Talk:Theodora Kroeber

Surname in early life

Why are we referring to the young Theodora Krakaw as "Kroeber" while she was not even married to her first husband, let along the second one? It clangs oddly on my ear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Fair enough. I had used "Kroeber" because some vague memory was telling me that we had a guideline recommending that; but I can't find it, so either I misremembered or its so obscure it doesn't matter. I've gone with "Kracaw" where that's unambiguously her, and found other alternatives where there are multiple Kracaw's or where her surname at the time isn't clear (I can't find a source which tells us whether she changed her name after marrying Brown). Vanamonde (Talk) 04:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

PS Since you've come across this, I wonder if you'd consider reviewing this article and Ishi in Two Worlds, both of which are also at GAN (offshoots of my project to rewrite Ursula Le Guin). Vanamonde (Talk) 04:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll consider it tomorrow. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Theodora Kroeber/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: I'll have a go at this one. Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 19:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• I've done a little copy-editing.

  Definitely jumping the gun here, but the "had" in this case was meant to reflect the fact that Kroeber had developed an interest in Native American cultures before her mother in law asked her to return to California. Thoughts? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

  OK, well, maybe find a way to make that clear then.

  Tweaked.

• The lead tells us she's "best known for her accounts of several Native Californian cultures". I think we should hear a little more of that work and what other anthropologists thought of it, probably in a new section; it needn't be long. Unless you mean the two pictorial works? If so, better make that clear in the lead. But "her anthropological writings" seem to need a little more explication.

  It presumably refers to the pictorial works and to Ishi in Two Worlds, but really is just what the source says; I'm not keen on second-guessing the source, though. Pretty much all of the available review of her work focuses on Ishi in Two Worlds, which is already given a lot of weight here.

• A New Objective Method for Showing Special Relationships by Forrest E. Clements, Sara M. Schenck and T. K. Brown, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1926), pp. 585-604 seems to be "her first academic work". Might be worth citing, and even glossing as something like "a paper on a new method of analysis of ethnological data".

  Added.

• Yahi people - maybe add "of northern California" or some such.

  Added.

• "She later took ..." "The couple later ..." - suggest drop both "later"s (we know it was later).

  I've dropped the second; the first reads smoother to me...

• "when the couple entertained them" - perhaps "entertaining them" would work better.

  That construction sounds stranger to me...

  I've tweaked the 'remained' to 'kept' which seems to me to fit better, but perhaps the reading of this sentence is a Yank/Brit thing.

• "In 1959, she published" - I think it would be worth stating her age at this point.

  Added.

• "a biography of Alfred Kroeber titled Alfred Kroeber" - perhaps "a biography of her husband...".

  Done

• "John Quinn, working at the time" - do you mean "John Quinn, who was working"?

  Yes, changed.

• Perhaps the lead should mention Quinn.

  I'm not too certain about this, but okay, added.

• I guess we ought to wikilink peace rally, nuclear weapon.

  Done

• Surely everyone would really like a family photo with Ursula and Karl. You never know, the family might give us one.

  I have been intending to contact the family, if only for a free-use picture of Kroeber that can be displayed at a decent resolution. However, such a process could take a while: I'd really rather not have the GA held up for that. I'm quite certain I've scraped through all that commons has to offer, and I cannot justify a second fair use image. There's several images of Ursula Le Guin, of course, one of which could be added, if you would like.

  Well, it ought to be of her as a girl, in that case! I don't see one of those on Commons. The GA certainly needn't wait for such photos, but the article would definitely be improved with some such.

• A photo of the "large redwood house" would be really apposite, too.

  See above.

That's about it. The images and refs are fine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Thanks: I think I've responded to everything. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, I think this is clearly up to the required standard, good work (from a very low base, I see). Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Pre-FAC comments

The main authors have been kind enough to invite my comments. I have read the article with an eye to the prose. I shall re-read it looking at the actual content later, but for now here are my not very earth-shaking thoughts on the prose:

• General

• You continually use "he/she/they would" do so-and-so instead of a plain past tense. I don't see what "she would later write" and "she would later include" etc have got that the shorter and less woolly "she later wrote" and "she later included" haven't.

• done - SW

• It's a nasty habit I have, thanks for pointing it out - V

• Lead

• "She had two children with Kroeber, and two others from her first marriage" – mention of children in a lead is unusual; I don't boggle at it, but it slightly raised an eyebrow.

• A fair point, which Ipigott raised at WIR too when I asked. My rationale is twofold; first, that sources repeatedly mention that Kroeber was a devoted mother, and that she quit academia to raise her children; and second, that at least two of her children are notable, one more so than anyone else in her extended family. I'll see where I'm at after reworking the lead. - V

• "Nine years after Alfred's death in 1960, Theodora Kroeber married" – better be consistent here, I think: either Alfred's and Theodora or Alfred Kroeber's and Theodore Kroeber.

• Early life, education, and first marriage

• "Charles' family" – as a practitioner of the King's English (how strange it seems to write that rather than "the Queen's English"!) I find the possessive form ess-apostrophe rather than ess-appostrope-ess clunky, and though I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong, the only American style guide I can find online says, "Form the possessive of a proper name ending in "s" by adding an apostrophe and an "s": Jacobs's laboratory, Mathers's reception".

• done - SW

• "who had come to the US via Germany and England, while Phebe had grown up in Wyoming" – careful with "while". You may mean "and", "but" or "although" but your reader may read it as "at the same time as" − "Miss Jones sang Schubert while Mr Smith played Beethoven".

