Talk:Olivia Shakespear/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review - I've added replies.

• I've entered an Infobox but some fields remain empty. Please try to fill them. There's a field for her signature if you can locate it. Do you have the ddmmyy of her death?

• Infobox are not mandatory - see WP:DISINFOBOX. I'd prefer not to have one, and removed it before seeing the review transclusion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• The images are clustered to the right. Alternate them left-right-left-right. Vary the arrangement.

  I'll try working with the images, but they follow MoS images that the image should face the text. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternation of images is not a requirement. The MOS does NOT say you have to alternate...and if it screws up the paged definitely don't do it. (left images cause more issues in general for text.) Some pretty heavy text editors like Tony and Malleus have opined on this and regardless, it's not an MOS requirement OR normal off Wiki requirement. (and it causes all sorts of issues in our layout versus a fixed text format) See[1] and [2] TCO (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• I can do this. Ceoil 20:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• The article focuses unrelentingly on her love affairs although she's introduced in the lead as a novelist and playwright. Is there a chance you could broaden the authorship aspects? The article reads like a soap opera. Try to add some meat and potatoes. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  I've sucked the sources dry on this. She was a extremely minor novelist, with only a few hundred copies of each of her books printed. She was a prominent figure in Yeats' life and unfortunately the sources focus on her single love affair with Yeats, which in fact was much like a soap opera and greatly affected the rest of his life and work. Not sure what you mean by meat and potatoes considering that the sources seem to believe her main claim to fame is a six month love affair. The article does include family background, some information about the husband and the daughter, but unfortunately not much is available except through the Yeats letters and the Pound letters which tend to show her in a certain light. Can you give me specific example of what you think is missing and I'll dig around a bit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Is there a specific reason an infobox is not wanted? I think it works here. The reader can gather much information without having to slog through the article.

  Infoboxes are not mandatory, preference is usually give to the primary author. Ceoil 20:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• In the first sentence of the lead she is introduced as a novelist and playwright. A separate section on her literary accomplishments would be an improvement. As it stands, this information is scattered throughout the article making retrieval difficult. Pull all the literary information and send it to a separate section. Actually the first sentence should be reworked: "Olivia Shakespear, born Olivia Tucker, (1863–1938) was a minor English novelist, playwright, and patron of the arts who is chiefly remembered for being the lover and friend of William Butler Yeats."

  The third paragraph is fine. Lets not define her by her realtionships with men. ;). Ceoil 20:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, I wrote it as a separate section initially but so little information exists it was very choppy and ended up integrating into the text chronologically. But will give it another shot. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  Novels section added and scattered bits removed from the text. As for the first sentence - I really don't believe a single source would support that she's chiefly known for her love affair with Yeats, for whatever that's worth. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Have you found her death date?

  Added Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• The first section can be trimmed. Does the reader really need to know her mother was called Tiny and her husband was a descendant of rope makers? This might be appropriate in a definitive biography but here it's "ridiculous excess". * The article could stand a good overall trimming. The paragraph on the dinner party is filled with minor unencyclopedic details. Is there any reason why the reader needs to know Johnson was "disruptively drunk"? The entire paragraph can be reduced to an encyclopedic: "Early in 1894 Shakespear and Yeats were present at dinner party but not introduced. She later attended a performance of his The Land of Heart's Desire, and, deeply affected, arranged to meet him for tea on 10 May 1894. They established a firm friendship, with Shakespear listening sympathetically to his outpourings of obsessive love for Maud Gonne. Etc."

  All the Pound/Yeats biographers add the London ropemaking connection to differentiate from the Avon Shakespears. I'm happy to lose it, but understand why the differentiation would be important. Lionel Johnson's alcoholism is discussed later and the incident at the dinner party indicates he didn't suddenly die of alcoholism, but it can be taken out. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Olivia" should be referred to as "Shakespear" throughout. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• I'm sorry tyvfg88yju, but your just wrong here. Its standard in biographies to give parents names and occupations, check just about any bio FA. I dont see the description of the dinner party as 'unencyclopedic', in fact thoes small snipits and insights breath life into the article, make it an easier to read more engaging article. Ceoil 20:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  The woman spent her entire life in an unhappy marriage and is rarely if ever referred to in sources as Shakespear. The choice is either Olivia or Olivia Shakespear throughout. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably best for you to go ahead and quickfail as you don't believe it fulfills GA criteria. Thanks for taking the time to read the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

TK, best let it play out, esp concisering your work and that 56tyvfg88yju has offered to give and take openion. We all have views, it can be worked through. Ceoil 22:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I want to reiterate my concerns before things get lost in the discussion.

