Talk:Sonnet 101/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xover (talk · contribs) 16:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall status

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Individual sonnets are difficult to write good encyclopaedic articles about, but I must say the article succeeds quite admirably here. I'm particularly happy that it has situated the sonnet along several axis, giving crucial context to aid the reader's understanding. Overall the prose is good, even though some ruthless copyediting for clarity and conciseness would be beneficial; and well referenced, though the paucity of citations toward the end is worrisome.

Overall there is quite some work still left to be done to bring the article up to GA standard.

I'm placing the review on hold for now to give the nominator a chance to address these issues. Please feel free to ping me if you have any questions. --Xover (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gswan333 and LancingBuboes: Note that as I have seen no activity over the past week I will be closing this review as failed at some point in the next couple of days. --Xover (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Xover, Gswan333, and LancingBuboes: We've been jammed with midterms and papers and could use another week. I had hoped to get started with a few edits today. Gswan333 (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gswan333 and LancingBuboes: Not a problem. I just need to know somebody's working on it. --Xover (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Xover and Gswan333: I may be on my own going forward; still up in the air. Made "baby steps" over the weekend. Hope to get back to it late tomorrow. May have a few questions but I will ping you when I've clarified for myself what is confusing. Gswan333 (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gswan333 and LancingBuboes: Still planning to work on this, or should I just close this review? Keep in mind that you can always renominate it later and the only downside to doing so is that you'll have to wait for another reviewer to pick it up (which can sometimes take a long time). There's no penalty or quarantine time or anything like that. --Xover (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Xover, Gswan333, and LancingBuboes: As much as I had hoped (whishful thinking!) to be able to make regular progress on this, it's clear to me now that (despite having checked out materials and sources to use and started with reading...) the soonest I will be able to make significant contribution that you could look at would be holiday break. I think it's only fair to free up this article. Now that I know what the process is, if I make progress, it will be off-line first with preparation to make changes in a timely, if not rapid manner. Also, when and if I get to that point, I will ping you if that's allowed and you are interested. FYI: note that the motivation for doing revisions has gone out the window for many in our English class because grades were eventually assigned to the project. That said, I want to thank you again for reviewing our article with extensive comments. I learned a heck of a lot, and it brought me into a world for a short time which I had only heard about from a "Starbucks coffee buddy" who does graduate work on wikipedia use, structure, behavior, etc. Again, thank you! Gswan333 (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gswan333: Don't worry overmuch that things tend to take more time than initially thought. I have an article I've been working on, on and off, for 5 years; and at the current pace it's likely to be another 5 before I'm done. Remember, There is no deadline.

If I may presume to offer some advice: on Wikipedia, slow and steady really is the way to cross the finish line. Instead of aiming for some grand unveiling of untold hours of work off-line, simply do a little bit every now and then when you have time. This lets you squeeze in a little work whenever you have an hour or two, rather than wait for that mythical stretch when you have the leisure for a Magnum Opus (it will never arrive). Incremental improvements also encourage other editors to chip in (although I must grant there's a bit of a dearth of editors in the Shakespeare field right now), and working in collaboration is almost always more fruitful and rewarding than going it alone.

The only time there's any kind of a hurry is when you've nominated an article for GA, and even then only in order to keep the backlog at WP:GAN at a manageable level, and to let the (volunteer) reviewers draw a line somewhere and not have to keep watching a review indefinitely. However, there is no hard limit on how long a review may stay on hold, and most reviewers will be happy to leave it open for however long it takes so long as progress is still being made. Small incremental improvements are usually all that's required for that. Remember: the goal of the GA process is to improve articles, not to give individual editors a grade of some kind.

In any case, I'll close this review as failed for now per your comment above. However, feel free to ping me if there is anything I can help with, and that includes asking for a new GA review if you renominate it later on. If time allows I'd be happy to review it again. For reference, the GA process doesn't have a lot of stringent requirements, so asking someone to do the review is entirely fine. There are pretty much only two big no-nos and that's reviewing an article you yourself nominated, and reviewing an article that you've contributed significantly to. Wikipedia overall may have accumulated policies and bureaucracy in many areas, but the GA process is deliberately kept light-weight. --Xover (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed points

General issues

The article uses "muse" in a fragmented and contradictory way. Sometimes it appears to mean a metaphorical muse (as in whatever inspires you; "a muse"), sometimes as the specific mythical creatures ("The Muses"), sometimes to refer to the Fair Youth (as that which has inspired the poet), and once I think it even referred to Shakespeare. The term must be used consistently throughout the article, and for any deviating uses the meaning must be specified. A symptom of this is that it is inconsistently capitalised: "The Muses" (mythical creatures), but "a muse" (an inspiration) or "my muse" (that which has inspired me); and the distinction between the metaphorical muse and the Fair Youth as the inspiration should be carefully maintained. As it stands I had trouble following what the article was trying to tell me.

Lede

(6) The article lacks illustrations. Could perhaps a cropped scan of this sonnet from the 1609 quarto be added?
(1b) The lede does not summarise the article. See WP:LEAD.

Synopsis

(1a) "… but is imagined to answer by saying …" This is a confusing way of putting it. That the muse is implored to answer would be much clearer.
(1a) "The poet will teach her how …" Depending on where you place the comma (see the point under Couplet below).

Paraphrase

(2b,2c) "… seems to use as its primary metaphors textile dyeing and portrait painting." This claim needs a citation. Ideally one strong enough that the qualification "seems to" is no longer needed.

