Talk:Stephen J. Herben Jr.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stephen J. Herben Jr./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 11:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Another philologist! What fun. I'm also sad to see how long you've been waiting for a reviewer for this one. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• As I mentioned on another review: Articles should be in quotes, while italics are reserved for longer works.

• Done.

• The Edison thing is interesting, but I'm not sure it belongs in the lead, and it's not mentioned anywhere else in the article.

• Removed. You might enjoy it more at George Foster Herben (look for "The ones with distinguished friends")!

• "where the titular character travels in search of the monster" Titular character of what?

• Reworded: where the hero Beowulf travels

• Just to be clear: The paper "Heorot" was by Herben? This should be specified.

• Reworded: A decade later, in 1935, a paper by Herben Jr. titled simply "Heorot"

• Is termed the right word? labelled or described as may be better.

• Changed to "called".

• Is this in American English or British English? It seems inconsistent. I'd guess American, but your dates are British.

• The dates are out of personal preference (seems more logical to go either from smallest to largest with dmy, or largest to smallest with ymd), but I'm happy to Americanize it if you prefer.

• I think you probably should, for consistency's sake. Naturally, I'm sympathetic to your worries! Josh Milburn (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Done.

• I wonder if the footnotes about Reno would be better placed after the subsequent sentence?

• Done.

• You don't need accessdates on courtesy links.

• Removed. It's a close call with the Rutgers University Libraries "War Records, H" link, but I left that one since the website provides some contextual information that is not included in the papers themselves.

• Are those all his publications? If not, maybe "selected publications" or similar?

• They're all the ones I can find. It wouldn't be surprising if there are a few more (particularly in more obscure or offline journals), but the intent is to be comprehensive.

• What't the distinction between the orange and green open-access symbols? Are you definitely using them consistently and correctly?

• Discussed at Talk:Charles Green (archaeologist)/GA1.

• I'm guessing that the divorce was on the grounds of "cruelty"? You don't actually specify this, but do talk about it generally. (Other than that, no quibbling about source formatting; I promise!)

• There are some details in this article from the Reno Evening Gazette. It sounds as if there may be some credibility issues here, however—we don't have Herben Jr.'s side of the story, and as the footnote explains, "cruelty" was frequently invoked as a proxy for a no-fault marriage—such that discretion may guard against repeating the details in the article.

• That's fair. I'm just not sure why we need all the details about Reno and divorce law - I suppose it's just in a footnote! If you're happy with it there, I am. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• I added the footnote when I had the more salacious details in the article earlier, to balance it out, but eventually removed those. At any event, it provides some context.

• Our philosophies differ here, I think, but I'd move the picture up to the infobox (perhaps cropped to be just the photo) and specify which he is in the caption.

• I'm still holding out hope for a good photograph (apparently Bryn Mawr has a great one with him holding one of his medieval helmets, if I can ever get through to them, and his family may be able to find a few as well). If those fall through, however, I may move the current photograph to the infobox.

Just heard back from his granddaughter, who has a very cool oil portrait of him by an unknown artist, painted c. 1930–45. Do you have a sense of whether that would be acceptable, copyright wise?

That would depend on whether it was "published", I think, but I don't know what constitutes "publication" of a painting. Commons:Template:PD-US-not renewed or, more likely, Commons:Template:PD-US-no notice would probably cover it if it was "published". If it wasn't "published", I don't think it's going to be public domain, even if the author is unknown, as nothing on Commons:Template:PD-US-unpublished seems to apply. IANAL. WP:MCQ, or whatever the Commons equivalent is, may be able to help. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, good question. I'll do some googling and perhaps ask for thoughts on the copyright help desk. If not published, would you object to using it as fair use?

I'm afraid I would, for two reasons: first, we have a free image (even if it's not great); and, second, the non-free content criteria require previous publication. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Had a feeling you might say that... Let's see if anyone chimes in here. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• You could have more categories for the various universities at which he studied or worked. Are there also categories for the subjects he studied? And for being an etymologist?

• Added Category:American military personnel of World War I‎, Category:Etymologists, Category:Princeton University faculty, and Category:Rutgers University alumni. I don't think his stints at Oxford (English coach for a year) and Stanford (visiting professor) were substantial enough to include as faculty, but let me know if you think otherwise.

  I agree with you! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hope this is helpful! Josh Milburn (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Much obliged, J Milburn. I'll confess that I'm not sure I actually knew what a philologist was before writing an article (Sutton Hoo helmet) that depended on such scholarship, but this and Caroline Brady (philologist) were a lot of fun to dig into and write. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks J Milburn, responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

No further comments; happy to promote. Sorry - I completely forgot about this review! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks J Milburn! No worries at all—I figured you were waiting on the resolution on the potential use of the oil painting (to which I haven't yet received a response), but as it currently stands, the copyright is probably too ambiguous to use. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)