Talk:Herbert Maryon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 15:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very pleased to pick this one up. It is as plain as day it meets, and far exceeds, the standard for GA, and my review will do little more than make a few suggestions. As an aside, I wonder whether GA is the best route to FA for this, a destination it should certainly be headed towards? Mr Riley suggested to me long ago that, with a sound article, Peer Review to FAC is the better route as you get a wider range of inputs. I've always found him to be right. So, to minor suggestions:

General

Cites in the lead - As the lead replicates content that is expanded in the body, I think the preferred style is not to have cites here, unless they are supporting direct quotes or covering particularly controversial matters.
Overciting - while I appreciate that his theories regarding the Colossus were "widely publicised", and one always wants to hear the views of The Grape Belt and Chautauqua Farmer, I wonder if the 51 sources you use to demonstrate this point shade slightly into overuse?
The sourcing is impeccable. A mere suggestion - when you are citing multiple works by the same author, have you considered "|authormask=1". This would avoid, for example, the fifteen repetitions of Rupert Bruce-Mitford. And why are only the first fourteen of these linked? An example can be found here.

Added a link for the last Bruce-Mitford work, which I had mistakenly omitted. I may add the dashes at some point, but I'm not sure how I feel about them at the moment.

Lead

In the third para., you have “widely-publicised theory of the construction of the C of R” - would the first “of” be better as an “on”?

Done.

Personal life

"Herbert Maryon studied from 1896 to 1900 at the Polytechnic (probably Regent Street)" - should this be "London Polytechnic", or "a polytechnic college"? And does it need the Herbert here?

Keswick School of Industrial Art, 1900–04

"With Maryon's hiring, already by May a reviewer for The Studio of an exhibition at the Royal Albert Hall commented..." - A little infelicitous? Perhaps, "Soon after Maryon's hiring, a reviewer..."?

Removed the first clause, so it now reads "Already by May..."

"a 1901 plaque memorialising Bernard Gilpin unveiled in St Cuthbert's Church, Kentmere; described by the art historian Sir Nikolaus Pevsner as 'Arts and Crafts, almost Art Nouveau' - purely as an aside, while the 1967 Pevsner says exactly this, the 2010 revision drops the "Arts and Crafts" element.

Interesting point, and could be worth adding in a footnote. Do you perhaps have copies of those works? I've been meaning to track Pevsner down, since currently I'm using Bruce 2001, which quotes Pevsner.

"along with an alter cross designed by Maryon for Hexham Abbey" - "altar cross".

Fixed.

Armstrong College, 1927–39

"Criticisms attacked his taste" - "Critics attacked his taste"?

Changed to "Some critics attacked..."

"At Durham, like at Reading" - "At Durham, as at Reading"?

Done.

"on the night of October 25 "several hundred students of Armstrong College" tarred and feathered the statue, and required 80 police officers to be dispersed" - perhaps, "on the night of October 25 "several hundred students of Armstrong College" tarred and feathered the statue, and it required 80 police officers to disperse them"?

I've struggled a bit with that sentence. How does on the night of October 25 "several hundred students of Armstrong College" tarred and feathered the statue, and were dispersed only with the arrival of 80 police officers. sound?

"two Bronze Age graves from Kirkhaugh, Northumberland" - "two Bronze Age graves at Kirkhaugh, Northumberland"?

Done.

British Museum, 1944–61

"Nearly four years after his letter, with World War II over" - I'm a little confused as to whether we're in 1944 or '45 here. The lead says he began at the BM in '44. But there war's not "over" by then, and the peak of the V1/V2 attacks would have seemed a premature time to transfer the finds from safety at Aldwych. Is there any way to clarify?

Good point. Maryon's hiring date is known (11 November 1944), but I'm not sure exactly when the Sutton Hoo finds were removed from the Underground. I had assumed by Maryon's hiring—since he was hired to work on them—but it's also possible that he undertook preparatory work for some months before moving on to the finds themselves. I've reworded to Nearly four years after his letter, in the dying days of World War II and the finds removed (or about to be removed) from safekeeping in the Aldwych tube station for now.

"at the Canadian Conservation Institute to in 1993 label Maryon" - "at the Canadian Conservation Institute in 1993 to label Maryon".

Done.

