Wikipedia:Peer review/F. Scott Fitzgerald/archive1

F. Scott Fitzgerald[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

HAL333 and I are co-listing the F. Scott Fitzgerald article for Peer Review in order to prepare for its eventual submission as a FAC. As the 100^th anniversary of The Great Gatsby is approaching, Fitzgerald's Wikipedia article will likely receive a great deal of traffic in the near future. The article underwent a GAR last year initiated by Hal. After the GAR, I revamped the citations to emphasize primary sources and scholarly biographies. A month ago, the article was graciously copy-edited by Twofingered Typist of the Guild of Copy Editors. Hal and I are seeking any and all feedback regarding how to improve the overall quality of article: Are there any sections that need expanding or trimming? Is the prose and thematic flow of the article satisfactory? Do any citations, sources, or claims seem unreliable? Thank you in advance! — Flask (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts from HAL

Should we split off the "Adaptations and portrayals" into a subarticle and then employ summary style? It does seem to be given a little bit too much weight in comparison to his "Literary influence" and the like. ~ HAL333 19:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should. The current "Adaptations and portrayals" section is already too large and yet it is missing many adaptations which would increase its size further. With the glut of ongoing adaptations due to Gatsby falling into the public domain, it will quickly balloon in size unless it is split off. — Flask (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - here's a draft of the subarticle: Draft:Adaptations and portrayals of F. Scott Fitzgerald. The title isn't ideal either. ~ HAL333 20:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good start! I'll work on improving that draft article later this evening, and I agree the title needs to be tweaked. — Flask (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: Do you have any particular criticisms or suggestions regarding the current state of the Adaptations and Portrayals article? I am planning to re-sort the references and add another picture, but I'm uncertain what else of significance should be added. — Flask (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks great. In my opinion it's good enough quality to be published in main. ~ HAL333 02:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Feel free to publish it in main, and then I shall work on trimming the "Adaptations and portrayals" section a bit to match the size of the other sections. — Flask (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. With just a bit more work, we could even nominate that as a featured list. ~ HAL333 00:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's an image of Hemingway and Fitzgerald together at this website. It was taken in 1925, but I am not sure when it was released... Copyright is a weak point for me. ~ HAL333 19:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: Hmmm. Based on my research, that is a Photoshopped image splicing together two separate photos of Hemingway and Fitzgerald. Here is the original Fitzgerald photo taken in 1928, likely on the East Coast. You'll notice the different background. The Hemingway photo was taken later in the 1930s in Key West or Cuba. — Flask (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well... Thanks for getting to the bottom of that. I'll ask an editor I know if they can dredge up a decent photo of Scott with Lost Generation writers. ~ HAL333 03:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Urve

I can offer my comments in a few days after reading through this a few times and doing some research. A tiny observation is that mixture of {{harvnb}} and {{sfn}} creates inconsistency in citation; it is my understanding that {{harvnb}} creates citations without terminal punctuation, but {{sfn}} has full stops at the end. Whether this matters, you decide. Bruccoli 2002 has both used, for example. Urve (talk) 08:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have converted the remaining citations to use the {{sfn}} format to ensure consistency of terminal punctuation. — Flask (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First couple passes through: I don't see any major issues; based on what I can find, the article seems to be representative of the broad study of Fitzgerald's life. This is good. Some comments about prose:

Four of the University's eating clubs sent him bids at midyear -- a bid is an offer for membership? that is my understanding of what this is, but it's not clear to me

Done. Changed to: Four of the University's eating clubs offered him membership at midyear — Flask (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obsessed with Ginevra, -- it's clear this is about her, we can probably just have Obsessed,. also, four uses of the word "with" in this paragraph, so cutting one can be desirable to avoid feelings of repetition

Done. Changed to: Obsessed, — Flask (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and many other characters in his work -- already established it's his writing, can just say and others

Done. Changed to: many others — Flask (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weekly courtship - unsure what this means

That phrase is intended to convey that he was courting her on a weekly basis. I'm not sure how to re-word it without altering the meaning. — Flask (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

okay, that makes sense. I was not sure if it was a term of art for a specific kind of courting rather than literally being weekly. Urve (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When not writing, Fitzgerald and his wife continued to socialize and to drink at Long Island parties -- my understanding of ellipsis is that the second "to" can be culled; awkward for me. you can check for other instances but none jump out at me

