Talk:Parable of the Sunfish/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 07:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! GaramondLethe 08:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just touching this so it doesn't get archived. Crisco 1492 and I are currently working on the Theory of Literature GA and this will be on hold until that gets done. GaramondLethe 05:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally this is back at the top of my stack. Working.... GaramondLethe 09:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slow but steady progress today. Added a significant amount of (commented out) quoted material that I think will help address some of your concerns. GaramondLethe 05:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look now? I think everything except the "interpretation" section is ready to go. GaramondLethe 20:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only at your convenience, of course. The criticism section is ready now as well. GaramondLethe 08:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. See below
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Fine
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. See below
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Fine
2c. it contains no original research. Fine
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. See below Done
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Fine
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Fine
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Within definition
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. See below
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Done
7. Overall assessment. Pending

Discussion

[edit]
1
  • Lede looks like a retelling of the parable, but does not mention its sources nor its analysis. Per WP:LEDE, it should serve as a summary of the article.
Summary pulled out to its own section and lead shortened considerably. GaramondLethe 10:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Title of the article should be in title case if it is indeed a proper title (i.e. not Parable of the sunfish, but Parable of the Sunfish)
Done. Will be interested to see if the move broke anything.GaramondLethe 10:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parable - Strongly suggest you paraphrase or at least summarize it outside of the lede. If ABC of Reading was not renewed, it may be PD, but until then an approximation is better than nothing.
Kept same paraphase as was in the lead but moved to a new section and added context. GaramondLethe 10:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hit UC Berkeley library tonight for a couple more references to address the last few writing issues. Look for edits tomorrow. GaramondLethe 07:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who's Robert Scholes?
Fixed & wikified.GaramondLethe 10:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • both students are initially forbidden from consulting outside sources, both provide only oral reports and both provide a wealth of descriptive detail. - Do you need to repeat "both" 3 times?
Fixed.GaramondLethe 10:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the shift from present tense to past tense? (Shaler) Also, a little heavy on the direct quotes.
Fixed. GaramondLethe 11:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Look at your fish!" - What's with the italics and quotes? If it is a journal article, it shouldn't be italicised. If it is a book, it shouldn't have quotes. See WP:ITALICS.
Fixed. GaramondLethe 11:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That parenthetical might do better as a footnote. {{efn}}
Fixed. GaramondLethe 11:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is specimens - Emphasis in the original?
Yes, and now noted as such. GaramondLethe 11:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • as the authoritarian legitimizer of knowledge, rather than the ostensibly empirical validatation gained through observation or language. - This is feeling a little unclear to me.
In progress... GaramondLethe 07:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Celeste Goodridge concludes that as the fish cannot be known until it decomposes into its component elements, so too is knowledge "broken, fragmented, and momentary" - Did anyone compare this aspect with literature? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. GaramondLethe 07:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2
  • All books should have ISBN numbers (13-digit preferred) and the use of hyphens (you have them or you don't) should be standardised. This is really helpful. Works which don't have ISBNs can be given the OCLC, easily accessible on WorldCat.
Fixed. GaramondLethe 14:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure to use ndashes for page ranges.
Fixed. GaramondLethe 14:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may find the convert templates easier to use, to standardise your references.
Not sure what "convert templates" are, but all cites save the syllabus are now using templates consistently. GaramondLethe 14:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I see it, the James source is missing the closing quotation mark
James cite rewritten from scratch. GaramondLethe 14:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the order of dates and whatnot is inconsistent. I see some with pg. and some with p., so on and so forth.
It was a dog's breakfast. Every one of the cites has been attended to, author-link and access-date tags added, etc. Quite likely that I've overlooked something. Please take a hard look. GaramondLethe 14:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit more; let me know if that's not sufficient. GaramondLethe 14:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These have been removed. GaramondLethe 20:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3
Fixed as above.
6
  • I think the images are a bit too small in the article, especially for people with fairly large screens.
What do you suggest? I don't have a sense as to what is acceptable. GaramondLethe 14:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! GaramondLethe 20:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Now using cropped image. GaramondLethe 20:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Courtesy of" here means they allowed me to take a picture of their merchandise. I've updated the photo summary to make that more clear. GaramondLethe 11:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where do these tags go? GaramondLethe 14:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few minor points about the impact of images on the layout. It is a pity that the images of Shaler and Scudder both look away from the text, rather than at the text. I tried moving them to the left-hand side, but lost the effect of the quotes being indented. Given that this is not a good solution, do you have any illustrations where these two gentlemen faced the left rather than the right? I also noted the appearance of white space caused by Sudder's image when the screen width was set to maximum (I have a 1920 px wide screen). This can be solved if the image of Shaler is moved to just after the heading "Sources”. Martinvl (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Martinvl, this review closed four months ago, and the article was listed as a Good Article at the time. If this is in response to the peer review request or some other reason, putting it in a new section on the article's talk page rather than in the GA Review section is in order. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

[edit]
  • The above all looks doable, but let me raise a couple of concerns here. First, I'm surprised the images are an issue. I found them on commons and thought that meant that they had been blessed. I'll plan on replacing all of them.
Second, and much more important is the text of the parable itself. The article originally included the full text of the parable. It's 16 lines out of a 210 pages book and less than 170 words. I felt this placed it well within the "fair use" copyright exception and that appears to be the consensus view in academic publishing as well: out of the 11 works that I could locate that reproduced the parable in full, only 2 acknowledged requesting permission from the publisher to do so. However, the editor doing the DYK review thought it was a copyright issue and so I took it out in order to complete that process.
I have sent a request in to the New Directions permissions desk asking for clarification but I expect they're much more concerned about cleaning up after the hurricane.
The text is in the page history and on my user page as well. I would prefer to include it and, aside from the review at DYK, I don't see any reason not to. What would you recommend? If you would prefer to summarize, do you have any suggestions as to how to go about doing so that doesn't duplicate what's already in the lead?
Thanks,
GaramondLethe 07:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'd be surprised at the issues that slip past Commons admins (and Wikipedia users, to be fair). I saw that. Until the copyright aspects of the parable are worked out I'd suggest giving a summary for now, and if they give permission you can switch it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the images don't have to be removed (they are all free). It's just a matter of tagging them properly. Think of it as cataloguing. I'll show you if you want. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Theory of Literature has been put to bed I should have some time to spend on this one. GaramondLethe 22:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source spotcheck:
Where has Cabinet been describe as "popular science"?
This is a tough one. "Cabinet" is certainly not popular science (and is arguably not "popular"); that attribution was intended for the article. However, I'm not going to be able to come up with a cite that says the article is "popular science" either (as it's an essay/rumination on Agassiz more than anything else). Since I use this cite elsewhere (it's where I first ran across the parable) I think it's best to drop it here. Fixed. GaramondLethe 10:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting an error on Shaler's biography at Google
Fixed. (Last character of the URL fell off...) GaramondLethe 10:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that the sources I've checked are fine. You are a bit heavy on the quotes, which may be an issue if you go to FAC.
Blockquotes or inline quotes as well? GaramondLethe 10:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inline, mostly. The blockquotes seem acceptable. As a side note, I generally see issues with quotes pop up in reviews of film or TV episode articles: you'll end up with reception sections that are 80% quotes. This is not as bad, but there may be reviewers who take issue with the amount of quoted material. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your lead should be expanded a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In progress.... GaramondLethe 10:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, see what you think. If you want to hold up passing the GA until I get the quotes trimmed in the criticism section, that's fine with me. GaramondLethe 09:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parable_of_the_Sunfish/GA1&oldid=967082699"