Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/V. Gordon Childe/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2018.

V. Gordon Childe

 * Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most prominent and important archaeologists of the 20th century. Childe oversaw a number of important excavations, created important interpretative frameworks, and was a pioneer in using Marxist ideas to understand the archaeological record. It has been a GA for a number of years and underwent an FAC earlier this year, but fell by the wayside due to lack of contributors. Second time lucky? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JM
Sorry I missed the first FAC. I recommend letting previous reviewers know about the renomination, if you haven't already.
 * Worth a category for being an academic in Sydney, given that he taught there? (Probably not...) London School of Economics?
 * I've added Childe to the "Academics of the London School of Economics" category, although his associations with that institution were not longstanding. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Are there categories for translators? Political assistants/secretaries? Librarians?
 * Oh I have no idea, to be honest. I've found "Category:Australian librarians" so I'll stick that one in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Could you provide a link for T.J. Smith? I think we're OK with redlinks on people's names now if we don't have an article (which we should)
 * I don't mind redlinks although a lot of editors seem to so I nowadays I'm often loath to add them. I've done some Google searching and I cannot actually find any reference to an Australian leftist politician known as T. J. Smith, but I wonder if it actually a reference to Tom Smith (Australian politician), whose initials were T. J. and who seems to have been active in this period? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't want to guess, but presumably it wouldn't be too hard to find comprehensive lists of MPs from the period? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A Google search hasn't helped much with this task, although there is probably a published list somewhere. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Schipenitz is presumably also worth a link
 * Agreed, but someone has beat me to it, putting a link in to Shypyntsi. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You introduce How Labour Governs twice. I also really don't link like the in-line external link!
 * Me neither. I'm not sure how that got in there. Removed the links. I've also removed the first reference to How Labour Governs. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "it reflect Childe's disillusionment" Tense
 * Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "W. Lindsay Scott, Alexander Curle, J.G. Callender, Walter Grant" Any worth linking?
 * I think that Lindsay Scott is probably sufficiently known within certain archaeological circles to warrant a link. Actually, I'm just going to link them all, and people can remove the redlinks if they see fit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "Involving them in experimental archaeology, of which he was an early proponent," Worth mentioning in the lead? (Also, you use that same "opening subordinate clause" sentence structure a few times in quick succession. I think some readers will find that irritating.)
 * I'm loath to lengthen the lede much more, to be honest, and I'm not quite sure that this is 'important enough' given that only one RS seems to mention it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fair enough. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Was Piggott really a "comrade"?
 * I've changed this to "colleague", which is perhaps more accurate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Earn's Hugh, Larriban, Knocksoghey, Wallace Thorneycroft, Finavon, Rahoy, Walter Grant... Worth links?
 * I've linked them all, but all but Finavon are presently redlinks. Hopefully those with an interest in the geography of Britain and Ireland could flesh them out at a later date. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You claim in "London and early books", concerning The Dawn of European Civilisation, that "Its importance was also due to the fact that it introduced the concept of the archaeological culture into Britain from continental scholarship". You later say about The Danube in Prehistory that "The book introduced the concept of an archaeological culture to Britain from Germany, revolutionising the theoretical approach of British archaeology". This doesn't feel consistent!
 * You're right, it isn't, so I've checked the sources and made some changes to the prose. While Childe first used the culture-historical approach in The Dawn of European Civilisation, it was only in The Danube in Prehistory that he actually set forward a definition of "culture", which is what proved so influential. I've amended the prose to reflect this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Stopping there for now. Great read so far. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

A few more comments:
 * Perhaps not the most helpful comment, but I found the paragraph beginning "In 1949 he and O.G.S. Crawford" a little tricky to follow.
 * I've made some alterations to the opening sentence, which now reads "In 1949 he and O.G.S. Crawford resigned as fellows of the Society of Antiquaries. They did so to protest the selection of James Mann—keeper of the Tower of London's armouries—as the society's new president, believing that Wheeler, a professional archaeologist, would have been a better choice". Was this sentence the problem or do you think that I should take the pruning shears to other parts of the paragraph too? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "History (1947) continued his belief that prehistory and literate history" Continued to defend his belief? Or something like that?
 * I've gone with "History (1947) promoted a Marxist view of the past and reaffirmed Childe's belief that prehistory and literate history must be viewed together, " Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Anthropology is mentioned several times before it is first linked.
 * Fixed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The section on Marxist archaeology is a bit quotefarm-y; I think most readers will be more interested in hearing what Marxist archaeology is and what Childe's contribution to it was, rather than what lots of people they may not have heard of said about Childe's relationship to Marxism.
