Talk:The Old Man and the Sea/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 03:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

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

I'm willing to take this one. Lazman321 (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Unfortunately, I will be busy for the next few days. As such, I'm going to temporarily postpone the review until further notice. Don't worry. I'm not abandoning. If I don't edit this review in a week, feel free to ping me. Lazman321 (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: I'm back. Lazman321 (talk) 04:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

1 - Well written

1a - Clear and concise prose

I'm going to go through each section one-by-one in order and list out any writing issues I find. Do not take the lack of links down below as indicating that links in the text affected should be removed. Lazman321 (talk) 04:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I've added suggestions related to the plot and background sections. I would like to say at this moment that WP:BOLD does apply. If you believe that any of my suggestions or any other passage could be written better, I say go for it. Lazman321 (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• "...but then loses his bounty to sharks." - "...but then loses it to sharks."
• "...the initial critical reception was equally positive..." - What does it mean by "equally"?
• "...had met with negative reviews..." - "...had received negative reviews..."
• "...released their first edition a week later on the 8th." - "...released their first edition a week later."
• "Thanks to favourable early reviews and word-of-mouth, popular anticipation was so high that both releases were heavily bootlegged." - "Favourable early reviews and word-of-mouth led to popular anticipation; both releases were heavily bootlegged."
• "...while Scribner's sold tens of thousands of copies." - "...while Scribner's edition sold tens of thousands of copies."
• "In 1953, it was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, and it was the only work explicitly mentioned when Hemingway was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1954." - "The novella received the 1953 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction and was explicitly cited when Hemingway was awarded the 1954 Nobel Prize in Literature."
• "...as literary critics began to think the initial reception overblown..." - "...as literary critics began to consider the initial reception overblown..."

Plot

• There are areas in the plot summary that could be condensed. Some suggestions are down below.
• "...has been forced by his parents to work on a different, luckier boat; Manolin still helps Santiago prepare his gear every morning and evening and brings him food. They talk about baseball and Joe DiMaggio, before the boy leaves and Santiago sleeps. He dreams of the sights..." - "...has been forced by his parents to work on a different, luckier boat. Nonetheless, Manolin regularly visits Santiago to help prepare his gear, bring him food, and talk about baseball. Sanitago dreams of the sights..."
• I don't think the albacore needs to be mentioned.
• Remove "He sees the marlin for the first time—it is longer than the boat"
• "Santiago draws the marlin in and harpoons it. He lashes the fish to his boat." - "Santiago draws the marlin in and harpoons it, before lashing it to his boat."
• The scene-by-scene retelling of the shark attacks is better off condensed and combined with the prior paragraph.
• "He brings coffee and sits with Santiago until he wakes. He insists on accompanying Santiago in the future." - "After Santiago wakes, Manolin insists on accompanying him in the future."

Background and publication

• "Hemingway fell deeper into love with his muse" - Aside from the lead, this is the first time said muse is mentioned, making "fell deeper in love" confusing.
• "Suddenly finding himself able to write in early December" - Was he not able to write beforehand?
• "...participating in and winning several tournaments, and he also became an avid amateur naturalist..." - Separate into different sentences.
• "The 26,531-word manuscript was held in temporary abeyance..." - Abeyance is not a common word. Given the fact that I couldn't verify this information during the source check, are you sure this is correct?
• "...during which time Hemingway became increasingly certain..." = "...during which Hemingway became increasingly certain..."
• "Conversations with Leland Hayward and Wallace Meyer encouraged him in this direction—Hemingway was delighted" - "Conversations with Leland Hayward and Wallace Meyer encouraged him to publish the manuscript, and Hemingway was delighted..."
• "...and afterwards combined weekly sales..." - "...and afterwards, combined weekly sales..."

Reception and legacy

• "The Old Man and the Sea met with popular acclaim." - "The Old Man and the Sea received popular acclaim."
• "In the three weeks after publication..." - "During the three weeks following publication..."
• "With Time magazine labelling it a 'masterpiece'" - "With Time labelling it a 'masterpiece'"
• "Cyril Connolly praised "the best story Hemingway has ever written" and Mark Schorer noted that..." - "Cyril Connolly declared The Old Man and the Sea "the best story Hemingway has ever written", and Mark Schorer stated that..."
• "...the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction on May 4, 1953—this was the first time Hemingway..." - "...the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction on May 4, 1953; the first time Hemingway..."
• "Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Friedrich Nietzsche, and Richard Hovey..." - "Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Friedrich Nietzsche; and Richard Hovey..."
• "Philip Young's republication of Ernest Hemingway: A Reconsideration in 1966 was much less positive than the original edition in 1952..." - "Philip Young's republication of Ernest Hemingway: A Reconsideration in 1966 was more critical than the original edition in 1952..."
• "Analysis only restarted in earnest..." - "Analysis restarted in earnest..."
• "...in 1991, and has continued unabated since." - "...in 1991 and has continued unabated since."
• "...a 2003 survey of the United Kingdom's 200 "best-loved novels" conducted by the BBC..." - "...a 2003 BBC survey of the United Kingdom's 200 "best-loved novels"..."
• "Hemingway was directly involved in making a 1958 film adaptation starring Spencer Tracy." - "Hemingway was directly involved in the production of a 1958 film adaptation starring Spencer Tracy."

