Talk:The Importance of Being Earnest/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

It'd be great to get this article to GA status, but it is a good way from ready yet.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
See below

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
See below
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
See below.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
On the lead image, "it was taken 110+ years ago" it listed as the reason it is public domain. This is nothing to do with any law I know of. Again, File:Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) 1889, May 23. Picture by W. and D. Downey.jpg has issues- the author is not listed (one of the possible authors most certainly did not die 70 years ago) but it is assumed PD.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I have not yet read through the themes section. The problems were worse once I actually read through the article- part of me wants to fail this straight off, as there are a lot of issues, but I am willing to place it on hold for a time to see if it can be cleaned up.

Wording

*Dablinks- climax, Gaiety Theatre, Robert Ross, The Saturday Review, William Archer. The World also clearly links to the wrong place. Fixed.Ktlynch (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC) *"Its high farce and witty dialogue have helped make The Importance of Being Earnest Wilde's most enduringly popular play." is not the most neutral of phrases Fixed Mr. R00t ^Talk 22:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This line comes from the lead section, where often a succint statement of facts can sound a bit pompous. However, this is clearly explained in the following sections. --Ktlynch (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*"Wilde was urged to write further plays" By whom? Fixed.Ktlynch (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC) *"ilde summered with his family at Worthing, where he wrote the play quickly in August.[1] Wilde" repetition Fixed, rephrased enture sentence.---- *"Michael Feingold" Who is he? Fixed He's an American arts critic.Ktlynch (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC) *"When Henry James's Guy Domville failed, Alexander agreed to put on the play.[4]" So, wild sent it? Fixed, they corresponded and eventually reached a decision to go ahead.Ktlynch (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of the plot section (which is, by the way, a little long) could do with rephrasing. The blockquoting isn't useful, and the line "All that now stands in the way of Jack and Gwendolen's happiness, it seems, is the question of his first name." is a little odd.

I agree the plot section still looks long, though it is 712, below Wikiproject Theatre's reccomended maximum of 900. In a play such as this it is difficult to decide what to cut. (Roger Ebert had the same problem. Perhaps editors who are unfamiliar with the play could offer suggestions as to what is not absolutely neccessary to understand the play. Best, Ktlynch (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add that Ktlynch and I have by now both put quite a bit of effort into tightening-up the wording of the plot summary and eliminating any superfluous detail. It should be recognized that this play's plot is a work of really exceptional intricacy and ingenuity. On Word Count we are in the low 700s now, and my own sense is that trying to press down further would almost inevitably lose something in terms of the coherence of the account. Nandt1 (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It was freezing cold" tone

Really? It sounds quite matter-of-fact to me. Most sources mention this fact, the original premiere was actually delayed due to the cold weather. --Ktlynch (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Freezing cold" is just a little colloquial. J Milburn (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the reference to hand, but I think I've read it in a respectable book on the subject.--Ktlynch (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*"that ""In my" What's going on there?

~~Needed to make the quotation grammatically correct in the context.Ktlynch (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)~~ 'Changed wording to avoid the usage. --Ktlynch (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"intimate friend"- we really don't need innuendo/subtlty- we're an encyclopedia.

This is not innuendo but a plain english usage of the word intimate. Ktlynch (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"despite its success," What success? That isn't actually discussed in the article...

*"and few dared to discuss, let alone perform, his work" Hardly neutral, inappropriate tone, Changed wording to sound more neutral. --Ktlynch (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "revivals" section has serious prose issues. I'd be inclined to say it should be completely rewritten...

I think the prose in this section actually flows rather well. Could you be more specific please about what is difficult to read? Ktlynch (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"While much theatre of the time tackled serious social and political issues, The Importance of..is superficially about nothing at all." Ref? Rephrase? Not sure about this line.

*"was "his first really heartless [one]"." Wilde's first, presumably?