 * I've gone back to this section, overseen a bit of a restructuring, and added in several further sentences about Marxist archaeology. This is an issue that Maunus also picked up on (below), and I hope that my edits have sufficiently improved the section. If it still needs more work, let me know and I'll see what I can do to make it clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I was slightly surprised by how much there was a challenge to the idea that he was a Marxist archaeologist. I wonder if there is a way to get these kinds of debates into the lead?
 * I think that this is a reflection of the sectarianism that seems quite endemic in social groups (like Marxism, but also many religious formations) where people get very invested in being the "true disciple". I'm open to the idea of putting something about this in the lede, although I'm just not quite sure how to go about it. I don't really want to lengthen the lede any more. Perhaps something brief in the fourth paragraph? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "Childe's concept of "revolutions" were not universally adopted" Do you perhaps mean "Childe's conceptualisations of these "revolutions" were not universally adopted" or "Childe's concept of "revolution" was not universally adopted"? I'm a little puzzled by the current phrasing.
 * I've changed this to "Not all archaeologists adopted Childe's framework of understanding human societal development as a series of transformational "revolutions";" What do you think? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * By "particularist", do you mean "an adherent of historical particularism"? If so, a link would be good. If archaeological particularism is a distinct ideology, a redlink would be good!
 * I've added that link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "probably the best known and most cited archaeologist of the twentieth century" This belongs in the lead (if it isn't already there)!
 * You're right; I've amended the fourth paragraph of the lede to make this claim. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "Many of the conclusions about Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe that Childe produced have since been found to be incorrect" This probably does, too!
 * I've added the following to the fourth paragraph of the lede: "Although many of his interpretations have since been discredited, he remains widely respected among archaeologists." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "Various archaeologists have debated and disagreed over the importance of various different parts of Childe's work." Could I recommend dropping this? I don't think it tells us anything of consequence!
 * Agreed and removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "who did the more to develop Childe's "most innovative ideas" after the latter's death than anyone else" A bit wordy
 * I've gone with "In contrast to this American neglect and misrepresentation, Trigger believed that it was an American archaeologist, Robert McCormick Adams, Jr., who did the more than anyone else to posthumously develop Childe's "most innovative ideas"." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "in which Boasian particularism had been hegemonic within the discipline" Jargony
 * I've replaced "hegemonic" with "dominant" and linked Boasian to Franz Boas. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "Following his death, various articles were published that examined Childe's work from a historical perspective." Again, this is super vague.
 * I've replaced this with "Following his death, various articles examining Childe's impact on archaeology were published." Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "Childe is referenced in the American blockbuster film Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008). Directed by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, the motion picture was the fourth film in the Indiana Jones series that dealt with the eponymous fictional archaeologist and university professor. In the film, Jones is heard advising one of his students that to understand the concept of diffusion he must read the works of Childe." I'm leaning towards suggesting that this is dropped. I don't think it warrants a whole section!
 * I'm not sure about it either. I don't think that I was the one who originally added it, but I could be wrong. Certainly, I've never been totally comfortable with it. What I'll do is delete the section and move a brief mention of the film to an earlier point in the "Legacy and influence" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Really great read; I learnt a lot. That said, when reading the section on his theoretical contributions, I realised I'd come across this kind of thing before; presumably I was seeing Childe's influence without realising it. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Josh, I really appreciate you taking the time with this one. Sorry it took a while to get through all of your comments; as always, I've been distracted with other articles. Let me know if there is anything else that you'd like me to work on. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Support. This is a very well put-together article on an important figure. To my (admittedly amateur) eyes, this looks very much worthy of support. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Carabinieri
Hi, very interesting article. I've changed a few things. Here are my first comments, but will probably be adding more:
 * Was Childe's father originally from Australia? Or did he first move there in 1878? In the former case, I'd suggest "They moved back to Australia in 1878". In the latter case "a middle-class couple of English descent" seems a little misleading.
 * Childe's father was born in London and he only moved to Australia in adulthood; Childe's mother also appears to have been born in London, but she emigrated to Australia as a baby and grew up there. This being the case, I'll change "middle-class couple of English descent" to "middle-class English couple". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The Schipenitz referred to in the article is today's Shypyntsi, now Ukraine (Schipenitz was its German name). I've added a link. However, in 1922 it was part of Romania and named Şipeniţi. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to change it in the article.
 * Childe referred to the settlement as "Schipenitz" in his publication, so I was following his lead here. I don't think it matters a great deal which term is used, although given Childe's example "Schipenitz" perhaps has the strongest case. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm generally not a big fan of inline external links, but won't insist on anything.
