Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sylvanus Morley

Sylvanus Morley[edit]

self-nom. Started this one up and have been working on this for a couple of days now, and taken it about as far as I can. The subject is one who is very well-known in his field, despite some retrospective criticisms about his work of which I've tried to give a balanced view and provide the appropriate context. He's quite an interesting character, perhaps more so now that the "secret agent" aspect to his career has come to light. The article has been informally reviewed by several others, with generally favourable comments. There don't seem to have been many (or any) FAs on archaeologists or the field in which he worked, so I'd like to put this one up for nomination to see the community's opinion.--cjllw | TALK 07:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Obsessively comprehensive and well written. The only thing that rankles is "apparently made" a major contribution. If he may or may not have, then it's probably best to cite someone saying he did and let it stand or not say it at all. Otherwise, there is such a careful reconsideration of Morley that I'm afraid he comes looking very bad. I understand that the objections are in print now and the lauds are long gone, but too much correction leaves us thinking he was a big phoney who never deserved the praise. Geogre 17:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Geogre. The note of hesitation stemmed from my reliance for this info upon a "non-specialist" source, which had also confused some biog details with the other S.G. Morley. On reflection, and given that the other's autobiog makes no mention of it, I've decided to properly credit Morley with these advances, and removed "apparently". Morley was certainly no phoney in his field, just one whose ideas have been revised in the light of better evidence not available to him at the time.--cjllw | TALK 00:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Everyking 04:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stongbaddest Support A SUPERB effort! I enjoyed reading this article so much, I'll have to reread it again to find any minor flaws to gripe about. But I'm sure whatever they may be, it won't be enough to change my vote. I knew a bit about Sylvanus before, now I know a lot Morley...sorry :> His story has adventure, intrigue, espionage, lost cities and ancient mysteries. Why Hollywood has'nt turned it into a movie yet I don't know...oh wait...they have.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Object~~. What's there is good, but after reading I felt like there was a huge gap in the article. The introduction (which incidentally could stand to be slightly longer) says he is "particularly noted for his extensive excavations of the Maya site of Chichen Itza".

The article then goes on to talk about his proposal for the excavations, his fieldwork in other areas while the excavations were ongoing, a dispute with the government about the excavations, some people who were influenced by the excavations, and the end of the excavations. There's also some good discussion of his theories, which I presume were partly/mostly inspired by the excavations.

But for all that, there's hardly a word about what the excavations were actually excavating! Practically the only informative content on the subject is the captions of the pictures. There are all these nice trimmings around the outside of the plate, but the meat they're supposed to go with is missing. For a 20-year project that's supposed to be an essential part of his achievements, this is an incredible oversight. --Michael Snow 20:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Michael, I will take them on board. I had generally sought to avoid making too many digressions by way of explaining Maya history and site specifics, thinking that perhaps the more detailed Chichen Itza article could stand as a companion-piece. However, I take your point and although there's more to Morley (!) than Chichen Itza, the article could use some additional exposition on his actual efforts and findings in that area, & provide the background which led to his theories (you are right, his C.I. investigations did contribute to the ideas he was to develop, but not exclusively, I'll try to make that more clear). As for the introduction, I tried to keep it short'n'sweet, with what I hope was enough material to interest the reader and encourage them to read more; let me see if there are any other points which could be mentioned up-front. I'll work on these additions over the next day or so which will hopefully address your concerns. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 03:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have now greatly expanded upon Morley's work as it relates to Chichen Itza, also supplying the background and historical context for the results. The article is now longer than I had originally intended, but hopefully contains enough information for the non-specialist reader to appreciate his works without external references, while still maintaining the general flow of things. In any event, I think I've addressed the concern voiced above, and look forward to any further comments on that score.--cjllw | TALK 05:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To help with the length issue, I think the Context subsection is actually a bit longer than was particularly needed for an article on Morley. Some of it might be more appropriate at Chichen Itza, which is by comparison a pretty superficial article. Trying to appropriately balance what goes where can be a challenge at times. Anyway, this does fill the gap and addresses the major problem I found, so my objection can be withdrawn. --Michael Snow 18:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you for a truly fascinating article! *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 18:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]