Talk:Loss and Gain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Loss and Gain was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.
July 28, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Novels / 19th century (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by 19th century task force.
WikiProject University of Oxford (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

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


  • Alphabetize sources in the bibliography section
  • where he strives to avoid being influenced by "parties" - it would be helpful for uninformed readers (like myself) if parties were clearly defined
  • inclinations towards Roman Catholicism - in the next section we learn that he starts out an Anglican. "inclinations" implies a pre-existing or innate feeling, perhaps another word would be better.
  • Why have two plot sections? They're unnecessary and the introduction section becomes too short.
  • It would be helpful to have a link to Private Judgment.
  • which locates interpretive authority in the individual and thereby leads (in Newman's view) to the espousal of contradictory views - This needs a reference.
  • to which he must subscribe in order to take his degree. At Oxford?
  • When referring to the "Church", make clear whether it is the Anglican or Catholic one.
  • Oxford fads - Like hula hoops? Perhaps Oxfordian religious fads. (I'm unsure of the correct demonym.)
  • he suspects Reding of Catholic views - Perhaps "of holding Catholic views"
  • who Reding looks to for guidance, who simply advises Reding to avoid religious factions. - "Who" repeated is clunky prose. Perhaps break into two sentences.
  • It would be helpful to credit the quote re: bildungsroman to the person who made the statement. Something like "X calls Loss and Gain a..."
  • of a series of intellectual conversations Charles has with a wide range of acquaintances - wordy. of a series of intellectual conversations Charles has with a wide range of acquaintances
  • Expressing Newman's belief that all aspects of experience are interconnected, Charles' views develop during the course of daily life,[8] responding to the fashions of Oxford at moment; Loss and Gain was possibly the first novel set entirely within a university milieu[9] and Newman included numerous locally used colloquialisms to enhance the impression of everyday life. - These two sentences (and they should be sentences) might flow better if the order were reversed.
  • Italicize work titles in the Reception section
  • The long quote in the publication section should be paraphrased. I would also suggest combining this with the Reception section, a "Publication and Reception" section.
  • I would suggest the following form for references: Author, Title (if needed), p. (pp. if using a range) Pagenumbers. See Johann Kepler for an example; it's easier to read. If you don't want to change it, that's fine, as long as it's consistent.

Overall good prose. No large issues.


As an article about a philosophical novel, I was hoping to see a large portion devoted to the philosophical ideas developed. The coverage on this seems lacking. Having read the article, I don't have a very good idea of what views Newman held or how he explicated them through the novel. I'm unsure on whether this is a large enough gap to warrant failing the article.

Additionally, several sections are quite short. Is there more information that could be added to flesh them out? In particular, I'd like to know more about the Origin story, including why such an apparently offensive novel was written about Newman.


Is it possible to get something better than a screen-shot? Perhaps a photograph of a book cover or something? I'm not an expert on images, so I don't know the legality of that, but even having no image may be better than the one currently in the article.


GA review (see here for criteria)

Interesting article overall. I knew little about the topic, so it was very informative for me.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Article on hold. Gimme danger (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


I've made most of the revisions suggested, I'll add more about the historical context and the philosophical issues within the next few days. I originally included the Plot Introduction section based on the recommendations in Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate; I think I will add a bit more contextual information there, which will make the section seem less redundant. Some small issues:

  • Private judgment - unfortunately (and inexplicably) there is no article for this, and I don't feel qualified to write one, so I'll work an explanation into the body.
  • Your question about Reding's degree - I should think it would go without saying that its his Oxford degree, as its made clear that Oxford is the primary context for the whole novel.
  • Inclinations - I think this is actually the right word: Reding is originally Anglican just because he's English, but his own personal feelings about religion are better expressed by Catholicism.
  • Image - I think this is a better image than the cover of the recent edition, even if we could get that; it gives some idea of the formality of the text with the Latin inscription, whereas the Oxford paperback just has a generic landscape image anyway. Also, title page images are common in novel articles for books originally published without cover art; see Middlemarch and Wuthering Heights (or The Nemesis of Faith which was recently given GA) for examples.

Dozenthey (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, your revisions look excellent. The additional material is definitely helpful. Your explanation of your choice of "inclinations" is good; maybe it would go well in the article. My primary issue with the image is the search highlighting. I had forgotten about the Novel template. If you're going for FA, I would expand on those lines. But this looks good for GA, provided there's a little more philosophical/historical material. --Gimme danger (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Still on hold[edit]

This article has been on hold for a week now. Will material about the book's philosophy be added soon? It's fine if you don't have time, I'll fail the article for this round and you can submit it for GA again after expansion. I just don't want an indefinite hold. --Gimme danger (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Sorry, yes, it will be updated by Wednesday at the latest. I just wasn't able to get the reference books I needed, but I have them as of today. Dozenthey (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, no worries. I was just checking to see how things were going. I look forward to reading your additions. --Gimme danger (talk) 05:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


Since the article has been on hold for nearly three weeks without improvement, I'm going to officially fail it. I encourage you to add additional content as suggested and renominate for GA status. Contact me on my talk page and I will re-evaluate the article and streamline its passing. --Gimme danger (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)