Talk:The Canterbury Tales: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:05, 10 April 2013

The Canterbury Tales was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 6, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed

Books C‑class

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Middle Ages C‑class High‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Poetry: The Canterbury Tales C‑class High‑importance

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by The Canterbury Tales task force.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Subjective?

"Towering achievement of Western culture" is debatable (although I personally agree with it). Qazsedcftgbhujmkol (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable Narrator

The claim in the introduction that "Chaucer created literature's first known unreliable narrator" is neither true nor supported by citation. Indeed just following the link to the wiki page Unreliable narrator shows claims of earlier texts (including Arabian Nights) featuring unreliable narrators, with citations to back them up.

Canterbury tales as a comic

I would like to add this link of a comic version based on the Canterbury tales:

"Comic based on the Canterbury Tales"

But I don't know if that would be seem as unauthorized commercial promotion. Can I add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbeleet (talk • contribs) 11:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Failed. Article has too many problems, and they appear to be beyond the nominator's competence and interest. Drmies (talk)

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.

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

Reviewer: Drmies (talk · contribs) 04:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC) Congratulations for tackling something this big. The article looks good and clean, for the most part, but unfortunately this is not going to be an easy Pass. Allow me to make some preliminary comments; I'll be looking more closely in the next days.[reply]

The lead needs expansion (given the size of the article alone): it should mention that the frame (the contest and the pilgrimage both) is incomplete, pace the question of Chaucer's intent to finish. The tellers do not tell two tales each on the way to Canterbury and two more on the way back, and we never get to Canterbury, let alone back home. The lead should also comment on the role of the CT in English literature: Chaucer's fatherhood of English poetry depends on it, and mention of the continuations in the lead is a good idea if only to indicate that importance. The article has over 33,000 characters; appropriate according to WP:LEAD is three or four paragraphs.
Done. Oakley77 (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Missing from the article (see above) is a section on the CT's influence. That Caxton chose to print it is mentioned but not played up, for instance.
Doesn't Reception cover it?
No it doesn't. For starters, it says nothing at all about the status of the CT since the 15th century, its influence on Spenser, its canonical status in every sophomore literature class in English-speaking countries. Drmies (talk)
As far as I know, "continuations" is the going term for part of what is covered in "Literary additions and supplements". Here also a note on his importance can be made--many fifteenth-century English poets are little more than wanna-be Chaucers, to put it bluntly, and the "continuations" are evidence of it.
Are you saying that the section title should be changed to Continuations, a subheader should be made, or nothing should be changed and you are merely pointing it out? Oakley77 (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those sections in "Analysis" are better done with headings--ease of reading, ease of editing.
Done. Oakley77 (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a large unverified section at the end, "Literary adaptations".
Sorry mate, not so good at citations. Oakley77 (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it has to be done. besides, proper citations is only one part--finding the references is another. Drmies (talk)
While, indeed, not all of the CT's sources have to be explicated in this article, you could say a little bit more, and at least mention the two volumes of Sources and Analogues.
Okay, TBD. Oakley77 (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find the bibliography to be a bit thin, and there is a lot of Cooper in there. She's fine, but she's not the greatest of all Chaucer scholars. D. W. Robertson, Jr. immediately comes to mind, for instance.
Added a few Robertson, Jr. link, so Done. Oakley77 (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait--you added two improperly formatted external links to JSTOR articles? That's hardly the same as "expanding the bibliography", which remains thin. This is actually a reason to fail since your answer does not suggest you have the interest or the capability to make the bibliography up to snuff. Sorry. Drmies (talk)
In a related issue, the reference section isn't totally consistent. Benson, for instance, should be in the Works Cited ("References"); the book is cited in notes 10 and 11, and maybe elsewhere. Some notes need work period, such as notes 60 and 61. I found more books in the footnotes; consistent would be to have all notes to books in footnotes and the books themselves in "References" (see note 58, and note 59 is incorrect--it's an edited collection, so the individual essay should be cited here, with the book mentioned in "References").
Like I said, not tip-top at citations or references. Oakley77 (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the column setting in the references; consider moving long quotes (remove italics, do in quotation marks) to a separate set of footnotes; see Green children of Woolpit. This makes both sections more legible.
Sorry mate, just am not able to do citations/refs. Oakley77 (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. I think you've done a great job summarizing, the basic structure and tone are fine, and I'm glad that you got to work on this article: it's too important to be mediocre. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

As the nominator is unwilling to do anything about citations/ references this GAn should now be failed. See Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Proposal_to_bar_Oakley77_from_nominating_GA_articles for more information. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I would love to, I just need to learn how to. Please, remember to place things in context. Thanks so much, Oakley77 (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know how to, then you shouldn't be nominating GANs. --Rs chen 7754 19:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As harsh as it sounds, it's correct. I see improvements in the article, but some of the writing isn't really great (for instance the conclusion of the lead, or the last sentence of the "Sources" section). Sources and Analogues is now cited but not included in the bibliography, and besides, this is the kind of authoritative book that should be mentioned and discussed on the text to support more informative statements on the variety of Chaucer's sources (esp. outside the canonical authors). Yes, "Continuations" is the proper term and the section title and text should point that out. All this besides the obvious citation issues, for which I recommend a healthy dose of WP:CITE and maybe some more experience in that line of work. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2012 (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.

