# Talk:Jacquetta Hawkes

Ice Without, Fire Within: A Life of Jacquetta Hawkes by Christine Finn, set to be published later this year, looks like it will be a useful source for this article. – Joe (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Joe Roe, an update from the publisher says that its publication has been cancelled Lajmmoore (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Hawkes and Priestley remained physically, emotionally and intellectually close until their deaths.

Referenced, yes, but a bit OTT in my view. I think we might settle for ‘Many noted that it was a deeply fulfilling union.’ Valetude (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Career would benefit from being split into sub-sections. There's an unresolved {{cn}} tag. What's going on with FN 47? Looks to generally be in good shape, I'll look some more on the morrow Eddie891  Talk Work  00:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Eddie891: I've added some sections, changed fn 47 (I don't what happened to that one either!) and added some clarifications. I've made a note of the exisiting CN tag (I put that there to remind me as the text was already in the article, but unferences), I'm struggling to access this article https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/carnal-knowledge-tlmgjvq0hlj as I think it might give context for her memoir. Thanks for looking it over so quickly to start with, much appreciated! Lajmmoore (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
@Lajmmoore have you asked at WP:REX for access? Someone would likely be able to send it over Eddie891  Talk Work  20:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


### WiG mini-review
@Lajmmoore: coming here from the request at the WiG meetup/October editathon. I see Eddie891 has flagged a number of issues already.  My immediate reaction is it is definitely not a quick fail and I would consider it a strong nomination. My main immediate concerns would be (a) per WP:MOSLEAD the lead needs to be a more complete summary of the entire article (at present, somewhat more than one-third is listing her publication titles), (b) Why is her marriage to J B Priestly a subsection of her career? (I understand they were collaborators) ... it might be better to simply convert all these to sections themselves (c) this stood out regarding A Quest for Love: "Perhaps the least popular of her works" ... but the reference is to a contemporaneous single review from 1981; ideally should have a reference here which is assessing her works overall (d) there are two citations from "100 Objects from Special Collections at the University of Bradford" which is a wordpress blog; I assume there is no alternative for these?  In my case as a reviewer I would probably accept these if there is no alternative and they are very necessary for the article; but another reviewer might question their reliability (which is reasonable to question in the case of a Wordpress site which for Wikipedia purposes is classified as self-published and hence unreliable) (e) her role in the CND is given very short attention; given she was a founder, a founder of Women CND and in the initial leadership, given the significance of the organisation to British politics during the Cold War there should be some more of her role (f) she was active in campaigning for the decriminalisation of gay sex through the Homosexual Law Reform Society, this should be included.  Hope this was helpful, I'll mark the mini review as complete. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Excellent image available on commons to use and the Creative Commons licence is correct. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
This is SUPER HELPFUL. Thank you very much Goldsztajn - I'll address the points you raise over the next week or so, then submit it into the GA Women in Green page. Lajmmoore (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @Goldsztajn: - I've looked at each point in turn:
a) Lead - removed the list of publications and created a better summary of the article. Leads aren't my strong point, so pointers are very much appreciated.
b) Headings - done as per your suggestion.
c) A Quest for Love - so what I've done here is removed "perhaps the least popular" but added additional positive and negative criticism of the work.
d) In the case of the WordPress blog, I had thought it was borderline since its an official University of Bradford blog? What I've done is removed both links as references, but added them to external links. This included removing the sentence about the progression of her practice you can seen in the archives, but on reflection that's probably obvious anyway.
e) Added more details on CND - there's now a full paragraph.
f) Added more details on HLRS and Hawkes role - its mentioned now! Thank you for the hint. This section does have a wordpress link back to a University of Bradford blog - but the blog refers to specific material in the archive, rather than opinion, and I struggled to find an alternative source for the infomation, so I hope the reviewer can recognise it has some reliability.
Once again, thank you much for the help, I'm going to go over to WIG and submit it shortly. Lajmmoore (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jacquetta Hawkes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 19:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I will review this article; initial comments shortly. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
First pass through:

 Done The article is inconsistent on how to render initials: "J B Priestley" vs. "J. B. Priestley".  MOS:INITIAL says that it should be the latter.
 Done I noticed a couple of instances where the article deviates from the usual chronological ordering in a way which was jarring to me.  In particular:
We hear about her graduation from Cambridge before the Colchester excavations from during her time at university
The mention of the birth of Nicholas in 1937 before jumping back in time to discuss her work from 1934 and 1935
 Done "From the Roman section, the visitors met a recreation of the Sutton Hoo ship burial.":  I initially read this as saying that the Sutton Hoo recreation was in the Roman section!  Perhaps "After the Roman section" would be less ambiguous?
 Done "In 1953, after her divorce from Christopher Hawkes": the article hasn't mentioned that she has divorced Hawkes yet!  Perhaps something like "Jacquetta and Christopher Hawkes divorced in 1953; she married Priestley the same year"?
 Done "moving to Alveston": I'm British and hadn't the foggiest idea where Alveston is; perhaps specify "Alveston, Gloucestershire" in text?
 Done "Priestley's letters in the work were set in a brash new America in Texas": "brash new America in Texas" comes directly from the source, and needs to be in quotes to comply with WP:PLAGIARISM.
 Done A bunch of the sections don't know whether they want to be chronological or thematic, and it's confusing me.  What has the paragraph beginning "After the couple's move to Alveston in the early 1960s" to do with Hawkes' involvement with the HLRS, for instance? I've added an extra heading to separate the activities in this instance.
More soon Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the main GA criteria, I don't have any major concerns.  Looking at the sources, I'm not seeing anything worrying.  Plenty of inline citations.  Spotchecks don't turn up any concerns re. verifiability or copyvio.  Images are all fine – I was worried about the Festival of Britain poster, but it's conveniently ex-Crown Copyright.  Aside from my previous comments (which, I think, shouldn't take major work to fix) this article looks good.  Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello from another participant in the WiG editathon! I was interested to read this entry (fascinating!) and went ahead and made a couple small punctuation edits per the above while I did. Will tick them so it’s clear which but @Lajmmoore of course if you disagree please change accordingly! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello both - thanks so much for the review Caeciliusinhorto - very much appreciated and I'll work on the changes this week, do I just ping you when they are done? Thanks too to Innisfree987 really kind of you to help out. Lajmmoore (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello Caeciliusinhorto I've made the changes you suggested, and added an additional heading "Research in the 1950s". Thanks very much for your help and support. Lajmmoore (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Lajmmoore (and Innisfree987): my apologies for the delay in getting back onto this.  I've had a little fiddle about with the section layout – consolidating the various sections on activism in the late 50s/early 60s into a single one, and retitling the section "A Land" because it discusses Hawkes' other archaeological work of the period.  How does that look to you?  Fundamentally I think this is a good article either way, though, so I'm going to go ahead and promote it and you can feel free to revert my changes if you think it was better the way it was before. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Caeciliusinhorto Thanks so much! My first Good article - thanks so much for your support. Lajmmoore (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations @Lajmmoore! Very well done! Innisfree987 (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)