Talk:Herman Melville/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Alcmaeonid (talk · contribs) 11:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

The lede section is too long and contains too many biographical details, duplicated below. Needs telescoping.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Start of assessment

Thanks for taking on this long article. I did the trim to the lead section which you requested and look forward to your next set of comments. CodexJustin (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Talk:Herman Melville
– Spintendo 08:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Information to be added or removed: Requesting a change to the first mention of Nathaniel Hawthrone in this Article (third paragraph). Not only is he listed only by last name / without a corresponding WikiLink, the sentence assumes that the reader has prior knowledge of Hawthrone and his relationship with Melville. However a clickable link and background on Hawthorne isnt listed till later in the article. Without context of his identity and their relationship a reader who is less familiar with the subject (such as myself) could easily be confused. Explanation of issue: If I was more knowledgeable on the subject I would re-word the sentence and properly introduce Hawrhorne, but I don't want to further dilute the article Herenow44 (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Article has added a short addition on Hawthorne and Melville friendship. CodexJustin (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Argento Surfer's review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'm taking over the review since the original reviewer has not edited in some time. Due to the length of the article, it may take some time for me to complete my notes.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is there a reason for the empty See also section?
Nice of you to pick up on this review. The See also section has not been edited since Sept 2015 and appears to have been kept as residual from use prior to that time. I am removing it for now unless this review determines it needs to be returned. CodexJustin (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's the inclusion criteria for the selected bibliography?
This was inherited from a previous editor and it is selective and not complete. Other than verifying them as existing books on Melville, they do not appear to have an obvious systematic center and appear as a general and partial directory for further Melville reading. It can be abridged or expanded as needed. CodexJustin (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My first instinct would be to limit it to works that have their own article, but I'll let you decide if that's a good criteria. I'll be ok with just about anything that isn't arbitrary. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same thinking here. The section is meant as a supplement to the Sources section directly above it and it seems to be useful as long as it is not redundant to anything already listed in the Sources section. CodexJustin (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know what caused Stanwix's death? Malcolm's death is explained in the lead, but the lead and body are oddly silent about Stanwix.
Cause of Stanwix death now added, along with a short quote from the 2017 NYRB article on his life which is now linked there. CodexJustin (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence that starts "In 1826, the same year..." reads like a mishmash of random facts. Was contracting Scarlet Fever a significant event? If not, I'd recommend removing that part.
Scarlet Fever fever was 25% mortality around 1900 before penicillin was available. Since there was a non-trivial death risk, it seems worth a mention. CodexJustin (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are two quotes from Allan to Gansevoort. Are these from the same letter? The contents and structure suggest they're separate communications.
The previous editor of that seems to be primarily concerned with the sibling rivalry between the two brothers. He collects some evidence though no conclusion about whether one brother or the other was smarted or more distinguished during their grade school years. If you have a good idea to shorten this then let me know. A shorter version of this paragraph might work. Open to your suggestions here. CodexJustin (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have some ideas, but it's important to know if the description of Herman as "very backwards in speech" was written prior to the "rapid progress during the 2 last quarters". The context of the former is very different if it was said in isolation compared to if it was juxtaposed with the latter. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The previous editor was apparently filling in available details for their childhood education, since the main point appears to be that they did not go on to get law degrees, or medical degrees, or advanced college degrees. In the absence of an advanced education to report for Melville, the previous editor accumulated available comments about the grade school years for the 2 siblings, with one ahead of the other at some point in time and with the other excelling at other times, somewhat changeably as happens with grade school children. The main point, I believe, is a lack of advanced college education for the siblings. CodexJustin (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Peter Gansevoort Jr is Herman's maternal uncle?
Maternal grandfather, as identified in the second paragraph of that same section with a link to the Wikipedia article for PG. CodexJustin (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Peter Gansevoort linked as the grandfather is the son of Harman Gansevoort. Peter Gansevoort (politician) was the general's son, but he doesn't appear to have used the Jr? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be the case as presently preferred in the Wikipedia article for him. He apparently did not use the 'Jr'. CodexJustin (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"a fire destroyed Gansevoort's skin-preparing factory" - Why is Delbanco's account of this period parenthetical? Is the situation at this time disputed, or was Delbanco just wrong? If the former, the parenthesis should be dropped to avoid the impression of favoring one view over another. If the latter, I recommend removing for being inaccurate or putting in inside a note.
Dropping parenthetical aside by previous editor as not directly relevant to a Melville biography. CodexJustin (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"A Complete History of Connecticut (1797 or 1818)" - is the publication date unknown? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a volume I and volume II question. Vol. I was published in 1797, with Vol. II published in 1898. Vol. I covers 160-1713, while Vol. II says it extends this as 1630-1764. CodexJustin (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed for the honeymoon and house on 4th Avenue
Adding NYTimes article for MELVILLE ASHORE, By Edward Tick, Aug. 17, 1986, with link. CodexJustin (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"all of them effusive, profound, deeply affectionate" - who describes the letters this way?
In John Bryant edited Melville volume. The Bezanson essay is cited by page number. CodexJustin (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed some excessive detail from "1850–1851: Hawthorne and Moby-Dick". Please review to ensure I did not inadvertently remove something important.
Trim works I think. Two paragraphs seems about right since Hawthorne was a significant colleague at that time. CodexJustin (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"his autumnal masterpiece," - who is being quoted here? Was this how Melville described it?
Confirming Milder as the correct source for this quote and the page number in confirmed. CodexJustin (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"similar to Melville in his younger days" - I assume this is opinion, but it's presented as fact. It needs to be attributed inline or removed.
No problem for you to drop this if you prefer. There are many other attributed quotes which typify Melville's writing in the article. CodexJustin (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff on Billy Budd in the section "1877–1891: Final years" isn't sourced.
Citation added for Billy Budd. CodexJustin (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Melville turned the short chapter into an instrument of form and concentration" - This opinion should be attributed in-line, not shared in Wikipedia's voice.
The wording is now simplified. CodexJustin (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Arvin (1950) appears as a reference in different forms (15, 31, 72, 82, and 90). Given the lack of page numbers, is there a reason these are split?
Pulling it all together for consistency under cite #15 in current list. The old cite numbers are now shifted as a result of consolidating to the current cite number 15 for Arvin. CodexJustin (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 185 just has the url and title fields completed. Website, author's name, and access-date should be added.
Currently at cite #183, and I have added the author info and access date. CodexJustin (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
no concern

