Talk:Roger Gale (antiquary)/GA1

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

Reviewer: hamiltonstone (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The article appears neutral, stable and appropriately referenced. It has no images. It might be appropriate (not in the infobox) to include one of Trinity, as the place where he was educated, though only, I suggest, if the buildings in the photo date to that period. Otherwise, the image is getting too far removed from its subject.

I have done some copyediting for clarity. Please indicate if any of those changes causes concern. In particular, I removed the introductory phrase "As a writer..." from the sentence referring to his translation, partly for stylistic reasons, but partly because that would normally be referred to as the work of a translator, not a writer, i think.

Other points:
 * The article refers to a work "on the itinerary of the Antonine emperors". Is this literally what is meant? A publication about the dates and places to which the emperors travelled??
 * The article currently has this: "...and then finally in three volumes by the Surtees Society...". This phrase lacks some clarity. I think what is meant is something like "and then finally his complete letters were published in three volumes by..." Can this be checked? * There is a major stylistic break at the last two sentences - i think some quote marks may be missing. I am particularly referring to this phrase: "Gale was a member of the new style of antiquary, who instead of working just with manuscripts, turned to the topography and other relics in the countryside"
 * I'm AGF that this is not a quote. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Citation note 4 needs a retrieval date (arguably so do the other ODNB cites). This is particularly useful as i was not able to get the page to load.
 * Can we get a direct secondary source cite for D. C. Douglas's critical evaluation? At the moment the article relies overwhelmingly on tertiary sources, and this is a point where a secondary would be particularly appropriate. It also might allow us to place that criticism in time. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If we can't get it, we can't get it - thanks for the note. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Just about there, though I'm unused to this level of reliance on tertiary sources (i'm referring only to the extent: I use them regularly myself in biographical articles). Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Tertiary? The ODNB would probably be more properly a secondary source, as is the Bodleian Record article. Most ODNB entries go to what primary sources are available as well as the secondary literature when writing their entries. As for Douglas' work, I've been unable to get my hands on it... although I continue working on it. I should be able to attend to most of these in the morning. I generally don't do ODNB retrieval dates, as it's a printed work as well as being available online. Oh, yeah, his father did indeed write a work on the itinerary of the Antonine emperors. Here is one listing for it from World Cat... and this is from Google. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, if the ODNB writers are referring to primary sources, forget my comment re tertiary. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I've addressed the other points - I've added a time frame for Douglas' cite, updated the Trinity College website link (note that it has a retrieval date in the full citation in the references) and hopefully smoothed the prose elsewhere. As I said above, I haven't been able to get my hands on Douglas' work... it seems to be permanently out at the local university library... and I don't have the borrowing privileges that allow me to request return of materials, unfortunately. Luckily, this isn't going to FAC... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, I think we're done here. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)