Talk:Robert Lowell/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 13:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Beginning first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This otherwise excellent article is badly let down by the referencing.

• References 1 and 12 both refer to the Hamilton book without giving page numbers
• Ref 28 – no page number
• Ref 32 – ditto, but that's probably all right in this case
• Ref 39 – no page number
• Ref 45 – no page number
• Ref 46 – no page number
• Ref 47 – no page number
• Ref 49 – no page number
• Ref 50 – no page number
• Ref 60 – no page number
• Ref 61 – no page number
• Ref 62 – no page number
• Ref 63 – no page number
• Ref 71 – no page number
• Ref 72 – no page number
• Ref 74 – no page number
• Ref 82 – no page numbers for any of the three citations
• Ref 86 – no page number
• Ref 89 – no page number
• Ref 90 – no page number
• Ref 97 – no page number
• Where you do give page numbers you are inconsistent about whether they are preceded by "p." or given as plain numbers, as, for example, at refs 32 and 52 respectively
• You are inconsistent about whether undated online sources are "Accessed" or "Retrieved" or neither.
• You refer to "The New York Times" and "NY Times" – which is it?
• You sometimes give the place of publication (e.g. ref 81) and sometimes don't (e.g. ref 80)
• For online references you sometimes give bibliographical details (e.g. ref 91) and sometimes fail to (e.g. ref 94)
• Some cited authors are shown as First Name, Second Name (e.g. ref 93) and others as Second Name, First Name (e.g. ref 98).

I'll put the review on hold for a week. If you address these matters I'll resume thereafter. – Tim riley (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Riley: Thank you for your feedback on the Robert Lowell article. Today I have added pages numbers for references that you listed which refer to direct quotations in the article (please let me know if I missed any). I appreciate that feedback. However, I have not added page numbers for those sources that do not refer to direct quotations since I don't believe they are required in a Wikipedia article.

Regarding the lack of consistency among the format of references, I acknowledge that it exists. However, because Wikipedia articles are collaborative efforts and not the work of one individual, I think it's to be expected that the formatting of references are going to inevitably differ somewhat here and there, and although I have done quite a bit of work on this article over the years, I don't think I'm prepared (and I honestly don't have the time) to go through the entire article to make all the references fit one consistent format (as would be expected with a scholarly article). But I don't think that level of consistency is a requirement of the Wikipedia criteria list for "Good Articles." Please correct me if I'm wrong. As an experienced Wikipedia editor, I'm sure you're probably more familiar with these criteria than I am, but I am hoping to find out if this article meets those specific standards (Wikipedia:Good article criteria). I hope it does, but if it doesn't, that's okay, too. Thank you again for taking the time and effort to review this article. Best, Jpcohen (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Seeking second opinion

Please see the above. The GA criteria are fairly broad, and I am in some doubt if I am justified in making the poor references a reason to fail the candidacy. Grateful for another view. Tim riley (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a brief second opinion...if an idea you're expressing in an article is a synthesis of ideas supported by a source, and that argument is discussed in that source, you should direct the reader to the page numbers where that source argues what you're arguing--whether it's one page number, a range of pages, or a chapter. This goes right to the heart of GA Criteria #2. This is the proper course of action even if it isn't a direct quotation--per policy on text-source integrity and WP:INTEXT, WP:CITEHOW (part of MOS/WP:CITE). Universities expel students for less under "academic integrity" rules. If the argument you've summarized here is the subject of the entire book, you can put "passim" in lieu of page numbers. As for issues of consistency among citations, that's required by the MOS, and the policies on inline citations (again, criteria 2) aim toward consistent formatting. There's no excuse for fn.50 having "Farrar, Straus, & Giroux" and fn.100 having "FS&G", or abbreviating New York as NY (compare fn. 50 with fn. 52) or there not being a consistent use of punctuation. While it's not as stringent as FAC, a GA candidate should have a clean, consistent format for citations, per WP:CITE and its related articles to pass Criteria 2. These are just some general comments during my lunch break, I will take a closer look later today at the specific mentions above, but that's my two cents. On another note, claiming that "I honestly don't have the time" to make citations consistent is an excuse is a poor excuse. We all have better things to do and don't have the time...nature of the beast in this life. Laziness doesn't make GAs. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point, and I think that you are right when it comes to standards for academic papers which must adhere to a strict and consistent formatting for all references. But I don't believe that the same standards apply to Wikipedia articles. As an example, you can look at an equivalent article, like the one on the poet W.H. Auden. This article has been judged a "Good article" by Wikipedia standards. Yet, there are many references in the article from books/articles that do not include page numbers.