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig had one serious concern, but upon review it was due to book titles, common phrases, and shared quotes. No concern.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
no concern
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
no concern

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Not a serious concern, but what's the red can in File:Herman Melville Headstone 1024.jpg? Am I missing its significance? Is there a version without it? Pinging uploader @Anthony22: for comment.
@Argento Surfer: Not hearing form Anthony22 regarding the tombstone marker image, which looks like a optional image since the article already has the newspaper announcement image for this. It can be deleted. There are now 2 versions the lead section, the short version I placed today and the one which you have already read. Let me know which version of the lead section you prefer, and the optional image of the tombstone can be deleted if the article looks better without it. CodexJustin (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be deleted, I was just curious about it. If it's a candle or something left by a fan, that might be worth noting in the caption. Short of a response from Anthony, there's not much action to take here. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Argento Surfer: End of month checking in to see if there is any progress one way of the other, what time frame for next edits. CodexJustin (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I haven't had more than a few minutes to spare here and there. I think work is slowing down, and I plan to dedicate at least 30 minutes to this tomorrow. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

@Argento Surfer: Thanks for taking this over from Alcmaeonid, are you still making progress? If you're still busy with work, let me know if you'd like someone else to take over. Wug·a·po·des 19:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Work is starting to slow down, but it will probably be a week or two before I have time to devote to a thorough review. I've been keeping in touch with the nominator, and he's been very patient so far. If you want to take over, I won't protest. You can see my notes above. I noted issues as I read through the prose, and I left off in the section 1850–1851: Hawthorne and Moby-Dick. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Glad things are starting to slow down for you. I'm in no rush to take over; I just wanted to check in because the review has been open a while. Thanks for the work you've done so far. Wug·a·po·des 23:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Casually checking in for the start of September. If you might have noticed there was a very large page count spike on August 1st for the Melville article and most of the readers at that time seemed to find the article to be in pretty good shape. This might suggest that we are being overly cautious in moving the article to GA-status if over 10K editors found the article to be in fairly good condition during the page count spike on August 1st. I'm ready to continue with the section by section assessment/improvement, but is it possible that the care being shown over the past few months here is going past simply GA-assessment and towards FA-issues usually taken up at the FA-level. Is the article closer to having reached GA-level than either of us thought? At the same time, I'm ready to continue with the article assessment/improvement as previously and as you feel is best suited. CodexJustin (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - CodexJustin, a B-class article, which is where the article was most recently assessed, is typically satisfying to readers, and is in "pretty good shape". A GA, however, has to meet all of the specified criteria in order to be listed as a GA, and the typical reader isn't going to be analyzing at that detailed a level. The review process needs to be followed until the article has been fully checked and the necessary emendations made. I am sorry this has taken so long; Argento Surfer just added a couple of additional adjustments needed today. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for that comment. I am going along with Argento's timetable for this review. He has been quite busy with his own GA article which was recently passed. Wugapodes also made a useful note above. CodexJustin (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @Argento Surfer: Nice set of edits from yesterday and I think I have them all cited now. Ready to move on to next section of the article with you when you are ready. CodexJustin (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes' review

