?
 * I've added a link to sites and monuments record at the appropriate juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "he presented a radio series on archaeology" Did the series have a name? Perhaps even worth linking?
 * I'm not sure what the show's name was (although will add this information if I come across it), and given that it was a series on local radio I don't think it will warrant an article of its own. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "a new site record" Jargon?
 * Given the newly added link to the sites and monuments record article then I think that this will be more understandable for the reader but let me know if you disagree. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Is Time Traveller worth (red) linking?
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "The archaeology students of King Alfred's also participated" I don't think that link goes where you want it to- what is that? School? College? University?
 * It was the old name for the University of Winchester; I shall make ammendments in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Publishing the results of the project, he co-wrote The Shapwick Project, Somerset: A Rural Landscape Explored (2007) with Christopher Gerrard, followed by a more popular account of the project in 2013." This sentence isn't quite right- do you mean that The Shapwick Project, Somerset represented the published results? How about "Aston published the results of the project in The Shapwick Project, Somerset: A Rural Landscape Explored (2007), co-written with Christopher Gerrard, and this was followed by a more popular account of the project in 2013."? Also, the name of the more popular account would be good.
 * I've changed the sentence to your proposed alternative, and added the title of the second book. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Is Channel 4 Books worth linking?
 * I think so; I've added a link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "In December Aston publicly signed a petition advocating his support for the revamp of the Somerset Rural Life Museum in Glastonbury, which was then seeking financial backers." I'm not really sure why this is significant- are you meaning to present this as his last public appearance, or does this have some significance that has been lost on me?
 * I added it because we had a reliable source (albeit a regional paper) testifying to it. Admittedly however, it does not seem to be of particular importance and could be removed. Perhaps there are other interested users who had an opinion on this one ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mind either way, but I'd lean towards not including unless we have a reason to think it's particularly significant- it strikes me as recentism. Given his interests and career, I suspect he would have done a lot of stuff like this! Josh Milburn (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You seem to be missing at least one ISBN in the book list.
 * They all have ISBNs at present... ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a big deal, but The Landscape of Towns and Mick's Archaeology both have multiple editions, but only a single ISBN. I know that multiple editions will usually have multiple ISBNs. As I say, this isn't something to worry about. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean. My apologies, I was looking at the "Bibliography" rather than the "Selected works" sections. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should just remove all of the ISBNs from this section ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're necessary, but then I don't think they're damaging. I don't mind either way, and we don't need to hold up the review with it. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "living with aspergillosis since the early 1980s" Seems to be a tense shift, here; how about from the early 1980s or having lived with?
 * I've made alterations to the prose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Do we know what caused his death?
 * I have never seen the cause of death stated publicly in any reliable sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * As a general note, be aware of MOS:LQ. Not something which urgently needs fixing for GAC, but, especially if you're aiming at FAC, something to work on.


 * "British Archaeology magazine described" This strikes me as undesirable personification.
 * I've gone with "In British Archaeology magazine, Aston was described as..." Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The Emma McFarnon quote (if you're even committed to keeping it?) seems a rather weak point to end on.
 * I've moved it to a different part of that section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There are a few source formatting issues (eg, "British Archaeology no. 123 (March/April 2012), p. 12." could be better) but they're not a big deal for GAC. None of the sources are problematic, but some aren't as good as they could be. Again, not something that urgently needs fixing.
 * Agreed; I was initially building up this article using the same style of referencing as I usually use; then several other editors came in and began changing the citation style to something that they preferred. I didn't want to end up in an edit war, so I just let them do it, but it does result in some of the problems that you note. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a complete misrepresentation of the truth, for which you ought to be ashamed. You were working nothing up at all, and hadn't edited the article since February 2014 before you decided to nominate it at GAN. Added to which the citations were a complete and utter mess until they were sorted by out by those "several other editors". Eric   Corbett  21:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I wrote my previous comment in a real rush yesterday, and reading it back now, I find the wording that I used to be tactless and inappropriate. So for that, I completely apologise. However, I do disagree with the statement that it is a "misrepresentation of the truth". As an examination of the page history shows, I had been working on the article and building it up over a long period using a variety of reliable sources; indeed almost everything in this article is a product of my own hard work. I then took a break from actively editing it (although kept my eye on it), and during that time other editors came in to reformat it (and in doing so dealt with some of my citation mistakes, so I thank them for that). I then returned to the article, adding further citations, and sent it to GAN, as had always been my intention. I hope that there are no hard feelings between myself and other editors on this issue although am a little surprised at the strength of Eric's response on this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not the liar, that would be you. Eric   Corbett  21:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I never, ever called you a liar, Eric. I merely expressed disagreement with your assessment of the situation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "tactless and inappropriate" barely scratches the surface and "misrepresentation of the truth" is, in my opinion, indeed an accurate statement. The "building it up" of the article is a rather broad stretch as you had not touched the article for some 16 months. However, I'm sure Eric will agree that the improvement of the article is the important factor and should you be so desperate to rack up little icons without having sufficient grace to acknowledge the work of others, then so be it. