Jump to content

Talk:Emily Penrose/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 18:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this in the next few days. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: Hi there. I came across this article on the GAN feed, and it's been 20 days since you opened up the review. Just a reminder if you forgot about it. I'd also just like to let you know that the user who nominated this, KateCook, hasn't edited since 31 January. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: I spotted this GA nomination. I am happy to take over and review it. Should it be closed first? Edwininlondon (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please take it over. I'm swamped in real life and not sure when that will end... heh. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Edwininlondon:. TSventon (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TSventon, I'm looking forward to review this. A first scan suggests this will be successful fairly quickly. The first hurdle I need to clear though seems to be getting access to Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: you should be able to access ODNB via https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org . @KateCook:, are you watching this page? Please reply when you see this message. TSventon (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am! I've been patiently waiting for the review process to get moving, so glad it's starting again. KateCook (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, TSventon, I now have access. KateCook, do you mind if I make minor edits (like linking) myself directly? Edwininlondon (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: No not at all, please do go ahead! My focus is getting the page to be as good as it can be - I am not at all concerned about how it gets there. KateCook (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start with the disclaimer that I am not a native speaker, so please challenge me and don't blindly follow my suggestions. Also, please allow me to do this piecemeal and not all in one go. I'll start with the Early life section and at the end will look at the lead.

Thanks very much @Edwininlondon: - it's a holiday weekend here so may take me a few days to get really stuck in, but I will start working through your suggestions now!
@KateCook: I have made a couple of minor corrections suggested by @Edwininlondon:, please recorrect as you see fit. TSventon (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and education

[edit]
  • Most biography articles start the Early life section with when and where the person was born (see e.g. Mary Anning, Herbert Maryon) Done!
  • a surgeon of Harewood --> perhaps a bit more context about where that is, e.g. West Yorkshire Done!
  • Her paternal grandmother was Mrs Markham --> may I suggest to add a bit more context here, e.g. something along the lines of "was a well-known author who went by the pseudonym of Mrs Markham" Done!
  • The British School also has at least one watercolour painting probably by her --> 1) do we need the "also"? 2) I found the combination of "at least" and "probably" a bit odd. Is there a way to rephrase this? - The 'also' I think is because it's about something which is implied but not stated, that Penrose's diary is part of the BSA's archives now (connected to the source), so I've adjusted the first sentence to make the two work properly together. Personally I think that the 'at least... probably' is right, because I'm not sure if there's a way of rephrasing that would preserve the same uncertainty about the right things (i.e. how many they have, and that the one we know of is only probably by Penrose) but I'm happy to take another look if you've got suggestions for something you'd prefer! KateCook (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's leave it
  • Penrose was educated --> that seems a bit odd to my foreign eyes: the previous years surely were part of her education as well? Done!
  • from scratch --> it may be perfectly fine, but just checking: is this really the right tone for an encyclopedia? - I think this is fine, partly because the only straightforward alternative would be ab initio and that doesn't seem to me to be very clear! KateCook (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK
  • she presented herself for an ad eundem University of Dublin MA --> this is a little bit too cryptic for my liking, forcing me to a) click the ad eundem link and b) guess what MA stands for; and c) it is not clear to me if she actually got the degree or if it was not successful, given the emphasis here on her presenting herself. I hope I am making myself clear, but let me know if not. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Made clearer by spelling it out a little, I think![reply]

Career

[edit]
  • Penrose was offered a post by Agnes Maitland --> a bit of context would be good, e.g., the principal of Somerville College. And when was this? Done!
  • librarian and secretary but instead --> I'd put a comma before but
  • appointed as Professor in Ancient History and Principal of Bedford College from 1893 to 1898 --> just checking: this suggests to me that upfront the period was limited to 5 years. Is in 1898 she left out of her own accord, it should just be appointed in 1898. Done!
  • (RHC) --> do we really need this? Done!
  • as the second principal from 1898 to 1907 --> 1) second principal makes me, a reader not particularly acquainted with the English system, hesitate and think this could be a role reporting to the first principal. Only at the end of the sentence does it become clear to me that is not the case. 2) Again the issue with the period mentioned, now in combination with "move" Done!
  • following Matilda Ellen Bishop --> normally we do not use people's full name, like you did with Agnes Maitland in the previous paragraph. Is that Ellen necessary here? It could be. Just checking. Done!
  • the governors --> I assume this is the the college's governors. Could that be added or do you think that is overkill? It's a bit overkill but not a disaster, so done!
  • the social life --> whose? the students'? the staff's? the students' TSventon (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • However --> I don't understand why however is used I think it was a relic of some disagreement about what to do with the quote - I've removed it.
  • in gaining the college admission --> this is probably perfectly fine, but I would have written "college's admission" 'gaining the college admission' = gaining admission (for) the college, it's entirely fine written this way!
  • first class University of London degrees --> in the previous section we had First Class capitalised. Should it not be consistent? Done!
  • Penrose was followed at Royal Holloway by Ellen Charlotte Higgins --> 1) Ellen Higgins? 2) given that she had multiple roles, we should probably state followed as principal 2) Done! 1) I think is how she's often referred to.
  • On the death of the previous principal, Agnes Catherine Maitland --> 1) she already has been introduced, so no link and just Maitland 2) the use of previous confuses me, do we need it? On the death of their principal Maitland, Sommerville Done!
  • (1907–1926) --> I think it is better to just say in 1907 (a bit earlier in the sentence). No need for 1926 here at this stage. Done!
  • by Vera Brittain --> a bit more context about her would be good Done!
  • Penrose was closely involved...full membership of the university. --> may I suggest you break this up into 2 sentences? Done!
  • Margaret Hayes Robinson --> Margaret Robinson? - No, Hayes Robinson is correct, she's titled elsewhere with both surnames (unhyphenated, as here) too.
  • and the Royal Commission on the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge --> I think something is missing here: and the only female member of ... or, if that is not true or unknown, and a member of
Comment: Penrose was the only woman on the Oxford section of the Oxford and Cambridge commission. Blanche Athena Clough served on the Cambridge section. TSventon (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Penrose also became the --> I would drop the also here
  • Penrose also presided over many changes --> and here Done!
  • She also had responsibility for --> and here Done!
  • which she returned to the College --> is that capital C correct? No, done! TSventon (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

