![]() | Sonnet 25 was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has had a format footnotes template since October 2014. Bracketed inline referencing was being used, so I adjusted the references into a shortened footnote style. I was not able to provide page numbers as I do not have these books, so please help provide those if you have them available.
As it stands now this page is still in need of more inline citations, so I have added a more citations needed template to the top of the article. Please help if you can! Thanks, Tkbrett ( talk) 18:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
John Payne Collier is among the few critics to take this alternative [that is, worth / forth -pw] seriously. George Steevens opined that "the quatrain is not worth the labor that has been bestowed on it."
@ Xover: Thanks for contributing just about the first meat to this article's stone soup. As this article develops, don't you think your new section will be better divided up amongst others, say, the Essex bit going to the (still-to- be-rewritten) Context section, and the rest to subsections of Analysis -- instead of essentially having dueling Analysis and Leishman's analysis sections? Cheers. Phil wink ( talk) 22:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Haven't reviewed yet, but both reference S25 ... just posting in case. Phil wink ( talk) 16:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: date format (
link)
![]() | Sonnet 25 was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has had a format footnotes template since October 2014. Bracketed inline referencing was being used, so I adjusted the references into a shortened footnote style. I was not able to provide page numbers as I do not have these books, so please help provide those if you have them available.
As it stands now this page is still in need of more inline citations, so I have added a more citations needed template to the top of the article. Please help if you can! Thanks, Tkbrett ( talk) 18:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
John Payne Collier is among the few critics to take this alternative [that is, worth / forth -pw] seriously. George Steevens opined that "the quatrain is not worth the labor that has been bestowed on it."
@ Xover: Thanks for contributing just about the first meat to this article's stone soup. As this article develops, don't you think your new section will be better divided up amongst others, say, the Essex bit going to the (still-to- be-rewritten) Context section, and the rest to subsections of Analysis -- instead of essentially having dueling Analysis and Leishman's analysis sections? Cheers. Phil wink ( talk) 22:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Haven't reviewed yet, but both reference S25 ... just posting in case. Phil wink ( talk) 16:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: date format (
link)