Talk:E. A. Thompson/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 20:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this on... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comments

Cites #6 and #7 don't point to anything (presumably they go to something in the further reading section)
Could you change the citations for The Times and The Guardian to say {{Sfn|''The Times''|2 February 1994}} and the same for The Guardian?
Is there any way you could put some more images in?
citations to Marcus 2001 could use page numbers, though I won't require it
Assuming both Marcus's are the same, standardize between 'Robert' and 'R. A.'
I'm intrigued by all the quotations in the notes. Is this something that's standard practice somewhere? I've never seen anything like it on-wiki.
the lede reads very heavily favorably to the subject, I'd recommend trimming that down some. For example, you only really need to mention that he was the leading scholar on what he studied once, rather than twice. Also, your source mentions " in many ways it remains unsurpassed" yet you say "his works...have remained unsurpassed up to the present day" and your source only talks about The Goths in Spain being unsurpassed

Also, can you really say something is unsurpassed to the present day with a source that is almost 20 years old?

I don't see how having footnotes A and B contribute to the article; I think you can remove them.

Most of the others are debatable about whether to keep or not.

Image needs a fair use rationale

Second pass, including prose review, to come later

"Thompson introduced to English-language scholarship the study of early Germanic people" so there was no study of early Germanic people in the English language at all before him? I find that hard to believe
"only at the age of eight" -> "at the age of eight" ?
"with which he maintained sufficient links to be requested by its then-headmaster, Dr. John Bennett, to send a copy of A History of Attila and the Huns when Thompson published the book in 1948" I'd recommend removing this, it doesn't really contribute to educating about Thompson's life, it's closer to trivia
"Although his father worked for the administration of the National Health Insurance, Thompson would be the first of his family to enter university." why the although?
"with a Sizarship" uncapitalize 'sizarship'

Dear Eddie891, thank you for your review. I have now made an attempt at cleaning up the article in accordance with your recommendations.[1] Krakkos (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, looks much better! Some further comments below:
"This year was to have a profound influence on his future career" suggest removing as fluff
"Thompson experienced at first hand the barbarism of Nazism." Is there anything to back this up? Did Thompson say anything about it? Just think there could be something more specific
"re-romanticised approach to the study of Germanic peoples" I'm not really sure what you're trying to say in this spot.. Could you clarify/rephrase?
"Classics" -> "classics"?
"Already prepared to enter World War II with an enlistment in the British Army, Thompson secured an appointment at the University of Swansea," what year?
"Unlike future generations of scholars in this field, Thompson carried out his studies without ideological bias" source says little about 'future generations' and says he carried out his studies "without heavy ideological ballast" which doesn't necessarily imply no ideological bias, just little.

also, if his biases are present, how can he have no ideological bias?

"Thompson's use of primary sources to examine the past, and his attempts to establish clarity in the field, have come under criticism from some scholars, who are heavily influenced by critical theory and consider primary sources unreliable." source says nothing about the critical theorists criticizing him, merely that he is set apart from critical theorists.
I can find no mention of 'Thompsonist' in the source
"No longer active in political life, he continued his enthusiastic interest for politics" how can someone not be politically active but be interested in politics? How was he active in political life in a capacity that he left later?
I think his list of works needs citations
Marcus 1996 still doesn't point anywhere

Krakkos, it looks much better! pass #2 is above, stay tuned for pass #3, which will include a source spot-check Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, thanks again for your recommendations. I have made another attempt at improving the article in accordance with your review.[2] Krakkos (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can you go into any more depth about his work? If not, that's fine
" younger scholars, who are " younger meaning what, exactly
sources should be in numerical order

source spotcheck

#2: does not mention "wallace"
#8 fine
#1a: cannot find any mention of 'Presbyterian'
#1b-d fine
#1e reads like very close paraphrasing.

compare: "his interest in the class structure of societies, and in their material basis, continued to give direction to his studies." (from source) with "His interest in the class structure of societies, and in their material basis, continued to direct the structure of his studies" (article)

Thanks for these recommendations. I've now attempted to fix the article accordingly.[3] Krakkos (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"and focused primarily on scholarship rather than administrative duties." I don't see this specifically stated in the source?
"Nevertheless, his revulsion towards Nazism, and his sympathy towards Marxism, particularly the theories of Friedrich Engels, are detectable in his research of this important field." can't find this in the source?
"belonged to the centre-left" I don't see this in the source?
Sorry to be a bother, but if you could expand his bibliography to a full {{cite book}} template with identifiers like ISBN's and stuff, that would be great, and it wouldn't need other sourcing!
It think you could expand on his books and work in the text. Looking at the ODNB, there's some more stuff that I'd like to see in the article such as him spending a year at the University of Wisconsin where he worked on Romans and Barbarians
that's about it... Nice work! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your yet another round of extremely useful feedback. I've now updated the article in accordance with your recommendations.[4] Krakkos (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krakkos, I'm now largely satisfied with the state of the article. There's no copyvio, prose reads nicely, referencing is good, images are licensed, it seems reasonably comprehensive, though I still feel the article can benefit from adding additional sources. The one thing I will ask you to address is the article's treatment of Nazism. It says the "barbarism of nazism"; which, though true, feels like a little too much editorializing. Might I recommend you say simply "Nazism" or describe him as an "anti-Nazi" if you can find sourcing to support that? If you look at anti-Nazi articles, they describe resistance to the Nazi dictatorship, but are careful not to pass judgement on Nazism itself as wholly barbaric. This is, of course, a controversial and delicate topic, so I'd also like to hear your opinion on how it should be phrased Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, Thank you for your recommendations. I have now made an attempt at making the article more comprehensive and neutral.[5] Krakkos (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krakkos, Thanks! I now feel this article meets the GA criteria, and will promote the article Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, Thank you so much for your work on improving the article! Krakkos (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]