~~I would have thought that it was perfectly clear. Adding Wilde's name again would have to much repetition. Ktlynch (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)~~ Changed wording. --Ktlynch (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*"William Archer in The World, while agreeing that the play was enjoyable to watch, also picked up on the play's "emptiness", "What can..." needs rephrasing Rephrased. --Ktlynch (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC) *"dramatical career. he denied the" Come on... Fixed.Ktlynch (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC) *Yeah, the whole section could do with prose ironing... Copyedited for flow.--Ktlynch (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC) *Same with the first edition section. The line "coincidentally inside a handbag; ironically mimicking the discovery of Jack Worthing as an infant" is not appropriate... Fixed, removed some dramatic/sympathetic wording. --Ktlynch (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

*Large section of the composition is unreferenced Fixed, adding source for the film changes.Ktlynch (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC) *Almost the entire "in translation" section lacks references; there's even a cite needed tag in there. This section has been entirely re-written, based an an academic article on the subject. --Ktlynch (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC) *The adaptations section has very few references, and could do with rewriting entirely. Bulleted lists are generally not a good thing. Re-written as prose, and extra unreferenced, non-notable productiions removed.--Ktlynch (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC) *Very inconsistent referencing style. Fixed.Ktlynch (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC) *Ref 43 is questionable. Fixed, deleted the reference in question.Ktlynch (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images:The possible author, James Downey, was actually thirteen years old when the photo was taken and published. He was the author's son who took over the business much later. Ktlynch (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems safe to assume that image is PD then- explain as much on the image page. What about the other? J Milburn (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AS far as I can work out, the other was released under a CC license by the author. I have left him a message suggesting that he provide more information when uploading photos, but I think it is ok to use. Ktlynch (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the lead image; the modern image is fine. J Milburn (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close review?

It's been a few days since the last edit to the article, and there are still some fairly major problems outstanding. I think this article needs more work before it's ready for GA status, and I am considering closing this as failed. Thoughts? J Milburn (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busy off wikipedia the last few days, but to my eye the main problem is a lack of credible sources in the translation section (some archaeology has told me parts of the original article were copied from a second rate leaflet). I've found a strong, academic source on translation and am in the process of adding it.

As I hope you've noticed, there are a couple of dedicated editors here who have made significant revisions in line with your comments. I think we can all easily achieve the GA standard with this article. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; I am happy to keep this open as long as improvements are still being made. J Milburn (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'm working on the translation section at the moment. Nandt1 and I have also copyedited the whole article. Could you give us some pointers about where you think it is weak? The original review queried the image rights, but criteria 2, 3 & 5 didn't seem to have any problems - can we call them passed? There were many small bugs relating to 1 & 4, but many of these have been swept up in the last week. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the two older images still need their licensing clarified, (the Wilde image is legit as above, the lead image may or may not be, I don't think anyone's looked yet) and the translation section and the adaptations section need sourcing- converting the translation section to prose would also be helpful. I will take another proper read through the article at some point soon. J Milburn (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely a non-expert at dealing with images on wikipedia so am not sure how to go about tracking down rights on the lead photograph. One possibility is removing the infobox altogether from the article until we can source the image correctly. --Ktlynch (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are a few questions we can ask. Do we know who created the photograph? Do we know when they died? Do we know when the image was first published (or do we know any early publications?) It probably is public domain, it's just that the current reasoning is weak. J Milburn (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another read through

Ok, I'm gonna give the article another read through, and shout out about anything I see.

In the lead, a link to the 1992 play would be good, even if we don't have an article- don't be scared of redlinks.

Done--Iankap99 (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"lived at Bracknell. [Notes 1][2]" sure you want the spacing like that?
"a solicitor come down from London" That's an odd phrase
You have a large unreferenced section at the end of "composition"
"that ""In" Assuming that's a typo?
In the lead, you mention "He continued harassing Wilde, who eventually sued for libel, triggering a series of trials ending in Wilde's imprisonment." This isn't really discussed in the article.
"contemporary reviewers were wary of" of which contemporary reviewers were wary?
"William Archer in The World," perhaps "William Archer, writing in The World,"?
There's an inconsistency in how you refer to the play in shorthand. Ernest or The Importance of...?
"All of this said, the fact that both of the play's leading male characters lead "double lives" creates an obvious parallel to the lives of upper class homosexuals in Victorian England, including the married Wilde himself." Again, unreferenced.

I will finish reading it at some point later today. J Milburn (talk) 12:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks these, all have been corrected. --Ktlynch (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the rest-

"were still on stage in London the time of his prosecution," Missed a word?

