# Talk:Edgar C. Polomé

This review is transcluded from Talk:Edgar C. Polomé/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ffranc (talk · contribs) 13:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll be happy to review this. Your recent work on articles about scholars is impressive and I see you currently have four other nominees where review pages have been created, but only one where the actual review has begun. I'll probably post my review here tomorrow, and hopefully there won't be too much going on at the same time. Ffranc (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


### First glance
One thing I immediately spotted is that the lead section previously was too long, but the current version is too short. Something right between the two would be perfect.
Delink common languages per MOS:OL, but keep the links to language groups and ancient languages.
Ok, now the full review:


### Copyright
Some of the text is too close to Louden, Justus & King 2000. Go through every part of the article where that source is used and make sure there is no close paraphrasing. Earwig's Copyvio Detector is useful for finding directly copied phrases, but there are other sentences where a few words have been changed but it's still too close.
Is it possible to find more info about the portrait photo? There should at least be something in the "Author or copyright owner" field. I looked through Languages and Cultures and couldn't find the name of the photographer, but if nothing else you can write "Walter de Gruyter & Co." as the copyright owner. The rationale should also say that the original publication was in 1988, not 2010. And you have written "Charles C. Polomé" instead of Edgar in a couple of places.


### Prose, style
Don't capitalize titles such as "professor", "chairman" and "editor"; see MOS:JOBTITLES.
Make sure to get rid of all repeated links. I removed a few but might have missed some.
It's sometimes unclear when the article mentions the name of a university department and when it's just a description of what the department does. E.g. Here he established a Department of Linguistics. The Department was a great success... The first instance probably shouldn't be capitalized, and the second definitely shouldn't. Please take a look at all the mentions of departments, and only capitalize the proper names.
He published a number of works on Swahili during this time, deriving upon theories from modern sociolinguistics. Something like this might be better: "He published a number of works on Swahili during this time; he was interested in the relationship between language and culture, which made him turn to fields such as modern sociolinguistics."
He was invited by Winfred P. Lehmann at the University of Texas at Austin to teach for one semester to teach Hindi, Latin, Hittite and other languages as a visiting professor in the absence of Werner Winter. This can be written in a more direct way. Maybe something like this: "Winfred P. Lehmann invited him to the University of Texas at Austin, where the absence of Werner Winter gave him the opportunity to teach Hindi, Latin, Hittite and other languages as a visiting professor for one semester." The rest of the section could use some general work to make it flow better, and make it more clear when we're back at the University of Texas, and when we're in Rhodesia, Kiel, Dar es Salam, Nairobi or somewhere else.
In 1962 he was hired as a Professor at the Department of Germanic Languages, which was also devoted to topics of general and non-Germanic interest. This is somewhat unclear and I'm not certain if the second clause is necessary. When the source talks about Polomé's non-Germanic activities at TU, it says that he "taught courses in many departments", i.e. not that he was doing non-Germanic stuff in the Germanic department. A suggestion: "In 1962, the University of Texas hired him as a tenured professor at the Department of Germanic Languages."
His teaching was particularly devoted to Indo-European and Germanic studies. If this was his main activity in Texas, I think it should be mentioned before all the other things he did there, right after the info about his recruitment.
I'm unsure if the lengthy quotations with praise are a good idea. The last paragraph in the US career section talks about the festschrift; can the content from the quotations perhaps be summarized briefly and placed somewhere in that paragraph? Quotations can sometimes work well as illustrations, but in this case I think it's better to write a more general summary of Polomé's impact and influence on other scholars in the US.
A festschrift in Polomé's honor, edited by Werner Winter and Mohammad Ali Jazayery, Languages and Cultures was published in 1988. Try to write this in a more direct or concise way. Perhaps start with the editors, or get rid of them from the sentence (they'll still be in the list of sources for readers who are curious).
The info about scholarly organizations and journal articles doesn't belong in "Last years"; put it somewhere in the career section above.
Polomé married Julia Josephine Schwindt in on July 22, 1944, who was the mother of his two children... Reword the sentence so the second clause can come directly after the wife's name. And either add where they were married or remove "in".
Remove the middle names from the wives' names, unless they actually are double names.
Upon his death, Polomé was remembered by former colleagues and students as the most learned person they had ever met. This is too puffy. It should probably just be removed.