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
See 5 and 6 below

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
See 16 below

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
A few outstanding citation needed tags (placed by me)

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused (see summary style):
See 4
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

"two decks and three masts, but no galleries." decks and masts are linked, but galleries are not. I'm unfamiliar with the term and a link would be very helpful for readers since I assume you're not referring to an art gallery.
This is actually quarter gallery which is now linked in the article. CodexJustin (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~"the Acushnet regularly gammed" what does gammed mean here? Can it be phrased in a less technical way? The general biography should be broadly accessible in general.~~
Cooperative whale hunting between 2 or more ships. CodexJustin (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~"In November, he signed articles on the Nantucket whaler Charles & Henry " what does "signed articles" mean?~~
That is, he contracted to be a seaman for six months. Wording adjusted in article. CodexJustin (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The second and third paragraphs of "Successful writer", essentially from "Melville extended the period..." to the end of the second block quote, needs to be rethought. The GA issues is that the two block quotes feel unfocused and like coatracks; I'm not sure what the relevance of Melville's review of Hawthorne's book has for Melville's own career (perhaps it is important, but that should be made clear). The block quote of Hawthorne's largely repeats the inline quote and adds little to the content. What is important about the Hawthorne review is that MElville's contemporaries, not just modern academics, praised this book which is not clear from the text and gets lost in extensive quotation extolling the noble savage trope which modern academics would probably criticize rather than praise. There are some prose issues but those will probably be sorted out in the course of addressing this point.

Remove second block quote as not particularly useful. Reduce cited material to 1-2 sentence summary. Regarding the other block quotes, the current format is Hawthorne said this about Melville in print in the first block quote, and this is what Melville said about Hawthorne in the second block quote. If that is on the long side structurally, then one of the quotes could be removed or further abridged. CodexJustin (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better; I don't think the second one needs modified right now. Stylistically it may be worth reconsidering in the future, but the point comes across better now which was the main issue. Wug·a·po·des 00:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "bemused" in "Pleased but slightly bemused..." is opaque. Readers familiar with "amused" but not "bemused" will likely misinfer the meaning and be confused by the word in context. Better to choose a more common synonym.
The wording is now copy edited. Removed 'bemused'. CodexJustin (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence is rather confusing and I'm having trouble understanding its purpose: "The two corresponded until 1863, and sustained a bond for life: in his final years Melville "traced and successfully located his old friend"." What is the significance of 1863? Is it when one of them died? If not, what does "sustained a bond for life" mean if Melville was able to locate this person in "his final years" of c.1890? The following sentence describes a second book that seems to have no relation to this information, what is the connection or should it be a separate paragraph?
The two novels Typee and its follow-up are usually read as being related. I had changed the wording in the paragraph to show that Melville still regarded his friend as a friend even after they finished writing to each other. It could be expanded or abridged further as needed. CodexJustin (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"To get a divorce, she would then have to bring charges against Melville, believing her husband to be insane." Did this part of the plan occur? Did any part? This is an interesting chapter that should be a little more clear.
This was rewritten to emphasize that she did not get the divorce. This can be stated even more firmly if needed for further emphasis. CodexJustin (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Final years" section, what's the difference between a legacy and inheritance? Previously the article spoke of inheritances but now of legacies; are they different and if not can the usage be standardized?

