Talk:Four Quartets/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will review this article. Cirt (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Stability review[edit]

  • No evidence of conflicts upon inspection of article talk page. Cirt (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Inspection of edit history appears fine - except for this [1] - has this issue been resolved? Cirt (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The removal is not being challenged, as the copyright is still uncertain. If the copyright becomes certain, then I am sure that the removing editor would agree to its reinsertion. Either way, there seems to be no controversy on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Passes here. Cirt (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • No images present in article at time of review. As per above issue that is not being contested, this appears to be stable.

Passes here. Cirt (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by WikiParker

The image that was used on the page was File:TS_Eliot_1948.jpg The Nobel Foundation claims copyright on this photo. See webpage Even without the claim there is enough reason to believe that it is not in the public domain. WikiParker (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay well it is not being used in the article so that's fine. Cirt (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold[edit]

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of September 16, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Good writing quality, I'd suggest expanding the WP:LEAD of the article, particularly with additional summary of the Critical responses subsection.
2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout. I would recommend using WP:CIT templates to standardize the cite format in the References subsection, and a model similar to The Simpsons (season 3) to bluelink the notes in the Notes subsection.
3. Broad in coverage?: Satisfactory, though I'd think there could be much more to add to the Critical responses subsection.
4. Neutral point of view?: Article tone appears neutral with matter of fact presentation.
5. Article stability? See above. Passes here.
6. Images?: See above. Passes here.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Cirt (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more you would want for the lead - the critics are mentioned in the last line, and there would be no way to expand it except to favor individual critics (with the only response that was very notable was Orwell's attacks). As per the criticism, there is more about what critics say on the individual poems. I selected only critics that talked about the series as a whole for this page. I use to use links between notes and references, but harvnb has gone out of favor on Wiki because of the increase size it puts on the page and how it can screw up various things with WP:ACCESS. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Check the model in the article linked above, it is a better form of notes/references linking. Surely there are other sources to use for the Critical responses subsection. Cirt (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The Simpsons article is not a literature model but a television and serves as a list, and the reference section is following what was decided on literature pages (To Autumn would probably serve as a better example as a poem FA). Also - Burnt Norton, East Coker, The Dry Salvages and Little Giddin have sections of responses to their individual poems. Most of the responses were to individual poems, and the notable responses to the series are listed already. I based the current analysis on the structure found in T. S. Eliot: The Critical Heritage, which is a work devoted to -all- of the important critical responses to the author up until the work's publication (1997), and I included some that did the same published in 2008. If you need more, I'm not sure how to help provide them. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
By the way, a quick note - the "critical response" deals with aesthetics and opinion of the work as a work, and not an analysis of themes, structures, etc. The response section mostly includes people's opinions on what was good or bad in the work (i.e. POV and not the neutral arguments found in Themes). Ottava Rima (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The Simpsons article model can be made so that it appears exactly the same as the harvnb formatting, it is just a matter of coding. I also suggest formatting the References subsection with WP:CIT. Here are some sources that could be used to expand upon the Critical responses subsection. Cirt (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Example of References formatting using WP:CIT: [2]. Example of Notes formatting using The Simpsons (season 3) model: [3], [4]. Cirt (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I know how to do it, as I was the one that showed you how back when I first did it for Drapier's Letters. The Literature articles no longer prefer the templates. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
It is quite helpful and provides standardization and as GA Reviewer I think it would be a positive improvement to this article. I am suggesting that this be done for this article. Cirt (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review recommendations[edit]

  1. Expand the Critical responses subsection, with additional sources.
  2. Expand the WP:LEAD, with additional material from the Critical responses subsection.
  3. Format the References subsection, using WP:CIT. (Suggested, not necessary for GA). Example [5]
  4. Format the Notes subsection, using cite model - Example: [6], [7] (Suggested, not necessary for GA).

Points 1 and 2 are recommendations for improvement prior to the article being GA. Points 3 and 4 are suggestions only, and not necessary for GA. That being said, as I feel that unfortunately the tone of the GA nominator is not conducive to further polite and cordial dialogue, I am disengaging as GA Reviewer from this article. Cirt (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out above, there is nothing more that can be added to the critical responses. The source material which collects the major critical review on Eliot has been used up, and materials dealing with the individual works are already on their individual pages. The additions to the lead would potentially violate NPOV as it would require the favoring of view points that aren't notable enough (as there already is a sentence devoted to the matter which summarizes the critical response). Ottava Rima (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Seven viewpoints are presented at Four_Quartets#Critical_responses. I am sure this could be likely doubled, as there are literally thousands of possible sources at [8] and [9] Cirt (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
1. Most of those are primary sources or cursory mentions. 2. They are not necessary "critical responses" or by notable scholars whose "critical response" (i.e. opinion if the poem was successful or not) matters. 3. There are many others that responded to -individual- poems by not to the series as a whole, which are included on the individual poem pages. There are many critics that are discussed as a whole, but they are relegated to the sub pages or to the themes as they do not meed the criteria for inclusion. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I highly doubt that out of the thousands of sources here [10] [11] it would be impossible to find an additional seven that would add value to the Critical responses subsection. But as explained above, that will be a matter for another GA Reviewer to determine. Cirt (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
On the first page, I see 6 primary source and 4 works mentioning Eliot in passing. On the second, I see 2 primary source works. I see one biography that I owned and didn't include in the Four Quartets page as the commentary seemed more appropriate to "The Dry Salvages". I added it even though it is redundant. 6 of the works do not really deal with Eliot except in passing. This work is wrong (claims he converted to Catholicism. Anglo-Catholics are not Roman Catholics, which an Eliot critic would know). It has nothing interesting to add. This source is much better but has nothing to add on the overall impression/value of the poem (it focuses on theology, which was explained by others in a more research oriented manner). The third page has 2 pages on general history of literature, one on reading, 2 books that have nothing to really do with Eliot, 1 discussing "Little Gidding" and not the quartets as a whole, one source I already use, and the rest don't really seem to add anything. This has nothing of notice in it nor anything that could be included in the section. This is rather out of left field and has little connection to the work or has something that could be used in the section. And this is primary source. I can go on with the rest. I used the major T. S. Eliot critics on the matter. I even added a minor one to satisfy your desire. There are only a few other works that I know of that could be squeezed to come up with something, but the quotes wont really be that great and they aren't really notable in terms of criticism. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Back to reviewing this one [12]. Cirt (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination[edit]

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of September 17, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Overall the writing is pretty good. I did some copyediting throughout. Going forward, I would strongly suggest going for a peer review and enlisting further copyediting from previously uninvolved contributors, especially with respect to flow, tense uniformity, and making sure it is clear that the secondary sources are making assertions and not Wikipedians.
2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout.
3. Broad in coverage?: Covers many different important aspects nicely. Might be a good idea to do some more research, and expand upon the Music and Krishna subsections, or merge them into other subsections somehow.
4. Neutral point of view?: Neutral tone throughout, no problems.
5. Article stability? Pass, see above.
6. Images?: Pass, see above.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Cirt (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)