Talk:Jones Very/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I will be reviewing your article Jones Very for GA. It is a fascinating article and very well written. I will just list some initial comments on a brief review of the article and add to them later. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• The TOC is rather strange, having only one headings and all the rest are subheading under it. Is there a way to reorganize the article around major topics in his life?
• Books should all have isbn's (unless they are too old). There are some that have unidentified numbers: eg 9780820329581. And some reference citations screw ups: eg iSBN 978-1-58648-161-2
• The wikilinking should be reduced as much as possible per Overlinking and underlinking

Thank you so much for taking the time to review this! It was an odd article to research but fascinating to learn about. I've fixed the ISBNs for the sources that have them (a few of them are, in fact, too old). I'm not sure I see any excessive wikilinking - are there any particular internal links you think aren't helpful? I also have to say that I respectfully disagree about the TOC headers being a problem. Many of the biographical articles I've worked on break down the life section like this and I think it works fairly well. I think when this article expands further another main section might be a critical assessment of his poetry but I'm not sure it's needed in depth for GA status. By the way, do you like the lead the way it is? Thanks again! --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding wikilinking, having looked through the article more, and I don't see any particularly objectionable links. Regarding the lead, perhaps a little more indication that he was taken seriously for a while, published etc. or whatever. Also, the diagnosis of Bipolar, is that from a source that knows diagnosis or is it speculation? I asked because lately there has been a flourishing of retrospective diagnoses that would be questioned at FAC. I think this article has the potential to be a FAC, which is why I pick at some of the little things. I know what FAC reviews hate to see! —Mattisse (Talk) 03:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a caution, not pertaining to GA. FAC reviewers hate "however"s. (They also hate "would"s, "also"s, among other things, considering them useless words that add nothing. And the overuse of verb nouns.) If the sentence, or sentence fragment, is in contrast to what precedes it, then they want "but", as "however" does not imply a contrast. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The bipolar diagnosis is definitely speculative and not provable, though I'd think you'd have a hard time finding a biographer who believed Jones was mentally 100%. I don't remember any specific anti-"however" movement in my FAC experience but I'll keep it in mind and give it a comb through. I think you're right about verb nouns / gerunds (which I seem to overuse in general, not just here). I don't think starting a sentence with "but" is a good idea though, just in my own experience with the language. But, thanks for your recent copy edit - you caught some good ones!!! --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed my own hypocritical use of "but" to start a sentence and it made me laugh!I swear, I wasn't going for intentional irony there! --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Just for your info: Mark Speight was just withdrawn from FAC, partly on the bases of his TOC, which is arranged as in your article. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see any comments on the table of contents or the method of utilizing subsections vs. sections that resulted in that failed FAC. I have never had an issue with the style of sectioning in my articles. See some of my current FAs: Edgar Allan Poe, Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe, Margaret Fuller, Rufus Wilmot Griswold, Nathaniel Parker Willis, James Russell Lowell... not to mention GAs like Walt Whitman, Thomas Holley Chivers, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow... I don't recall ever hearing any comments about the way this is set up. What's your particular point of contention? --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I see it now - I was looking at the closed FAC and not the current one. I notice that the one who complained about the TOC was yourself - another person noted that the TOC was not substantial enough (not specifically sections vs. subsections). --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I was supporting Ling.Nut or I never would have gotten involved, having to do with obscure FAC issues from the FAC talk page. It was withdrawn because it was a bad article, but on the FAC page it became political. Not FAC's finest moment! —Mattisse (Talk) 21:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, that has nothing to do with your article and GA. FAC is just becoming very strict and nit picky. Now it is accused of being elitist. I would not advise dealing with it, unless you want to feel bad. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This is neither here nor there, but the FAC process has been a really ego-breaker for quite some time. Thick skin is a part of the game here on Wikipedia, but I always hesitate before submitting for FA consideration! --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Your article is excellent and certainly passed GA.

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Very well written b (MoS): Complies with MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable. c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Yes

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Excellent! —Mattisse (Talk) 23:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, it's been a pleasure interacting with you on here. Thanks for your review! Maybe we'll cross paths again on another project. All the best, --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)