• An Infobox would work wonders for this article. I checked JM Barrie, T Hardy, Virginia Woolf, Willa Cather, and others. They all have attractive and informative Infoboxes. A good reason hasn't been given why we're not using an Infobox and I urge that this feature be considered.
• Shakespear should be referred to by her surname. This is a convention at Wikipedia. The writers mentioned above are all referred to by their surnames. Olivia should only be used only to avoid confusion with her husband and then he is best referred to as Hope.
• Image placement is improved.
• The novels section looks good.
• My greatest concern is the excess of detail. It simply makes the article a chore to read. There are so many names, so many locations, so many dates, and so many quotations that the reader is left feeling blitzed. This excess of detail is a nice demonstration of scholarly thoroughness but actually damages the article. This thoroughness is appropriate for a 400 page biography but here it is simply "ridiculous excess". OS was a writer (albeit minor) and briefly the lover of WBYs. Since she had nothing to do with the military, it is unnecessary to go into this at length in the Early years section nor is it necessary to trace her ancestry. It's enough to say her father was a retired Adjutant General. This establishes her social status. Her affair with Yeats is given undue weight and overwhelms the entire article with mind-boggling detail and trivia. Much can be cut from this section. I urge that this be considered. I would be more than happy to do a copy edit if desired. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• • I understand your concerns but from my point-of-view much of what's incorporated in the article was built in with good reasoning and if this article does go to FAC then the reviewers will want to see such a degree of comprehension. In the meantime, perhaps it's best to focus only on the Wikipedia:Good article criteria - if you think it doesn't adequately fulfill the criteria then go ahead and fail the review. Thanks.
  • The naming of the subject is difficult - as I've mentioned above the convention in all the biographies I've read has been to refer to her as Olivia Shakespear or Olivia - I've never seen her referred to as Shakespear. I'll give this some thought, but wonder if it's sufficient to tank a GA review. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The excessive detail in the article is unencyclopedic and even biased. The neutral tone expected in an encyclopeida article is jeopardized and I'm concerned that this biased tone has been picked up from the sources. Every editor at Wikipedia needs a copy editor. This is sometimes brutal work. I've reworked the entire article presenting it in a decidedly neutral tone, eliminating the undue weight given some areas, and cutting much of the detail such as "taking with her two maids who had been with the family for decades". This isn't comprehensiveness. It's excessive detail. This detail is appropriate in a 400-page biography, not an encyclopedia article. The subject is lost in the morass of detail. I understand where you are at this point. You've spent much time on this article, have given it loving attention - and bristle at any suggestion that a single word should be cut. But you need to understand that someone has taken an interest and is trying to improve the artcle - hopefully with your cooperation. Urging the article be failed because you're disgruntled and then shopping around for someone who will agree with you is immature. If you're not interested in improving the article, I have no choice but to fail it so you can shop for someone who agrees with you on every detail - essentially voiding the intent of the review process. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disgruntled - if I were disgruntled I would not have rearranged the works section yesterday. I haven't shopped for someone to agree with me - Ceoil planned to write this page months ago, years ago probably; we finally decided to work on it together in December. He became busy, I had sources on loan for a short period and ended up the primary contributor. Certainly if you believe the article fails on criterion of NPOV, then that's something I can have a look at. Also, it's best to focus on the edits and not the editor during this process. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• I just took a look at your Talk Page and found this:

"Sound. Things I think: She should be called Olivia throughout, and her work should not be scattered across the article but bunched. But other than that Its a fine page, very readable, romantic. Ceoil 05:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)" and "Too bad you're not the reviewer. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)" I think you're listening to the wrong person. An encyclopedia article should not have a "romantic" cast. This is not neutrality. I've reworked the article, eliminating this cast completely and giving all aspects of the subject's life equal or appropriate weight. When I have a moment I'll bring it here for your consideration. Before reverting the rewrite, please discuss it with me. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Look, the comment to Ceoil about reviewing was a joke. We joke with each other on our talk pages and make jokes about joking. We're friends who shouldn't and don't review each other's work, so that's a non-starter, in my view. Just so you know. Some of your comments below and here are quite incivil bordering on personal attacks and again, I'm asking you to stop that. There's no need for it. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have the opportunity to rework myself and bring it back to review at a later date if necessary. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Since this is your first GA review, I've asked about a second opinion here. I certainly don't mind having more eyes here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've trimmed out 800 words. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a start. Trim out another 800. I've missed something - probably because this is my first review - why did Shakespear oppose the relationship between Dorothy and Pound? Was it because he was poor? Whatever the reason, it should be made clear at the first mention of her opposition. I don't appreciate the request for a second opinion. It's implied that I either don't know what I'm doing or I need a helping hand because this is my first review. You simply have difficulty accepting any suggestion that your work could be improved with a good copy edit. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding prose - please point to specific sentences, paragraphs, or sections that need work and I'll give it a run through. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Article fails 1a, 3b, 4, and 6.

