This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Old Man and the Sea article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | The Old Man and the Sea is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 20, 2005. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Hi AirshipJungleman29, I've been watching your impressive work here and see it's been sent to FAC. I'm thinking it probably needs some more up-to-date sources re themes & writing style to satisfy the comprehensive criterion. Via TWL you can get to Project Muse which hosts The Hemingway Review. The most up-to-date critical analyses and scholarly writings can be found there. For i.e I'm wondering what James Nagel, Zoe Trodd & others have to say. I just got called on for using sources from the 1960s for a 10th century female author about whom little is known & I will be updating before TFA; based on that I think for this we need to be up-to-date & there's a cottage industry of Hemingway criticism.
Also, I'd suggest using literary present tense (see Historical present but that's not a very good article). It's difficult if not used to writing about literature, but generally kind of standard & the other EH pages use it. But ymmv. Victoria ( tk) 01:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Rreagan007, just to clarify, have you seen the comments I placed on your talk page earlier today? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 23:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lazman321 ( talk · contribs) 03:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
I'm willing to take this one. Lazman321 ( talk) 03:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to go through each section one-by-one in order and list out any writing issues I find. Do not take the lack of links down below as indicating that links in the text affected should be removed. Lazman321 ( talk) 04:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
This article follows the MoS guidelines for lead, layout, words to watch, and fiction. The guidelines for lists is inapplicable. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 04:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Getting this one out of the way first, since it is the easiest criterion to meet. As it stands, the reference layout does follow MOS:REFERENCES, meaning this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 03:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Every source used is reliable, either an academic publisher or an otherwise credible source. In addition, there are no citation-needed tags, long stretches of text without citations, or paragraphs that don't have a citation at the end. This indicates that every claim has an in-line reliable citation. Whether or not said claims are actually substantiated by the citations is something I typically review under the "no original research" criterion. Regardless, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 03:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Reviewing... I might as well get this one out of the way early since scrutiny of the article under this criterion can make or break a GAN's case. I'll notify you once I am finished.
Here's the link in the meantime.
Lazman321 (
talk) 17:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Reviewing... I'll review this one alongside the original research criterion.
Lazman321 (
talk) 17:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
To determine which aspects of this topic appear to be missing, I consulted two works, the article for The Old Man and the Sea on Encyclopedia Britannica and the novella's entry in the reference work Ernest Hemingway A to Z, as both are tertiary sources, making them good overviews of the topic. I also consulted the FAC. I found two things that might be worth adding regarding critical analysis: the style and the theme of man's endurance. Hemingway is, as you probably know already, renowned for his writing style; it's why he won the Nobel Prize after all. For this novella, Encyclopedia Britannica referenced Hemingway's style, and Victoria did provide help for adding analysis of the style during the FAC. Meanwhile, both Encyclopedia Britannica and Ernest Hemingway A to Z do refer to the theme of man's endurance featured in the novella, and recalling my source check, I do believe Waldmeir 1962 touched upon this theme. For these reasons, I recommend adding critical analysis of the style and the theme of man's endurance to the article. I'm willing to help out if needed. Lazman321 ( talk) 04:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
There is not a single moment where the article goes off topic nor does there seem to be excessively detailed information. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 04:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
While prose-checking the article, I noticed that the background section's tone and framing seem to be promotional in nature. To explain it the best I can, it's like the section is trying to tell a narrative to convince me to buy the book. (I mean, I guess that's what promotional literally means.) Oftentimes, when researching the background section of a beloved work, editors can become so enamored with the narrative created by the research that they get carried away and present it as a narrative rather than as encyclopedic information, creating a promotional tone. I recommend re-reading the background section in its entirety to look for instances of what I am referring to and then rewrite the section so the framing and tone are more impartial. I'm willing to guide you if needed. Personally, I would say paragraph 3 is the biggest offender. Lazman321 ( talk) 05:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
There is no evidence of an ongoing content dispute leading to the content changing from day to day. In fact, there have only been two revisions since the archival of the FAC. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 05:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
This was already subject to review during the FAC by Nikkimaria, though she ultimately did not vote. Regardless, all images do have valid copyright tags. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 05:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I am hesitant about the multiple images used by Ernest Hemingway, as usually, articles have only one image of the author. However, I imagine that the multiple images are meant to illustrate different aspects of the background of the novella, with the first illustrating where the novella was written and the second illustrating an inspiration in Hemingway's life for the novella. I have similar feelings regarding the St. John images. At the present moment, I don't think any action is needed. I say the article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 05:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Considering I have gone through all the criteria for GA, I will be placing this review
On hold for sixteen days, with your stated IRL obligations taken into consideration. I'll check on your progress in a week, and I thank you for your cooperation.
