# Talk:Nicolaas van Wijk

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nicolaas van Wijk/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: ThaesOfereode (talk · contribs) 12:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 04:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Looking forward to this one! — Wug·a·po·des 04:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: Thanks for picking this GAN up! I am currently traveling so my responses may be slow over the next week or so. So feel free to take your time with this; I know it's a massive page! I'm looking forward to your comments. Best, ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
These are just my notes as I read the article. A lot of them have nothing to do with the good article criteria. Once I finish reading through the article, I will organize them based on the GA criteria. 

Notes
Are the hatnotes required or could they be hidden comments?
Y One's probably enough. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Why are there two end notes on how his name is spelled? Have you considered combining them into one?
Clarity of purpose; the first describes the usage of the name in the literature (i.e., how he is commonly referenced) and the second describes his name in his field in the languages of his field. Can combine if you feel strongly, but I felt there was a benefit to splitting them. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
from 1913 until his death I would recommend including the year of his death in the prose, or at least the length of his tenure, for clarity.
Y For sure. Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
After receiving his doctorate, from where?
Y Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
His publications led to him being selected for the newly created chair, newly created chair of what?
Y Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
he began a trip across Eastern Europe in order to secure books in his fields I'm not clear on what "secure books" means here. Like, buy them? Secure contracts to write them?
Sense "to gain possession of". Changed to "acquire", unless you have a better suggestion. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Beginning shortly after the outbreak of World War I until his death during World War II, This could be more concise. Consider something like "During the interwar period" or "towards the end of his life".
Not sure either work here; it precedes the beginning of the interwar period and I'm not sure something that constitutes more than a third of his life should be defined as "towards the end" of it. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
the daughter of Weesp's burgemeester. If possible, a rough translation of "burgemeester" would be helpful for readers not familiar with Dutch culture. You use the Literarische Studenten-Vereeniging ('Literary Students Union') which is a good example of how to do this.
Unfortunately, the translation is "burgomaster", which is not terribly helpful so I linked the page. I'm heavily indebted to Hinrichs on this page and, as you'll see below, if his translator was unwilling or unable to translate a word or phrase, I usually left it as-is since the translation was difficult enough that the translator left it as-is. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Same for "nutsschool"
Id supra. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Same for "buitengewoon hoogleraar"
Id supra. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
"Amsterdamse Universiteitsvereniging"
Already defined. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
"Übungen"
Strictly speaking, "practice", though I've spoken to a German speaker who says that my {{ill}} here is understandable given the difficulty in translating this kind of class for an English-speaking audience. The German Wikipedia page Übung goes to Practice (learning method), which is not productive or helpful for the reader. Wiktionary defines it as "a kind of university class where skills taught in lectures or seminars are exercised (similar to a Tutorium, but more likely to be obligatory and taught by proper staff)". Open to suggestions here. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
"privaat-docentschap".
Similar to above. A literal translation would be "private docentship" but that's not necessarily helpful in the Dutch context; I've linked a more specific heading for the page linked though. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
the following September was inoculated against cowpox. Was this rare or novel at the time? I'm trying to figure out why it's worth noting.
I hemmed and hawed about adding this, but put it in with the same thought in my mind. I told myself if this got tagged for removal at GAN, I'd remove it so it's gone. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Although it [the dissertation] was initially met with skepticism From whom?
Unclear. Kuiper says: "Het was een stoutmoedige greep in de prehistorie, opmerkelijk door gedurfdheid en schranderheid, maar die velen niet kon overtuigen. Het moderne onderzoek echter, dat de problemen der prehistorische taalstructuur aan een hernieuwd onderzoek onderwerpt, heeft ook de gedachte van Van Wijk's jeugdwerk weer opgevat." ('It was a bold attempt in prehistory, remarkable for its daring and cleverness, but which failed to convince many. Modern research, however, which subjects the problems of prehistoric language structure to renewed investigation, has also taken up the idea of ​​Van Wijk's youthful work again.') ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
At the time, Van Wijk considered Karl Brugmann and his pupil Hermann Hirt Was Hirt the pupil of Van Wijk or Brugmann?
Y Brugmann's. Clarified. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm not clear on what the quote Leskein's lectures adds that the prose description didn't?
