Wikipedia:Featured article review/George Moore (novelist)/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept 14:51, 7 January 2008.
Review commentary
[edit]- Notified WP Biography (A&E group), WP Ireland, and User:Filiocht (main contributor and nominator but now inactive)
1(c): no inline citations. Calliopejen1 17:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have access to sources. Give me some time, and I might be able to save this one. BuddingJournalist 02:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell 19:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Status? Five edits in a month; are there still plans to work on this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps someone who feels the citation is inadequate could identify some specific problems? Christopher Parham (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one of the quotes is referenced. References for the others would be good, as well as for the statements: "Moore's work is sometimes seen as outside the mainstream"; "he is as often seen as the first great modern Irish novelist"; "generally recognized as representing the birth of the Irish short story"; "George and Maurice had become estranged, mainly because of the unflattering portrait of the latter"; and "It is now believed that he was the natural father of her daughter". I'd prefer to see the lesbianism part referenced too. Two other points: "traveled to India to learn wisdom," implies that Indian mysticism is wisdom, which is a matter of opinion; and "As of 2004, a plan for the restoration of the house is being considered" should be updated if possible. DrKiernan 13:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would add cites for the statements on the influence of Zola and "...widely recognized as the first major novel in the realist style". In my opinion, the article is also rather weak on 1b, the "Comprehensive" criterion. I would assume that if he did "absorb the lessons of the French realists", there would be much more described on his interactions with Zola and others. His controversies are simply stated in single sentences without details. There are two biographies listed in the references section so I assume there is plenty of material to make a more interesting article. --RelHistBuff 15:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one of the quotes is referenced. References for the others would be good, as well as for the statements: "Moore's work is sometimes seen as outside the mainstream"; "he is as often seen as the first great modern Irish novelist"; "generally recognized as representing the birth of the Irish short story"; "George and Maurice had become estranged, mainly because of the unflattering portrait of the latter"; and "It is now believed that he was the natural father of her daughter". I'd prefer to see the lesbianism part referenced too. Two other points: "traveled to India to learn wisdom," implies that Indian mysticism is wisdom, which is a matter of opinion; and "As of 2004, a plan for the restoration of the house is being considered" should be updated if possible. DrKiernan 13:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps someone who feels the citation is inadequate could identify some specific problems? Christopher Parham (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold on a bit before closing I only found out this Irish article was up for review a few days ago and have just collected 2 books on Moore from my library today, so will try to add some useful citations in the next few days. TIA ww2censor 03:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, thx censor. Marskell 10:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove—1a and fails the requirement for a professional standard of formatting in its obsessive overlinking. Problems in logic, integration of ideas into sentences, organisation of the flow of ideas within paragraphs. I've copy-edited the lead and first section as samples. Tony (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC) And under-referenced—1c.[reply]
- I have a question, Tony. Looking at the WP:MOSLINKS standard, there may be some low added-value links in the article like some of the country links. In your opinion, what links are not needed? For me, the 1b problem is more serious. At the moment, the article seems like GA-level bare-bones. --RelHistBuff 16:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove: Since this nearing the end of FARC, it's time to vote. Problems are 1b (Comprehensive) and 1c (Referencing). --RelHistBuff 15:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: ww2censor and myself are going to work on this, but we'll need a fortnight or so to work through all the issues above. Ceoil 22:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, if you guys are gettin' stuck into it, we'll hold off - good luck and give us all a hoy when ready for review. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Remove—1b and 1c. Tony (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony's in twice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are still on hold here, as Wcensor and Ceoil have edited recently. Marskell (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Not ignoring this but have been traveling for the last few weeks. I'd like this to be held as I think it can be saved given another 2 weeks work. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously stalled. We'll need another update soon. Marskell (talk) 10:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still working on it. ww2censor (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is only one thing that I'm still concerned about, which is the lack of a citation for: 'Lady Gregory wrote that it: "hits impartially all round".' Not enough to demote over. DrKiernan (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After four long months (!!!) I am going to keep this. Not perfect but much better. Marskell (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.