Talk:Sonnet 41/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Xover (talk · contribs) 09:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall status[edit]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

~~Beginning review, more to come. --Xover (talk) 09:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Writing articles on individual sonnets is hard, but this has done a decent job of it. The prose is mostly decent, and the major points are covered. There are some issues with the citations—both technical, lack of bibliographic details, and quality—but overall the referencing is fairly good. The article is stable, neutral, and does not go off on unrelated tangents.

I've listed issues that need to be addressed in order to fulfil the GA criteria below, and am placing it on hold to let the nominator work on improving the article. Please feel free to ping me if you have any questions or if there is anything I can assist with. --Xover (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Herzo162 and Emnizzle: Note that as I have seen no activity over the past week I will be closing this review as failed at some point in the next couple of days. --Xover (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed points[edit]

General issues

The article has a relative paucity of citations for an article that is so heavy in interpretation on a subject that has had so much speculation and debate over the last 400 years. Some of the sources cited are also needlessly weak; citing quotes from the plays to a web page when there are numerous well-regarded editions with full critical apparatus is somewhat lazy practice. For instance, the first thing I did to prepare for reviewing these GA nominations was consult the Arden and Oxford editions of the sonnets.
There is a tendency to rely overly much on direct quotes from the sources rather than explaining what the sources say. The quotes are well picked and mostly clear, but it makes the article read more like a review of the source than an independent encyclopedia article.

Lede

(6) The article lacks illustrations. Could perhaps a cropped scan of this sonnet from the 1609 quarto be added?

Paraphrase

(1a) "Those forgivable crimes …" Forgivable is certainly part of it, but more like "petty, childish" combined with "charming". They're forgivable the way a child's transgressions are forgivable; a chid cannot be held responsible for their transgressions by virtue of their being a child. Thus, the connotation is that the Fair Youth is like a child; it is a tolerance for peccadillos tempered with a tinge of recrimination.
(1a) "… that my morals have chosen" Not sure where you're getting "morals" here. The "liberty" here reads analogous to "While the cat's away the mice will play" or "Boys will be boys": when the Fair Youth has his liberty (not in the poet's presence, say, or perhaps a previous falling out has left him free of obligation to fidelity) it is inevitable that he will commit petty infidelities. It is also impersonal: it is the liberty that commits these "pretty wrongs", not the Fair Youth.
(1a) "When I am infrequently away …" Modern readers will understand "sometimes" just fine, and it is simpler than "infrequently" here.
(1a) "… from my lover’s heart," Since you're paraphrasing rather than explaining, you can (should) mimic the original where possible; and saying "… from your heart." works just fine.
(1a) There are several more such cases in the paraphrase: it needlessly changes words just to change words, rather than to illuminate meaning for modern readers.
Finally, I wouldn't cite this to any one source. It's your own paraphrase and the meaning is synthesised from multiple sources. The place to add cites would be for individual parts where the meaning expressed in the paraphrase may be challenged or controversial, but that's not really needed at GA level (for a Featured Article it would absolutely be required, but GA is a much lower bar).

Structure

(1a) "… the 'English' sonnet form …" More commonly known as...?
- BTW, bonus points for not calling it "Surreyan" :-)
Wikipedia's house style specifies straight (i.e. not typographic) double quote marks (except for nested quotes, in which case you use straight single quote marks).
(1a) "The form became named after Shakespeare …" And yet you call it "English" above.
I would prefer the information in this section be cited.

Context

"… the Fair Youth section …" Sequence seems to be the most common term applied, but whichever is used make sure it is used consistently throughout the article.
(1a) "… thought to be addressed to an unnamed young man." This doesn't make it clear that the "young man" is referred to as the "Fair Youth" or that "Fair Youth" refers to an actual persona in the sonnets (as opposed to being descriptive of the sequence, like "his blue period").
(1a) "Many scholars have tried …" Which ones?
(1a) "Others have also …" Who?
(1a) I suggest you merge these two sentences and say something like "… most common suggestions are Southampton and Pembroke" to avoid too much back and forth. Anyway, I don't think it's true that Southampton has any meaningful kind of lead here.
(1a) "… the dedication of the sonnets to 'Mr. W.H.', the initials could easily apply to either earl, …" There is no particular reason to assume that the "Mr. W.H." of the dedication is the same as the Fair Youth; it would be entirely possible for "Mr. W.H." to be Pembroke and the Fair Youth be Southampton. When you reference the dedication without being fairly precise as to the different personas involved, it's really easy to get this distinction mixed up.
(1a) "… the true identity of this young man …" Use "the Fair Youth" here to be clear what persona we're talking about.

Allusions and Textual References

(1b) No Title Caps in Wikipedia headings
"… our “modern” interpretation …" Why is modern in scare quotes here?
Why are these not dealt with in the sections on quatrain 1 and quatrain 2 below?