Lazman321 (
talk) 01:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Should there be a mention of the illustrated edition? With drawings by two notable illustrators, it seems to be notable enough that the article should at least mention its existence. If the British Library catalog referenced from the Worldcat reference is still on the blink, here is the illustrated edition's catalog entry at the Bodleian Library. Philh-591 ( talk) 19:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Most of the article, especially the introduction and the reception segments, is written mostly without references and in a language that is biased and closer to an opinion than to an article. It must be revised and amended. 186.102.90.70 ( talk) 20:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Old Man and the Sea article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | The Old Man and the Sea is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 20, 2005. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Hi AirshipJungleman29, I've been watching your impressive work here and see it's been sent to FAC. I'm thinking it probably needs some more up-to-date sources re themes & writing style to satisfy the comprehensive criterion. Via TWL you can get to Project Muse which hosts The Hemingway Review. The most up-to-date critical analyses and scholarly writings can be found there. For i.e I'm wondering what James Nagel, Zoe Trodd & others have to say. I just got called on for using sources from the 1960s for a 10th century female author about whom little is known & I will be updating before TFA; based on that I think for this we need to be up-to-date & there's a cottage industry of Hemingway criticism.
Also, I'd suggest using literary present tense (see Historical present but that's not a very good article). It's difficult if not used to writing about literature, but generally kind of standard & the other EH pages use it. But ymmv. Victoria ( tk) 01:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Rreagan007, just to clarify, have you seen the comments I placed on your talk page earlier today? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 23:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lazman321 ( talk · contribs) 03:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
I'm willing to take this one. Lazman321 ( talk) 03:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to go through each section one-by-one in order and list out any writing issues I find. Do not take the lack of links down below as indicating that links in the text affected should be removed. Lazman321 ( talk) 04:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
This article follows the MoS guidelines for lead, layout, words to watch, and fiction. The guidelines for lists is inapplicable. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 04:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Getting this one out of the way first, since it is the easiest criterion to meet. As it stands, the reference layout does follow MOS:REFERENCES, meaning this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 03:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Every source used is reliable, either an academic publisher or an otherwise credible source. In addition, there are no citation-needed tags, long stretches of text without citations, or paragraphs that don't have a citation at the end. This indicates that every claim has an in-line reliable citation. Whether or not said claims are actually substantiated by the citations is something I typically review under the "no original research" criterion. Regardless, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 03:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Reviewing... I might as well get this one out of the way early since scrutiny of the article under this criterion can make or break a GAN's case. I'll notify you once I am finished.
Here's the link in the meantime.
Lazman321 (
talk) 17:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Reviewing... I'll review this one alongside the original research criterion.
Lazman321 (
talk) 17:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
To determine which aspects of this topic appear to be missing, I consulted two works, the article for The Old Man and the Sea on Encyclopedia Britannica and the novella's entry in the reference work Ernest Hemingway A to Z, as both are tertiary sources, making them good overviews of the topic. I also consulted the FAC. I found two things that might be worth adding regarding critical analysis: the style and the theme of man's endurance. Hemingway is, as you probably know already, renowned for his writing style; it's why he won the Nobel Prize after all. For this novella, Encyclopedia Britannica referenced Hemingway's style, and Victoria did provide help for adding analysis of the style during the FAC. Meanwhile, both Encyclopedia Britannica and Ernest Hemingway A to Z do refer to the theme of man's endurance featured in the novella, and recalling my source check, I do believe Waldmeir 1962 touched upon this theme. For these reasons, I recommend adding critical analysis of the style and the theme of man's endurance to the article. I'm willing to help out if needed. Lazman321 ( talk) 04:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
There is not a single moment where the article goes off topic nor does there seem to be excessively detailed information. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 04:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
While prose-checking the article, I noticed that the background section's tone and framing seem to be promotional in nature. To explain it the best I can, it's like the section is trying to tell a narrative to convince me to buy the book. (I mean, I guess that's what promotional literally means.) Oftentimes, when researching the background section of a beloved work, editors can become so enamored with the narrative created by the research that they get carried away and present it as a narrative rather than as encyclopedic information, creating a promotional tone. I recommend re-reading the background section in its entirety to look for instances of what I am referring to and then rewrite the section so the framing and tone are more impartial. I'm willing to guide you if needed. Personally, I would say paragraph 3 is the biggest offender. Lazman321 ( talk) 05:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
There is no evidence of an ongoing content dispute leading to the content changing from day to day. In fact, there have only been two revisions since the archival of the FAC. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 05:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
This was already subject to review during the FAC by Nikkimaria, though she ultimately did not vote. Regardless, all images do have valid copyright tags. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 05:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I am hesitant about the multiple images used by Ernest Hemingway, as usually, articles have only one image of the author. However, I imagine that the multiple images are meant to illustrate different aspects of the background of the novella, with the first illustrating where the novella was written and the second illustrating an inspiration in Hemingway's life for the novella. I have similar feelings regarding the St. John images. At the present moment, I don't think any action is needed. I say the article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 05:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Considering I have gone through all the criteria for GA, I will be placing this review
On hold for sixteen days, with your stated IRL obligations taken into consideration. I'll check on your progress in a week, and I thank you for your cooperation.
Lazman321 (
talk) 01:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Should there be a mention of the illustrated edition? With drawings by two notable illustrators, it seems to be notable enough that the article should at least mention its existence. If the British Library catalog referenced from the Worldcat reference is still on the blink, here is the illustrated edition's catalog entry at the Bodleian Library. Philh-591 ( talk) 19:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Most of the article, especially the introduction and the reception segments, is written mostly without references and in a language that is biased and closer to an opinion than to an article. It must be revised and amended. 186.102.90.70 ( talk) 20:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)