Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Caroline Brady (philologist)/archive1

Caroline Brady (philologist)

 * Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

By her early teens, Caroline Brady had lived in three countries, traveled across the Pacific aboard a cargo ship, and called the house of a future murderer home. By her twenties and thirties, she was a philologist at Berkeley. And after seemingly vanishing in her forties, Brady returned after a quarter century to publish two of her most important articles, one right before, and one right after, her death.

From those missing 25 years, to even her name, much of Brady's life remains unknown; as pointed out, there's likely a story here deserving of original research. In lieu of this, however, what we have is by far the most comprehensive take on the life of a person who was little lauded during her lifetime, and seems to have died without an obituary or other notice. This article has been worked on for nearly two years, including a good article review by in May. At this point I am confident that it is at, or substantially near, the best possible version of itself. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

llywrch comments
I'm limiting myself to three comments, two of which I consider minor:
 * Since her full name appears to be "Caroline Agnes von Egmont Bradey", shouldn't that form appear in the lead? At least mentioned as an alternative form of her name?
 * Done.


 * I'm unclear about the outcome of her fellowship: after being named as the recipient, did she go to those 2 universities? Or was she named, then never attended either? (Or maybe we don't know.)
 * Footnote 3 is as close an answer as I can find on this point, although I've just added the first sentence: Brady was listed with a Cambridge, Massachusetts address in 1953. In his January 1955 review of her work "The Synonyms for 'Sea' in Beowulf", Adrien Bonjour noted that "Miss Brady has now been working for some time at Harvard—let us hope that she will soon publish more about the ways of the word in Beowulf."


 * Her disappearance. This is an important point, but trying to properly explain it runs headlong (& stupidly, IMHO) into some of Wikipedia's rules. Simply put, her promising academic career effectively came to an end at this point, & without engaging in original research (as you quoted me stating above) we don't know what happened next in her life. She could have left academia for any number of reasons, most of which are relatively benign -- marriage, boredom -- & some which are not, namely discrimination against women. FWIW, that her sister's obituary fails to mention any children Bradey had doesn't necessarily mean they didn't exist: newspaper obituaries are based on the information that the family provides, & Frances' next-of-kin may have omitted mention of Caroline's children for any plausible reason.Going off on a tangent here, the ancillary information on her last articles provide some material for thought about her final years. It is surprising she was published in Anglo-Saxon England -- this periodical didn't exist in the early 1950s when she was last active in academia, indicating she kept up with the secondary literature in the field. This surmise is supported by the citations in her 1979 paper: while she draws predominately from pre-1952 publications, there are a fair number of more recent publications cited. And she thanks a number of people at the end of the 1979 paper, indicating she kept in touch with some of her peers over the years. (None are acknowledged in her 1983 paper, which may be due to her death before she completed the final revision.)In short, while it is a mystery why Bradey halted her promising career so early, IMHO it is a minor mystery. Why she left academia can't be answered within the confines of a Wikipedia article, although it would make for a more honest article if we could explain that failing. Since I don't know of a way to effectively invoke WP:IAR here to do so, I wouldn't let this one issue prevent this article from promotion to FA status. -- llywrch (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your comments. I think you're probably right about the relative importance of Brady's disappearance. In the context of Wikipedia, Brady is significant for her contributions to philology. In the context of the 1950s through 1970s, Brady may well be significant for what her experience says about the cultural milieu. Brady is especially intriguing because the former stops right when the latter begins; the way to find out more would likely involve digging into her family tree and looking for living (albeit distant) relatives. I wouldn't rule out doing so at some point—though to be clear, for the purposes of this nomination, I believe the article is complete.
 * As far as tangents go, as you say, it seems pretty clear that she remained connected to academia. Her job in Bronxville is a good indication that she remained interested in the field after leaving university life, and AbeBooks contains a number of her offprints inscribed to Fred C. Robinson. In fact, the signature used in the infobox comes from such a copy of her 1979 article (which may explain the seemingly wobbly hand). Personally, I find the move from a professorship at Penn to a random community college in Oregon, and the "ill health" resignation only months later, to be among the most curious unknowns. They suggest to me that Brady was pushed out of academia more than she left it willingly; as you say, however, this remains one of any number of possibilities. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Continuing this tangent, your mention of Fred Robinson above is interesting in that one of the persons Brady thanks for help with her 1979 article is Dr. Robinson himself. I wonder if he encouraged her to return to publishing her work?As for another person she thanked in that paper, Stanley B. Greenfield, he happens to be a professor of English at University of Oregon, under whom one of my favorite professors studied, Dr. Georgia Crampton. (I own an autographed copy of his translation of Beowulf). I'm surprised to find myself six degrees of separation from the subject of an article. (And I only learned of this connection yesterday.) Does that mean I have a conflict of interest in this article? -- llywrch (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I've reached out to the bookseller to see if he might have Robinson's papers (or knows who does—if not him, presumably the family). It's a stretch, but there's always a possibility that he might have retained his presumed correspondence with Brady. He also long outlived the other people thanked in the 1979 paper. If I'm not mistaken, you're three degrees of separation from Brady? With something that dire, we'll have to add a hatnote to this review. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Bessie_Dollar.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure when (or if) it was first published, although the City of Vancouver would be the copyright holder, and they assert that it is in the public domain. Per the photograph's page, it was taken by Walter E. Frost, and per his page on the website of the city's archives, his photographs were "Donated to the Archives by Walter Frost in 1985", while "Images in this fonds created before 1949 are in public domain. Copyright in the remaining images is owned by the City of Vancouver." --Usernameunique (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * City of Vancouver goes by Canadian copyright expiration rules - unfortunately for our purposes the US status is more important. Is there any known publication other than the archives site and here? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * , I've emailed the archives and will let you know when I receive a response. There are a number of indications (e.g., here and here) that the city intends to make their copyrighted archival holdings freely available, so if there is an official policy saying as much (or we can get OTRS permission), that should also work. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