Color, I suppose; I like Van Wijk's prose a lot, so I felt it added something substantive to the bio, especially since he spoke so little of his professional/academic life. I can remove it if you insist. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm confused by the section "Appointment as Chair".
There are a lot of lists of names, and they can break the flow of the article. How important are each of these people in the grand scheme of the subject's life? Are readers likely to know them?
I suppose it depends on the reader, but they are independently notable. I actually cut out a number of notable persons from this section; Van Wijk's appointment was quite the row. Similarly, I'm fairly surprised that Bychkov and Sobolevskij don't have English pages since they were names I recognized immediately when I wrote this. Another editor is currently working on a draft for Croiset van der Kop, the "antagonist" of this episode, who was influential in Slavistics, esp outside of the Netherlands. She figures in the following section as well. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
For readers, like me, unfamiliar with the process for creating or appointing this chair, the explanation can be hard to follow. Why was a royal decree involved? What is the value of a chair like this? How do these rivals or supporters turn up again later in his life?
At the time, Leiden University was officially the "Royal University of Leiden". It seems, given the parliamentary influence, that it was an executive duty, in a similar way that a president might sign a bill into law in the United States; a similar event had to occur just to appoint Van Wijk deputy librarian at the Royal Library. A chair is basically the leader of a department or program, it's development would have almost certainly led to an increase in funding, but I don't think that's stated explicitly stated anywhere (Hinrichs is an academic and may have considered this totally obvious). ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
How personnel here interact with the rest of the page: Croiset van der Kop is the "antagonist" of this episode and is the main rival to Van Wijk; she is notable in the next section (and in general). Van der Meulen is the direct internal competitor so mentioning him here is rather important. Wildeboer can probably be removed so I've removed him. Hartman might also be removable, but he was an influential part of the Classics department at this time; his pushing for a new chair would not have been taken lightly. Kuyper and Heemskerk were prime ministers and it seems silly not to name them. Jan Baudouin de Courtenay, Ivan Bychkov, Aleksey Shakhmatov, Alexey Sobolevskij, and Filipp Fortunatov are all influential Slavicists; Baudouin de Courtenay and Shakhmatov have sound laws named after them and Fortunatov has two, and all three greet him in Russia with open arms despite their differences. Anthony Brummelkamp, Alexander Brückner, and K. E. W. Strootman are the only named Dutch opposition names; Brückner is particularly notable since he was Croiset van der Kop's instructor. Jagić is later Van Wijk's main Croatian contact in the following section. Antoine Meillet is a top five name in historical linguistics and any defense by him in a linguist's biography is functionally mandatory information; if you know any historical linguist from the Golden Era other than de Saussure is either him or Brugmann. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
obtain books for the university's library At the start of a new section, specify information again. We shouldn't assume that readers have read everything prior or can hover over links on their phone, so being clear even if redundant is a safe bet.
Y Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
while he was in the area that later became the Czech Republic. The name of the area should be specified then contextualized. Readers shouldn't need to hover of the link or click through to find out information like that. Consider something like "while he was in the Bohemian lands, now the modern Czech Republic".
A little pushback here. "Czech lands" encompasses more than just Bohemia (also Moravia and Czech Silesia). That page title is just a shortening of what I'm saying; that's why the pipe is there. I felt it would be more confusing just to call them "Czech lands" here. I think it would be kind of weird for me to state "in the Czech lands" and then redefine it as basically the Czech Republic before the Czech Republic when the pipe is not misleading. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Van Wijk made landfall in Saint Petersburg Did he travel by ship? It would help to be more clear about that.
Y In retrospect, I don't think it's clear how he traveled there. Reworded. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
a tense intellectual life where Polish and Ukrainian scholars purposefully ignored and avoided each other. This feels contentious enough that an inline cite would be a good idea.
Y Fair enough. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Ukrainian texts which were outlawed in the Russian Empire were being freely printed in Lviv I got tripped up by this clause the first time I read it. The second time through it made sense, but it might be worth rephrasing.
Y I think what I've got here works a little better (plus a little WP:POSA action). ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Kętrzyński sent Van Wijk off with a small library worth of books at no cost; the latter I have a pet peeve about "the latter". I think it only makes things less clear when readers (like me) need to back track to figure out the referent.