The previous editor preferred legacy to discuss his wife's benefits, and inheritance to discuss what Melville received from his own family. CodexJustin (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The general writing style takes too long to get to the point. The first paragraph really should be an overview of what constitutes his style. The specifics of when and how it developed can be explained later in the section.
Some of the narrative needed to be expanded, and some needed to be shortened. I have done both in the current version. Let me know if more is needed. CodexJustin (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"For Berthoff, added "seriousness of consideration" came at the cost of losing "pace and momentum"." This is a sentence fragment.
This sentence from a previous editor is now rewritten. CodexJustin (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The general narrative style section feels like it has far too many quotes. Both pull quotes which clutter the page, and in-text quotes. The quotes in prose cause readers to jump in and out of encyclopedic voice which disrupts the flow, and it winds up being more confusing than if the main points were simply summarized and stated outright in wikivoice. Ignoring the the name, you may find WP:QUOTEFARM a useful read on this problem.
The Quotefarm has been reduced in several places, which the previous editor appear to like to apply. It should look better now since I have cut back on the quotes being used. CodexJustin (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"only one sixth of his Biblical allusions can be qualified as such" antecedent isn't clear here; what is "qualified as such"? Qualified as allusions or qualified as (stated in the part not quoted here) direct quotation? Presumably as direct quotation, but this can be reworded to fix the ambiguity.
Melville's adaptation of biblical language and symbols is often not acknowledged by Melville. He prefers to directly integrate his adaptations of biblical text directly into his own narratives. CodexJustin (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"far more unmarked than acknowledged quotations occur" I'm not sure what this means.
Wording there is now clarified. Melville was rather direct in adapting biblical passages to his own needs in writing his own prose and narratives. This should be more clear in the rewrites I have just added. CodexJustin (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are the footnotes of the block quote taken from Wright's work verbatim? This gets into the realm of extensive copying and close paraphrasing, and I think it would be better to simply quote Melville's work without the annotations. The important parts can be summarized in following text, and it stylistically improves the work since readers will not be confronted with underlines and a sea of little blue letters.
These passages have just been cut-back by me and let me know if more is needed. The blue links to the Biblical allusions can also be cut-back if they are distractions. I'm not sure that blue links to the individual books of the gospels and of the Bible are really needed. Let me know if it needs even more adjustment. CodexJustin (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"was Captain Vere a good man trapped by bad law, or did he deliberately distort and misrepresent the applicable law to condemn Billy to death?" This is not encyclopedic phrasing. Ideally the arguments and interpretations of both possibilities should be described in the article. At the least the context should be given better. What were the laws Vere was "trapped" by? What actions did Vere take which could be seen as distortion or misrepresentation? Having not read the book, these are details I would need to understand why a controversy would even exist, let alone the merits of the controversy.