,, is this resolved now? If we're still waiting on a favourable response from a third party should we remove problematic images for now to let the FAC proceed to what otherwise looks to be a successful conclusion? Or are things adequate as is? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * , I've removed the image. I just got off the phone with the archives, who said that they do hold whatever copyright remains for Frost's works, but their policy is to stay out of matters of use, so they would be unable to license it (if indeed it is still under copyright). It's hardly an instrumental photograph for the article—and from Google, it looks like some pre-1924 postcards may provide suitable alternatives—so I've removed it. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Praemonitus
Support: my concerns were addressed. Thanks.Praemonitus (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I performed a quick read through and a couple of points caught my attention:
 * For me the statement, "her resignation due to "ill health" was announced after a few months", in the lead appeared to be about leaving Pennsylvania. It was only after I read the article body that I found it meant the College in Oregon. I think this impression was created by the use of the word 'yet'. Can this sentence be re-worded so it is clearer?
 * Reworded: The following three years were spent at the University of Pennsylvania, and at the end of 1949, Brady moved to teach at Central Oregon Community College; after only a few months at the college, her resignation due to "ill health" was announced.


 * "...by World War I he was serving overseas, in France and Germany as first a captain and then a major." In which service and for what country? Remember the U.S. didn't enter WW1 until 1917, and the move to B.C. (along with his ancestry) implies (potentially) the Canadian army.
 * Added: by World War I he was serving overseas as part of the Rainbow Division of the United States Army National Guard,

Overall though it looks to be in good condition, albeit missing a big chunk of her life presumably due to lack of available sources. Praemonitus (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, . Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , just wanted to see if you might think about lending your support to this nomination, either based on the review you have already done, or if you think there are further points to note. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Nick-D
I knew exactly nothing about this person before reading the article, and found it to be very interesting and in good shape. It's also great to see a high quality article on a female scholar, especially of this era. I have the following comments:
 * "She next became an English instructor at the College of Agriculture" - which college of agriculture is this?
 * Linked to University of California, Davis.