• 1a) Entire article lacks a conciseness in favor of a somewhat florid 'romantic' style and tone. Article reads like a Reader's Digest condensation of a romantic bio-novel and leaves unanswered questions such as "To whom did OS turn for sex when the Yeats affair was dissolved in 1897?"
• 3b) Littered with excessive, trivial, unencyclopedic detail such as "she met and became friends with Valentine Fox (unhappily married to a Kent brewer)". Why do we need to know VF was unhappily married to a brewer? There's a lot of this sort of unencyclopedic trivia that obscures the subject and makes reading the article a chore.
• 4) Article has a 'romantic' cast rather the neutral tone of an encyclopedia.
• 6) Image of Maud Gonne has no source and should be removed from the article. Image was possibly photocopied from a book - lines of text appear faintly visible in the light areas of the image. Iffy. No source however and should be removed.

The article shuns an encyclopedic tone and style in favor of the tone typical of bio-novels. With a bit of tweaking, the article could find a home in the pages of the sorts of magazines left in beauty parlors for matronly customers who sigh for love. Editor has inexplicably resisted the Wikipedia convention of an Infobox and has resisted using the subject's surname in favor of the childish and sweetly endearing "Olivia". Editor has engaged in discussions on her talk page with a pal who encourages her to resist the reviewer and improvement, and who approves the 'romantic', unencyclopedic tone of the article because it's warm and fuzzy. Editor requested a second opinion without consuting reviewer first and then tongue-lashed reviewer when taken to task for the ploy. Editor would probably work better with a pal-reviewer who simply corrects typos at the most and liberally doles out gold medals while wearing a blindfold. Pah! I don't need this junk any longer. I've spent too much time on it already and anticipate more of the same garbage going down in the future if I stay. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You are arrogently assuming that reviewers are always right and editors have to be guided, which is fantastically the reverse of this farce. Ceoil 20:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments: First thanks for the fail.

• Infoxes are not a GA or FA requirement. A small sampling of FAs without infoboxes include: Mary Shelley, Proserpine (play), Donner Party, James Joyce and Edmund Evans.
• I actually think your question about whether OS had other affairs after Yeats is valid - needs to be made explicit that the answer is no. Unfortunate, though, that a good piece of feedback is posed in such a manner.
• Image of Maude Gonne is used in a FA article and has gone through an image review there and for this article. I certainly didn't photocopy from a book.
• Editors have the freedom to engage in discussion with other editiors on a collaberative writing project. That certainly is no basis for a fail.
• Editors are allowed to request a second opinion in the face of a tone that's far from collegial. In fact the I didn't ask for a second opinion, I asked whether you should or I should. There is a distinction.
• I don't believe in liberal doling out of gold medals, and I know my writing sucks. Thanks for emphasizing lack of writing skill though - I'll take it on board.
• The rest of your comments are simply beyond the pale in my view and do nothing to move the project forward. I do, however, thank you for your time.
• I believe that rather than removing the GA nom from the talk page, this has to be made an official fail and allow the bot to update, otherwise the review will remain open. Thanks.Truthkeeper88 (talk)

pages of the sorts of magazines left in beauty parlors for matronly customers who sigh for love haahha! That's hilarious, 56tyvfg88yju. You have an unparalleled wit. You are rightly directing it at the person who researched and wrote an article in her own free time about a topic she enjoys. So, boo-ya! on you, Truthkeeper, you love-sigher.

Or, 56tyvfg88yju's review is unnecessarily acidic and somewhat ignorant of policy. Take it to GAR and get a reviewer who knows what s/he's doing and can exhibit a modicum of respect. --Moni3 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Tossing in another viewpoint, the GAN FAQ explicity says: "My reviewer and I don't exactly agree with each other. Can I request another editor to take over? If your GAN experience has not been good or if you disagree with the reviewer's decisions, then you can renominate the article (for a different reviewer) or request a community reassessment." So you have two options, update the {{GAN}} template on the article's talk page to increment the review number, removing the "on review" status so that the bot will relist the article for review, or take it to GAR. I wish you the best of luck in dealing with a difficult reviewer. Imzadi 1979 → 22:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice & the clarification. I thought that was the case. The template on the talkpage is set to a failed GAN at the moment. I'll relist it when I have the chance, but not immediately. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)