 * Me neither. I'm not sure when the link to How Labour Governs got added, but it wasn't by me. I'll remove it (with apologies to whoever it was that did add it). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "This job meant that he came into contact with many of Britain's archaeologists, of whom there were relatively few during the 1920s" This is a little awkward (many vs few), maybe "most of Britain's archaeologists"?--Carabinieri (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Difficult. "many" and "most" are not quite the same thing and I am unsure if he actually did meet "most" of them. I'll try and take a look at the original RS. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've checked the original sources and amended the article as follows: "This job meant that he became well known in Britain's then-small community of archaeologists;" Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Some more comments:
 * "He nevertheless made friends in Edinburgh, including W. Lindsay Scott, Alexander Curle, J. G. Callender, Walter Grant, and Charles Galton Darwin, becoming godfather to the latter's youngest son" That long list seemed a little excessive to me, since most people won't know who those people are. Maybe it would make sense to shorten the list a little and explain who the remaining people are?
 * I've made some changes to the section although haven't removed any names: "He nevertheless made friends in Edinburgh, including archaeologists like W. Lindsay Scott, Alexander Curle, J. G. Callender, and Walter Grant (archaeologist), as well as non-archaeologists like the physicist Charles Galton Darwin, becoming godfather to Darwin's youngest son." Hopefully those red links will result in articles in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "he organised the BSc degree course so that it began studying..." would that be the degree in archaeology or prehistory?
 * I've checked the source and it seems to suggest that it was archaeology (I'm not aware of any courses on prehistory per se being taught in the UK, at least in recent decades, but I could be wrong about that). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * " he was particularly interested in the role of Soviet archaeology" Archaeology's role in what? In society?
 * Yes. I've gone with "he was particularly interested in the social role of Soviet archaeology". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I've never seen Harvard University referred to as the "University of Harvard"
 * Changed to "Harvard University". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "something he believed pivotal in providing knowledge for "the masses"" the quotation marks feel a bit like editorializing, as if you're using the left-wing terminology mockingly. I would suggest omitting the quotation marks and maybe changing it to "for a mass audience". Or was this the way Childe phrased it himself? In that case, I would say so explicitly.
 * The latter. I've gone with "for those he called "the masses"." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "he had kept silent over his disapproval of government policies" This left me wondering what policies, especially since Childe's political views feature fairly prominently in the article. Are the sources any more explicit about this?
 * Unfortunately, they're not. I've looked at Green's biography of Childe, and it simple says "he felt obliged to keep silent over his disapproval of Government policies in case he prejudiced his chances of the job." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "called towns by their Slavonic rather than Germanic names" this confused me a little. Would this be something like saying Praha instead of Prague or Gdansk instead of Danzig? Saying that Prague is a Germanic name doesn't seem quite right, since Prague and Praha clearly have the same origin (a Slavic origin according to our article). They're just slightly different ways of spelling and pronouncing the same name. Also the name is different in other Germanic languages: Prag in German, Praag in Dutch, etc.
 * Yes, the source gives the examples of "Praha" for Prague, "Plzni" for Pilsa, and "Wroclaw" for Breslau. I've changed the prose to the following: "He further confused his students by consistently referring to the socialist states of eastern Europe by their full official titles, and by referring to towns by their Slavonic names rather than the names with which they were better known in English." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Might it be worth mentioning that Lewis H. Morgan heavily influenced Marx?
 * Hmm. I certainly have no great opposition to the idea, but I'm not sure how much this fact would really contribute to the article at this juncture, nor how it could be added to the pre-existing sentence without looking quite clunky. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Feel free to revert any of my copyediting you disagree with. There's one thing I was curious about: I added an "it" to "Childe's theoretical work had been largely ignored in his lifetime,[206] and remained forgotten in the decades after his death, although would see..." because it sounded wrong to me. But I think there were several instances where the pronoun was omitted after an "although", so I was wondering if this is a normal expression in British English.
 * I'm no expert on grammar and punctuation and that sort of thing, but I think having no "it" after "although" is fairly standard, at least in British English. Then again, there's nothing at all wrong with having the "it" there either, so I'm more than happy with that addition of yours. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I have two more issues, which I guess are more about personal taste. First, I feel like there are a lot of excessive footnotes in the article. I understand that there's a trend towards using an increasing number of footnotes, particularly in FAs. I think this is starting to get a little out of hand and I've never seen this kind of density of footnotes with nothing but source references outside of Wikipedia. I do think that every claim in an article needs a source, but references can be combined and they certainly don't need to be repeated. Since this is in keeping with what is becoming established use on Wikipedia, I'm certainly not going to insist on this, but I'll edit one or two paragraphs to condense the references and you can decide whether to revert my changes or not.