Allusion 1

The formatting here is rather poor and makes it hard to read.
(2b) The section is entirely lacking cites, except for some online sources for the text of the two quoted plays. The play text should for preference be cited to a scholarly edition (no reason not to use either the latest Arden or Oxford editions of those plays here), but, more importantly, the allusions and interpretations made in the section need to be cited to a reliable secondary source. As it stands it looks like the Wikipedia editor's own personal interpretation, which is disallowed by our policy on no original research.
(1a) "… explained by a scene … which states …" The scene called a press conference and made a statement?
(1a) "Lines 7-8 are references to Venus and Adonis …" You state this as fact, but this is by no means certain (likely, but not certain). As I recall the sources I checked are significantly more circumspect.
(1a) "… he was 'accidentally' killed." Why is accidentally in scare quotes here?
(1a) "Each of these references clarifies lines 5-8 explaining …" You've made the references the actor in this sentence.

Allusion 2

(1a,2b) "Each of these references relate to the sonnet …" You've lost me. The quoted bits do not appear to bear on the sonnet at all, except insofar as the usage of individual words can help explain how Shakespeare uses that word in the sonnet. Particularly the word "riot". Are you sure the sources are not just referencing the plays to explain the usage, rather than the sonnet referencing them?
(1a) "… the bond between [my] mistress's fidelity to [me], and his bond to [me]." Using editorial [interpolation marks] outside a direct quote is odd.
(1a) "The young man …" The Fair Youth.

Quatrain 1

(1a) "The sonnet begins with the first eight lines an attempt to …" That reads as a non sequitur.
(1a) "The sonnet begins with the first eight lines …" That's tautological.
(1a) "… according to Katherine Duncan-Jones …" Who's she then?
(1a) "David Alexander states …" Who's he then? Also, see "press conference" above.

Quatrain 2

(1a) "The second quatrain continues this trend …" Which trend? (just swap in "the" for "this")
(1a) "'Gentle thou art' suggests that the youth is of noble birth …" What about the parallell with "gentle as a woman" from a previous sonnet that Duncan-Jones points out?
(1a) "Alexander writes …" Who's he then?
(1a) "Note the proverb used twice by Shakespeare, … altered slightly in lines 5-6 of the sonnet." This sentence doesn't quite scan (perhaps "Note [that] the …" and "… [is] altered slightly …"), and is far too long to read comfortably.
(1a) "Atkins calls …" Who's he then?
(1a) "… the observation that end …" Either "observation" or "end" should have a s-suffix here (presumably it's "ends").
(1a) "'To imply that men cannot be expected to resist women because their mothers were women …'" Except that's not really what Shakespeare wrote. "what woman's son" doesn't imply that this is the cause, it's just descriptive: compare Macbeth's "not by man born of woman". It's a roundabout way to say "What human [woman's son] male would turn down some booty when offered?". cf. Venus and Adonis: Adonis may be a woman's son, but Venus is not a woman's daughter, she's not human but a goddess.
(1a) "Most early editors emend the 'he' to 'she' in line eight …" What does this have to do with womens' sons? Perhaps a paragraph break when the topic switches?
(1a) "… the suggestion by Thomas Tyrwhitt …" When? Where?
(1a) "… Martin Seymour-Smith …" Who's he then?

Quatrain 3

(1a) "The third quatrain begins with the turn in line nine …" I'd suggest using "volta" here to signal that we're using a specialist term, which "turn" won't for a general reader. Similarly, the section should explain why scholars place a volta here.
(1a) "… with 'seat' referring to designated area for sexual activity." That's confusing. My seat → my place → my place in the relationship with the woman (by stealing her). The whole "designated area for sexual activity" business seems to confuse a meaning similar to "love seat" or "shag rug" or something, which is rather a stretch. However, there have been suggestions that it's a direct reference to buggery (my seat → my posterior) that are generally dismissed as unlikely and crude.
(1a) "… he is finally honest …" Who is "he"?
(1a) "Atkins suggests …" Who's he then?

Couplet

(1a) "… the final excuse given to the youth …" Reads as if it is the speaker apologising to the Fair Youth for the speaker's transgressions, rather than the speaker making excuses for the Fair Youth's transgressions.
(1a) "… in the sestet …" The article hasn't explained the term "sestet" yet, and the sestet is not a particular feature associated with the English sonnet (vs. Petrarchan sonnets).
(1a) "… an effect of 'exoneration' and 'compliment.'" Why are these terms in scare quotes? Also, Wikipedia uses logical punctuation (punctuation outside the quote marks).

References

(2a) I think there's some technical confusion here. Some refs have been placed directly into this section, rather than placed inline in the article where the {{Reflist}} template will automatically display them here.
(2a) Bibliographic details are confused or missing in a majority of cites. For instance, most cites lack ISBNs or DOIs. Some lack author information. Etc.