• done - SW

• "he committed suicide in 1917" – there is, or was, an editor going round raising a frightfully forceful objection to the phrase "committed suicide", seeing it as somehow opprobrious. I don't see it myself, but for a quiet life I'd be inclined to write "killed himself" these days.

• I'm going to let Vanamonde deal with this one. I find killed himself a bit brusque. Perhaps died by suicide? - SW

• Yes, I've watched some of that from afar...I'd prefer died by suicide myself, though I've never quite understood the quibble with "committed". Changed. - V

• "studied 10 families" – there is no firm rule that I know of, but I think it is usual to write "ten" rather than "10", and start with digits only with 11.

• done - SW

• Anthropological career and second marriage

• "while Ursula became well-known as an author" – another iffy "while"? (I also think you don't want the hyphen in "well-known" when used predicatively as here. I am far from expert on hyphens, but I think it's "a well-known author" but "an author who is well known".)

• done - SW

• "she also hadn't previously lived" – no hadn'ts, wouldn'ts or didn'ts, please: MOS:N'T

• done - SW

• "a large redwood house facing the San Francisco bay that Alfred was particularly attached to – it isn't clear if it was the house or the bay that Alfred was keen on. If, as I'm guessing, it was the latter, it would perhaps be clearer to write "a large redwood house facing a San Francisco bay to which Alfred was particularly attached". If per contra it was the house he was keen on, a couple of commas will do the trick: "a large redwood house, facing a San Francisco bay, to which Alfred was particularly attached".

• I am certain it was the house, not the bay. According to Elasser "Theodora wrote that [the house] was the only particular material object on which Alfred had ever set his heart," so I've inserted commas. - SW

• Writing career

• "scholar Douglas Cazaux Sackman … Scholar Thomas E. Simmons … Scholar Richard … Scholar James Clifford … scholar Grace Buzaljko (later) … Scholar Albert Elsasser (later still)" – I'm all for introducing people to put them in context, but we have nine anarthrous nominal premodifier "scholars" in this article – it begins to smack one in the eyeball and on the whole I think we can take their scholarship for granted.

• I replaced all of them except 1 with their actual profession.

• Later writing

• "which she had written with Alfred before his death" – well, it would have been before his death, wouldn't it, unless she was using a ouija board?

• I loved the mental pictures your comment painted. Laughter is good. Fixed. - SW

• "Kroeber's writing was universally praised" – that's a strong claim, suggesting unanimity. Can you conscientiously back it up, or would it be prudent to say it was widely praised?

• I've changed it to frequently, but if anyone disagrees, feel free to revert. - SW

• Further adjusted to "widely". I don't think it's unfair to say "universally"; I can't recall a source which doesn't praise her prose in some way; but I suppose it's implying we've seen every single review. - V

• Later life

• "Quinn encouraged her to write a short autobiography, that was printed privately after her death – I think you want "which", not "that" here, as it is grammatically non-restrictive rather than restrictive.

• done - SW

• Legacy

• "that it wasn't clear – another case of MOS:N'T.

• done - SW

I hope these few minor quibbles are of some use. If I have any comments on the content I'll probably add them when you get to FAC: please ping me when you go there. – Tim riley talk 20:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this Tim riley. I didn't comment on the lede in my earlier comments because Vanamonde said he was going to rewrite it and he and Ipigott were already discussing that. My bad, I should have noted that. Mostly, I don't disagree with the grammar comments. For your enlightenment (I looked this up years ago because it went against my training), apparently the Associated Press's style guide for some time has recommended just putting an apostrophe after the final s when the word ends in s. SusunW (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks from me too, Tim riley. All very useful comments, only one (re: children) that I have any sort of disagreement with. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Surname

@SusunW: (and anyone else watching): I'm at a loss as to whether, or how, to explain her surname; one could do an undergraduate project simply figuring out what the history of her name was. Decent sources have described her using nearly every combination of Covel, Kracaw, Brown, Kroeber, and Quinn. I'm at present inclined to add a footnote covering the names she was published under, which are "Theodora Covel Kracaw", "Theodora Brown", "Theodora Kroeber", and "Theodora Kroeber-Quinn", but even that's a bit much, and we can't say definitively that she changed her name, only that that's what she was published as...any input would be appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Vanamonde I am typically one that likes notes (as I am sure you have noticed in articles I write). I wouldn't bother to explain all of the possible combinations used, but I think it makes sense to state that she published under the four names you noted above. SusunW (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@SusunW: Thanks, I've gone with that. I think I'm about done tinkering, the lead's been expanded, and TR's concerns addressed. I think we're good to go to FAC, unless there's any changes you'd like to the lead? Vanamonde (Talk) 05:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Vanamonde I think you are fine. I wouldn't mention so many people in the lede, but that is me. I understand your reasoning for doing so. I think whenever you are ready it can be nominated. SusunW (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@SusunW: Do you mean the children? Since you and TR agree, I've trimmed that, keeping only Ursula. Or was it something else? I'll go ahead and nominate, since this is a minor point, but happy to keep discussing. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Vanamonde I did not mean the children, per se. I usually avoid mentioning any other person in the lede unless absolutely necessary. It's a response to the oft-encountered whinge that notability is not inherited that so often is applied to women. I figure if I can write the lede without mentioning anyone else, there is no possible way anyone can argue that the woman was not notable in her own right. There is absolutely no need for you to alter what you have written based upon my opinion. SusunW (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Odd statements in Early Life section

These bits before and after the section heading seem like idle pranks or something.

"she did nothing good for the public.

Anthropological career and second marriage

She was a bad girl, that's why she was humming around." 2600:1012:B12D:CCFC:34AC:1114:8E64:164C (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)