The second issue concerns the weight given to various aspects in the article. I felt like the "Archaeological theory" section could do with a little more context. It starts by mentioning diffusionism, functionalism, and evolutionary archaeology without explaining those terms and, as someone who knows nothing about archaeology, I immediately felt a little lost. The same thing goes for processualism and post-processualism. Maybe those things are too complicated to briefly explain to a lay reader, but if not I think a little more explanation might be useful. I also felt like some of the biographical details were excessive (including those on Childe's personal life), while I would have been much more interested to learn more about his views on archaeology and the results of his research (and maybe a little more about his politics). But, this is probably just a question of personal taste. In any case, despite not knowing anything about archaeology I thought it was an interesting article.--Carabinieri (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Carabinieri, your comments and time are appreciated. I disagree about the footnotes issue; I'm a heavy footnoter, that is certainly true, but I find that putting in a citation after virtually every statement and sentence saves time later when other editors come in and slap "citation needed" tags onto any sentences lacking them. Better to put the citations in now then have to rummage around for the original sources later. As for the issue of respective weight, I agree that it would be nice to have more about Childe's politics, but to be honest I've been constrained by what the Reliable Sources actually discuss, and none have really gone into great detail on this issue (bear in mind that he didn't actually write and publish on political issues much). Perhaps future publications on the subject will allow the article to be fleshed out more in these directions. As for a greater discussion of diffusionism, functionalism, processualism etc I again think your point is valid. I'm going to have a go at adding a brief explanation of processualism and post-processualism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review


 * File:Gordon_Childe.jpg: when/where was this first published?
 * I can't find any evidence that it has been published (at least in print). From what I can gather at the National Library of Australia website, it was taken in the 1930s and no specific first publication is provided. It may well be that the photograph was taken, never published, and placed in the National Library archive until being featured in their online archive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * File:Orkney_Skara_Brae.jpg: what was the question asked of the author to get that response?
 * I don't know how to sort this issue, so I've replaced this image with another: File:Skara Brae - geograph.org.uk - 582968.jpg. This shouldn't pose any problems. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * File:Bust_of_V._Gordon_Childe.jpg should include a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I cannot locate an appropriate tag, but have added additional information on the original work to the image and an additional tag making clear why the sculpture is covered by freedom of panorama laws in the UK. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Maunus
I am copypasting my comments from the previous FA which were never responded to before the review was closed. Please let me know if you have already addressed any of my suggestions: A very pleasant and interesting read. The article is clearly well-researched and thorough - I see no POV problems or major omissions. I tweaked some wordings that I found a little too quaint, and made other minor copyedits. The only issue sthat I thought I would want to change is that I think it could be a little clearer in explaining earlier on the difference between culture historical theory (which is diffusionist and particularist in Childe's version) and Marxist theory (which is evolutionist). I think these perspectives ought to be explained in simple language when they are first mentioned. I also think that the article does not allow the reader a clear understanding of how archeology can be Marxist - and what that means. Many might think of Marxism as primarily a political commitment, but Marxism is of course different from most political ideologies in that it also includes scientific theory of history: namely Historical materialism (which probably should be mentioned and linked somewhere in the article). So a descrption of how Marxism and archeology fits together would make the article more helpful for the reader who does not immediately see the connection (namely that Marxism explains historical processes as material and technological evolution that prompts social evolution, and that archeology studies material and technological developments, and therefore can use Marxism to infer social developments from the material developments they observe). This would be my only query: to be more explicit in describing his theoretical views and contributions in plain language.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * User:J Milburn raised similar concerns about the Marxist archaeology section. I'll get onto it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, I've restructured the section on Marxist archaeology and added a few extra sentences about Marxist archaeology to it. Do you think that those changes are sufficient or do you think more needs to be done? Regarding the discussion of Marxist archaeology in the lede, I'm a little more hesitant to make changes. The lede currently states: "Remaining a committed socialist, he embraced Marxism, and—rejecting culture-historical approaches—used Marxist ideas as an interpretative framework for archaeological data." While it might be possible to add a sentence or so on what Marxist archaeologically actually entails, I think that the lede is reasonably at the maximum length as it is (if I added another sentence it would, for instance, become longer than the FA-rated articles on Nelson Mandela and Vladimir Lenin) and so do not think we could really expand it without cutting something else out. As for the issue of Childe's diffusionism and Marxism's evolutionary focus, the issue is (fairly briefly) dealt with in the "Marxist archaeology" section, where we supply a Childe quote presenting his argument that diffusionism should not be seen as contrary to Marxism. I'm not really sure how to expand on this, because I don't recall any reliable sources going into any depth on this particular issue, although if you had any suggestions I'd be happy to look them up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How about either linking "Marxist ideas" to historical materialism or else writing "using the Marxist concept of historical materialism" (or similar). That would help the reader get more out of the lead I think?. I will go on to read your changes to the Marxist archeology section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll add a link to historical materialism, that might help some readers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I really like the changes to the Marxist archeology section, and am happy with the link to Historical materialism in the lead. I am happy to support.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , should we be bolding your "support" immediately above, or changing your "Comments" heading (either is enough to make clear that you're happy to see the article promoted). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Johnbod

 * We have Minyan ware, which is pretty obscure, so I would link it, even in the title of a paper.
