The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Drmies ( talk · contribs) 04:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC) Congratulations for tackling something this big. The article looks good and clean, for the most part, but unfortunately this is not going to be an easy Pass. Allow me to make some preliminary comments; I'll be looking more closely in the next days.
- The lead needs expansion (given the size of the article alone): it should mention that the frame (the contest and the pilgrimage both) is incomplete, pace the question of Chaucer's intent to finish. The tellers do not tell two tales each on the way to Canterbury and two more on the way back, and we never get to Canterbury, let alone back home. The lead should also comment on the role of the CT in English literature: Chaucer's fatherhood of English poetry depends on it, and mention of the continuations in the lead is a good idea if only to indicate that importance. The article has over 33,000 characters; appropriate according to WP:LEAD is three or four paragraphs.
- Missing from the article (see above) is a section on the CT's influence. That Caxton chose to print it is mentioned but not played up, for instance.
- As far as I know, "continuations" is the going term for part of what is covered in "Literary additions and supplements". Here also a note on his importance can be made--many fifteenth-century English poets are little more than wanna-be Chaucers, to put it bluntly, and the "continuations" are evidence of it.
- Those sections in "Analysis" are better done with headings--ease of reading, ease of editing.
- There is a large unverified section at the end, "Literary adaptations".
- While, indeed, not all of the CT's sources have to be explicated in this article, you could say a little bit more, and at least mention the two volumes of Sources and Analogues.
- I find the bibliography to be a bit thin, and there is a lot of Cooper in there. She's fine, but she's not the greatest of all Chaucer scholars.
D. W. Robertson, Jr. immediately comes to mind, for instance.
- Added a few Robertson, Jr. link, so Done.
Oakley77 (
talk) 00:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Wait--you added two improperly formatted external links to JSTOR articles? That's hardly the same as "expanding the bibliography", which remains thin. This is actually a reason to fail since your answer does not suggest you have the interest or the capability to make the bibliography up to snuff. Sorry. Drmies ( talk)
- Added a few Robertson, Jr. link, so Done.
Oakley77 (
talk) 00:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- In a related issue, the reference section isn't totally consistent. Benson, for instance, should be in the Works Cited ("References"); the book is cited in notes 10 and 11, and maybe elsewhere. Some notes need work period, such as notes 60 and 61. I found more books in the footnotes; consistent would be to have all notes to books in footnotes and the books themselves in "References" (see note 58, and note 59 is incorrect--it's an edited collection, so the individual essay should be cited here, with the book mentioned in "References").
- I've changed the column setting in the references; consider moving long quotes (remove italics, do in quotation marks) to a separate set of footnotes; see Green children of Woolpit. This makes both sections more legible.
That's all for now. I think you've done a great job summarizing, the basic structure and tone are fine, and I'm glad that you got to work on this article: it's too important to be mediocre. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 04:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment
As the nominator is unwilling to do anything about citations/ references this GAn should now be failed. See Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Proposal_to_bar_Oakley77_from_nominating_GA_articles for more information. Jezhotwells ( talk) 14:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Wrong. I would love to, I just need to learn how to. Please, remember to place things in context. Thanks so much, Oakley77 ( talk) 19:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you don't know how to, then you shouldn't be nominating GANs. -- Rs chen 7754 19:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- As harsh as it sounds, it's correct. I see improvements in the article, but some of the writing isn't really great (for instance the conclusion of the lead, or the last sentence of the "Sources" section). Sources and Analogues is now cited but not included in the bibliography, and besides, this is the kind of authoritative book that should be mentioned and discussed on the text to support more informative statements on the variety of Chaucer's sources (esp. outside the canonical authors). Yes, "Continuations" is the proper term and the section title and text should point that out. All this besides the obvious citation issues, for which I recommend a healthy dose of WP:CITE and maybe some more experience in that line of work. Drmies ( talk) 15:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Drmies ( talk · contribs) 04:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC) Congratulations for tackling something this big. The article looks good and clean, for the most part, but unfortunately this is not going to be an easy Pass. Allow me to make some preliminary comments; I'll be looking more closely in the next days.
- The lead needs expansion (given the size of the article alone): it should mention that the frame (the contest and the pilgrimage both) is incomplete, pace the question of Chaucer's intent to finish. The tellers do not tell two tales each on the way to Canterbury and two more on the way back, and we never get to Canterbury, let alone back home. The lead should also comment on the role of the CT in English literature: Chaucer's fatherhood of English poetry depends on it, and mention of the continuations in the lead is a good idea if only to indicate that importance. The article has over 33,000 characters; appropriate according to WP:LEAD is three or four paragraphs.
- Missing from the article (see above) is a section on the CT's influence. That Caxton chose to print it is mentioned but not played up, for instance.
- As far as I know, "continuations" is the going term for part of what is covered in "Literary additions and supplements". Here also a note on his importance can be made--many fifteenth-century English poets are little more than wanna-be Chaucers, to put it bluntly, and the "continuations" are evidence of it.
- Those sections in "Analysis" are better done with headings--ease of reading, ease of editing.
- There is a large unverified section at the end, "Literary adaptations".
- While, indeed, not all of the CT's sources have to be explicated in this article, you could say a little bit more, and at least mention the two volumes of Sources and Analogues.
- I find the bibliography to be a bit thin, and there is a lot of Cooper in there. She's fine, but she's not the greatest of all Chaucer scholars.
D. W. Robertson, Jr. immediately comes to mind, for instance.
- Added a few Robertson, Jr. link, so Done.
Oakley77 (
talk) 00:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Wait--you added two improperly formatted external links to JSTOR articles? That's hardly the same as "expanding the bibliography", which remains thin. This is actually a reason to fail since your answer does not suggest you have the interest or the capability to make the bibliography up to snuff. Sorry. Drmies ( talk)
- Added a few Robertson, Jr. link, so Done.
Oakley77 (
talk) 00:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- In a related issue, the reference section isn't totally consistent. Benson, for instance, should be in the Works Cited ("References"); the book is cited in notes 10 and 11, and maybe elsewhere. Some notes need work period, such as notes 60 and 61. I found more books in the footnotes; consistent would be to have all notes to books in footnotes and the books themselves in "References" (see note 58, and note 59 is incorrect--it's an edited collection, so the individual essay should be cited here, with the book mentioned in "References").
- I've changed the column setting in the references; consider moving long quotes (remove italics, do in quotation marks) to a separate set of footnotes; see Green children of Woolpit. This makes both sections more legible.
That's all for now. I think you've done a great job summarizing, the basic structure and tone are fine, and I'm glad that you got to work on this article: it's too important to be mediocre. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 04:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment
As the nominator is unwilling to do anything about citations/ references this GAn should now be failed. See Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Proposal_to_bar_Oakley77_from_nominating_GA_articles for more information. Jezhotwells ( talk) 14:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Wrong. I would love to, I just need to learn how to. Please, remember to place things in context. Thanks so much, Oakley77 ( talk) 19:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you don't know how to, then you shouldn't be nominating GANs. -- Rs chen 7754 19:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- As harsh as it sounds, it's correct. I see improvements in the article, but some of the writing isn't really great (for instance the conclusion of the lead, or the last sentence of the "Sources" section). Sources and Analogues is now cited but not included in the bibliography, and besides, this is the kind of authoritative book that should be mentioned and discussed on the text to support more informative statements on the variety of Chaucer's sources (esp. outside the canonical authors). Yes, "Continuations" is the proper term and the section title and text should point that out. All this besides the obvious citation issues, for which I recommend a healthy dose of WP:CITE and maybe some more experience in that line of work. Drmies ( talk) 15:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)