Seems Corrected--Iankap99 (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"On 19 October 2007, a first edition (number 349 of 1,000) was discovered inside a handbag in a branch of Oxfam in Nantwich, Cheshire, mimicking the discovery of Jack Worthing as an infant. Staff were unable to trace the donor. It was sold for £650.[47]" It's kind of interesting, but it feels a bit lonely there. I guess I'm happy for it to stay, but I think there'd need to be more (where are the other first eds?) if you plan to take it to FAC
"italianate" Would that not need a capital I?

Done. I must say, you are right- this really does feel like a decent good article, while still lacking the comprehensiveness that would be required for a featured article. Once the issues listed above and the lead image issue are resolved, I would be happy to promote. I'd also be happy to give some pointers towards improvements to make before FAC, if you're interested. J Milburn (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The minor change has been made. The story of the copy of the first edition is a leftover from earlier versions of the article, I've left in because it's a well-sourced, nice anecedote though "cutesy". I agree that it would have to be added to or removed for FAC. My understanding is that "italianate" is an adjective, thus does not take a capital. Thanks for your kind comments, other pointers would be most welcome. I've done a little searching, and am not able to turn up anything reliable regarding the photo. You seem to be better informed than me on image rights, if you'd give a pointer or two I'd be happy to do the work. You mentioned before that a fair-use justification might be possible. What form might this take? Copyright expires 70 years after the author's death, and it was taken 115 years ago - that leaves the assumption that the photographer was dead 45 years after he took the photo, not an extravagant claim. Thanks and best wishes, --Ktlynch (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, concerning the image, we need to find out where it was originally taken from- and I mean originally. Where was it first published? A newspaper? Something like that? Orbicle (talk · contribs) uploaded the image nearly four years ago, as Image:Cigarettecase.jpeg, on enwp. There are a few options- if it was published at all before 1923, it is public domain in the United States, and may be uploaded freely to the English Wikipedia. If it was published first in the United States before 1923, it's public domain enough for Commons. If we make a reasonable effort to find out the author, but cannot, and it was published more than 70 years ago, it's public domain. Alternatively, if we find out the date of death of the author, regardless of whether it was published, if the author died more than 70 years ago. To be honest, if you have a snoop and don't get anywhere, I'd be happy with it just being tagged with this template and for us to move on- however, be aware that this may come back to bite you at any future FAC, so looking for the right licensing (or a different image altogether) may be worth your while. J Milburn (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My research shows that it was indeed taken in 1895. So does that mean that this article is good enough to be passed?--Iankap99 (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Could you please update the image page with when (and perhaps where) it was taken, who took it and where it was first published, if known? Using that information, we will hopefully be able to determine whether the image is public domain. J Milburn (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been any update on either side in nearly a month; what's the status of this review? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are working on assessing the rights for the lead image, otherwise editors have reached a consensus on the article. My disappearance has been due to workload and internet access issues, and I thank editors for their indulgence. Does anyone know of good methods for tracing the history of the photo? Ktlynch (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't. Infact I only dropped by this article because i saw it was on hold at GAR. My method was to do a google image search that would turn up this image, then click similar image. However, this only verified the year that it was taken.--Iankap99 (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the photograph was taken in 1885 it is clearly out of copyright, so I fail to see what the problem is here. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howso? I wish people would stop asserting and start demonstrating. I'm no lawyer, but so far as I am aware there is no law that states "if it says on Wikipedia that a photograph was taken in 1885, it is in the public domain". I'm sorry to be so blunt, but it seems we simply don't have information on this image (and, for what it's worth, it clearly would not meet our NFCC, as we have at least one free image of the play being performed). J Milburn (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it appears that this source suggests that it is a contemporaneous illustration. I should have noted 1895, rather than 1885. The image would qualify under a fair use rationale as an image of an historic event that cannot be replaced. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't- free images illustrating the play are possible (we even have one) and so a non-free image would not be at all suitable in the infobox. However, I think it almost certainly is in the public domain, and the sourcing information has been improved. This issue may be raised again at FAC, but, for now, I am satisfied, and I am therefore willing to promote. J Milburn (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to disagree. The English première of this important play was an historic event without any doubt. An image of a college production is of no merit at all and adds nothing to the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree the college shot is adding little/nothing to the article. That doesn't mean we can plaster non-free content whereever we like. At the very least, the cover of the first edition publication is in the public domain- that would be a suitable lead image for an article of this sort. A non-free image would not be, though it could (potentially) be justified alongside critical commentary of the first performance (though by no means automatically). J Milburn (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]