This paragraph was presented as overly condensed by a previous editor. I am have made a short expansion to the paragraph to mention the literary criticism which has tried to assess the innocence or culpability of Billy Budd before the process of the law. CodexJustin (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still concerned that the paragraph loses its encyclopedic tone. The context is better but still not very clear. Instead of stating the research question Weisberg considered, it would be better to briefly summarize the answer to that question which he came to in the source. Not only would it provide better information in an encyclopedic tone, it makes it easier for editors to expand the article later on with similar research on the topic. Wug·a·po·des 00:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite paragraph into more encyclopedic style. Remove speculative NOR. Previous editor moved away from encyclopedia style which I have tried to restore further. Let me know if another rewrite or shortening of text would be useful. CodexJustin (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten this and added more sources regarding the question and scholarly assessment of the issues. If you'd like access to the sources I used, email me and I can send you PDFs with which to further improve the article. — Wug·a·po·des 08:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is nice that the Billy Budd material is of interest to you. I have fairly good library resources and I'll look up further references based on standard citation forms if you have any in particular you would like me to look at. Melville commentary is highly diverse and if you have something special then let me know. CodexJustin (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much of interest to me as it is something I could fix. The rhetorical question was unencyclopedic per MOS:QUESTION, part of WP:MOS linked to in the first GA criterion. We'd gone back and forth about this, and rather than continue going back and forth hoping to make my point clear, I just made the change. If you'd like to revert it and continue discussing ways to address the MOS issue you're free to do so, but I thought this would be a more efficient way to reach consensus. — Wug·a·po·des 02:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The foot matter needs copyedited. The format should be (1) textual footnotes, (2) short form citations, (3) full citations for all works cited in 2. Currently there are some textual notes among the short form citations, and some full citations among the short form citations. Perhaps obviously, the citation style is not particularly important to me, but whatever style is in use should be used consistently. You may find the {{sfn}} template useful to replace short form citations in <ref>...</ref> tags, but doing that isn't necessary right now; just move the inconsistencies to the right section of the foot matter.
I'll be happy to get someone to look at the citation formats if that is helpful. As I recall, the previous editors used the short format citations for the Melville books and Melville biographies which were used extensively in the process of writing this article over the years. These short cites were occasionally supplemented by newer citations which appears in the press in order to further strengthen the article as needed. These supplementary citations were then done in full format since they were not previously used in the article and fully referenced elsewhere in the article. That's at least how I have understood what the previous editors adopted as their preferred approach. Let me know if that works or should be further amended. CodexJustin (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the format so much as making sure everything is in the right sections. To give a more concrete example, reference 106 is a note rather than a short form citation and should be in "Notes". Reference 136 is a full form citation and should be in Sources. The format is fine, they just need moved around a bit. I'll help out when I can. Wug·a·po·des 00:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Found it. It is now corrected into being in a consistent format of last name first for citations in the article. There were actual a few others throughout the article like footnote numbers: 75, 124, 198, 203, 204, 205, which I have also updated for this consistency of footnotes. CodexJustin (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for separating out the footnotes and explanatory notes. There still is a problem with the sorting of footnotes and sources. My recent edits should demonstrate what I mean better. Citations can be of two forms: short form like "Smith (2019)" and long form like "Smith, John (2019) The English Wikipedia. San Francisco : The Wikimedia Foundation." The dominant style of the article is to use short form citations in the footnotes and proved a single long form citation in the #Sources section. Some articles use a different style where they do not use short form citations at all (perhaps the most common style on Wikipedia), and others use harvard referencing styles where the short form citations are in the text rather than in footnotes. Any of these citation styles are fine, but whatever style is used must be consistently used. The article does not consistently follow one of these styles: long form citations are mixed in among the short form citations. I performed an example of how to resolve this here. — Wug·a·po·des 08:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After contacting Jonesey95 [User talk:Jonesey95] on this, there appears to be a number of improvements which could lead to FA assessment which are not part of the regular GA process. It would be nice if other editors were interested in helping move this article towards FA, however, you appear to be the only one who has raised this issue so far. Do you want to step up and help to move this article to FA? If so, then that's interesting to follow up on and I'll await your answer. Otherwise, editors such a Jonesey95 are saying that FA development toward consistent citation formats is usually considered as more in the FA category of article development, and beyond regular GA requirements. I have spent so many months because I have signed up to promote this article to the GA level, and so far no-one has indicated that they are signing up for editing an potential FA version of this article. More improvements are a wonderful idea, though at some point they may be more at the FA level, which would be beyond a GA level review. I can wait to hear your thoughts; are you ready to join in to move the article to FA level at this time? CodexJustin (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps obviously, I disagree that this point is outside the GA criteria. I agree with Jonesey95 that the style of the citations is outside the GA criteria; footnote 4 of WP:WIAGA is clear on that. As I've said above, my issue is not the format of the citations but the order of their presentation which is within the scope of the GA criteria. Criterion 2a states [The article] contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline and links to MOS:FNNR. That page states If there are both citation footnotes and explanatory footnotes, then they may be combined in a single section, or separated using the grouped footnotes function. General references and other full citations may similarly be either combined or separated (e.g. "References" and "General references"). Because it is logically impossible for something to be both combined and separated, I interpret those "or"s as exclusive disjunction rather than inclusive disjunction, and so I understand MOS:FNNR to be saying that citations must either have a single section in which they are combined or entirely separated into more than one section. My previous comment was an explanation of MOS:FNNR without linking or quoting it, including the points about different ways of organizing these notes and citations. As I said there and am saying here, you may do either, my example was simply an example and if you'd rather combine them all, you may do so; but per my understanding of criterion 2a, the foot-matter must be presented in an organized fashion even if there is a mixture of styles within the article. That said, if this is the only point of contention I'm willing to let it go.
To your question about improving the article to FA, having never read a page of Melville, I'm nowhere near qualified. To me, reviews are just copy edits that sometimes award an icon; you're always free to ask me to read it over, grab some sources, or help out with a task, but I can't commit to much more than keeping it on my watchlist right now. — Wug·a·po·des 02:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: Thanks for your edit on Melville during the holidays. Wugapodes appears to be making a special request that the cites for the Melville biography be made consistent in either sfn or Harvard cites for possible future development as an FA after the completion of this GA review. Could you give this a look. My current commitments after completing this GA are to then turn to the enhancement of the 2001 film article, and possibly after that I might be able to return here for further improvement of the Melville biography. Possibly you could consider doing this Melville article as either snf or Harvard cites. CodexJustin (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to do this. Please start a discussion on the article's talk page to gain consensus for this change. I have been burned badly in the past by mass reverts after spending many hours improving article citations to make them more robust and verifiable, so I want to ensure that these edits would be accepted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of "Poetry" is confusing. I'm not sure what point it's trying to make.

