Wikipedia:Peer review/The Great Gatsby/archive1

The Great Gatsby

Hello. Hobomok and I are submitting this article for peer review as we wish to improve its overall quality on the long road to Featured Article status. In January, we achieved Good Article status, but we believe the article can be further improved prior to its FA candidate submission. As we have read and re-read this article many times over the past several months, a fresh perspective would be helpful.

Thank you, Flask (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: to get quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Too many quotations along with citations. This topic isn't nearly controversial enough to need them at all, so I would take them all out. (t · c) buidhe 00:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• I would ask for a copyedit at WP:GOCE/REQ before taking this to FAC. They always manage to improve prose. (t · c) buidhe 00:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• I changed "Anti-Semitism" to "antisemitism" in the body based on the form used in the lead. Although both forms are used in reliable sources, IHRA notes that "The unhyphenated spelling is favored by many scholars and institutions in order to dispel the idea that there is an entity 'Semitism' which 'anti-Semitism' opposes."

Hi buidhe. Thank you very much for your feedback and edits. I shall work on paraphrasing many of the direct quotes and, per your advice, I shall also submit a copyedit at WP:GOCE/REQ before taking this to FAC. Thank you again! -- Flask (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify I don't think there are too many quotes in the running text, but in footnotes such as "Kellogg 2011: "The 1902 home was owned, during its jazz-age heyday, by journalist Herbert Bayard Swope, one of the first recipients of the Pulitzer Prize and editor of the New York World. F. Scott Fitzgerald was said to have attended Swope's parties; the house, in Sands Point, New York, was the model for Daisy Buchanan's place."" In this case, I don't think this is needed for verifiability reasons and can raise copyright concerns. If the quotation itself is important, it should be in the text not a footnote where few readers will see it. (t · c) buidhe 02:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I shall trim some of the footnote quotes in that case. Thanks again for your review! -- Flask (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

References

From Eddie

• Happy to see work being done on this article, I'll endeavor to have a read through this week. If I forget (as is not unlikely to happen) you have my permission to ping me in a week or more. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Eddie891! -- Flask (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• What makes Architakes a high quality RS?

 Done. Replaced the Architakes source with a reputable New York Times source that supplies the same information. -- Flask (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "served in the 3rdInfantry Division during the war" Not convinced it's immediately clear what "the war" is?

Not sure. — The opening sentence of the plot summary describes Nick as a veteran of World War I. In conjunction with this sentence and the Jazz Age setting, I think many readers understand "the war" to refer to World War I. However, if others believe it is unclear, I can change it to be more specific. -- Flask (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Standardize between "first/Second world war" and "world war I/II"

 Done. The article now uses World War I as a consistent descriptor. -- Flask (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "such as his discreet allusions to bootlegging as the source of Gatsby's fortune" how does this line up with ". Tom reveals Gatsby is a swindler whose money comes from bootlegging "?

 Done. Removed the word "discreet". This should resolve the discrepancy. -- Flask (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Tom scornfully tells Gatsby to drive her home, knowing that Daisy will never leave him." A) I don't think it's clear who 'him' is and B) is the second part of the sentence clear from the book?

 Yes. The second part of the sentence is clear from the book. Tom knows that Daisy's affair with Gatsby is no threat to him as Daisy will never leave him. -- Flask (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "to avoid prosecution" Is this explicitly stated in the book?

 Yes. It is stated by Nick in his conversation with Gatsby when he urges him to flee. -- Flask (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• "must be Myrtle's paramour" could we pick a more accessible word?

 Done. Changed "paramour" to "lover." -- Flask (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• how is "major characters' defined? I honestly wouldn't consider Wolfsheim particularly major. Honestly, is there much benefit to having this section? I feel like the major characters should be clear from the plot summary, and it seems like comparable literary FAs go without them.

 Disagree — Hobomok or ImaginesTigers pointed out that the audience for this particular article tend to be high school students. As such, the list of major characters is useful to them. More importantly, in contrast to most fiction works which are not based upon actual persons, this section is critical in explaining the real-life individuals upon whom the characters are based. -- Flask (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Three paragraphs on "Alternative titles" feels a little excessive

 Maybe — In the case of other articles, yes, I agree, but the evolution of the title, as well as the meaning behind the earlier titles, comprise much of the scholarly analysis of the work. Perhaps others such as can comment with their opinions. @Hobomok: and @ImaginesTigers: Do you have thoughts on condensing this section or leaving it as is? -- Flask (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As you point out, Flask, the evolution of Gatsby is clear in the titles, as much scholarly work points to. I think given the number of studies on this, it is important to keep. --Hobomok (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Similarly, 'antisemitism', while important, feels a little lengthy for a pretty minor character-- I think you could cut the paragraph on Krystal's assessment or otherwise combine the last two paragraphs. But also consider its significance in general in the broader scheme of the whole book.

