Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lazarus Aaronson/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2016 [1].

Lazarus Aaronson

Nominator(s): P. S. Burton (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the English poet Lazarus Aaronson. Along with Isaac Rosenberg he was one of the Whitechapel Boys, and although he never received the same widespread recognition as his friend, he gained a cult following of dedicated readers. I created the article in early 2015 and have been working on it since then. In March this year it became a Good Article. It is rather short, but I truly believe that I have now have exhausted all available sources and that the article is ready for nomination. I am looking forward to your feedback. It would be nice to see the article on the frontage on 9 December this year, the fifty year anniversary of Aaronson's death. P. S. Burton (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - any chance of an illustration of the subject? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only picture I have found is this one, unfortunately it is quite weirdly cropped. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am no longer sure that the picture depicts Aaronson. It looks a awful lot like Alfred Wolmark. P. S. Burton (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Support Reading through. Its short, but I appreciate the difficulty in piecing together articles like this. Have reorganised the lead a bit, from four to two paras. I don't see an image as a possibility, giving that cropping. I would decorate more though, maybe another poem extract in the final "poems" section. The Radio Times page seems to have a wiki function, undermining it, so another source, even a fixed page from the same site, would be preferable. The writing and (otherwise) sourcing are very good - leaning support. Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now supporting, on prose, sourcing, formatting, and happily, image. 11:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing and copy editing. I agree that some more decoration would be nice, but I am worried that adding one more poem might be too much fair use for one article. The Radio Times archive page does have a wiki function, but the information is sourced to the original Radio Times, and the page is maintained by the BBC, with additional entries to the page needing approval from BBC staff. P. S. Burton (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I think the article is short but comprehensive. I am happy with the prose, and while not familiar with the literature, the spuources seem to be of a high quality, and are consistent, though I dont like ----- for rerpeated authors, just list again. Comment: I was intrigued by his image being described as weirdly cropped, so I had a look. For a poet, it looks fine to me for inclusion in the article. Sandbh (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - taking a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~third para in Life section needs inline references.~~

This has now been fixed. P. S. Burton (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~since Aaronson's poetry does not display formal innovation~~ ~~- I am not sure what this sentence means.~~

I am not entirely sure. This is the explanation given by Baker.

I don't get a sense of why he converted to christianity -is there any source material discussing this that could be used in the article?

I have not found any discussion of this in the sources. They do not make clear why he converted, only that he struggled with his religious identity. I have found one further source that might discuss this. If it does I will add information once I tracked it down.

Otherwise reads nicely. Can't really comment on comprehensiveness but not glaring gaps apparent. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber. Thank you for reviewing. I have tried to answer your questions above. P. S. Burton (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok points taken. I think it is comprehensive enough for a support from me and anything else is icing on the cake. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 22:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- have we had a source review for formatting and reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, will take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refs formatted consistently.
Using this version for ref numbering,
Glasgow Herald ref material consistent with source.
FN 11, 12 and 13 pass muster (i.e. material consistent with source)

Ok @Ian Rose: I am happy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.