### Coverage and accuracy
Georges Dumézil and Jan de Vries are listed as influences in the infobox, but this is not sourced or covered in the article. Dumézil is mentioned in passing and Vries is only a "see also" link.
The Swahili Language Handbook is mentioned in a footnote, so its status as a "notable work" is supported, although you could add the same citation directly to the infobox. Essays on Germanic Religion is only listed like any other book in the bibliography; it needs a source or some coverage if it's going to be singled out like that.
Likewise, J. P. Mallory is mentioned as a friend of Polomé and someone who took over some duties, but the article doesn't explicitly talk about Polomé's influence on him.
The cited source doesn't say that Polomé learned Dutch from the family maid. It only says that the maid spoke the local dialect, unlike Polomé's mother who spoke a Ghent dialect.
Although intending to study classics, he chose Germanic philology instead. The source only says that he was encouraged to study classics, not that he intended to do it.
He was able to resume his studies until the German occupiers closed the University in 1942. I read this as if Polomé couldn't continue his studies for a while. That might be true, but the source only says he had to continue at a different university.
He completed his master's degree at the University of Louvain in 1943, The source does indeed say "master's degree", but it also says "candidature", which "was an undergraduate first-cycle degree roughly comparable with the bachelor's degree". See if you can find which one it really was, perhaps with another source.
You can add that Élisabethville now is known as Lubumbashi, and that it was in Belgian Congo.
Polomé's work on the Bantu languages while based in Africa was of as great importance as his work on the Indo-European languages. Who says this (or how is it measured)?
Mention that the Congo Crisis happened shortly after the Republic of the Congo became independent from Belgium.
In 1995, Polomé launched the JIES Book Chronicle, which reviewed a large number of books of interest to Indo-European studies. Has this been discontinued? If yes, add what year, if no, change "reviewed" to "reviews", and perhaps remove "a large number of" which seems unnecessary.
Together with A. Richard Diebold Jr., Polomé co-edited the Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series, which has published more than 34 monographs. What years did he edit it, or how many monographs did he edit? And, since most of those books were edited by other people than Polomé, it's not meaningful to mention the total number of publications (which is outdated: monograph 67 is currently listed as the latest on their website).
Along with the 1988 festschrift, you could also mention the two-volume Perspectives on Indo-European Language, Culture and Religion. Studies in Honor of Edgar C. Polomé, published in the JIES monograph series "on the occasion of his 70th birthday". The obituary also mentions "a two-volume homage in honor of his 80th birthday", but I was unable to find more info.
None of the major biographical texts about Polomé brings up politics at all, so it should be given minimal space here. But something brief could be mentioned. Stefanie von Schnurbein brings up Roger Pearson, The Mankind Quarterly and does the epithet thing in Norse Revival, p. 283 (of course, everything epithety must be attributed to the person saying it, if it is included here), and Henry Rousso's Commission sur le racisme et le négationnisme à l'université Jean-Moulin Lyon III, pp. 59-60 talks about the New Right connection (it says that Polomé was a member of GRECE, but the source for that is from the 80s, so it might be unwise to include without more context).
Mention that Polomé was paralyzed on the left side. Right now it reads as if he was completely paralyzed, but still kept working for several years.
Mention the cause of death.
Overall the article shouldn't be too difficult to push over the GA threshold. The most serious concern is the close paraphrasing and in some cases direct copying from Louden, Justus & King. After that, each individual problem is pretty small. You have done an impressive job writing a lot of ambitious articles about sometimes complicated and controversial people. Hopefully this review won't discourage you; it's a bit long, but as I said, there's only one serious problem. Ffranc (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear Ffranc. Thank you for an extremely helpful review. I have now made many modifications of the article in accordance with your recommendations. Krakkos (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