 Maybe — The perennial allegation of antisemitism is a focal point of criticism about the work. Whenever a new film adaptation of the book is released, there is inevitably press articles regarding how the antisemitism will be handled in the new adaptation. This was true as far back as 1926 when the character was renamed to "Charles Wolf" and turned into an Anglo-Saxon. There is also the lingering question of whether F. Scott Fitzgerald was an anti-Semite. In sum, the antisemitism debate is significant. -- Flask (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This, as well I think needs to be kept. There's been much scholarly attention paid to this area, and further, if its not given its due now it will definitely come up again and again. I'd rather have more than less here for many reasons. --Hobomok (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• could Le Monde's 100 Books of the Century be incorporated into the article or cut from 'see also'? The great gatsby has likely appeared on countless 'best of' lists

 Done. Removed the Le Monde link, and I agree that it was superfluous since the book has appeared in countless lists. -- Flask (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• How did you decide what to put in "Historical and biographical context" and what under "Writing and production"? Some of it feels pretty similar in nature.

 Disagree — "Historical and biographical context" refers to the cultural zeitgeist of the era and the events in Fitzgerald's life preceding the composition of the book. In contrast, "Writing and Production" assays the actual composition of the work itself from the first draft to its publication. -- Flask (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think it abundantly clear how File:EdwardMoran-UnveilingTheStatueofLiberty1886Large.jpg fits into the article

 Disagree — For many Americans, the Statue of Liberty is inherently associated with the American dream and, accordingly, is the main image in the article about it. However, we can change the caption for the image to state explicitly that the Statue of Liberty is typically associated with the American Dream. -- Flask (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Has there been any analysis besides "themes" and "antisemitism"?

 Maybe — In retrospect, the "themes" header was superfluous. I changed the headers so that its clear that antisemitism falls under critical analysis. The new organization shows that "antisemitism," "American dream," "class permanence," etc., are all part of the critical analysis. There are likely more critical analysis topics we could add, but the section is quite lengthy. -- Flask (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Critical analysis section, in my mind, is representative of the most important and wide-ranging discussions of Gatsby, and it covers a wide range of schools and periods of criticism. (Economic, race, gender, ecocriticism, etc.). If there's anything to be added here I think maybe a couple more citations from the Fitzgerald Review, but overall it is really representative of scholarly conversations.--Hobomok (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Flask: This is still on my radar and I've been reading up on the PR's progress. I think I really disagree with this one; there should be a "themes" subheading. I think it might be better than Critical analysis, and then move what doesn't fit somewhere else. MOS:NOVELS is pretty clear on this: themes sections are the meat of an article. Going back to what I said before about article demographics ("who is reading this article?"), for students there's a clear benefit to a plainly written and broad Themes section. I'm grappling with this on an article I'm rewriting in my sandbox. I'll leave my thoughts on the article overall within week or so. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: Per your input, I have restored the themes subheading. -- Flask (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Not seeing 218 p in the original edition cited in the article

 Done. Removed this information from the infobox as I could not find a proper citation for it, and I think the page length of the original edition is merely a trivial factoid. -- Flask (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Overall, check that the infobox is supported by the rest of the article. Consider why it includes UK publication (but no other countries)

 Done, and I agree regarding UK publication data. I removed this information from the infobox. -- Flask (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Just some food for thought, will likely have more to come. Suggestions all, don't feel strongly if you have a reasonable justification. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Eddie891. Thank you for your feedback. I'll begin implementing your suggestions tomorrow. -- Flask (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Sorry for the delay in implementing the changes. The past two months were very hectic in my life. -- Flask (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia

• You can install user:Evad37/duplinks-alt to evaluate the (considerable amount of) WP:OVERLINKing.
• See overuse of however and User:Tony1/How to improve your writing (also is almost always redundant) and User:John/however. There is quite a bit of also and howevering.
• Unclear why locations are added for online sources, but if adding them for most, why are a sporadic few left off? Online sources really don’t need location unless there is ambiguity (like El Universal), but if adding most need to be consistent.
• This source is incomplete (no publisher) and isn’t going where it says it is:
  • — (December 29, 2018). "Mickey Mouse Will Be Public Domain Soon—Here's What That Means". Retrieved July 10, 2019.
• “ran for 112 performances” is not paraphrased ... indicates a too-close paraphrasing check will be needed.
• The sea of blue wikilinking in the citations/sources makes it very hard to read— every publisher, every location, and every book linked (even when the book is not available online); I am not sure this is helpful.
• Review punctuation on sentence fragments in image captions per MOS:CAPTIONS.
• Avoid linking within quotes, see MOS:LINKQUOTE
• The extreme sea of blue (including Easter egg links that go unexpected places) is making it hard to get through the article; I will come back to read in a few days after you have had a chance to evaluate linking and run the duplink checker.
• See WP:RECEPTION to structure critical commentary and avoid A said B, C said D, etc.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, SandyGeorgia. Thank you for your preliminary review. My latest edits have endeavored to correct many of the issues you have highlighted. Please let me know if you have further suggestions. -- Flask (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Flask, I will try to circle back if I have time, but after three weeks out with computer in repair, I am still only halfway through the other articles listed on the FAC peer review sidebar, and want to give time to all. I am confident that Eddie891 will help you bring this article to the next level. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been able to contribute to this. I have a lot going on right now! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Flask, ImaginesTigers is worth waiting for ... be sure to ping them before closing the peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, SandyGeorgia. No worries about your current lack of time. I shall definitely not close this peer review until ImaginesTigers has given his approval. (He has been very helpful in guiding me through this process.) In the meanwhile, I'll work with Eddie891 next week to continue improving the article. -- Flask (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Before I close out this Peer Review, I wanted to get further details on your suggestion that I remove most of the blue links from the Bibliography. Which fields do you suggest link? Should I only link a publisher once? Basically, no link repeats? Any further guidance would be greatly appreciated. I'm planning to submit this article for a FAC nomination this weekend. -- Flask (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Urve

You may find the following references interesting as it relates to Willa Cather and Gatsby. May not be due or even in the scope of the article, so of course I leave it to you.

• Quirk, Tom (1982). "Fitzgerald and Cather: The Great Gatsby". American Literature. 54 (4): 576–591. doi:10.2307/2926007. ISSN 0002-9831. ---- this calls into question, I think, the claim that he was unhappy with Cather's privately expressed opinion, as stated: "Yet such correspondence was merely private opinion, and Fitzgerald sought public acclaim from professional critics." (The word merely has a certain tone that seems incompatible.) Here is a quote from the article: "Nevertheless, there is reason to suppose that the excitement Cather's letter generated in the young author was authentic and that it somehow verified his own ambitions for his new novel. For he had consciously striven to emulate Cather's literary technique; but, more importantly, she had exerted a greater influence upon him than even he seems to have realized, in matters of incident and story as well as style and technique."
• Kundu, Gautam (1998). "Inadvertent Echoes or 'An Instance of Apparent Plagiarism'? Cather's "My Ántonia, A Lost Lady" and Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby"". Études Anglaises. 51 (3): 325–327. ---- saying that he viewed Gatsby as a failure in comparison to My Ántonia

Again, your call as to relevance and weight - just thought to give this quick comment since I work on the Cather article. Urve (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Urve! I'm currently traveling, at the moment, but I will resume editing this weekend and incorporate your feedback. -- Flask (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I removed the word "merely" and rewrote a sentence to make it clear that Fitzgerald was gratified by the letters he received from Cather and others. I also read the two articles you linked. Fitzgerald clearly imitated Cather's style. I might add several sentences about the influence of Cather's My Ántonia and A Lost Lady in the future. -- Flask (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

@Flask: This PR has been open since February and hasn't received comments since March. Are you interested in keeping this open? Z1720 (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Z1720. Yes, I wish to keep the PR open. For the past month, I had a number of real life emergencies which precluded significant editing on my part. Life has finally begun returning to normal, and I will address much of the feedback posted here later next week. -- 20:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your real-life events. No rush to complete feedback, just wanted to make sure this wasn't abandoned. Z1720 (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

ImaginesTigers

Coming soon to a peer review near you (1-3 days). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

 Great! I look forward to your feedback! -- Flask (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. This has been ticking in the back of my mind so I haven't forgotten. I've re-read the article and I am, by and large, very impressed by the work on display. In addition to the GAR we did being very thorough, you've done a commendable job in continuing to improve it. Instead of keeping you waiting, my basic feeling is: this is ready for FAC, and any extant issues can be resolved there. The referencing is meticulous and there are no glaring oversights in critical coverage. That said, some things that should be resolved ahead of the nomination:

• Consistency for quotation marks and full stops. Either ." or ". but not both. I'm a much bigger fan of the latter, for the record, but it’s going to be your decision.

