Jump to content

Talk:Leo Martello/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 17:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two comments which spring to mind after reading the lead but not the rest of the article: Was he gay? Surely significant when it comes to his activism. Also, some details on his death? Maybe these questions will seem less pertinent when I've read the rest of the article.
    • I don't really think that the nature of his death as particularly worthy of mention in the lead, although a reference to his (homo)sexuality might warrant a mention; I've added them to the first sentence of the third paragraph. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Granted about the nature of death; I just thought it was odd to finish with him retiring from public view rather than dying. This may be my problem rather than yours; I'll say no more about it. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've thought about it some more and concluded that it really doesn't do any harm to mention his death, so I shall stick a brief mention of it into the lede. I'm not sure that it really adds anything, but it certainly doesn't detract. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He began studying graphology, and by the age of 16 was making appearances on radio as a graphologist, also writing stories for magazines" This sentence is a little overly elliptical. Also, I think it could be made clearer that graphology is bunk.
    • I've made the change to "He studied graphology and from the age of 16 began making radio appearances as a graphologist, also writing stories for magazines" but this isn't perfect and if you have further suggestions for revisions and improvements then feel free to recommend them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm still a little worried about the fact that graphology is presented uncritically; on the other hand, maybe here is not the place for making a case against it (just as here isn't the place to make a case against tarot). I wonder how you'd feel about adding something like "the discredited science of" before its first mention? Josh Milburn (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm a little concerned about putting anything like this into the article, to be honest. After all, anyone can click on the link to graphology to see that it is widely considered to be a pseudo-science. I don't particularly want to be seen to be pushing the "this is all nonsense" approach in the prose itself. 12:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Is/was the "Institute for Psychotherapy" accredited? I'm surprised it's a redlink.
    • My guess is that it wasn't. Unfortunately the sources don't provide further information about it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just worry about presenting Martello as more qualified than he actually was; I note that the particular sentence is cited to two sources which could be described as less-than-ideal. One option would be to credit it in-text to a particular author, using scarequotes if necessary; "Moving to the city, he studied at Hunter College and—according to [whoever]—the "Institute for Psychotherapy"." Josh Milburn (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • A valid concern. However, I'm really not sure how to proceed on this one. It may be that it was a short-lived institution; bear in mind that we are discussing things as they existed in the 1940s. Generally speaking I'd be inclined to leave the prose as it is on this one. Hopefully further research will be published on Martello and his life in future which might clear some of these issues up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really sold on the link on "Chelsea Clinton News". It strikes me as a little deceptive, and it points to an article that mentions the paper in passing (under a slightly different name) and a section that doesn't exist.
  • "he set about writing The Weird Ways of Witchcraft (1969), also authoring The Hidden World of Hypnotism (1969)." How about "he set about writing The Weird Ways of Witchcraft (1969). Around the same time, he authored The Hidden World of Hypnotism (1969)."?
  • "He was appalled at the Society's negative reaction to the Stonewall riots, and castigated those self-loathing gay people in the audience who accepted the categorization of homosexuality as a mental illness." Is this neutral? He characterised those people as "self-hating gay people", perhaps, but is it our place to endorse that view?
    • True, we can improve this wording and take it in a more neutral direction. I've gone with "He was appalled at the Society's negative reaction to the Stonewall riots, and castigated those gay people in the audience who accepted the categorization of homosexuality as a mental illness, accusing them of being self-loathing." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In wanting to break from previous gay liberation organizations, the GLF embraced the term "gay"" This doesn't quite work. Why not simply "Wanting to break from previous gay liberation organizations, the GLF embraced the term "gay""?
  • "Two GAA members, Clarke and Nichols, convinced the businessman Al Goldstein to invest" This doesn't sound very neutral
  • "initiated him up to the third degree" Jargon
    • I can't find any links to a useful article (it would be good to have an article on the degree systems of initiatory orders, whether that be Masonic, Wiccan, or whatever). Thus, I've changed the prose slightly to "and initiated him through its three degree system". Does that work? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just saving what I've listed so far- more to follow shortly. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, more:

  • I'm afraid I'm not completely sold on the Bruno blockquote. She was his personal friend, writing in that capacity (or, worse, writing to big-up the particular tradition she and him were/are a part of), so of course she is going to say gushing things about him.
  • We have an article on Rosemary Ellen Guiley, but I'm not sold on reliability. A look through her publication list doesn't exactly fill me with confidence, and nor does it seem to be an academic publication. Or am I making a mistake here?
    • I don't really know much about her to be honest. Looking at the article on here, I'm not convinced that she meets the criteria for notability, however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • My questions are, first, whether the book you're using could be considered particularly reliable (I certainly wouldn't want it leaned upon for any surprising or controversial information) and, second, whether you could perhaps include a wikilink somewhere? Josh Milburn (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh yes, I see. I'll add the Wikilink. I think that the book is reliable in terms of how we are using it; I don't think that any particularly unreliable or astonishing claims are being based upon it. That being said, it is quite clearly not of the same quality as, say, an academic publication. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are either of the external links adding anything? I'd be inclined to remove both. (One of them isn't working for me at the moment anyway.)

Enjoyable read; interesting subject. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, a thought: There seem to be multiple universities in/associated with Fez, none of which (it seems) are straightforwardly called the "University of Fez". Rather than linking to a university that may not exist, how about going for "where he researched the history of the tarot at [a university in] Fez". Without a clearer indication of the actual institution, I think the current wording is not ideal. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leo_Martello/GA1&oldid=713495860"