 * Added! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oxford University Fabian Society - some sort of branch of the student wing of the main Fabian Society, which should probably be linked. Their history suggests that 1915 was far from "at the height of its power and membership" - they say "the OUFS membership was solid, standing at around one hundred every year throughout the 1900s and early 1910s" but "it’s a terrible shame to see OUFS membership collapse at the outbreak of war in 1914, when clearly its membership were needed for the front. The minutes for 1915 indicate that the OUFS was then merged into the Oxford University Socialist Society."  Hmmm.
 * There is already a link to Fabian Society later in the sentence, so I wouldn't want to duplicate that. However, your concerns about the OUFS being "at the height of its power and membership" are well taken; I'll remove that prose from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks - I literally hadn't read to the end of the sentence!


 * "the government-imposed conscription" - I added the hyphen, but what sort of conscription isn't imposed by the govt?
 * True! Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "served mostly as a centre of radical labourers within existing unions" - isn't "labourers" a bit over-specific? "workers"?
 * I'll change "labourers" to "workers". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "Fuller thought Childe's job unnecessary," maybe, but surely the job was a political appointment one would expect to change when the ruling party does?
 * Perhaps. I'm not sure that such a scenario would conflict with the present wording, though. If there is something here that you think is specifically incorrect then I'm happy to change it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The "Neolithic pottery" was no doubt from what is now called the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture, for which Shypyntsi is a big site.
 * I'll stick in a link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "it was released when the few archaeologists across Europe were amateur and focused purely on studying their locality" - is this really true for 1925? I don't know, but it seems rather sweeping. If no one else, the museums employed professionals, and the big ones no doubt looked beyond their "locality".
 * I've gone back to Green, which states the following: "... it is necessary to realize that in 1925 archaeology was still widely regarded as an amateur pastime. There was only one Chair of Archaeology in Britain, at Cambridge, and correspondingly few people trained in the methods and literature of archaeology. Nor were museums, other than the British Museum in London, concerned with wider themes than their own localities. The only notably attempt to summarize archaeological research in Europe which pre-dates Childe's was Dechelette's Manuel d'Archeologie, the prehistoric part of which was published in 1908." Given this, I'll make some tweaks to the text in the article to more closely mirror Green's wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've gone with "An important work, it was released when there were few professional archaeologists across Europe and most museums focused purely on studying their locality". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "the theory that civilisation diffused northward and westward into Europe from the Near East via an Indo-European linguistic group known as the Aryans" - a plethora of possible links here - Indo-European migrations, Corded Ware culture or Yamna culture. Though WP never uses the "A-word" if it can avoid it, versions of the theory are far from dead.
 * I think that Indo-European migrations is the best choice here. I'll stick that in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "established by deed poll in the bequest of the prehistorian Lord John Abercromby" - no doubt it was, and deed poll explains why this might be so (though one would think a deed poll would need to be done before death) but I'm not sure this rather abstruse point is needed. Strictly he's not "Lord John Abercromby" is he? John, 5th Baron Abercromby maybe, or Lord Abercromby.
 * I've changed this section to read: "established in the bequest of the prehistorian Lord Abercromby." Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "Looking into Australian prehistory, he found it a lucrative field for research" - there was money in it? "Profitable" allows a wider meaning.
 * I'll change "lucrative" to "profitable". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "In the 1950s, Childe was comparing the role culture-historical archaeology among prehistorians to the place of the traditional politico-military approach among historians" - missing word - "had"?
 * Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

More later Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We do use the A-word for the Aryans of ancient India and Iran, who speak Indo-Aryan languages. But yes, we should probably note that the early 20th century use of the word was more similar to Proto-Indo-European than to indo-Aryan.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Resuming - a few links added, ok I hope. No more points, except that ideally it would be good to have more specifics on which of Childe's ideas and interpretations have and have not remained part of current thinking. Tricky, I know, but at present this aspect is nearly all at a high conceptual level. Otherwise, very nice job. All previous points addressed ok. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton
I am reading this with great interest, but without expertise so my comments are likely to be superficial. This rather stark sentence in the lead rather pulled me up: "Upon retirement, he returned to Australia's Blue Mountains, where he committed suicide." The main text gives a fuller explanation, but the lead-reader is left somewhat under-informed. You could add slightly with: "...where, apparently in fear of senilty and increasing physical incapacity, he committed suicide." Just a suggestion – I'll have a few more points which I'll post later. Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * " continued his research into European prehistory " You have only said before that he studied classical archeology.
 * I've replaced "continued" with "pursued". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "through various journeys across the continent" Doing what in these journeys? Also it should be Continent when referring to continental Europe. (You could add as below "in order to study prehistoric artefacts").
 * I'm not sure about switching "the continent" to "the Continent"; I know that the latter is sometimes employed in reference to continental Europe, but Childe also spent time traveling in Britain, which is obviously not part of the continental mainland. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You could say "the Continent (or continental Europe) and Britain". "The continent" could mean any continent. It is like saying the mountain without specifying which one. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that the present wording ("pursued his research into European prehistory through various journeys across the continent,") should suffice because we make clear that we are talking about "European prehistory" only shortly before we mention "the conference". We could add "Europe" in there twice but I think that that would probably look clunky and repetitive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "Reverend Stephen Henry " I think you should give his full name here.
 * I agree. Done. Midnightblueowl (talk)


 * "a second-generation Anglican priest" I assume this means that he was the son of a priest, and I think it would be clearer to say so.
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "strange appearance " What strange appearance?
 * I've changed this to "physical appearance". If you see photographs of Childe, I think it fairly obvious that he doesn't quite fit with conventional beauty standards; indeed, many would probably think him ugly. I'm cautious about actually calling him "ugly" in the main article—beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all—but I think that this point needs to be acknowledged. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "Childe worked as a translator " I think you should have details in his early life about his philological training and what languages he knew.
 * I've looked at Green and it doesn't say which languages he was actually translating for Kegan Paul, although the text notes that he independently translated works from French, Italian, and German. As for his basis in philology, it seems that his university theses used philological data but beyond that he did not have any firm training in philology, as far as I can see. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "he performed experiments to understand the vitrification process that had occurred at several Iron Age forts " You should link to Vitrified fort rather than glass making.
 * Good idea. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "Regularly travelling to London to visit friends, one notable colleague was Stuart Piggott," This is not grammatical.
 * I've changed this to "Childe regularly travelled to London to visit friends, among whom was Stuart Piggott," Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "he made the decision to commit suicide should the Nazis conquer Britain" This is a bit too strong. I would say he said that he would commit suicide as he might have decided to flee Britain instead.
 * I've double-checked Green's biography. It seems that at this juncture Childe considered suicide specifically to avoid being executed by the Nazis. I'll make some tweaks to the article to reflect this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * " titular Bronze Age" Why not just "Bronze Age"?
 * Good idea. Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "Childe's pessimism surrounding the war's outcome led" I would say "about" rather than "surrounding".
 * Agreed, "surrounding" is not the best term, but I've gone with "regarding" rather than "about", which I think works better still. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The Isokon building is famous and architecturally important. It should be called that not Lawn Road Flats.
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "the latter being intolerant of the shortcomings of others, something Childe made an effort never to be." I see what you mean, but it could be more clearly expressed.
 * I've gone back to Green and used it to flesh out this sentence as follows: "Childe's relationship with the conservative Wheeler was strained, for their personalities were very different; Wheeler was an extrovert who pursued the limelight, was an efficient administrator, and was intolerant of others' shortcomings, while Childe lacked administrative skill, and was tolerant of others." Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "In 1952 a group of British Marxist historians began publishing the periodical Past & Present, with Childe joining the editorial board" This is not quite right. It was launched by Marxist historians, but explicitly involved non-Marxists from the start. See 'Past and Present. Origins and Early Years', P&P 1983.