 * " The ship carried only two families and a woman traveling alone, in addition to a cargo of pig iron, and had what the Los Angeles Herald described as "a rough voyage across the Pacific"; a week before arriving in Los Angeles, she struck a whale" - while it provides some interesting colour, this doesn't seem relevant to the topic of the article and feels a bit like padding
 * It's a little tangential, but I think it's both interesting and adds some color. Crossing the Pacific on a cargo ship in particular sounds like a harsh journey, and perhaps gives an indication of a her upbringing. The whale strike both adds to this, and—considering it was reported on by the Los Angeles Herald''—was probably an rough event that people remembered.
 * Given that the article is pretty short and not much is known about most of Brady's life, this sticks out and there isn't any real substance. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , shortened to had what the Los Angeles Herald described as "a rough voyage across the Pacific", striking a whale. —Usernameunique (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That looks good. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "by World War I he was serving overseas as part of the Rainbow Division of the United States Army National Guard" - this is vague and inaccurate. He wouldn't have been in France with the US Army when World War I broke out in August 1914, as the US didn't enter the war until 1917.
 * "in France and Germany" - he wouldn't have served in Germany until after the end of the war (presumably as part of the US contribution to the occupation of western Germany)
 * Clarified: by the end of World War I he was serving overseas as part of the Rainbow Division of the United States Army National Guard. It's unclear when he enlisted, but newspaper articles make clear that he stayed in the army for decades afterwards.


 * Do we know anything about how Brady developed an interest in languages? Presumably this was from her mother?
 * Nothing at all. It might have had something to do with her being born in China and thus exposed to different languages, but that's just a guess. Why do you say that it was presumably from her mother?
 * It seems relatively unlikely for a soldier Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "The latter penned two separate reviews disparaging her scholarship" - if this person was prominent in the field, surely their assessment of Brady's work should be noted in the body of the article rather than a note?
 * I've kept the footnote but added some to the body, which now reads the latter penned two separate reviews disparaging her scholastic "immaturity" and "judgment", and suggesting "she overestimates the worth of debaters' points". Do you think we need more that's not in the footnote? On the one hand, it's cutting criticism but not terribly substantive; on the other hand, it perhaps sheds some light on Brady's (presumed) inability to settle into the academic world.


 * " including one who wrote that" - who was this?
 * Revised: including the Old English scholar Philip W. Souers, who wrote that: I'll probably create a stub for Souers shortly.


 * "Her approach was considered..." - by whom? Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Revised: Her approach was considered "philological in the traditional sense" by O'Keeffe

Thanks for taking a look and the review,. I believe I've addressed everything above. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the slow reply Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed. Great work with this article - I enjoyed reading it, and it's great to improve our coverage of female scholars, especially pioneering ones. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and support, . --Usernameunique (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

 * No spotchecks carried out
 * All links to sources appear to be working, per the external links checker tool
 * Formats:
 * Note error message, which relates to a source evidently not cited.
 * Fixed.
 * Ref 9: p. range requires ndash, not hyphen
 * The page is 2-II (i.e., page 2 of part II), would this not take a hyphen?
 * Refs 14, 15, 16, 18: Are these different newspapers, or are they variants of the paper's title?
 * They are now known as the Austin American-Statesman, but were separate papers—the Austin Statesman and the Austin American—at the time. I'm not sure why the former has both The Statesman and The Austin Statesman on different copies of its front page, but I relied on this.
 * Ref 61 requires pp. not p.
 * Fixed.
 * Bibliography list: "O'Brien O'Keefe" appears to be out of alphabetical sequence
 * Done.