Hi, ImaginesTigers. I assumed that one should use ." for when a quote included a terminal sentence and ". when the quote only included a phrase from that sentence. If consistency is preferred, however, I shall change all the quotes to use ." in my next edit. -- Flask (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done -- Flask (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'd cut the images of Cather and Conrad. It’s a very image-dense portion of the article, and it’s the one that feels the most extraneous.

 Done -- Flask (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• There's a lot of what I call orbitals—a couple of sentences that relay relevant information but that doesn't feel properly implemented. An example of this is the paragraph that begins: By August, Fitzgerald was hard at work [...]. A paragraph should be clear in what it’s setting out; the biggest problem with this article, in my view, is the amount of information that needs more careful assimilation. That paragraph—again, just an example—ends by mentioning Fitzgerald's marital crisis. That's not bad information, but is all of that paragraph where it should be?

I agree that many paragraphs begin with sentences that neither encapsulate nor communicate the actual subject matter of the paragraph. I'll try rewriting the most egregious offenders over the next few days. -- Flask (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm keeping this short because the article is pretty much ready. Even these could be fixed at FAC, imo, but I think doing them in advance is a good idea. Any questions, I'll get back to you in a bit—I have the peer review watchlisted. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Flask. I've been reading back over the article and I think the number of quotations remains an outstanding issue. If you have a look at my sandbox, I'm working on a rewrite for Dracula. The Background section is indicative of how much quotations should be used in an FA candidate, in my opinion—not that many. The second paragraph of Gatsby's Background section, by contrast, just feels too thick. The quotations make the whole thing feel really over-written. Pare down the language to be easier for high school students to read, is my advice. Paraphrase as much as possible—make quotations the exception. Regarding punctuation, I've been looking through the MOS, and although I've been told at FAC that consistency is all that matters, no such guideline exists and every example of a quotation places punctuation outside of quotation marks. These seem related: cut back on the quotations, paraphrase instead, and—if a quotation is completely necessary—then shove the full stop on the outside of the quotation marks. After that, I feel very comfortable in saying you can nominate the article. The quotation thing is something that will almost definitely come up at FAC, and is a frequent sticking point. Especially given the demographics of this article, it makes sense to not quote, and instead use plain English. Genuinely sorry for the flip-flop advice on punctuation, and happy to help you with that; you need only ask. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, ImaginesTigers! Thank you for your feedback. Per your suggestion, I have edited the article and moved all punctuation to be outside of the quotation marks. I'm busy for the next two days but, later this week, I'll do a full rewrite that paraphrases most of the quotations and also tries to address the orbital sentences. Again, thank you! -- Flask (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, ImaginesTigers. I've paraphrased and removed most of the direct quotations. Do you believe the block quotation of H.L. Mencken's review will pose an issue for the FAC review? If so, should I cut the Mencken blockquote in your opinion? -- Flask (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @ImaginesTigers:. I think the article is good enough now to submit it to FAC. Once you give your opinion about whether or not to cut the Mencken blockquote, I'll submit it. -- Flask (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Flask: Great job on the paraphrasing. Regarding the Mencken block quote... if it were me? I'd cut it. You aren't me, though, so you should do what you think is best. If that's keeping it, just know how you're going to defend it if it comes up during FAC. It might be nobody even brings it up! There's nothing prohibiting large quotations in the Manual of Style, and such objections typically arise when a flood of them is disrupting the flow of an article. That isn't the case here.

In your FAC opening statement, give an introduction to the topic, a brief mention of what drew you editing it, mention the extensive GAR, the copy-edit, and the Peer Review (with links to them, establishing that you've done the legwork, which you certainly have). Most importantly "thank" everyone who has previously chipped in to assist. The more reviews, the better! Good luck, and I'm forward to reviewing! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 20:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and for all your help, ImaginesTigers! I'll likely cut the Mencken quote. I shall definitely follow the instructions you provided regarding the FAC nomination. I'll probably submit the nomination later this week or on the weekend. I'll also close the Peer Review tomorrow. Thanks again! -- Flask (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)