Talk:John Keats's 1819 odes

John Keats's 1819 odes has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 3, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 8, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 1819 odes of English poet John Keats, including On Melancholy, To a Nightingale, To Psyche, and To Autumn, created "a new tone for the English lyric" according to critic W. Jackson Bate?

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Keats's 1819 odes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Blurpeace 02:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments

The article has some minor stylistic errors, in terms of the references' formatting. I'll go through and correct those. Blurpeace 02:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may be a little busy in coming days. Once I get in contact with another editor, I'll resume the review. Thanks, Blurpeace 06:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any issues you see with the article, please let me know and I will try to work on them. I understand your busy schedule, as I myself am not editing regularly at the moment. Mrathel (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments

I probably won't be able to complete this review in a timely manner, so it may be best to request a new reviewer, Mrathel. There are still some formatting issues, and the sourcing could be done better. The quote may need to be reviewed as well. Good luck, Blurpeace 20:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer

New Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
I made some minor copy-edits for spelling and to fix typos and some very slight re-arrangement to improve readability [1].
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The article is weel referenced to a number of sources, I assume good faith as I don not have access to the books. It would be good to add ISBNs to all post 1973 books, but this is not a GA requirement
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Good background, focussed on subject.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I have no hesitation in passing this as a good artcile. Congratulations! –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]