 * Quality and reliability
 * What makes "Family Search" a high-quality reliable source? If it is justified, add publisher details
 * It's less a source/publisher than a repository of documents.
 * Otherwise, sources appear to meet the required quality/reliability criteria

Brianboulton (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Vanamonde
That's all I have: nice work. Please ping me when you're done, as I'm not watching this. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Does the lead require scare quotes around "ill health"?
 * I think so—it was an abrupt resignation, and "ill health" is a vague and frequently invoked reason for resignations that may have actually been inspired by other causes. "Personal reasons" is another such example.
 * Yes, but there are ways to write it without the quotes, which, thanks to widespread journalese, now almost implies a falsehood. You could say "resignation, citing ill health, was announced", or equivalent; that way we're not taking a position, but it looks a little more elegant. The same applies to the later comment about quotes, too.
 * Reworded it to after only a few months at the college her resignation was announced, citing ill health. As for Malone, it now reads: penned two separate reviews disparaging what he termed her scholastic immaturity.
 * I'd prefer "Col." to be spelled out as "US Army Colonel" in the first body sentence; the setting is China, so it isn't obvious.
 * Done.
 * "from the school's Berkeley campus" This confuses me. I was under the impression that the various UCs were different schools; certainly UCB wasn't a campus of UCLA, as the text seems to imply.
 * Changed to the system's Berkeley campus., but am open to other wordings.
 * Can you link PhD at its first use in the body?
 * Done.
 * Generally, I prefer everything worth linking to be linked at its first use in the body, even if it already is in the lead; the names of universities, for instance.
 * Done.
 * Minor point; the "publications" section makes heavy use of short quotes; I wonder if some of these could be reworked so as to make the reading less choppy? It isn't a serious concern, but it would be nice.
 * Removed quotation marks from one of these ("disregard") as not necessary (it's already quoted in the preceding sentence). The other two short quotations are used in reference to Kemp Malone writing two separate reviews disparaging her scholastic "immaturity" and "judgment"; here I think it makes sense to keep them, making clear that the words are Malone's.
 * It has become somewhat conventional to list published works at the end of an article, to the point where I almost missed the "personal life" section. Would you be willing to break up "Publications" into a prose section (before Personal Life) and a list (after Personal Life)? Also, I wonder if all her journal articles need to be cited? It feels a little excessive to me.
 * I've moved "Personal life" above "Publications." It doesn't feel ideal, but neither was having "Personal life" lost under a list of her works. As for her articles, I generally try to go for a comprehensive list, and listing 12 doesn't feel particularly excessive.
 * Here's the thing; most notable academics will publish many dozens of papers in their career. I happened to be reading the work of a scientist whose article on Wikipedia is still a stub, and who isn't yet at the end of his career; yet, he has upwards of 80 publications. The only reason you're able to list everything is because Brady was not very prolific; you couldn't apply that standard to most notable academics. For the sake of consistency, I think the list should be confined to works that attracted comment from the secondary sources you are using.
 * That's certainly a concern, but I tend to come out on the opposite side. First, for relatively unsung academics like Brady, there is no complete list available to otherwise cite or link to. Some have a festschrift, Academia.edu profile, or other work indexing their output, and there the case could be made that a mere citation is needed. Second, and more uniquely, Brady suffers from name confusion—she is variously referred to as Carolina (Agnes) Brady and Caroline Agnes Von Egmont Brady—and so having a list of exactly what she wrote helps to clarify things. Finally, to combine consistency and personal preference, I attempt to create a complete bibliography for the articles that I work on (usually including tracking down a copy of each publication), and this has not yet been a problem. Other examples are D. H. Turner and Herbert Maryon. There may be a point at which this becomes untenable, as you say, but I don't think we are there yet.
 * Okay. I disagree, but I won't oppose over this.
 * If her final publication was posthumous, then surely she died before it was published? Could you be a little bit more explicit, even if it's only to say how we know that it was a posthumous publication?
 * She is referred to as "the late Caroline Brady" in the table of contents of that journal, but since she died in 1980, a 1983 publication would have to be posthumous. Perhaps this is a bit clearer now that the "Personal life" section (which mentions her death) directly follows "Career"?
 * Thanks for the review, . Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Two replies for you. Incidentally, I'm refactoring indenting for accessibility reasons; asterisk-colon-colon is accessible; colon-colon-asterisk is not, to visually impaired readers; or so I was told quite recently. I used to use the same system you just did. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Responses above. Interesting to hear about the asterisk/colon convention; I'll try to adhere to that going forward. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, concerns adequately addressed. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, . --Usernameunique (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  16:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)