 * I've changed this sentence to "Childe joined the editorial board of the periodical Past & Present, founded by a group of Marxist historians in 1952." Do you think that that does the trick? I think it important to state that it was a Marxist-started publication. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Dudley, will you be returning to this -- sooner the better if so... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry this somehow disappeared off my watch list. I will return to it shortly but a couple of points first. 1. No reply to my reply on capitalisation of continent. 2. I am not clear that it is justified to call him a philologist. The subject is several times mentioned, but not any contribution he made so far as I can see. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Further comments
 * In his DNB article he is described as a "prehistorian and labour theorist". I am not sure about "labour theorist", but "archaeological theorist and prehistorian" seems more accurate than "archaeologist and philologist".
 * I would agree about "labour theorist"; he only wrote one book on the subject and it wasn't a big part of his wider career. However, I think that calling him an "archaeological theorist" undermines the fact that the did a great deal more than just theory, including various excavations. I don't mind removing "philologist" as it seems his philological studies were restricted to his student career. "Prehistorian", I feel, doesn't really add much given that the lede sentence already states "who specialized in the study of European prehistory." Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "was barred from entering the country due to his socialist beliefs" I think "due to his support for the Soviet Union" would be more accurate, though this may not reflect the source.
 * I've checked the source, and they link it specifically with his Marxist beliefs, so I've changed "socialist" to "Marxist" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "A coroner ruled his death as accidental, although in the 1980s the Grimes letter saw publication, allowing for recognition of his suicide." A bit awkward. Maybe "A coroner ruled his death as accidental, but his death was recognsed as suicide when his letter to Grimes was published in the 1960s."
 * Changed to your proposed wording (albeit with "1980s" in place of "1960s".) Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "The prominent processual archaeologist Colin Renfrew described him" I think it should be "described Childe"
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Dudley. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Coord notes
, you planning to respond to Dudley's last comments? Also it looks like you'll need to seek a source review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops, yes I'd missed those. Thanks for the heads up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there anyone out there interested in doing a source review? Unfortunately I cannot recall (nor find) the page where one can put out a request for such reviews. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Tony1
Hi, it's been here for two and half months. Midnightblueowl, any idea why it's taking so long, second time round, too? I think the question should be resolved soon, don't you? The prose is ok in the lead. But spot checks later reveal that improvements could be made in many places. The main thing to focus on in your writing is economy. Simplify the grammar, trim back redundancies. Continually ask yourself: can I get rid of that, of that, of that? Soon it will become automatised. But it will take time. If this had just been nominated, I'd definitely be saying withdraw, rework, resubmit. A good copy-editor might save this; I'm not going to sift through the whole thing. At this late stage, I'm leaning toward opposing, partly out of disbelief that the writing is STILL not sparkling and clear.


 * "Realising he would be barred from an academic career by the right-wing university authorities". It's very marked, to call authorities rightwing, when at that stage, historically, they were ... well ... authorities, and likely to feel nervous about Marxism. Why not just "by the university authorities"? Comma before "then in opposition to".
 * A fair point; I'll remove "right-wing" as part of my copy edit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "Storey became state premier in 1920 when Labor achieved an electoral victory there ".
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "in order to keep the British press updated"—which two words should go? Those urchins appear elsewhere, too.
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "In May 1923 he visited continental Europe, journeying to the museums in Lausanne, Bern, and Zürich to study their prehistoric artefact collections". So we have "visited" and we have "journeying", within two seconds. Really? Not sure we need the Europe bit: ""In May 1923 he visited museums in ...".
 * Agreed and trimmed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * O. G. S. Crawford ... awful spaces. Could you pipe it to O.G.S. Crawford?
 * Including spaces between initials in a person's name is standard practice; even the title of the O. G. S. Crawford article does it. It would be inappropriate to remove them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "and most museums focused purely on studying their locality"—which word could go, without any loss of meaning?
 * I've gone with "An important work, it was released when there were few professional archaeologists across Europe and most museums focused on their locality". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "At Edinburgh University, Childe focused on research, and although reportedly very kind towards his students, had difficulty speaking to large audiences; he organised the BSc degree course in archaeology so that it began studying the Iron Age, progressing chronologically backward to the Palaeolithic, confusing many students." Confused. Needs trimming. "though kin to his students, had difficulty ...". But do these two propositions belong in the same sentence? Rather different, aren't they? Do we need a point or a semicolon? What is "it", this thing that was studying? Why did it confuse? All rather opaque.
