Talk:Jørgen Læssøe/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Etrius ( Us) 13:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 04:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to do this review. I'll get recommendations out tomorrow. In case you haven't noticed, the Agatha Christie quote seems to have broken a few things. Etrius ( Us) 04:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm not sure I see anything broken though KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 10:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-vios

Earwig only flags proper nouns.
Immediate spot checks find nothing of note
I don't speak Dutch, nor do I necessarily trust machine translation. I'll do what I can, even if limited

Images

None, if you want to add a fair use image of Jørgen Læssøe, you certainly can since he's now passed away.

I've added a fair use image. – Joe (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

If IAbot is up, I recommend archiving sources
Manual check finds that all the URLs are active and reliable

Prose

which thereafter became his main focus clairfy. This implies his field of research is Akkadian

The implication seems right but I won't overcomment. Joe Roe should know better KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused, is his area of study the Akkadian language or Assyriology? The article is clear on Assyriology but this is the only mention of the Akkadian language. Are they generally considered synonymous? Pinging @Joe Roe. Etrius ( Us) 22:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a subset of it that allowed him to decipher his famous finds. Just speculation from me, I won't pretend to understand what the Danish sources cited actually say. I'll let Joe Roe handle it KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 07:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akkadian is one of the two main source language of Assyriology, so they are interchangeable to a degree. But this specific statement was supposed to say that the focus of his studies switched to Akkadian, rather than his whole career. I've tried to clarify this, thanks. – Joe (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was a bit of an WP:OVERLINK issues, I fixed it

Thanks KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of his appointment the only Assyriologist active in the country, Danish Assyriology is said to have "come of age" during his tenure. Sentence doesn't make sense, I think a few words were lost

Fixed KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The general article layout could be improved. The distinction between career and scholarship is unnecessary. I can see justification for the first paragraph to be used as an 'Early life' section. Likewise, the last scholarship paragraph could be merged with the personal life as a 'later life and death' section. In general, a bit more chronology would be helpful

I have reordered the sections a little, but I quite like maintaining the difference between "career" and "scholarship" as it currently is. The former primarily deals with where he worked/who he taught whereas the latter concerns what he wrote on. It seems like a neat division to me, whereas if everything were lumped together chronologically it'd be a bit harder to follow. I'll see what Joe Roe thinks, since to be fair he wrote most of the stuff KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah my general preference for academic biographies of this length is an "Education and career" section (covering mundane details like where they studied and what positions they held) and one or more sections covering their actual work (in this case that was the "Scholarship" section). I believe this is fairly standard; the problem with a chronological structure is that, for most academics, there is nothing notable in their "early life" apart from where they were born and went to school, and whatever they worked on tends to have occupied the rest of their life. So I'd also prefer to stick with the current structure, if that's okay with you. – Joe (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it intentional that the poem extends into the refs section? Maybe use a quote box template, the current format cuts the page in half almost. H:POEM has some good info on how to clean this up.

That's strange, the poem appears just fine on my browser (contained within the 'scholarship' section) KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, let me check something on my end. Could be a user preferences issue. Etrius ( Us) 22:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What browser are you using? I'll open a quick discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations just to make sure its just a problem on my end. Etrius ( Us) 22:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingoflettuce Is the poem intended to extend from the scholarship section till the middle of the works cites section? I had another editor confirm that I'm seeing the page correctly. Etrius ( Us) 00:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was because I had my browser zoomed in to 175%x my default. I see the same thing as you once I zoom out. No matter - it's been removed, and I don't think it was that important anyway. (But certainly interesting and worth a relook...) KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 07:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd quite like to keep it. It's not every day you find that your obscure biography subject had a poem written about them by one of the most prominent English-language writers in history. It's a nice insight into his character that we wouldn't get elsewhere and, since we're never going to have more than one image to illustrate this article with, I think the amount of space it takes up is justifiable. I've restored it with the {{Quote box}} template instead of {{Rquote}} – does that look better to you Etriusus? – Joe (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page needs some restructuring but the underlying prose is very well done. I made some CEs, please review when you can. Placing on hold. Etrius ( Us) 20:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Etriusus: I think we've addressed all your comments. Can you take another look when you have the chance? – Joe (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe and @Kingoflettuce Thanks for getting back!!! I moved the poem for the sake of formatting. My only concern now is the poem. Can either of you establish some context behind it. I am fine with keeping the poem but there needs to be some context to what it is/why it was written. Etrius ( Us) 13:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a sentence about it, under "Scholarship". – Joe (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seen. Thank you. Etrius ( Us) 13:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article passes, congrats!!!

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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.