# Talk:Hector Munro Chadwick

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hector Munro Chadwick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140924080016/http://www.asnc.cam.ac.uk/publications/Named%20Public%20Lectures.htm to http://www.asnc.cam.ac.uk/publications/Named%20Public%20Lectures.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hector Munro Chadwick/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 11:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


### Comments
Please remove the links to common words like "cats" and "dogs", this is certainly overlinking. Further, in a biography, readers will have sufficient idea what "tennis" or "cricket" is; we need not link "study", let alone repeatedly - actually I see that is a pair of Easter Eggs with link target different from the linked word, so please fix them. Even "language" is a doubtful link for such an article, best removed really. "Scottish Highlanders" reads oddly to British ears (all Highlanders are Scottish) and the link looks  close to undue.Y
Another Easter Egg is "German" which links to Nazi Germany: that one could be considered offensive, so please rejig it - instead, link "German invasion" to Operation Sea Lion.Y
"head of what is today known as the Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic" - please name the department as it was then, which is what he became head of. You can leave the underlying link to the modern department.Y
The Sources list is a bit thin, even more so when de Navarro is seen to do most of the heavy lifting: if not quite "single source" at the moment, it's not well spread. I see that you haven't used Lapidge, Mitchell, or Who's Who which are in 'Further reading', so it would be best to add some material and citations from those, whether to confirm, to modify, or to add to the de Navarro coverage.
Unfortunately, Lapidge (2015) and Mitchell (1992) are not available online, and i don't have access to them at my local library. I have been waitlisted for access to Who's Who for more than a year. However, Who's Who is not a very detailed source, and i doubt it contains much information not already covered by Navarro or Telfer. I have added a review of Lapidge's work by Corey J. Zwikstra. Krakkos (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I think the comment on sourcing stands but perhaps we have covered "the main points" per the GA criteria.Y
You might like to look at Löffler, Marion (2006). "Chadwick, H.M. and Nora K.". In Koch, John T. (ed.). Celtic Culture: A-Celti. Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. pp. 397–398. ISBN 9781851094400. for details of the work of the Chadwicks on the Celts.
This source and the key information it contains has been added tot the article and cited. Krakkos (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Hm. Well, it's progress. Y
The list of philologists in "See also' is probably undue or misplaced: these would be much better in a template, or linked in the text.Y
The Discipline and Sub-discipline list are somewhat Baroque in length and need firm trimming. "Germanic studies" includes Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse, for instance.Y
The pre-1923 works are Public Domain and should be linked. For instanceY
The Cult of Othin
Studies in Old English
The Heroic Age
The Growth of Literature
The Origin of the English Nation
The Nationalities of Europe and the Growth of National Ideologies
Studies in Early British History
The image of Bertha Phillpotts might be thought undue as it stands. It is cited and briefly mentioned in the text, but if she was an "intimate friend" I'd have expected more coverage of her in a biography article: how intimate was that, was she a mistress, did she frequently visit his house, did they travel together, or what? That certainly has a bearing on the biography. Perhaps the "Family" section should be extended to "Personal life".
The image has vanished (not my intention), and nothing has been added to the text?
The image has been reinserted, but with a more modest caption. I deliberately avoided making a Personal life section. Chadwick's personal life largely concerns his relationship with Nora K. Chadwick. As this relationship is strongly intertwined with his professional life, i believe information on this relationship should be integrated into the general text. Krakkos (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
That aspect is I think covered sufficiently for GA. My question was about the "intimate" relationship with Phillpotts alongside that with Nora K. Are we to guess that the "intimate" relationship with Phillpotts was purely Platonic, or was there more to it? I think we need a sourced statement on the matter. BTW I'm a bit startled to see that you're cutting out the terms like "intimate" and "close" that I thought were reliably-cited. Seems the sources need closer study.
Navarro refers to Phillpotts as an "old friend" of Chadwick. I was not aware that there is that much of a difference between an "old friend" and an "intimate friend". It was not my intention to suggest that they were in a romantic relationship. I have rephrased the paragraph so that Phillpotts is referred to simply as a "friend". Krakkos (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
It was certainly easy to misconstrue, read as British English (I recall the mirth of some transatlantic visitors at hearing a cricket commentary to the effect that a batsman had knocked up 61 in an afternoon...). So I guess it's all fine.Y
The article on Nora K. Chadwick states that "The Chadwicks turned their home into a literary salon, a tradition which Mrs. Chadwick maintained after the death of her husband in 1947.[Davidson 1972]" - this seems to require a mention here also.Y
I believe the "Notable students" section is now deprecated in infoboxes. Certainly it would be better to describe and cite them in the text rather than making (uncited) claims in the infobox: Davidson for instance is nowhere mentioned.Y
"Section B" needs a brief explanation and citation. If as it seems it's like Tolkien's Oxford then A=lit[erature] and B=lang[uage], i.e. philology. Indeed that context probably deserves brief mention and offers ready sourcing.
A sentence on the subjects covered by "Section B" has now been added. Krakkos (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Y
The image of Clare College is basically decorative in this context; please remove it.Y
The lead section needs to mention the collaboration with Nora.Y
Caption "Vendel Period (Germanic Iron Age) helmet, at the Swedish Museum of National Antiquities. In The Heroic Age, Chadwick postulated the existence of a Germanic Heroic Age in this period, analogous to the Greek Heroic Age." begins with the image, which is as it stands off-topic. Instead, say something like "In The Heroic Age, Chadwick postulated the existence of a Germanic Heroic Age in the Vendel Period (Vendel helmet shown), analogous to the Greek Heroic Age." - this is crisper, and is about Chadwick.Y
The other captions need the same sort of refocussing to be about Chadwick not the images.Y
@Chiswick Chap: Thanks for a great review! I don't have access to Lapidge, Mitchell and Who's Who unfortunately... I have nevertheless tried to update the article in accordance with your recommendations. Cheers! Krakkos (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks. It's generally best to respond item by item so we can sign them off; I've checked and signed off what I can, but see the crossed (red) items above and respond to those please. Texts can often be accessed in part via Google searches, can be ordered from your local library, or you can request short articles or a a few pages from books via The Wikipedia Library. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the follow up. I have made additional updates in accordance with your suggestions. See above for an item by item response. Krakkos (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


### Minor comments
"the utilization of interdisciplinary research" -> "interdisciplinary research"Y
The use of "would" is jarring; e.g. "would eventually convince him" -> "eventually convinced him" or just "eventually led him". Similarly "would subsequently extend" -> "extended"; "He would continue to hold" -> "held"; "would be mostly be dedicated" -> was mostly dedicated"; "would subsequently extend" -> "subsequently extended".Y (I fixed several "would"s for you)
"he was still very much fond of it" -> "he still liked it" (less colloquial)Y
"is notable for having significantly contributed to the development of" -> "developed"Y
"no less than three works by Chadwick were published" -> "Chadwick published three works" (i.e. active voice)Y
"outmaneuver" -> "outmanoeuvre", there can be no doubt that British English is required in this distinguished context.Y


### Summary
The article is clearly written, covers the main points of its subject, does not wander off-topic, and is appropriately structured. It is fully cited to reliable sources. It is appropriately illustrated with public domain images. I'm therefore happy to pass it as a GA now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Great! Thank you so much for your contributions. The article has been significantly improved as a result of your review. Krakkos (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

.