# Talk:Alfred Kroeber: A Personal Configuration

czar 23:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Noting belatedly that I've seen these, and indeed was aware of many of them when writing; but beyond a point, the shorter reviews aren't adding much new material; while valuable on their own to their readers, they begin to repeat each other in with different adjectives when taken as a body. I have added a couple of notes from two of them. If there is any specific material someone wishes to add I am more than happy to discuss it. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alfred Kroeber: A Personal Configuration/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 17:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Will take this one. Review to follow over the next couple of days. —Kusma (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


### Progress box and general comments
Images are fine, too bad there's no free one of the author. Good sources, consistently formatted, spotchecks ok. No major issues with criteria, just see the comments below for content issues. —Kusma (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


### Section by section review
Nice article about an interesting book. It is fairly short but I don't think it needs to be substantially longer. 

Lead seems a bit on the short side and doesn't summarise the entire article (nothing about the background/writing section).
Agreed. I'll work on this soon.
Fleshed this out a little. Hesitant to add more, but happy to discuss.
Background: could we have a little more information about Theodora Kroeber here? For example, that this is not her first book? She certainly had other accomplishments than being married to her husband, as you know very well.
Indeed. I think I erred on the side of brevity because I was simultaneously working on Theodora Kroeber's article, and was worried I was shoehorning in too much material here. I have added some.
Karl and Ursula: could you give a short gloss on why Karl is notable, and perhaps mention Ursula's married name so it comes as less of a surprise who we click on?
Tweaked; I didn't want the last name to become a distraction, but I agree just Ursula is something of an easter egg.
I was intrigued by the title "A Personal Configuration". Do we have any information about why she chose this? I think you could use more of the information about the writing process that is in Darnell's review, for example.
I'll look over Darnell's review again; the title is likely a reference to Alfred's famous work "Configurations of culture growth", but I couldn't find a source explicitly saying so, presumably because all the reviewers thought it too obvious to mention. I don't think I can include it without a source.
I've added a bit from Darnell; this is tricky, as her writing isn't straightforward, but hopefully helpful.
Summary: This section reads a bit more like a short bio of AK than a summary of the book. Could you make it slightly more about the book? For example, you could mention that the book is ordered chronologically, not thematically as some bios are.
I've added a little, and reordered elsewhere. I don't want to slip into "chapter X covers Y", so I think this is as far as I can go.
Are there any themes covered other than "relationship with children" and "music"?
Certainly there are, it's a lengthy volume; but I wasn't able to make such specific references to anything else based on the reviews, and I'm a little reluctant to dive into the primary text in that way.
"A brief section covers Theodora's own autobiography" After looking at the book, I tend to agree, but you cite this to a review that states her autobiography is "woven in", which doesn't sound like a separate section at all.
Agreed. Adjusted, hopefully to finesse the minor difference between the reviewer and primary text.
Reception: Are all of these reviews contemporary? Is there any modern reception/modern research about the Kroebers that would be worth mentioning here? ("Legacy" or something?)
I believe there is some material that could be added to Alfred Kroeber's page (such as the naming and subsequent un-naming of a UCB campus building) but virtually everything I can find about the book is just a citation. I did find one brief comment about chronological inaccuracy that I will add, see also below.
Who wrote "Ishi in Two Worlds"?
Theodora did. I've mentioned this in the background now, hopefully less confusing?
Looking at Thoresen's review, I think your emphasis is wrong. You state "glossed "too quickly" over some aspects of Kroeber's life, especially in the period before their marriage, during which he dabbled in psychoanalysis". I understand this as not mentioning enough of AK's interest in psychoanalysis, but in the review, the concern is "What Mrs. Kroeber leaves out of her account is that the period coincides with Kroeber’s election to the presidency of the American Anthropological Association; that the war precipitated a general professional upheaval culminating in the censure of Franz Boas; that the chief social issue was the heredity-environment controversy; that Kroeber published a series of theoretical polemics on the nature of culture which cannot be seen apart from either his personality or the issues of the day." Could you mention the psychoanalysis in the Summary section instead to remove this confusion, and perhaps explain the critique a bit better?
I'm quite open to revising this: it was a difficult critique to work in, and I haven't fully understood it, because Thoresen is referring to incidents I'm unfamiliar with and he doesn't summarize them. However, I do think the psychoanalysis not being covered is a point being made, especially as the brief contemporary mention I found makes a similar point.
It is clearer now, but you really should mention the psychoanalysis in the "Summary" section so it isn't a surprise when mentioned in "Reception".
Done, in summary.
Can you try to sort out better when you use "Alfred", "Theodora" or "Kroeber"? (see MOS:SAMESURNAME for guidance that I don't think you need to follow slavishly, but you could try to go more in that direction). As an example: The reviewer praised Kroeber's decision to leave out "amusing or bizarre trivia" that may have enhanced the book's appeal to general readers, and said it provided a useful account of Kroeber's intellectual development Whose intellectual development?
Yes, in retrospect it isn't obvious. I've switched a lot of uses to their first names; best to be unambiguous I think. Let me know if any specific instance is still bad.
Why do you sometimes mention the reviewer, sometimes the place where the review appeared?
I've tried to mention the reviewer when their own reputation was of some note, and the publication otherwise for brevity, but of course that's a subjective method and I'm happy to revise any specific instance.
Source/external links section: I would probably merge the external link into the source (optional), and also give a full citation including the ISBN (less optional).
Agreed. Done both.
First pass done. I think it needs a little bit of work but nothing too major.  —Kusma (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: forgot to send you a ping. —Kusma (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, much appreciated. Not sure if I'll have a dedicated section of time before the weekend, but I'll try to respond as soon as I can. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Take your time, no need to rush on my behalf. —Kusma (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Much improved, mostly lead work missing now. —Kusma (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@Kusma: I believe that is everything, thanks for your patience. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Fine, passing. I'm not sure about some colons in the lead (removed one) but that is mostly up to you. —Kusma (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)