Talk:Sonnet 86

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sonnet 86/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Will complete this within 48 hours. I have an interest in Shakespeare's sonnets. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

• "WAs it the proud full ſaile" - typo
  • This is not a typo. This is exactly how the text reads in the original, 1609 publication. I understand the confusion, though. Westhaddon (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• "competing for the youth's attention" - who is the Fair youth?
  • If you read the whole sentence, the Fair Youth is linked to a page explaining who the Fair Youth (for those eager to know more). As the identity is unknown and as this is not a discussion/entry on the Fair Youth, any additional information would be overbearing and useless, and so was left off this entry. Factsward (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• Paraphrase section is completely unreferenced
  • Do we usually cite synopsis sections? That is essentially what this is. The source is the poem itself. Westhaddon (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks, and yeah I think you're right, similar to plot sections in films/video games. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Shouldn't the extract in the Paraphrase section be in a quote template, similar to other sonnets?
  • The extract is original work (by a group of students, and is therefore not a quote). While this was discussed, it was decided that putting this in a quote template would hinder the understanding of this section. I realize original work is frowned upon, however this is covered by Westhaddon above. Factsward (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• Most of the Structure section is also unreferenced. At least every paragraph needs to be referenced in order to support the claims, and meet the GA criteria.
• "Here is a table examining the stress of each syllable within Sonnet 86" - informal, strongly consider rewording this and also expanding upon this as it looks out of place.
  • I agree. Thank you. Factsward (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Much easier to read now, thanks for highlighting this situation. Factsward (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• The prose of the Context section makes it hard to read, would strongly recommend splitting this into two paragraphs and giving it a copyedit
• Why is there a hyphen in Duncan-Jones? And who is he?
  • If you examine the edited version of the sonnet on the upper left, you will see that it is provided by Katherine Duncan-Jones. The first use of her name is hyperlinked, and therefore subsequent uses are covered. She is a highly respected and well known commentator on Shakespeare and his sonnets within the community of Shakespearean lovers. Factsward (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• I would also strongly recommend copyediting every subsection of the Exegesis section; breaking it into some paragraphs would increase flow and readability.
• No navbox?
  • The navbox is in the upper right. Westhaddon (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • If it's still invisible, please let me know and I'll examine this issue. Could it perhaps be your viewing device? Factsward (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

References

• No dead links, this meets the GA criteria but still there needs to be a few more references in the article (as mentioned before)

On hold

A lot of work needs to be done before this can reach GA. A major copyedit is needed to increase flow and readability, as well as finding new references (there are many references on the internet regarding all of Shakespeare's sonnets). I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days and hope this can be addressed. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The search for references regarding Shakespeare's sonnets online is something that was discouraged as the quality of references used within this article are of much higher caliber. The need to 'graffiti' an article with references is not useful and less educational. The idea of editing this article was to aid future Shakespeare lovers and students whilst providing quality articles which could hold up to scrutiny. Factsward (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Close - promoted

Thank you both for addressing this review, I didn't realise that students had a part in taking this up to GA! Good work. The article and its prose has improved and I myself have had a lot to learn regarding the layout of Shakespeare's sonnets' articles. I agree with you regarding the clutter with references, sometimes I think most GAs have overkill with citations. Anyway, well done on a well deserved sonnet GA. Might review more soon. Regards ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The GA means extra credit is given which is a cool bonus! Thank you for taking the time to review this sonnet. It means a lot to see the Wikipedia community working hard at making a stronger site which can be cited within papers and projects! Your enthusiasm is enjoyed. Grateful for your example. User:FactswardUser talk:Factsward 05:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.93.248.71 (talk)