Talk:Thomas Carlyle's prose style/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 13:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

The lead needs work. A lead – see WP:LEAD – should sum up the important points of the main text and should not contain anything that is not in the body of the article. The lead here consists almost entirely of material not in the main text.
"Carlyle's writing in Sartor Resartus is described as ..." by whom and is s/he a reliable judge, reflecting a general critical view?
"In his French Revolution, 'the great prose epic of the nineteenth century'" – whom are you quoting?
"Over fifty percent of these entries" – rather long-winded way of saying "more than half these entries"
"The language and imagery ... is present" – two nouns but a singular verb
"indirect references to William Shakespeare" – would this be the Shakespeare mentioned (and blue linked) five paragraphs earlier?
Is "stertorous" widely used?
I can't make head or tail of your rationale for citing books. Some have their bibliographical information under Sources, which is where one would expect it to be, but others such as Clubb, Hartman and Harrison are jumbled in – with incomplete bibliographic data, most conspicuously in the case of Garnett – with the citations.
It isn't clear why you use Roman numerals for the Carlyle volumes in the Sources section but Arabic numerals in the citations.
More generally, I think in an article about a writer's prose style it is rather odd not to have at least one substantial example, such as the opening of Chapter 8 of the Life of John Sterling, or the Red-v-Blue passage from Chapter 9 of Sartor Resartus. Plenty to choose from.
It doesn't look as though all the Traill volumes listed in the Sources are actually used as sources for the article. Those that are not should be removed.

I have enjoyed reading the article, but at present I think it falls short of GA standard, particularly as to the lead and the referencing. I'll put the review on hold for a week to give time for these points to be addressed. – Tim riley talk 13:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No response, and so I have to fail the GAN. Tim riley talk 16:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]