### More
Well done getting rid of the paraphrasing, Krakkos. A few points remain, but after that it should be good. Ffranc (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Dumézil is still in the infobox, but the article still doesn't discuss his influence on Polomé. It just says that Polomé came in contact with him along with several other people.
I would suggest that you adjust the lead to make it clear that the time in Texas dominated Polomé's career. It can for example be done by adding the years he worked there and moving it to the first paragraph. Right now it looks as if the time in Congo was just as prominent, or even more because it's mentioned first.
Indo-European religion redirects to Proto-Indo-European mythology. I made it a direct link but I'm not sure whether it is the best target in this context. Indo-European linguistics redirects to Indo-European studies, which I also turned into a direct link.
I'm still unsure about the thing with classics at the University of Brussels. It looks a bit weird to say he was encouraged but not by whom he was encouraged (his parents? People at the university?). Perhaps it's better to just leave it out: "...Polomé entered the Free University of Brussels where he studied Germanic philology".
Polomé's work on the Bantu languages while based in Africa was according to his colleagues of as great importance as his work on the Indo-European languages. This is still problematic. Here is what the source says: "Indeed, Prof. Polomé will be remembered by many colleagues as much for his work in Bantu linguistics, as for Indo-European studies." It doesn't really say that it was as important. The colleagues who remember him as much for his work on Bantu languages, I assume, would be the colleagues who themselves are interested in Bantu languages, so it's not necessarily about valuing the degree of overall importance. It also doesn't say that it particularly was his work in Congo that was of "great importance"; his Swahili Language Handbook for example is from 1967. Perhaps this should be discussed together with his influence in general, and perhaps the info about the Swahili handbook can be integrated into the text as well.
The part with Pearson and GRECE looks a bit clumsy when it's in the middle of the part about the JIES. Maybe you can cover the JIES, its book chronicle and its monograph series first, and then mention that it was published by the Institute for the Study of Man and briefly why that is controversial (in a way that neither is euphemistic nor goes against WP:LABEL).
Throughout his career, Polomé was the author and editor of several books, and authored hundreds of articles and reviews for scholarly journals. Polomé is remembered among colleagues for his significant contributions as a teacher, writer and scholarly organizer within his fields of study. The first sentence should be in the career section, and the second is unnecesary, since the entire article is about what he is notable and remembered for.
The wives are still presented with their middle names, which looks odd. Also, do you know what Andre Polomé is a doctor in? It looks a bit weird to introduce him with the title immediately, as if he was born with it; maybe you can write it as "...two children, Andre Polomé, who became a [X], and..."
Not part of the GA criteria, so completely optional, but consider using Template:Sfnm to combine stacked footnotes.
Thank you for these excellent suggestions. I have updated the article accordingly. Krakkos (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


### Final comments
Very good! All the criteria appear to be met. Everything is clear and follows the style guidelines, the sources are good (although see my comment on Elst below) and used properly, all major aspects in the sources are addressed, the article is neutral, stable and has relevant images with proper copyright tags.
Here's a few things that aren't necessary, but might improve the article further:

The lead section brings up Indo-European and Germanic religion, but they are barely mentioned in the article. I added a short mention about courses he taught, but it could be elaborated further.
It could be mentioned that the planned 80th-birthday festschrift was reworked posthumously into a whole series, as explained in Bridget Drinka's dedication.
Koenraad Elst is a controversial person and must at the very least be considered an opinionated source for various topics. As far as I'm concerned, he's an OK source to use in this particular instance, although other editors may disagree. If someone comes along and says he has to go, Duranton-Crabol 1988 names Gimbutas on p. 148 along with Polomé, and Koestler on p. 144 (along with Mircea Eliade, Pierre Gaxotte, René Huyghe, Thierry Maulnier and Konrad Lorenz); she doesn't mention Renfrew as far as I can see.
If you want to add more images, you could for example show some of the university buildings where Polomé worked or studied.
Anyway, I'm satisfied with the article as it is, and I'm happy to pass it as a GA. I think you're doing very valuable work with all the articles you have created and expanded. Ffranc (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Ffranc for an awesome review. Your suggestions and edits have resulted in a major improvement to the article. Well done. Krakkos (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)