Critical analysis

• "Dwight Macdonald criticises the pseudo-archaic prose which pretends it is high culture, but in reality is anything but." - "Dwight Macdonald criticises the prose as pseudo-archaic and pretending to be high culture."
• "...he deplored The Old Man's as garrulous and repetitive..." - The Old Man's what?
• "...had instilled insincerity at the heart of his novel." - What does this even mean?
• "...intended to nudge readers towards the work's subtext and deepest deetails." - "...intended to nudge readers towards the work's subtext and deepest details."
• "In a letter to a Father Brown in 1954..." - "In a letter to Father Brown in 1954..."
• "Hemingway wrote 'You know about Santiago...'" - "Hemingway wrote, 'You know about Santiago...'"
• "...in the Gospel of Luke—both involve fishermen experiencing bad luck, going out into the deep sea, and taking a great catch; he also connects repeated allusions..." - "...in the Gospel of Luke: both involve fishermen experiencing bad luck, going out into the deep sea, and taking a great catch. Stoneback also connects repeated allusions..."
• "...from Jake Barnes in The Sun Also Rises to Robert Jordan in For Whom the Bell Tolls, and Richard Cantwell in Across the River..." - "...such as Jake Barnes in The Sun Also Rises, Robert Jordan in For Whom the Bell Tolls, and Richard Cantwell in Across the River..."
• "Joseph Waldmeir similarly finds The Old Man and the Sea to contain a better synthesis..." - "Joseph Waldmeir similarly says that The Old Man and the Sea contains a better synthesis..."
• "...the figure of Santiago ultimately embodied Hemingway's ideals, and was intended to be esteemed as such." - "...the figure of Santiago ultimately embodied Hemingway's ideals, and was intended to be esteemed as such."
• "Santiago's Spanish heritage must be considered to be a major, and yet invisible, aspect of the novel." - "Santiago's Spanish heritage must be considered as a major yet invisible aspect of the novel."

1b - Adherence to the Manual of Style

This article follows the MoS guidelines for lead, layout, words to watch, and fiction. The guidelines for lists is inapplicable. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 04:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

2 - Verifiable with no original research

2a - Identifiable list of references

Getting this one out of the way first, since it is the easiest criterion to meet. As it stands, the reference layout does follow MOS:REFERENCES, meaning this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

2b - Reliable sources

Every source used is reliable, either an academic publisher or an otherwise credible source. In addition, there are no citation-needed tags, long stretches of text without citations, or paragraphs that don't have a citation at the end. This indicates that every claim has an in-line reliable citation. Whether or not said claims are actually substantiated by the citations is something I typically review under the "no original research" criterion. Regardless, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

2c - No original research

 Reviewing... I might as well get this one out of the way early since scrutiny of the article under this criterion can make or break a GAN's case. I'll notify you once I am finished. Here's the link in the meantime. Lazman321 (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: I have finished the source check. I did notice quite a few issues, but they are mostly minor and easily fixable. Address the listed concerns, and I can give this article a pass under this criterion. Ignore my comment about the illustrated edition, as I'm aware you didn't add it and have since removed it. Lazman321 (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

2d - No copyright violations

 Reviewing... I'll review this one alongside the original research criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

While doing the source check, I didn't find any examples of prohibited close paraphrasing, though that probably is because most of the sources are of someone giving an opinion; close paraphrasing of an attributed opinion is allowed as per WP:PARAPHRASE. Copyvio score looks fine at 12.3%. What I am more concerned about is the number of quotes used in the article as it stands, particularly in the critical analysis section, where nearly every sentence directly quotes an author. Extensive quoting is generally considered copyright infringement. MOS:QUOTE says, "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be copyright infringement, and so most of the content should be in the editor's own words." Meanwhile, WP:NFC says, "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." This was a point brought up in the prior FAC by Phlsph7 and I don't think it's been addressed thoroughly. To fix it, I recommend streamlining the critical analysis section to focus on what the identified themes are with only some specific examples of critical commentary for illustration. I recommend the essays WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:RECEPTION for some relevant guidance. Lazman321 (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Lazman321, thanks for your excellent review thus far; I have edited the critical analysis section to reduce the overreliance on quotes, which was very evident even to me after a break from the article. Thoughts on the revisions? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for cutting down the quotes. I appreciate it. Though I personally have reservations toward the "A said B" type of sections, unless said sections violate WP:DUE, I'm not going to force this section to be otherwise. The quoting is less extensive now, meaning it is moving away from copyright infringement. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