As far as your laziness comment, I'm going to pretend you didn't say that (since it's pretty inappropriate to judge the work ethic of your fellow editors, particularly ones who volunteer a good deal of their time to try to improve these articles). Jpcohen (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No offense, but as someone who writes aiming for GA and FA status articles, I recognize that it takes a lot of work...and a lot of tedious detail work. An editor who aims towards GA or FA puts in a lot of work...it sorta sucks and is a bad reflection when they respond to a suggestion in keeping with the criteria and MOS with an answer like "I don't have the time." Frankly, whether your offended or not, someone always should be judged negatively when they want something like GA status for their work but don't want to put in the detail work because of a piss-poor excuse like "I don't have the time." So saying "I volunteer a lot to do this"....so do we all. GA status is like getting a sticker for good work...however, if the work doesn't meet the level, you don't get the sticker. As for Auden, I'll take a look at that article and if it's bad I'll put it up for a GA review and perhaps bring it back down to B-Class. However, we're comparing your article to the criteria--that alone is the consideration. I could care less with how it fares compared to another article....as a GA review is only as good as its reviewer, likewise, an article without the effort should not be a GA. An article that has flaws might need to be reassessed. Chasing GA status is a commitment...something you make the time for. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a poor reflection on you, attacking other editors because you judge them to be "lazy." Spare me the lecture on hard work, Henry. I'm not lazy or “making excuses” as you put it. And I didn't nominate this article for GA status in order to get a sticker for my good work. I’m not five years old. And this is not my article. I take no ownership of it. I nominated the article because I think it meets the criteria as outlined by Wikipedia. If Mr. Riley deems it unworthy of GA status, that's his decision. But I responded to his suggestions based upon my own reading of the Wikipedia GA criteria, and I was frank with him that I would not be able to provide all the revisions that he suggested within 7 days. I also didn’t believe they were necessary for the review in question. You obviously disagree with that interpretation. But we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable. Attacking my character and/or my work ethic is totally out of line. Name-calling doesn’t impress me, and I doubt it impresses anyone else. Honestly, it just makes you look like a bully. And how you judge me personally is irrelevant to the question that Mr. Riley posed. Jpcohen (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not the one who said "I don't have the time" as if that made you special, and trying to dismiss the expected effort wanting a sticker like a petulant first-grader. The reviewer asked for a second opinion...you disagreed with his assessment regarding citations...a criteria 2 issue. I provided a second opinion agreeing with his assessment and pointing to the criteria and its supporting guidelines/policies. You disagree with me. Hmm...it's easy to see the problem isn't me, or the reviewer, and definitely not the clearly-stated guidelines/policies. But then again, you "don't have the time" for this. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I definitely don't have time to waste on this absurd communication with you. Jpcohen (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Typical. You didn't ask for the second opinion, so technically you're the strange interloper on this conversation. Like a two-year old who doesn't take correction but keeps screaming "Mommy, I want my cookie" while the grown-ups discuss an issue.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you're trying to be witty here but really you're just being rude. Jpcohen (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, the Good Article Criteria #2 which you cite states that a "good" article "provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines." I believe this article currently meets that requirement. Jpcohen (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Let me take two examples: (I) fn.39 which is complained about for no page number above supports "In an essay published in 1985, the poet Stanley Kunitz wrote that Life Studies was "perhaps the most influential book of modern verse since T. S. Eliot's The Waste Land." -- while this is an empty plaudit with no interpretative merit and less substance than a promotional blurb on the back cover, what was Kunitz's basis for it?...and this is purportedly a direct quotation, published opinion. How is it not controversial? Perhaps I, as a literary scholar, disagree with Lowell and believe O'Hara's Meditations in an Emergency was more influential, or Stevens' Auroras of Autumn or Williams Paterson, Book I...it's an arguable judgment, needing citation and further explanation. (II) fn. 71 has no page number, yet is a direct quotation and published opinion...Lowell's editor and friend Frank Bidart notes in his afterword to Lowell's Collected Poems, "Lowell is widely, perhaps indelibly associated with the term 'confessional,'" though Bidart questions the accuracy of this label." There are some scholars who doubt whether there truly was a distinct 1950s/1960s confessional poetry (while I disagree they make good arguments). It's a controversial statement, scholars on both sides of the camp would argue. Now if you're saying the article meets that criteria 2 guideline, you are sorely mistaken...especially if these two examples are any indicator of the rest of the footnoting problem listed above. While your reviewer might mention things he finds lacking, he's being incredibly lenient compared to how I would review this article. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• Also, fn 60, 61, 62, 63 are problematic beyond mere page numbers merely because its usage is simply to support that Lowell received "wide acclaim" without any other substance given...this is like trying to sell foam as a sauce...this is an empty and meaningless interpretation (i.e. a load of air) without actually citing something from these sources as to their level and content of their purported "acclaim." Jarrell's writing (fn. 60) is largely a fluff piece with no scholarly weight...the kind of review that poets write for fellow poets...in this case, a friend writes for a friend.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I’ll respond briefly to your first issue: the Kunitz quote. I don’t have the resource to cite a page number so I added a citation for another source: a Poetry Foundation bio online. The editors of the Poetry Foundation found the quote important enough to include in their bio on Lowell. Your criticism of the significance of the quote is really just your personal point of view. You might think it’s insignificant, but the editors at Poetry (and I) disagree. But that’s why I added the online Poetry Foundation bio as a source. You could easily remove the original source if the lack of a page number bothers you that much.