Y Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
the Slavist I. Bogdan Two things. Consider a comma between Slavist and I. Bogdan for clarity. Why abbreviate the first name?
I don't think a comma is warranted since it's a title, technically. For the abbreviation, I have, in all honesty, no idea who this is. Had Van Wijk met with literally anyone else in Bucharest, I would not have mentioned Bogdan at all. He is noteworthy for being the only one and for having a Slavic name. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
For an annual fee of six crowns Is it possible to contextualize this in modern currency? I'm not sure whether that's a lot or a little.
I'm not sure either. Croatia and its former overload, Austria, use the Euro now and both had intermediate currencies (the Croatian kuna and Austrian schilling). The Ukrainian GA page for the Austro-Hungarian crown seems to indicate that ten-crown bills and five-crown coins were in regular circulation around this time, but 10,000-crown bills were being issued by the middle-to-end of the War. That – along with the relative poverty in Croatia at the time – tells me probably not a lot at the time Van Wijk bought his subscription, but without a secondary source, I'm not sure what we can say about this without violating WP:OR. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
How do you decide when to use the modern name and when to use the historic name? For example you write Then traveling to Lviv (then-known as Lemberg) and later continuing on to Laibach (modern-day Ljubljana, Slovenia). Definitely not a GA thing, but I'm curious why the apparent inconsistency in modern versus historic naming in the main prose.
There was a calculus here, but I've lost it. I'll figure out a better way of being consistent and follow up. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
For the record, this should be fixed now. Let me know if I missed one though. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
before entering Austria proper following the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, though he makes no mention of the event in his report and appears to have been completely ignorant that it happened No concern here, I just found this line incredibly interesting.
Honestly one of the most fascinating parts of this read in my opinion (and I found Van Wijk quite exceptional). ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
When word finally reached him about Franz Ferdinand's assassination, he wrote that he had found the political conversations with the local Viennese Croats and Slovenes informed him greatly What do you mean by "informed him greatly"? It sounds like there might be more here that would help reveal some of his political leanings towards the start of WWI. I'd be interested if there was more to say here, but that's a personal curiosity not a requirement.
I really wish there were more too. From Hinrichs: For the first time in his reports, he now mentions the political situation: the Viennese, especially the Croats and Slovenians, were talking a great deal about politics after the death of Franz-Ferdinand: 'a good lesson for a guest from other countries'. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
he distanced himself from the latter's school of thought with respect to sound laws What was the school of thought, and was it controversial more widely or just for van Wijk? Also "the latter".
Not one hundred percent sure. Van Wijk was a Neogrammarian and Hinrichs says as much, but it's not clear which school Meringer belonged to. I looked quickly at his Russian (GA) and German pages, but little turned up. My best guess is that Meringer seems to have been focused more on the psychological sources of change rather than treating sound changes as discrete universals. Again, without a solid secondary source, I'm not sure what I can say here. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
whom Van Wijk described in his report thus: "No other Slavist scholar knows the terrain, in all its scope, better than he". Direct quotes must be cited.
Y Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
the Netherlands began its mobilization for the war. I think it's better to say "for World War I" just to make sure readers have context in case they don't read the section heading or the section heading changes.
Y Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
joined in a double-jointed proto-language. I haven't heard of a "double-jointed proto-language". What does "double-jointed" mean here?
The original breakdown of linguistic phylogeny (how languages are related to each other) changed over time and continues to. For example, right now there is some debate about the relatedness of the Italic languages and the Celtic languages, both major branches of the Indo-European language family. Were the consensus to change to consider them to have a post-Proto-Indo-European ancestor (i.e., a common ancestor later than Proto-Indo-European but preceding Proto-Italic and Proto-Celtic), the resulting proto-language would be a double-jointed Proto-Italo-Celtic language (i.e., Celtic and Italic being both "joints" of a larger proto-language). Not sure how to word that more clearly in the article, but open to suggestions. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
The caption for File:Kleine_Fleischergasse_Leipzig_1903.jpg should explain why the picture is relevant. Is this a street in Leipzig? Is it one particularly related to VanWijk?
