Talk:Sonnet 56/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xover (talk · contribs) 21:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall status

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Individual sonnets are difficult to write good encyclopaedic articles about, and this article seems to have succeeded admirably at adopting the template set by the other sonnet articles. It covers the major points of the subject while staying focused. However, quite a lot of the article's text seems to have been copied verbatim, or closely paraphrased, from its sources; the prose seems somewhat slapdash, in some places to the point of incomprehension; and on several key points the article's writers appear to have failed to understand what their sources are saying (even to the degree of claiming the exact opposite of what the source says). The level of precision in the citations is also somewhat arbitrary, with misspelled author names, missing identifiers, and incorrect page numbers.

All in all it will require quite a bit of work to bring up to GA level.

I'm placing the review on hold for now to give the nominator a chance to address these issues. Please feel free to ping me if you have any questions. --Xover (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed points

Lede

(1b) The lede does not adequately summarise the rest of the article. See MOS:LEAD.
(6a, 6b) The article lacks images and illustrations. Perhaps a cropped scan of the sonnet from the 1609 quarto edition could be used?

Paraphrase

(1a) The "paraphrase" in the section of the same name is a verbatim copy of the original at shakespeare-online.com, and hence a copyright violation. The material must be removed and replaced with material you have written yourself.
The citations for the original and paraphrased version are unclear as a result of their placement (they even appear to be reversed). Placing the respective citation next to the headers ("SONNET 56" and "PARAPHRASE") would make the relationship clearer.
The headings are in all-caps ("SONNET 56"). Wikipedia's house style is to use initial-caps for headings ("Sonnet 56").

Structure

In the first para the article uses single quote marks. The house style is to use double quotation marks. See MOS:QUOTEMARKS.
I've never seen the form referred to as "Surreyan". Are we certain this is valid terminology?
In any case, given the context, the term "Shakespearean sonnet" might be more relevant.
(1a) In the third sentence "The sonnet" is confusing. The sentence references "his 154 sonnets", but talks about "[this singular and specific] sonnet". The sentence should probably be rewritten be in the plural ("… sonnets, which were …"), or specify that it refers to the sonnet form.
(2a) The claim that sonnets were less popular in Shakespeare's day than previously needs a citation.
(1a) This sentence also contains an unlinked reference to "Shakespearean sonnet" whose intended target is not clear.
This entire section appears to be copied from the similar (but more expansive) section in Sonnet 86. While all articles on Wikipedia are licensed under a permissive license, attribution is still expected; typically in the edit summary for that edit.

Context

(1a) The terminology is inconsistent here: "the Fair Youth sequence" and "This sequence spans", but "the 'Procreation' section" and "the 'Dark Lady' section". The usual term here is "sequence", but either way the terminology should be consistent.
(1a) The traditional names for the various sequences are not normally given in scare quotes.
(1a) The construction "… the rest 78-126 the …" is impenetrable.
(1a, 2b) "… the young man that he is in love with." No creditable modern scholar makes this assertion without qualification. There is quite a lot of speculation regarding the I of the sonnets' relationship with and feelings toward the Fair Youth, the Dark Lady, and the Rival Poet. The amount of speculation is due precisely to the ambiguity of the sonnets on these points.
(1a) "This sonnet was published along with the rest in 1609 in Quarto." Was each sonnet published in a separate quarto?
(1a) "… theory affirmed by …" I don't think "affirmed" means what you think it means.
(1a) "… affirmed by Duncan-Jones …" Who?
(2b) The direct quote in this sentence needs a citation.
(1a) "They are thought to have been …" By who?
(1a) "… after four centuries contemporaries are still …" Contemporaries of who? Shakespeare?

Overview

(2b, 2c) "The sonnet's first line was inspired by …" No; Daugherty claims it is, but this is by no means universally accepted.
(1a) "four quatrain" should be plural.
(2b) Page 58 of Duncan-Jones does not support any of the material in this section. Sonnet 56 should be somewhere around page 220
(2b) Several direct quotes here needs to be cited.
(2b) At least one of these quotes is not given correctly as it appears in the source.
(1a) "It should noted" It should? Says who? Also "should be noted".
(1a, 2b) "… the identity of the 'Sweet love' is not located in the poem …" That's not quite what Duncan-Jones is saying here.
(2b, 2c) "… the ultimate fate of the relationship is left ambiguous." Duncan-Jones doesn't say that.
(1a) "metaphors for eating" are metaphors for eating, not for sex.
(1a, 2b) "The poet also muses how love in the states of …" That's not a very accurate summary of the ideas expressed in the sonnet, as detailed by e.g. Duncan-Jones.
(1a, 2b) This section is mostly a verbatim copy of shakespeare-online.com and a close paraphrase of Duncan-Jones, but sprinkled with one detail each from Pequigney and Hoover; and as such it will need to be rewritten from scratch.

Quatrain 1

(1a, 2b) "The first quatrain details the love that the poet feels." Not really. It speaks to the qualities of love, but as is mentioned previously in this article, and as Duncan-Jones explains, whose love is not clear.
(1a, 2b) "Shakespeare also wants his love to be noticed …" The identification of Shakespeare with the I of the sonnets is not certain. And there is nothing in the first quatrain that suggests the I of the sonnet wants his love to be noticed.
(1a) "… and to the 'desired' effect to happen." I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
(1a) "… but later seems to …" When?
(1a) "The writer also questions whether or not this love is dying …" Not in the first quatrain, no.
(1a) "… and doesn't want it to be spoken." I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
(2b) The cited source doesn't support this sentence ("The writer … be spoken").
(1a) "In this quatrain, Shakespeare also …" Not in this quatrain, no.
(2b) The direct quotes in this sentence need to be cited.
(1a, 2b) "Shakespeare manages to present all of this without sounding too 'confrontational.'" That's not what Risher actually writes, and keep in mind that she is reviewing Hoover not Shakespeare.

Quatrain 2

(1a) "Line five features "So, love, be thou;" gives a …" This sentence doesn't parse.
(1a, 2b) "… gives a personal feeling to the person that is being addressed." In fact, this is pretty much the opposite of the meaning of the passage that Duncan-Jones gives.
(1a) "This encourages the addressee …" It encourages the reader; the addressee here is the person to whom the sonnet is addressed.
(1a) "The use of the word "wink" in line six reinforces the appetite and feeding metaphor." How does it do that?
(2b) "This reinforces the idea …" Not supported by the cited source.
(1a) "A 'wink' closes the eyes …" Now we're back to the appetite metaphor again? Why wasn't this explained two sentences earlier? Also, this sentence doesn't parse (the cited source explains it quite well though, so a reread should be all that's needed to fix it).

Quatrain 3

(2b) Several direct quotes in this section need to be cited.
(1a) "Line nine and ten appears to conjure an image …" Does it or does it not conjure an image? For whom does it appear so?
(1a) "… the allusion the Shakespeare makes …" While Shakespeare is indeed quite singular, I believe the second "the" here may be a typo… Also, it is still the speaker, the I, and not Shakespeare.

Couplet

(2b) Several direct quotes in this section need to be cited.
(2b) "However, using 'or' …" This is the exact opposite of what the source says.

References

Several of the references are given imprecisely or with errors (Duncan-Jones' first name is given as "Katernine"; publication details for one is given as "New York: Oxford"), or are incomplete (Risher needs an URL or a DOI)