 * I've rewritten this section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

But I feel for the work you've done. You will get there ... maybe not yet though. Tony (talk)  11:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, the article has four statements of support; all it's waiting on is a source check and then it should pass without issue. In this situation, it would not be appropriate to terminate the FAC. I think the delay here is that it is a fairly lengthy article on a fairly niche subject matter, and comparatively few editors have the time or inclination to go through it. Perhaps the prose could be trimmed back a little in places, as you suggest, but often meaning and nuance is lost in the process of doing so. In many cases, the use of wording simply appears to be personal taste; some like their text spartan, others favour a little more detail. I'll give the article a read through, however, and act on the specific issues that you raise, where I think that they are appropriate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Very poor response. To start with, please don't play reviewers off against each other: bad form, never works. Second, your statement "Perhaps the prose could be trimmed back a little in places, as you suggest, but often meaning and nuance is lost in the process of doing so." shows how much you have to learn about writing. But the fixes you've made are good (I wonder why, then, it's taken until now to identify the glitches—you show you can do it). "Often attending conferences across Europe, Childe became fluent in several languages ...". – Can you concentrate on identifying illogical wording? Does one gain fluency in a foreign language by attending conferences? That's a weird proposition. And you know he attended (rather than presented papers) from the sources, right? Please avoid bunched links: If you must, link "Vienna", but not "Austria" too. "From 1927 through to 1946 he worked as the Abercromby Professor of Archaeology at the University of Edinburgh, and then from 1947 to 1957 as the director of the Institute of Archaeology, London."—please not "through"; and why do you need a sequence tag ("then")? Again, fluff does your writing no good, and when you're poked, you're good at it. I can assure you no "nuances" are lost by removing words that dilute the reading experience (and deflate the impression of the writing). "Throughout, he published prolifically". Throughout refers to what? You refer to three temporal ranges in the previous sentences. "He also became a noted sympathiser with the Soviet Union"—does "also" add anything here? No. And "prominent" would be better than "noted" (who did the noting?). Now I could continue to go through the long text nit-picking to improve it. WP:FAC expects nominators to do that when given the cue by reviewers (especially when you do so well at the rewording). I won't formally oppose, but I'd like to see evidence of a self-driving keyboard in the coming days. Tony (talk)  14:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Apologies if my reply came across as too blunt; I've had a splitting headache today which has not helped. However, some of your comments ("I think the question should be resolved soon, don't you?", "shows how much you have to learn about writing" etc) are, frankly, more than a little patronising. I'm not claiming to be the world's greatest writer, but with over 25 Features Articles under my belt here at Wikipedia, it is rather insulting to have someone make these sort of claims. I'm not some blundering amateur. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry about the headache, and I hope it recedes. Yes, your reply was blunt. And my comments weren't patronising: they were critical (and contained praise, too). You're taking it personally. "There's no need to get into personal disagreements"—you make it sound as though I am partly to blame. I'm not. Your attitude needs adjustment (other reviewers have supported, I've got a zillion FAs already) ... please drop it. If you put up your work for public comment, you can't complain. Glad you've rethought the kneejerk on "extraneous verbiage". My best. Tony (talk)  11:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyway, let's leave that by the wayside. There's no need to get into personal disagreements; neither of us benefit from them. I've been through every section of the article and given it a good copy-edit; I think that quite a lot of extraneous verbiage has been removed. In a few instances, I disagree with your specific points; as far as I understand it, the standard practice when writing out the initials of an individual's name is to leave spaces between each initial, for example (i.e. "O. G. S. Crawford", not "O.G.S. Crawford"). However, I think that most of your specific points are very valid and have actioned them. Thank you for taking the time to look at the article and offer your thoughts. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Can I get a sense of where we're at now? , do you have more editing to do? , do you want to add further comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I think that I'm all done here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ian and Midnight, I'm ok with the prose. Excellent fixes by the nominator. Sorry to lag in getting back here. Tony (talk)  11:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Source review: As this seems to be holding everything up, I'm recusing as coordinator to do the source review. Just a few nitpicks on formatting. Sarastro (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Reference 12 should be "Trigger 1980, pp. 9, 32" rather than "p. 9, 32"
 * Well spotted. Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * We're missing a publisher for Hobsbawm
 * It's a website but it seems to be published by The Institute of Historical Research in London so I'll put that in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * For consistency, we need a publisher location for Johnson
 * Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Formatting otherwise looks fine. All sources seem reliable, from reputable publishers etc (and seem to be heavily stocked in university libraries, which is always a good sign!) I haven't carried out any spot-checks. Sarastro (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for taking a look at this, Sarastro! Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Coord note: Spotted several duplinks, some of them perhaps justified owing to the length of the article but pls review and rationalise as appropriate; won't hold up promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.