Y Done. Just for color, no relation to Van Wijk as far as I know. ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
The caption for the 4 photos including File:Jan Niecisław Baudouin de Courtenay.png should also say that he is in the bottom right.
I don't think that's necessary (cf. this section of POSA. Can add if you really insist, but it's already kind of a long caption. ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
I have access to Hinrichs 2006 and was able to check a number of citations in the "Early Career" and "Interwar Period" sections. I don't see any copyvios, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. The citations I checked passed verification. For reference those are cites number 29, 30, 31, 39, 41, 118, 119 of this version. Nothing stuck out to me as original research.
Appropriately broad in its coverage. While it's detailed, I wouldn't call it unnecessary. I think his scholarly contributions could be more clearly presented, but they're in there so that's not a GA problem
See below, but agreed that this could eventually use a tune up. ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Neutral, stable, except for the two image things above, all the GA criteria for images are good.
Complies with Manual of Style
I'll say that the article is dense and at times complex which gives me pause on whether it is accessible to an appropriately broad audience. I don't think it is ever unclear or lacking concision, but it is written at a high reading level. Looking at other biographies of academics, this one doesn't seem out of place, but I'd encourage you to continue thinking of how to make the article more accessible to, for example, high school-level readers.
Honestly, I agree. I'm planning to eventually whip this into an FA-worthy article, so I will keep this in mind when I rework this page.  ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Finished the lead and early life section. I'm going to take a break for now and will continue tomorrow. Thanks! — Wug·a·po·des 05:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

finished the early career section. More reading to come! — Wug·a·po·des 07:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Excellent work so far. Looking forward to the rest of the review! ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks ThaesOfereode. I've finished reading through the prose. I still need to review the media and go through the checklist to make sure I don't forget anything, but the article seems great. Once the last few boxes are checked I think we'll be good to go. Thanks for your patience, and I hope you had good travels! — Wug·a·po·des 05:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Great! Your comments continue to be helpful and constructive. I've commented above, but feel free to dig deep again. Thank you as well for your patience; I know this is a monster article. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
@ThaesOfereode Thanks for the patience. I've left the last few comments. There are two actionable ones regarding captions, and after that I'd be comfortable with a pass. — Wug·a·po·des 04:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: No problem on the wait. Things get hectic; believe me, I know. I think I've addressed everything. Let me know if there's anything else, but I've appreciated your review thus far. I know this page is a beast. ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Passed Thanks for the interesting article and working with me on the review. Best of luck on your FA aspirations! I think it's well on its way already! — Wug·a·po·des 04:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: I don't believe this transcription is "absolutely incorrect". I'm willing to accept [ʊ] in lieu of /ɔ/, given the linked page, but it certainly isn't [o:]. What would motivate the long vowel in a syllable with tertiary stress here? I don't see any reason to change /v/ to [f] in van (other than maybe assuming a devoicing from the previous /s/, though I don't know if liaison applies here), nor remove what is clearly secondary stress. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

No, wait. /oː/ occurs as a rule in open syllables, /ɔ/ in closed syllables. And the help page doesn’t even list [ʊ]?? Plus, consonant clusters usually assimilate their voicing and devoicing so /sv/ becomes [sf], as explained at Dutch phonology. I told you to read those pages but you’re asking questions that could have easily been answered just by taking a closer look. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
I see the assimilation bit now, but the vowel is still not correct. Two sections support me:
The native tense vowels /eː, øː, oː, aː/ are long [eː, øː, oː, aː] in stressed syllables and short [e, ø, o, a] elsewhere.
Given that the vowel is not stressed, the long vowel should not be used. On the Dutch IPA help page, the long oː is referred to in the "free vowel" section. If you look at Checked and free vowels, you'll see there that the syllable needs to be open and stressed to qualify.
I don't really have a preference between the use of [o] (per the mainspace page) or [ɔ] (per the help page), but the vowel cannot be long. ThaesOfereode (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
The vowel must be transcribed long because it must match the conventions used at Help:IPA/Dutch, which only use one symbol for all the variants. It is not a checked /ɔ/ so we do not have any other option. Again, please read. And take a look at this. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)