I agree with you that Footnote 71 needed a page number, and I've added one.

I’ll also briefly respond to your second criticism. You are unimpressed with the sources you list. You don’t find Jarrell to be scholarly enough. Again, this is your point of view. Jarrell was one of the most respected critics of his generation. Your opinion of his critical work is irrelevant.Jpcohen (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

As for Kunitz quote, the citation guidelines advise you never to cite something you haven't read yourself, but that's not an automatic reason to excise it. How to respond to it: combine it note 5 and 39...Editors, The. "Robert Lowell". The Poetry Foundation; citing Kunitz, Stanley. Next-to-Last Things: New Poems and Essays. Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1985. Retrieved 2013-05-30. But again, it's book blurb ad copy...acclaiming something the "most influential work" is like saying "new and improved" on an kitchen appliance. Sadly half of the poets whose biographies are on the poetry foundation's website are described as the most influential of his generation and other permutations of the trite phrase.

I'm aware of Jarrell's reputation as a scholar and critic, but you have to ask yourself what he really says about Lowell's work, it's fluff. It discusses nothing about Lowell's themes or symbolism and gives a feel-good assessment that says little else than "his work makes me feel good"...."successes that vary only in scope and intensity--others are poems that almost any living poet would be pleased to have written ... [and] one or two of these poems, I think, will be read as long as men remember English"....it's a book blurb written by a notable critic whose ass Lowell kissed for years. I've seen more informative criticism on cereal boxes.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

From GA reviewer

Thank you to both contributors above. I think I have got the picture as seen from each side, and I don't think any further additions are needed here. I'll re-read everything here and in the article tomorrow and report back on Monday. Warmest regards to both of you. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Review

I am grateful to Col Henry for input, and though I disagree with many of his strictures I am confirmed in my belief that this article is, for GAN purposes, fatally flawed in its poor referencing (criterion 2b). Plainly both Messrs Cohen and Henry know a great deal more than I do about Lowell, but as a GA reviewer it has been my job to judge the article solely against the very clear GAN criteria. I remain of the view that apart from the referencing it pretty much meets them, but that is for another review. I conclude by saying on a personal level that I found the article most stimulating and was moved to get some of Lowell's works off my shelves. But alas, I cannot in conscience pass the article with the citations so inadequate. Tim riley (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the positive feedback, Mr. Riley. Best wishes! Jpcohen (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)