Old history

Some old page history that used to be at the title "The Canterbury Tales" can now be found at Talk:The Canterbury Tales/Old history. Graham87 14:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

language table revision?

The 3-column table in the Language section seems a little sub-optimal when it comes to alignment. I wonder if something like this would serve better?

'Wepyng and waylyng, care and oother sorwe	ˈweːpɪŋɡ and ˈwailɪŋɡ ‖ ˈkaːr‿and ˈoːðər ˈsɔrwə ‖	'Weeping and wailing, care and other sorrow
I knowe ynogh, on even and a-morwe,'	iː ˈknɔu əˈnoːx ‖ ɔn ˈɛːvən and aˈmɔrwə ‖	I know enough, in the evening and in the morning,'
Quod the Marchant, 'and so doon oother mo	ˈkwɔd ðə ˈmartʃant ‖ and ˈsɔː ˈdoːn ˈoːðər ˈmɔː ‖	said the Merchant, 'and so does many another
That wedded been.'^[1]	ðat ˈwɛddəd ˈbeːn ‖^[2]	who has been married.'

I'm not a tables expert, so perhaps someone else can come up with something better? Phil wink (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

capitalization and italicization

I notice that the article is inconsistently capitalized and italicized. Is the proper title "The Canterbury Tales" (in which case I guess "The" should be capitalized and italicized) or just "Canterbury Tales" (perhaps like the Odyssey)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.70.31.142 (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert. The Canterbury Tales task force has just recently been formed. We're still in an early organizational phase, but one (I hope) of the first things we'll be doing in the coming weeks is developing a "mini style sheet" for topics like this, and then beginning to bring articles up to speed. Anyone is welcome to join, comment, or just gawk.

...and for the record, my unofficial opinion is: The Canterbury Tales; but with the option of removing the "The" for grammatical purposes, as in: Geoffrey Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. Phil wink (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Order" is too academic.

To be frank, I find it more than a little annoying that while there are sections and articles about the "order" of the tales included, nowhere can one find an actual listing of the stories with their actual titles. The best one can do is click on each abbreviation one at a time, which is ridiculously inconvenient. I honestly feel that this is an example of "academic snobbery"; it seems to have been clearly written by an "Academic," writing for other Academics *only,* and that defeats the purpose of Wikipedia. Think about it.

68.199.204.112 (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ Text from The Riverside Chaucer, ed. by Larry D. Benson, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 153.
^ Based on the information in Norman Davies, 'Language and Versification', in The Riverside Chaucer, ed. by Larry D. Benson, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), pp. xxv–xli.

[1] Text from The Riverside Chaucer, ed. by Larry D. Benson, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 153.

[2] Based on the information in Norman Davies, 'Language and Versification', in The Riverside Chaucer, ed. by Larry D. Benson, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), pp. xxv–xli.

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 74: / Line 74: @@
 :Thanks for the alert.  [[WP:CANTWP|The Canterbury Tales task force]] has just recently been formed. We're still in an early organizational phase, but one (I hope) of the first things we'll be doing in the coming weeks is developing a "mini style sheet" for topics like this, and then beginning to bring articles up to speed. Anyone is welcome to join, comment, or just gawk.
 :...and for the record, my unofficial opinion is: ''The Canterbury Tales''; but with the option of removing the "''The''" for grammatical purposes, as in: Geoffrey Chaucer's ''Canterbury Tales''. [[User:Phil wink|Phil wink]] ([[User talk:Phil wink|talk]]) 23:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
+== "Order" is too academic. ==
+To be frank, I find it more than a little annoying that while there are sections and articles about the "order" of the tales included, nowhere can one find an actual listing of the stories with their actual titles.  The best one can do is click on each abbreviation one at a time, which is ridiculously inconvenient.  I honestly feel that this is an example of "academic snobbery"; it seems to have been clearly written by an "Academic," writing for other Academics *only,* and that defeats the purpose of Wikipedia.
+Think about it.
+[[Special:Contributions/68.199.204.112|68.199.204.112]] ([[User talk:68.199.204.112|talk]]) 10:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)