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 21:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you both feel that way; I certainly never set out to upset or offend either of you with my actions. All I was trying to do was improve this article and pull it up to a good standard, and I hope that in that I have been successful. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You lied. Nothing more needs to be said here. Eric   Corbett  22:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As I've already stated, sadly it appears the racking up of little stars appears to be the main motivation with this GA nomination. Neither Eric or I have any desire or necessity to accumulate these, so if that is your only objective, go for it ... add another little icon to your list whilst castigating those who have actually brought it up to an acceptable standard. At the end of the day, the important thing is not how many GAs you can inappropriately claim as being "your work" but the improvement of articles overall. You lied and misrepresented the amount of work you did on this article but who cares? Go ahead and add the little icon to your page and move on; the only thing Eric and I are concerned about is article improvement/quality but if silly icons are what rock your boat, then feel free to continue your untruthful interpretation of events. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 23:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears MBO is again seeking to mislead and present inaccurate/untruthful versions of events by her assertion that Eric deleted her comment ... it is very sad she should feel the need to perpetuate her obvious animosity in her desperation to add a GA star to her collection but as already stated, if you are that desperate ... just carry on ... SagaciousPhil  - Chat 00:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If I may, I feel the need to correct the misrepresentation of my actions that I feel is being articulated here. A quick look at the revision history statistics will show that I am the single most active contributor to this article, both in terms of the number of edits and the volume of text added. A look through [| the past 500 edits to the article] will show that I greatly expanded this page with citations to reliable sources in several bouts (March 2011, September 2013, January/February 2014), and that as it stands, virtually all of the prose in this article, and virtually all of the citations, were my original contributions. I had taken some time out from actively editing this article (in my mind I did not realize it had been as long as sixteen months) but I had kept my eye on it by visiting every now and again, thus witnessing the change in citation system and general edits conducted in May 2015 by Eric and Sagacious. Having finally gotten around to finishing a read through of Mick's Archaeology, on 12 June I returned, made some further cited additions and removed some un-referenced text, before concluding that this page was probably of sufficient quality to go to GAN; I then submitted it. Let me make it perfectly clear that I am in no way denying that others have added to the page and have improved it in various ways (and most recently, that includes both Eric and Sagacious); they certainly deserve credit for their improvements. I claim merely to be the primary editor, not the sole editor (and certainly not its owner!), yet I do feel that given my longstanding commitment to this article, I do have a fair case for being its GA nominator. (And so what if I get some small satisfaction from pulling an article up to GA standard and getting that little green icon pinned onto it ? Isn't the GAN system a massive part of what Wikipedia is all about ?)
 * Why Eric and Sagacious insist on (erroneously) calling me a liar, attributing to me solely selfish motives for initiating the GAN, [| deleting one of my responses], misrepresenting both my actions and the scale of my contributions, and generally launching (what I feel are pretty nasty) personal attacks I don't know but – simply put – I don't want to play. They are both constructive and well meaning editors and I'm sorry if I have upset them with anything that I have said or done, so I really mean it when I say let's all just put this situation behind us and move on. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You have to live with your conscience. I couldn't have done what you did. Eric   Corbett  01:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Another point for if you're looking FAC-ward: I'd appreciate a little more about what the books contain- just a line or so. There will probably be reviews out there (either in newspapers or journals) which will be accessible, and they might be good to cite in these cases.
 * Good point; I'm a little hesitant to rush this one to FAC too soon - I suspect that someone might produce a biography of Aston in the next few years which would dramatically boost the content of this article. Of course I could be totally wrong about that, but we'll see. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Great article, overall! Definitely nearly ready for promotion. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that I've responded to each of your points, Josh. Do let me know if you want me to focus on any of the points in greater depth, or if you have any other issues regarding the article that you would like to raise. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Another little thing to think about- some people may get a little concerned about the images, given that the uploader (and putative copyright holder) is in one of the photographs. I'm not fussed about this at that stage (though maybe I should be!) but it could be something to follow up on. We may technically need an OTRS release from the photographer (though I have also heard someone say that setting up a photograph but asking someone else to take a picture gives you the copyright- IANAL. Something to look into, anyway.) This is definitely something that would come up at FAC if it doesn't come up before then, so something to think about in the long term. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a very interesting point. Issues surrounding the copyright of photographs are hardly my strong point so I'm not really sure what course of action to take here, but it would be something to bear in mind as this article moves forward past GAN. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Promoting
I'm sorry to see the dispute above, but as this has not affected the article itself and I see no reason to believe that it will, it should not affect the outcome of this review. I am happy that this article meets the good article criteria, and so I am promoting now. Well done to all involved. In terms of looking towards FAC, in addition to waiting to see if a biography is released, you may want to think about: image copyright, reference formatting, greater details about the content of books and perhaps the inclusion of less valuable sources (eg: This Is Somerset, BuildingHistory.org). Josh Milburn (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)