Sonnet Structure

(1a) The Elizabethan era should be wikilinked (not every reader will be familiar with the term).
(1a) "… generally follow the 'Surreyan' sonnet form …" Surreyan is an unusual way to refer to this form; English or even Shakespearean are more common. The term should also be wikilinked to the relevant article. And Wikipedia's house style is to use double quotes for this (see MOS:QUOTEMARKS), but I don't think scare quotes are appropriate here.
(1a) Specialist terms (iambic pentameter, quatrains, couplet) should be wikilinked on first use for the benefit of readers not familiar with them.
(1a) "… a volta seems to occur …" Does it or doesn't it (there is no "seem")? Either the sources agree that there is a volta here, or the disagreement should be explained.
(2b) Direct quotes (almost anything that's inside quotation marks) needs a separate citation.
(2b,2c) "However, in some lines, for example line 7 …" This entire paragraph needs to be cited to support the analysis given.

Within the Sonnet Sequence

Headings are not in initial-caps in Wikipedia's house style.
When referring to other sonnets, the sonnet could beneficially be wikilinked.
(1a) "Dubrow notes …" Who is Dubrow? Where did he note this?
"… that rhetorical method …" the rethorical method…
(1a) "… Stirling has noted …" Who, where.
Why is Time and Verse capitalized here?
(2b) Direct quotes (almost anything that's inside quotation marks) needs a separate citation.
(1a,2b) "… known as the Young Man Sonnets …" I've never heard of this name in relation to the sonnets. Did you mean the "Fair Youth sequence"?

Within Elizabethan Literary Society

(1a) The people referred to here (Southampton, Pembroke, Davies, etc.) should be wikilinked on first mention.
(1a) "Atkins argues …" Who is Atkins? Where does he argue this?
(1a) "… in Shakespeare's sequence …" Which sequence is that, and why has it not been mentioned previously?
(1a) "Atkins … composed." That's a heck of a lot of load for just one sentence to carry.
(1a) Renaissance philosophy should be wikilinked.

Within Elizabethan National Culture and Society

(1a) "In Shakespeare's time, the word 'pencil,' means paintbrush, though it can also mean …" meant, could also mean. Quotation marks should be double quotes. And Wikipedia uses logical punctuation rules (see MOS:LQ).
(2b) "(OED 1)" These need to be replaced with proper citations. If needed you can use {{Cite OED}}. However, it would be preferable to cite a reliable secondary source for this (I believe Duncan-Jones covers at least parts of this), as citing the meaning directly is in the gray area towards original research (you, the editor of the encyclopedia, are interpreting the sonnet and determining that that particular definition is relevant; vs. reporting that a secondary source such as the Arden or Oxford edition says that that definition is relevant).
(1a) "Dundas describes …" Who, where.
(1a) "Martz extends the discussion …" Who, where.
(1a) "… the work of Sidney …" Who is Sidney? Why is he relevant here?
(1a) "… High Renaissance to Mannerist styles …" These terms should be wikilinked.
(1a) "If, however "dyed" … as the key metaphor …" is the…?
(1a) Sumptuary laws should be wikilinked, and if possible also (very) briefly explained.
(2b) The direct quote needs a cite.

Quatrain 1

The word "literally" reads like a stylistic tic here: while you can certainly argue that what follows qualifies as being literal, it's somewhat malapropos when applied to poetry and especially lines that address the mythical personification of an abstract concept. I would suggest just dropping it as it serves no real purpose in the sentence.
"… itself/the poet …" The solidus here connotes that the writer (you) is not certain which he means. Use either "and" or "or".
(1a) "inspiring him his pen" An extra word? Or a very archaic usage?
(1a) "… neglect of he and his …" him and the, I presume?

Quatrain 2

(2b) This entire section is uncited.
(1a) The sentences in this section are tortuously long to the point that they hinder comprehension. The prose is also rather repetitive such that the repeated information obscures more than illuminates the meaning.
(1a) "… which is discussed in depth earlier in this article …" Then the reader is already familiar with it and need not be reminded.
(1a) "… It is in the second and third line of this quatrain, or the sixth and seventh lines in the sonnet, … it is in line 6 and 7, …" Perhaps it would be sufficient to specify the location just the one time? And please be consistent in the use of "6" vs. "six".
(1a,2b) "Though there is no definitive explanation for this alteration, its inconsistency warrants speculation." Says who?
(1a) This entire section reads as the editor's own interpretation (a personal essay) rather than an encyclopaedic treatment. The focus should be on what the reliable secondary sources have said about it, not how the article's editor analyses it.

Quatrain 3

(2b) The two cites at the very end seem a little light to carry this entire section. Surely the Arden and Oxford editions can help pull the weight?
(1a) This section suffers from many of the same problems as the previous (run-on sentences etc.), but compounded by extensive use of direct quotes. Apart from a thorough copy-edit for brevity and clarity, more of the quoted material be paraphrased and cited rather than quoted.
(2b) Direct quotes need cites.
(1a) "As T. Walker Herbert notes …" Who is that, and where did he note that?
(2b) "(Herbert, 236, 239)" Please use proper ref tags and cite in a consistent style throughout the article. Use of citation templates is optional but I highly recommend them.
(1a) "… suggested by William Empson …" Who, where.

Couplet

(2b) This entire section is uncited.
(1a,2b,3a) "… that he himself will show the Muse how to immortalize the Fair Youth." Now that depends entirely on where you place the comma, doesn't it? And as the one significant orthographic issue in this sonnet (as "him/her/hir" is in Sonnet 102) I would expect this article to deal with it here.

References

Several references lack identifiers such as ISBNs (books) and DOIs (journal articles).