Sutton Hoo helmet

"Over the succeeding quarter century conservation techniques advanced, knowledge of contemporaneous helmets grew, and limitations of Maryon's reconstruction—notably its diminished size, gaps in afforded protection, and lack of a moveable neck guard—became apparent; so too were more helmet fragments discovered during the 1965–69 re-excavation of Sutton Hoo" - This looong sentence left me a little confused. Two things: isn't the discovery of "more fragments" part of what exposed the limitations of Maryon's work, like the "advance in techniques" and the "knowledge" of other examples? So, would it run more clearly as, "Over the succeeding quarter century; as conservation techniques advanced, knowledge of contemporaneous helmets grew, and more helmet fragments were discovered during the 1965–69 re-excavation of Sutton Hoo; the limitations of Maryon's reconstruction—notably its diminished size, gaps in afforded protection, and lack of a moveable neck guard—became apparent"? Secondly, I wonder if "limitations" is quite the right word. They weren't "mistakes/errors" exactly. "Weaknesses"? Maybe it's no better?

Fair point; I had intended the part about new fragments being found being a reason for a re-reconstruction itself (i.e., to add the new pieces), but they did also play a part in confirming the initial inaccuracies (discussion here). Reworded to Over the succeeding quarter century conservation techniques advanced, knowledge of contemporaneous helmets grew, and more helmet fragments were discovered during the 1965–69 re-excavation of Sutton Hoo; accordingly, inaccuracies in Maryon's reconstruction—notably its diminished size, gaps in afforded protection, and lack of a moveable neck guard—became apparent.

Publications

"suggesting that the statue was hollow, and aside the harbor rather than astride it" - perhaps, "suggesting that the statue was hollow, and stood beside the harbor rather than astride it"?

Any particular reason? I enjoy the similarity of the words aside and astride

"Made of hammered bronze plates less than a sixteenth of an inch thick, he suggested, it would have been supported there by a hanging piece of drapery acting as a third point of support" - perhaps, "Made of hammered bronze plates less than a sixteenth of an inch thick, Maryon suggested it would have been supported by a hanging piece of drapery acting as a third prop/buttress/reinforcement, in addition to the two bronze legs"?

How does it would have been supported by a tripod structure comprising the two legs and a hanging piece of drapery. sound?

"If "great ideas," neither "proved to be truly convincing"" - the "If" puzzles me, here. "Although"?

Done.

Later years

This section ends, a little abruptly, in 1962 when he's in California. He dies in 1965 in Edinburgh. Perhaps just a line such as "He died, aged 91, in a nursing home in Edinburgh in 1965". Or some such. I appreciate you have exactly this in the Personal life section, but not having it in the Later years looks rather odd to me. I'd probably move it, and maybe change Personal life to Early life?

I've reformatted it somewhat, putting a "Personal life" section (with marriages, children, and death) at the end, and removing this from the earlier section, which I've now titled "Early life and education."

Will cover the Notes/Sources/images etc. in a day or so. KJP1 (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes and References

These look immaculate.

Bibliography

Ditto.

Works

Ditto.

Colossus articles

Personally, I'm not certain the, very large, number of Colossus articles are necessary. His theory forms one paragraph of the article and, to me, doesn't seem that significant when viewed in the context of his life and works. Moreover, the articles themselves tend to be rather 'thin'. As such, I'm not sure that some 51 articles on the theory, mostly from pretty regional US publications, adds that much. Would not The Times and The Washington Post articles suffice to show the theory received coverage?

You're probably right about this. It's largely a byproduct of the fact that when I started researching Maryon I collected as many sources as I could, and there is a disproportionate number of sources about the Colossus: 51 that are listed here, and probably far more that are not. These clippings probably have some relevance to the painting itself—in its article, I've linked the list under The Colossus of Rhodes (Dalí)#The Colossus (Although Maryon's theory was not published until 1956, two years after Dalí's painting, newspaper articles about Maryon's 1953 presentation proliferated quickly and internationally, and his theory heavily influenced Dalí.—and they may shed some light on how Dalí came to hear about Maryon's theory. One idea I have wondered about is by sorting these in footnote 7 by geographic location (e.g., by country, province, state, etc.) to demonstrate the geographic reach of the idea; do you think this would be worthwhile?

Images

These all look fine, with appropriate licenses and captions.

Pass/Fail

A very obvious Pass. A fascinating article, very well-written and with the usual immaculate sourcing. Look forward to its FAC. KJP1 (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review, KJP1, not to mention the kind words. This is one of the first articles I created—and still one of those that I find most interesting—so your thorough look at it, and encouragement to take this to FAC (which I intend to do), is particularly welcome. I've responded to a few points above, and left a question about Pevsner. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique - A pleasure, as always. I agree re. the Colossus cites - they'd sit well in the article about the Dali, or the structure itself. As to the Pevsner, fortunately I have both the 1967 and the 2010 versions. I'll drop the details, and the full quotes, here this evening. It will make a fine FA. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]