Talk:Dorset Ooser/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 08:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to take this on. I know I review a lot of your articles, so if you'd rather hear from other voices, do let me know- I'd be happy to step away from this review or stay away from some in the future- and, of course, I wouldn't take offence! Josh Milburn (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing to review this one, Josh - in fact when I first posted it at GAN I had the feeling that it would be something that might take your interest! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LEADLENGTH, the lead looks a little long.
- I certainly see what you mean on this point, but am a little unsure as to what precisely could be removed here, given that I am conscious of ensuring that the lede properly summarises the various sections of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've had a bash at trimming some details, but self-reverted to leave the final decision with you. My version of the lead can be seen here. What do you think? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks Josh; I've gone with a combination of the two versions; it's a little longer than yours, but a little shorter than my original version. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The Ooser was hollow, allowing an individual to place their own head within it, at which it could be carried and worn as a mask" I'm not sure "at which" works, here.
- I've gone with "The Ooser was hollow, allowing an individual to place their own head within it, potentially permitting it to be be carried on the shoulders and worn as a mask", which I think improves things. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some inconsistency in Mr/Dr vs Mr./Dr.- I'm not sure which is actually preferable
- In each case I was following the convention in the source material itself, which referred to Mr Thos Cave and Dr Edward Cave (his son perhaps ?). However I am unsure that the use of these terms is acceptable to Wikipedia standards, so have removed them altogether, albeit with the added statement that Edward Cave was a doctor. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"folklore collector" is evokes an image of an anthologist; how about "collector of folklore paraphernalia" or something?
- This is actually the correct term, and does refer to something akin to an ethnographer or anthropologist - a "folklore collector" was just that, somebody who collected folklore and folk tales from 'the folk' and then recorded them for posterity. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"After conducting later researches" Slightly archaic; how about "subsequent research"?
- Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Christmas Wassailers" Link?
- I've added a link to Wassailing here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have three sentences in a row start with "Dewer also". This paragraph could probably be smoothed. I'm also left generally unclear on what Dewar ultimately held.
- I've made some corrections and alterations to this paragraph. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In first instance outside the lead, Murray is introduced as a "folklorist" and her name is not linked; in the second, she is an "Egyptologist" and her name is linked.
- I've fixed this problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"However, historian Jeffrey B. Russell and Brooks Alexander have asserted that" I've mentioned this before, but "asserted" is a little judgmental, I feel.
- Changed to "stated". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who is John Byfleet when he's not making Oosers?
- That I don't know, I'm afraid. Perhaps some future publication will shed more light on the issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear what is meant by "stag entity".
- I've changed this to "a head with stag antlers". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Web sources (other than courtesy-links) should have accessdates- Dorset Echo, probably Action, The Guardian and perhaps The Wica.
- Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What makes The Wica a reliable source? And is it a periodical or just a website?
- It is just a website, although its author – the Gardnerian Wiccan Melissa Seims – has published several articles on Wiccan history in The Cauldron magazine. We cite at least one of these in another Wikipedia article (the GA-rated Etymology of Wicca) and it is also cited in at least one peer-reviewed research article (Ethan Doyle White's "The Meaning of ""Wicca"", The Pomegranate.) That being the case, I'm fairly happy that this constitutes a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Action source specifically tie the American Ooser to the English one?
- It refers to "Like its faous equivalent in Dorset, the Minnesota Ooser..." Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Ooser.jpg: Unless you're clearer on the actual date of death, there are other ways you could list this as PD. Do you have any idea of early publication (even in postcard form)? If so, {PD-old} and {PD-1923} would work. If you're not sure of early publication, I'd recommend {PD-old} and {PD-1996} (these are all Commons templates). The former would be right if the image was published prior to 1923 (likely) and the photographer died in or before 1944 (almost certain), while the latter would work if the photographer died in or before 1925 (likely), regardless of first publication. Your current claim works only if the photographer died in or before 1914 (plausible).
- I've gone with both {PD-old} and {PD-1996}. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really interesting topic. The claim that the Ooser's owner was "willing to dispose of this mask to a lover of objects of antiquarian interest" is like something straight out of an M. R. James novella. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that you found the article's topic to be of interest, Josh. If you have any other comments then they too would be very much appreciated. Kind regards, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few extra pieces of information procured from Frederick Thomas Elworthy's Horns of Honour. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really happy with how the article's looking- I'm happy to promote. Great work! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed the article in "European history"; feel free to move it if you feel somewhere else is more appropriate. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.