3 - Broad in its coverage

3a - Main aspects

To determine which aspects of this topic appear to be missing, I consulted two works, the article for The Old Man and the Sea on Encyclopedia Britannica and the novella's entry in the reference work Ernest Hemingway A to Z, as both are tertiary sources, making them good overviews of the topic. I also consulted the FAC. I found two things that might be worth adding regarding critical analysis: the style and the theme of man's endurance. Hemingway is, as you probably know already, renowned for his writing style; it's why he won the Nobel Prize after all. For this novella, Encyclopedia Britannica referenced Hemingway's style, and Victoria did provide help for adding analysis of the style during the FAC. Meanwhile, both Encyclopedia Britannica and Ernest Hemingway A to Z do refer to the theme of man's endurance featured in the novella, and recalling my source check, I do believe Waldmeir 1962 touched upon this theme. For these reasons, I recommend adding critical analysis of the style and the theme of man's endurance to the article. I'm willing to help out if needed. Lazman321 (talk) 04:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for returning Lazman321; I'm afraid I might not be able to add these sections until Monday 11th at the earliest, because real life has somewhat got in the way. I do believe the theme of endurance is somewhat referenced in the commentary on the "a man can be destroyed but not defeated" theme, but if you feel that's not sufficient I'll expand it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I'm not even finished with the review yet, so you got plenty of time. Regarding the theme of endurance, it is mentioned in both tertiary sources, so I do believe it is worth at least its own paragraph. Also, before you do make your revisions, although Encyclopedia Britannica is useful for finding essential information to be included, I don't recommend using it as a source in the article itself, as WP:RSP marks it as situational and recommends finding better sources when possible. Lazman321 (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Upon further examination, it appears there already is a paragraph dedicated to this theme in the classical section. Not sure how I missed it, but I still feel it could be expanded upon. However, I won't consider it a condition for passing the GAN if you can't find sources. I'd say focus on expanding upon the style analysis. Lazman321 (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

3b - Focused

There is not a single moment where the article goes off topic nor does there seem to be excessively detailed information. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 04:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

4 - Neutral

While prose-checking the article, I noticed that the background section's tone and framing seem to be promotional in nature. To explain it the best I can, it's like the section is trying to tell a narrative to convince me to buy the book. (I mean, I guess that's what promotional literally means.) Oftentimes, when researching the background section of a beloved work, editors can become so enamored with the narrative created by the research that they get carried away and present it as a narrative rather than as encyclopedic information, creating a promotional tone. I recommend re-reading the background section in its entirety to look for instances of what I am referring to and then rewrite the section so the framing and tone are more impartial. I'm willing to guide you if needed. Personally, I would say paragraph 3 is the biggest offender. Lazman321 (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

5 - Stable

There is no evidence of an ongoing content dispute leading to the content changing from day to day. In fact, there have only been two revisions since the archival of the FAC. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

6 - Illustrated by media

6a - Copyright tags

This was already subject to review during the FAC by Nikkimaria, though she ultimately did not vote. Regardless, all images do have valid copyright tags. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

6b - Relevant media

I am hesitant about the multiple images used by Ernest Hemingway, as usually, articles have only one image of the author. However, I imagine that the multiple images are meant to illustrate different aspects of the background of the novella, with the first illustrating where the novella was written and the second illustrating an inspiration in Hemingway's life for the novella. I have similar feelings regarding the St. John images. At the present moment, I don't think any action is needed. I say the article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

7 - Verdict

Considering I have gone through all the criteria for GA, I will be placing this review  On hold for sixteen days, with your stated IRL obligations taken into consideration. I'll check on your progress in a week, and I thank you for your cooperation. Lazman321 (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: So sorry, but I've noticed you haven't edited the article since I made my last post here. I am aware that you have IRL obligations and that you are currently addressing an FAR on the Byzantine Empire, both of which are probably more important. Perhaps you may be able to address my concerns in the remaining time you have, but if you would like, I'm willing to extend the deadline. Lazman321 (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Lazman321, that would be much appreciated. I have temporarily lost access to sources I wanted to use, but I think I'll get them back in a week. Combining that problem and the ongoing FAR which I've suddenly found myself leading, can we extend the deadline to around the 27th, if that's not too much trouble? (I think there's a very good chance I'll be able to work on the article before then, but just in case) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Will do. Lazman321 (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: You have three days left and there has been no activity on the article at all. I can delay the deadline further if you want, but I can only delay it so far before enough is enough. If you want, I'm willing to extend the deadline to as far as January 10, but no more. For help, if you still haven't restored access to the sources you want, most of the sources I was able to find on the Internet Archive, and others I found through the Wikipedia Library. Lazman321 (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I'll try and get back to this. Thanks for all your help. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry Lazman321 I don't think I have the willpower to get back to this—I've lost all energy on the topic. Could you please fail the review? Thanks for all your help. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a shame. Hope you return sometime. Lazman321 (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)