Talk:Thomas Carlyle/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry this well-crafted article has been languishing in the queue for so long: but on such a subject, and at such length, it's easy to see why reviewers might be daunted by it, or feel themselves quite unqualified to approach it. I considered just giving it a quick pass, as it's in many ways of high quality. But I think comments can be made at two levels. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The structural issues have largely been addressed, though the 'Character' and 'Controversies' sections remain, in keeping with good or featured articles that include these (i.e. William Morris, Richard Wagner). Sinopecynic (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sinopecynic - could you reply to comments individually below so that I can see which ones you feel you have completed and which you object to or wish to discuss further. Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap and @Sinopecynic I've just come across the nomination while reading the article and I didn't want to intrude with my own edits during GAR, which is why I am posting here. I think it would really benefit from Lead cleanup and copyediting for clarity, including removing duplicate footnotes later used in the body. It seems quite dense still and hard to navigate for an unfamiliar reader. An infobox might be also a good idea, though I know some editors are not in favor of these. Ppt91 ^talk 01:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. We'll revisit the lead and check the article over once the shape of the article has been determined. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one ref in the lead that also occurs in the text, and it supports a direct quotation, so it is needed there. On the style, it's a bit literary, which doesn't seem unreasonable for this sort of subject; if editors want to adjust it a bit, that's fine but it's not a showstopper. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor details[edit]

Several portrait-format images need an "|upright" parameter.

Fixed.

Ref [109] Stephen 1911 doesn't point to a citation.

Has been removed.

Ref [290] needs a page number.

Several refs to the same book could well be merged, e.g. [198] and [199] are pp. 28–29; there are plenty of similar instances.

Has been removed.

There are some small formatting issues, e.g. ref [200] has page range 253–56 where it should say "253–256".

Has been removed.

Ref [271] Nietzsche is not consistently formatted.

Has been removed.

Ref [191] "I. Ousby (ed) puts initial first, when the rest of the reflist has surname first.

Fixed.

I notice that we have an article on Sage writing. Perhaps this would be a useful link in the text.

Structural issues[edit]

The article looks very long at almost 177 kBytes, but actually the narrative text is only a smallish proportion of that. The rest of the text seems to me to be on several non-biographical subjects:

The inclusion of a lengthy "Glossary" is a curious, even idiosyncratic choice for a biographical article. Wikipedia is "not a dictionary", and the extraction of Carlyle entries from a 1907 encyclopedia is at least an "interesting" editorial decision. It could be argued to be non-neutral, as if intended to portray Carlyle in a good light; it would be far safer to have a reliable secondary source (a scholar or critic) saying that Carlyle had invented many terms, some of which had found their way into reference books (e.g. two or three instances).

Ah, I see the Glossary has moved into the Philosophy subsidiary.

But I wonder why a biography article contains such a large amount on Carlyle's philosophy, which is a separate subject from the man's life. It should, I think, be a subsidiary article Philosophy of Thomas Carlyle, which could be linked and summarized here.

~~The "Style" section is also curious, not least because it contains its own "Reception" section as if it was a stand-alone article, Thomas Carlyle's prose style, embedded in the biography.~~

Ah, you've actioned this one, many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've linked Philosophy of Thomas Carlyle in the lead; it should also at least be linked in the main text: there are a couple of places where it's mentioned. The normal approach when an article has a subsidiary is a subsection with a "main" link; the subsection briefly summarizes the subsidiary article in one or two paragraphs.

~~Same goes for Thomas Carlyle's prose style.~~

I've linked these in a new 'Works' section, which I cut and pasted from the lead. Sinopecynic (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is followed, oddly, by a section named "Character" which is also a reception section (by any other name).

Also remarkable is that the Legacy section begins about halfway down the article. It contains, yes, yet another reception section, or rather a series of sections which contain reception elements: its "Philosophy" is the reception section of the subsidiary article on Carlyle's philosophy: Philosophy of Thomas Carlyle#Reception, while the "Historiography" is again commentary on his philosophical impact.

I see you've actioned this one; and I see that the Historiography has gone over there. Took a bit of digging to work that out, would be helpful if you'd add replies to say what you've done! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Then there's a "Controversies" section: (is that title not deprecated?) - I wonder if this wouldn't be better worked into the biography, at least where the debates were with him directly.~~

I see your reply above; I'm not convinced by the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but in this case with the controversies being posthumous, they don't fit too badly after "Legacy" (though perhaps they should be inside that section).

Then there's an "In literature" list. I'm a bit doubtful about whether such lists belong in biography articles at all: it'd be better as List of allusions to Carlyle in literature, and that indeed could be divided into a "Parodies" section and a more serious section.

OK, I see you've removed this and added a "see also" link.

~~In short, I wonder whether this article would not be better quite substantially rearranged, creating one or two subsidiary articles and lists,~~ so that the text is crisper, in "summary style", and more approachable?

Good progress, but see WP:Summary style.

Summary[edit]

Nom has not edited (anything) for some weeks now, nor responded. I was hoping for a little more polish, but since the points have been actioned or made redundant by the hiving-off of material as indicated above, I think it's fair to say that the article is clear, properly cited with a wealth of sources, spot-checked, and covers the main points, now well supported by the linked subsidiary articles. I've actioned a few minor issues, so there seems nihil obstat now for GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2023 (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.