[edit]
  • (DCL) --> do we really need this abbreviation? : Personally I think yes, because it's the equivalent of including 'PhD' along with 'Doctorate of Philosophy' but happy to remove it if you are not convinced! KateCook (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we can leave it. I had never seen it before.
It would be fine if this was for a UK-only audience, but I think for the wider English speaking world it is too cryptic. Okay - fixed!
  • In 1927 she was awarded a DBE for her work for education and made the first Honorary Fellow of Somerville College. The award of this DBE made her Oxford's first Dame --> this is jumping around a bit. How about something along the lines of "In 1927 she was awarded a Dame Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire for her work for education, making her Oxford's first Dame, and made the first Honorary Fellow of Somerville College." Not sure if "awarded a Dame" is correct, but I hope you get the gist Done!

====Publications====

  • Is it a coincidence that the article is about a Penrose or is this about a relative? If so, perhaps that would be good to say, turning this section from a list of one item into prose.
It looks like he was her uncle, but I actually don't have access to this - I've spoken to the editor who originally added this article to the page and she also no longer has access, so I can't write anything useful about what it is (I think just an account of his naval career). Since it has nothing obviously to do with her career/what else is on the page, I thought it might be best just to remove this publications section - she doesn't seem to have written any academic publications, and I agree it's not useful as a list of one item! KateCook (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • from 1893 until 1897 --> the body of the article has 1898 as the final year Done!
  • at the University of Oxford --> I would prefer it if the article referred to the uni in one consistent way only. To the unfamiliar reader this raises the question whether these are 2 different unis. Done!
  • May I suggest you add the bit about becoming Oxford's first Dame to the lead? Done!

Suggestions

[edit]

A search on scholar.google.com suggests there may be a few more sources that mention her: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Emily+Penrose&btnG= Perhaps some of them may have noteworthy material to add. I see for example one author called her "foreward thinking", which you might consider adding. - I've had a look through these, and added the comment you suggest, but they all otherwise repeat information which is already here (some of them just cite the same sources as used on this page, so I am not sure they would not add anything by their inclusion. KateCook (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. I'll look at the sources once the above has been addressed. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  • The date formats are inconsistent. The first one is 21 June 2011, but then others are in 2020-05-20 format Done!
  • The 3 British School at Athens refs: the title needs to be separated from the source . Done, I think.
  • ISBN missing for Brittain, Vera book
This is because the ISBN was introduced in 1970, this book was published in 1960 so the edition used doesn't have a correct UK ISBN. I can give the ISBN of a different version, but that would technically be less correct as it wasn't the edition cited. KateCook (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are 13 and 16 not the same?
Did you mean something else by these numbers? I've got 13 as an obituary in the Times and 16 as a painting so definitely not the same! 15 and 18 had the same titles although were different items - I've clarified the titles to indicate that they are different items. So possibly done.
13 and 16 were the two National Portrait Gallery references so the titles are now different. TSventon (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I shall do a source check in the next few days. Hopefully you have time to handle the last few outstanding issues, and then we're good to go. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I think we're now all done with everything else, although of course happy to adjust further if you spot anything that needs it. KateCook (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final points

[edit]

We are pretty much there. I have checked quite a few sources and it all checks out. Just a few minor points:

  • A 1946 obituary of Penrose concluded --> Ideally when we have a quote we say who said it. Is it Vera Brittain who wrote this?
No, it is a (later) obituary which she quotes but she doesn't say who the author of the obituary was, just what it said. KateCook (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done! KateCook (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I believe this fine article meets all the criteria for GA. It was a pleasure reviewing this article. Thanks. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for all your hard work @Edwininlondon!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emily_Penrose/GA1&oldid=1019950672"