Done. Changed to: to socialize and drink — Flask (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although he detested screenwriting ... at Vassar College -- these two sentences use the same construction (even though x, y) and it feels awkward

Done. The section later details his dislike of screenwriting and its drudgery so I cut the first part of the opening sentence. — Flask (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the claim in the lead that he popularized the term "jazz age" - is this in the body? it probably is and I am forgetting

Done. Added claim to the body stating that he popularized the term Jazz Age and added citations. — Flask (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

all for now as I continue to think, Urve (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Urve: Thank you for your feedback! I've implemented most of your suggestions. Please let me know if you have any further suggestions. — Flask (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other than "Paul Elgin" only appearing in the infobox, I have nothing more to say. Based on the sources I checked for source-text integrity and the impeccable prose quality, I would support this at FAC. Urve (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Urve: Thank you for your support! Per your comment, I've removed "Paul Elgin" from the infobox as Fitzgerald only used the pseudonym once shortly before his death. — Flask (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Flask

As this article will be submitted as a Featured Article Candidate in the near future, I have proactively emailed the George Eastman Museum, the Minnesota Historical Society, The Universal Order and other organizations to obtain definitive answers regarding the copyright status of various pictures used in the article. I will be updating the image licenses on Wikimedia Commons as I receive their responses. — Flask (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Flask: Are you still interested in getting comments on this PR? If so, I suggest promoting this PR at various Wikiprojects, or asking editors who have written FAs on writers to leave comments here. If the article is ready, I suggest submitting it to FAC. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I think this article is nearly ready to submit for FAC status, perhaps as early as next week. The only remaining issues are verifying the copyright status of several images. @HAL333: If you concur, we can close this Peer Review. — Flask (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. On something completely different, I asked a very skilled editor to dig up some more Fitzgerald photos. Still waiting to hear back. ~ HAL333 18:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: That is great to hear. The article could definitely use a post-1930 image of Fitzgerald. I tried searching for one, but many appear to be still copyrighted. I'm currently waiting to hear back from the Minnesota Historical Society regarding the copyright status of various images. — Flask (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia

See WP:FORBESCON on Kendall. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Replaced Forbes source with a New York Times source. — Flask (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check for MOS:OVERLINK eg World War I (everyone knows what it is, no one will click on it from this article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ran a duplicate links checker and removed duplicate links. — Flask (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:SANDWICH in Early life section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Converted two separate images to use multiple image array. — Flask (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzgerald spent time at 244 Compo Rd. South in Westport, CT: regardless of what the source may say, that house is not on the shore, nor is it within sight of the Sound. Please provide a quote from the source, and I may be able to help you fix it … the home where they stayed in Westport is next to Long Shore. Close to the beach, but not on it. There are plenty of sources, here is one [1] Within walking distance of the Sound would be accurate; within sight is not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Deleted all references to the shore and changed within sight of to near. — Flask (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like faulty MOS:LQ; doublecheck throughout.
had occurred: "They both had a need of drama, they made it up and perhaps they were the victims of their own unsettled and a little unhealthy imagination".[165][166]

Done. Did a full MOS:LQ verification check to correct punctuation of quotes. — Flask (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That’s all I’ve got, did not do a full read-through, no need to respond to me. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, SandyGeorgia! It's greatly appreciated. — Flask (talk)

Final remarks before closing peer review

@HAL333: I'm going to close this Peer Review today as I think this article is now good to go. Since The Great Gatsby will appear as Tomorrow's FA on the front page, we might want to submit this article as a FAC tomorrow in order to attract more interest and support from Wikipedia projects/editors during the nomination process. Do you want to do the honors? =) — Flask (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Flask: I apologize for missing that. If you're still interested in conomimating this for FAC, I would be happy to do it after the PR close. I'll actually be active and carry my weight. :) 06:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: Yes, I'm still interested in co-nominating this for FAC. I shall close this Peer Review now. Feel free to submit the FAC nomination at your convenience during the next few days, and I shall be active throughout the nomination process. — Flask (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]