Talk:Pioneer Square totem pole/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 16:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an interesting topic! Will try to give my initial comments later today. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto: Thank you for you initial comments! I really appreciate the feedback. I'll try and address all your comments as soon as I can. SamCordes^Talk 04:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments:

"became a source of civic pride for the city.": I suspect "for the city" is redundant here.
- Fixed SamCordes^Talk 04:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused by the discussion of the raven clan:
- Is Ganhada the correct target for "Raven clan"? That article appears to be about a Nisga'a (or Tsimshian: the article isn't entirely clear!) clan.
- Tlingit clans (and Tlingit, and Culture of the Tlingit) claims that Raven is a descent group which is made up of several clans.
  - Raven clan currently redirects to Ganhada, although I believe you're correct Raven is more of a descent group than an individual clan, I'll try and clean up the discussion for clarity SamCordes^Talk 04:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe I clarified the distinction now SamCordes^Talk 04:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Nonetheless, a federal grand jury in Alaska indicted eight of the men on the Chamber of Commerce committee for theft of government property." why "nonetheless"?
- It was meant in relation to the failed retrieval, but I changed the wording SamCordes^Talk 04:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that the new wording is clearer, thanks Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In "Destruction and commision of a replica", we are told that "the red cedar used to carve the totem pole had come from Forest Service land"; in "Appearance", that the cedar for the replica was "was donated by a Haida man". This looks like a contradiction to me...
- The Haida man cut down the cedar from Forest Service land, but I removed his mention to avoid confusion and it was probably too much detail SamCordes^Talk 04:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know what happened to the damaged original pole?
- I don't believe so, but I can try and do more research SamCordes^Talk 04:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - All I can find is that the original was sent back to Alaska for the reproduction to be carved, but then I can't find what later happened to it SamCordes^Talk 04:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The original Chief-of-All-Women pole was originally reported to be 49 feet 8 inches (15.14 m) tall, although it has also since been reported as 60 feet (18 m) tall." This is a massive discrepancy in height. The two sources for the 60 foot figure date to 70 years after the original pole was taken down - where did they get their information from? Is there any discussion about this discrepancy in any source?
- I don't know where their information comes from or of any discrepancy discussion. Most current sources cite 60ft, although the initial article from 1899 cites 49ft 8in. I guess I'm more inclined to trust the initial source, but I am curious why the discrepancy occurred. I can remove the 60ft height SamCordes^Talk 04:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm more inclined to trust the initial source too (not least because lectio difficilior potior). All of my instincts cry out against having two different heights for an artwork: it's one of those things where there should be a single correct answer, dammit! [Okay: looking further into this thing, the two sources for 60 feet are Wright (on which, see below) and Jonaitis, who also says that Hudson's restoration of the pole was in 1970 - whereas the Seattle department of neighborhoods, who ought to know, say 1972. I see no reason to believe the sixty feet figure, and would be inclined to remove it...] Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Tlingit origin" tells us that the carvings on the pole represent particular stories. In "appearance" the carvings are described - but their meaning is noticeably absent. Is there anything to say on why these particular images were chosen or what they represent?
- Sure, I can try and expand on the meaning of the individual carvings SamCordes^Talk 04:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How do the Tlingit today feel about the pole and its history? Is there anything to say about that?
- I don't know, but I am interested and can look into it SamCordes^Talk 04:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't been able to find any further information on this SamCordes^Talk 04:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the topics I would like to see covered in more depth, the sourcing is a little bit... meh. It's largely okay, but I'm somewhat damning with faint praise here.

Garfield 1996 and Jonaitis 2017, though written by experts in relevant fields, appear to be sources aimed at the lay reader, not academic works.
Childress 2013 and Wright 2015 are both a little newsbloggy. They are blogs of cultural organisations rather than newspapers, but the spirit is broadly the same.
Kramer 2012 and Sundquist 2010 are not, as far as I can determine, written by experts; not published by presses which specialise in the area; and do not claim to be academic works.
Wilma 2000 is written by what appears to be an amateur historian, and I can't find any evidence that it has been peer reviewed.
Judging by their about pages, both theclio.com and livingnewdeal.org appear to be user-generated content.

This list is broadly in order of reliability, from best to worst. Only the last of these is irredeemable: if they are usergenerated sources, they are not reliable. The rest are... not fantastic, but okay.

I removed the two usergenerated sources SamCordes^Talk 04:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for more academic sources which treat the Pioneer Square totem pole, I found this: pp.110-111 are relevant, and I note that Jonaitis says that claims that the pole was over 100 years old when it was stolen by the Seattle expedition is "an unlikely claim" - though irritatingly her footnote for this claim isn't in the preview!

I unfortunately don't seem to have access to see that preview SamCordes^Talk 04:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One final random thought: it may be worth saying somewhere that the original pole was made of hemlock rather than red cedar (per Garfield 1996, p.13)

Done SamCordes^Talk 04:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I may be missing something blindingly obvious, but Childress 2013 is cited for the claim "During the process, McGillvery and the other sailors broke many protrusions off the totem pole", and I don't see that in her article... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, I cited the wrong source, fixed, thanks! SamCordes^Talk 04:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto: Thank you for the additional comments, I'll try and work through them this weekend. I found the research for this article to be difficult and definitely came across some contradicting information but I'll try and improve the sourcing and stick to lectio difficilior potior when possible (I hadn't heard of that principle before :) Thank you again! SamCordes^Talk 04:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SamCordes: You're welcome. I want to emphasise that I am being picky here; the article isn't bad! Contradictory information is definitely something you come across in researching WP articles, and how you deal with it I think has to depend on the article. Take a subject I have recently been working on, Corinna: there, the contradictory positions different scholars take about her dates are a notable aspect of her biography – approaching half of all scholarly ink ever spilled about her is different academics arguing about it! So I discuss it at some length in the article. On the other hand, there was the difficulty over Albert Kesselring's date of birth, which is discussed here. There, there is a definite right answer and we can go back to primary sources (birth certificate, army record, trial records) and trust that they give the correct date.

There are a couple of definitely problematic things in the article which I have mentioned, but it's basically alright: I just want to make sure it's as good as it can be before I sign off on GA status! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto: Don't worry, I know, I honestly appreciate all the feedback and want this article to be as good as possible, and I wish there were more definite right answers! I added content about the legends behind the figures on the totem pole and believe I cleaned up the remaining issues, but let me know if I missed something, thanks! SamCordes^Talk 04:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SamCordes: All looks good! Congratulations on your GA! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto: Thank you! I really appreciate your review and comments throughout the process! SamCordes^Talk 17:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.