Poetry section has been reduced to one paragraph and the comparison to Whitman and Dickinson which appear without citations were removed and not satisfying NOR. Retaining one paragraph shortened version. CodexJustin (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, the juxtaposition of sentences "In 1867, his eldest child Malcolm died at home from a self-inflicted gunshot. Clarel: A Poem and Pilgrimage in the Holy Land was published in 1876, a metaphysical epic." is jarring. Ideally the prose should flow slightly better; is that work related to the death of his children in some way? It's implied by the prose but not clear.

Reworded for better narrative flow. CodexJustin (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"in a family of Dutch extraction" interesting turn of phrase; could it be simplified so the meaning is more obvious to readers?

Changed to a discussion of the family heredity. CodexJustin (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the Dutch Reformed version of the Calvinist creed of her family." This is difficult to understand, can it be stated more simply?

Changed to a discussion of the biblical orientation within that denomination. CodexJustin (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"severe Protestantism" This has negative connotations for me, is that intended? What is meant by "Severe"?

Changed to a discussion of the increased emphasis on biblical reading in that denomination. CodexJustin (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The felicity of Melville's early childhood," what does this mean?
- That entire paragraph is confusing in fact. All the info in there is interesting and worth including, but the loss of funds and care of his parents seem rather unrelated to each other and it's not clear how it is related to Melville's development.

These sentences can be rewritten and I have tried to update it. If a rewrite is needed just mention which sentences to give attention for enhancement. CodexJustin (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these sentences important? "When Melville's paternal grandfather died on September 16, 1832, Maria and her children discovered Allan had borrowed more than his share of his inheritance, meaning Maria received only $20 (equivalent to $500 in 2018). His paternal grandmother died almost exactly seven months later."

Melville's family had to repair financial damage done by the father before his death. He did poorly with his money affairs. Text updated. CodexJustin (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Among the sample entries was "Pequot, beautiful description of the war with," with a short title reference to the place in Benjamin Trumbull's A Complete History of Connecticut (Volume I in 1797, and Volume II in 1898) where the description could be found." I cannot figure out what this sentence means.

Wording updated. Let me know if more rewriting of these sentences is needed. CodexJustin (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any way to get a map of the voyage for the Years at Sea section it would be a remarkable improvement for readers. Try Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop.

Interesting suggestion. Is there someone good at the Map workshop that I could approach about this? Even if this is optional, it sounds like an interesting option. CodexJustin (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did Lizzie's father relent and allow Melville to marry her?

This was a distinguished family, while Melville's family was not that well established by comparison. The wording could be tweaked or rewritten if its still not clear. CodexJustin (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Melville had high hopes that his next book would please the public and restore his finances." It's not obvious from the previous context that his finances were poor so this sentence jumps out of nowhere. A better transition from the previous section would benefit the article.

Adding a re-emphasis on his $3000 loan from his father-in-law to describe his difficult finances for clarity. CodexJustin (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Results

~~On Hold for 14 days pending response to the outstanding comments. Should be ready to promote once those are resolved. Wug·a·po·des 09:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Listed — Wug·a·po·des 16:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wugapodes: Those were interesting comments and I have brought them up to date, with comments in the above text after your individual comments and inquiries. Hopefully, these have enhanced the Melville article, and let me know if there is more that needs copy edits or further expansion. CodexJustin (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: Rewrites were done earlier today. Also, I did a re-read of the article to move the article citations to be consistent in last name first format, and to move the problem note citation out of the bibliography and into the Notes section. Let me know if more rewrites are needed. CodexJustin (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]