treating British and Irish culture as one was a liberal Unionist viewpoint. Maybe WikiLink Unionist to Unionism in Ireland.
Done.
Background
A sentence may end mid-line. Rhyme is rare. This is preference, but maybe this could be changed to "A sentence may end mid-line and rhyme is rare throughout the poem."? Or simple "Rhyme is rare throughout the poem."? Feel free to disregard.
Done.
Book
I'm not sure how the family trees are normally described. Is the slash between names the correct form? If not, I'd suggest changing to "and" as per MOS:SLASH.
I followed existing usage; it's hard to see how it could be done better or more compactly.
Reception
Typo - an Alfred's philological skill.
It's correct.
Is it meant to be "an Alfred"? I thought it was "and". I'm not sure I understand the sentence!
Reworded.
In that context, the way that some reviewers praised Heaney for directness, and for not sounding like some older versions, might, Howe writes, indicate a betrayal of the Old English of Beowulf and the possibility of rendering variation in modern English, as Geoffrey Hill demonstrated with his Mercian Hymns in 1971, where it serves, "wonderfully adapted", to create a grim but "sly joke" about sycophantic praise poetry in a modern context. This sentence is a bit too long. I'd suggest splitting into two.
Done.
sycophantic praise poetry I'm not sure what this is - could it be simplified or explained?
Simplified and linked.
the presence of the poet/translator As per MOS:SLASH, I suggest replacing the slash with "or".
The two personas are ANDed not ORed in Heaney's case. I've used a hyphen instead.
Reception: Critical general comments
Would it be possible to begin the section on Chickering's analysis with a brief overview of Chirckering's thoughts on Heaneywulf? One of two sentences explaining what his general opinion was might aid reader's later understanding of the criticism.
Added a sentence, extending the overview of Chickering at the start of the section.
I'm wondering if Book necessarily needs to be a section itself? I think some of the subheadings could be lifted out. Here's my suggestion: Move the Publication history paragraph into the Background section. Combine the Contents and Plot sections (see my comment below regarding criteria 3b on how this could be handled). Then maybe Contents could be renamed to Summary, Synopsis or Overview if that works better? I'm just working off the suggestions in Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article.
I'm not sure the renamings or reorganisations gain anything; nor that they increase clarity. The article is logically divided into background, before or outside the book; book, the thing in itself; and reception, how the world saw it. There is then just one level of subdivision within that framework.
No problem - the current layout makes sense. I was looking to MOS guidance elsewhere but understand there's no one way of doing things!
Lead
The book was widely but not universally welcomed by critics, scholars, and poets in Britain and America. Does this need a citation?
It's a summary of cited text in the article body.
Book
In Contents, the first and last paragraphs are only one sentence. If there's nothing you can add to expand them a bit, I know MOS:PARA does not prohibit one-line paragraphs so I'm content for them to remain.
Noted. The section works better with its three sub-topics separated into paragraphs than mashed into one.
Reception
Again, a point about one-line paragraphs. I feel like the first sentence could be incorporated into the following paragraph quite nicely. Such as: "Heaney's translation was widely welcomed by critics, scholars, and poets, winning the Whitbread Book of the Year Award in 1999."
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
General comments
Is there a reason why the sfn template is not used for the Chickering (2002), Hugh (2011), Schulman (1999) and McGuire (2004) sources? (Possibly others). I think the Chickering in particular would look a lot neater if it were handled in the same way as Heaney (2000) (with corresponding page numbers).
The two sfn-ed sources are used repeatedly with different page numbers, while none of the others are.
Would it be too much of a faff to add page numbers for Chickering? Just because it's referenced the most in different contexts throughout the article. Let me know what you think.
This isn't usual or normally considered appropriate for book reviews, or indeed for journal articles. Very occasionally when an article approaches 100 pages in length it starts to seem helpful and appropriate.
Done
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).
Reception: Critical
He writes that this start, which in his view should set the tone of the whole work, sounds to various American ears tight-lipped, or buddy-to-buddy, or like a Yiddish greeting, or urban guy talk... I think this could be a quotation instead, as the sentence mirrors the source quite closely anyway, and terms like "urban guy talk" sound a bit strange outside of a direct quotation.
Quoted the phrases.
General comments on references
Refs 4 and 13 are the same (Shapiro 2000). They also have movies2.nytimes as the name of the website. The URL links to a New York Times archive in the Books section of the website. Should the name of the website just be New York Times?
Well spotted. Merged, and just linked to the NYT.
Ref 15 is from the blog section of the British Library, but since it is by an academic (and from the British Library), I think it's suitable.
Background, contents, and criticism suitably cover the scope of this book and its impact. Done
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Plot
I'm not sure if this is needed as a subsection - I think information about the plot could be incorporated into the Contents section above. I like the side-by-side translations as it's a good way of demonstrating the translation itself. Perhaps in the Contents section, after discussing Heaney's introduction to the book, there could be paragraph something like "Heaney's translation of Beowulf follows his introduction. The story follows Beowulf, the Prince of the Geats, as he fights and defeats the monster Grendel, Grendel's mother, and a great dragon. The story ends with Beowulf's death and final wish for Wiglaf to succeed as heir." (That may be an absolute butchering of the plot so feel free to change!). The side-by-side comparison could go after the brief description of the plot and before discussion of the family trees.
Well, the translation is going to come after the introduction, isn't it ... I'm not sure why you think a plot section is not needed; it's of course usual in any work of fiction, and the material is necessarily very different from that in 'Contents'. It can't be criticised for being terribly long; and the placement of the single quotation and its translation is rather logically inside that section. Not at all sure I get what you're trying to achieve, or how it would be an improvement. Does it stay "focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"? Yes it does.
As per comment above - happy for it to remain as is. I forgot this book is basically Beowulf and not about the translation - sorry!
Many thanks.
Done
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Content that the content is handled neutrally with different viewpoints and criticisms covered. Done
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
All recent edits have been constructive. Done
6.Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
