Wikipedia:Featured article review/Thomas Pynchon/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:53, 14 September 2009 [1].

Thomas Pynchon edit

Review commentary edit

Featured article candidates/Thomas Pynchon

Featured article review/Thomas Pynchon/archive1

Notified: Anville (nom), Abaca, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment

I am nominating this featured article for review because it lacks some references, may contain original research, and may not be neutral. It became a FA in March 2006. It has an unusual referencing format which may no longer be acceptable. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1a There is some weasel wording, e.g. Some made the point that this was ostensibly the culmination of Pynchon's career and a summation of his personal philosophy, while others noted that it was a "loose baggy monster" which had been pieced together from several long-time Pynchonian works-in-progress and offcuts from other of his novels.
1b This is a biography of a living person so it probably needs updating

Books are mentioned that were to be published in 2009

lc There are sections that have few or no reference citations. e.g."Themes", "Influence"

These sections may reflect some original research, as opinions are given without citations.

1d "Gravity's Rainbow" section has a {{pov}} tag and many {{citation needed}} tags
Per WP:LEAD, the lead needs to be beefed up so that it summarizes the article.

In general, this article appears to be very well written and well referenced (although the referencing format is idiosyncratic). For someone who is familiar with this author, I think this article can with a little work be brought up to standards. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Pynchon.jpg: without a source or author, how do we know this is Pynchon? DrKiernan (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pynchon is a writer I hold dear to my heart. I'm fairly inexperienced with scholarly analysis of literary works, but I'll try my best to polish the rest of the article up to standard. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1975, Pynchon declined the William Dean Howells Medal of the American Academy of Arts and Letters" - why? Seems like it warrants further explanation... --74.138.229.88 (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, original research, neutrality, prose, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 00:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Editors appear to be working on the article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the referencing system needs to be fixed and brought up to date. The way it is now, it is virtually impossible to fact check or verify sources. There are no page numbers. Also, the lead needs to reflect the article, per WP:LEAD. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a matter of interest, what do you see as wrong with the current lead exactly? I ask because I'm increasingly seeing LEAD being used to insist that certain types of material be added or removed. This is a guideline I helped to write, so I'm interested when I see it being used in ways that weren't really expected. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, considering so much of the article is unreferenced, the lead is probably a very good summary, even though it does not convey his importance as the awards mentioned are won by many. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second FAR I've read tonight where a statement is made indicating that the referencing system needs to be changed or updated; I'm afraid incorrect information is taking hold at FAR. Both footnotes (using cite.php) and Harvard referencing are acceptable. Please see WP:WIAFA:

(c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like some referencing issues still need to be addressed. If editors are working on that, then that's fine for now, just keep an update here at this page when done. Cirt (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could whoever's working on the article also add alt text to its 3 images? Please click on the "alt text" button at the upper right of this review page. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External link farm needs pruning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged the photograph as nsd. DrKiernan (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody still working on this. Nothing since Aug 30, and a lot of the citations have a book with no page YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. With only two inconsequential edits since Aug. 30 and some issues remaining to be resolved, it doesn't pass the FA criteria. There are citation needed tags, and as YellowMonkey said, page numbers are needed in several of the book citations. Drop me a note if you fix these, and I'll strike my opinion. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's emblematic that by far the largest category of Featured Articles is the one on Warfare. That makes it look like a warmonger Wikipedia. We have a number of fine articles on science, which is the only area where Wikipedia gives his best, although even there the culture of providing the best and broadest body of references is still not consolidated. There is the ridiculous case of the Ronald Reagan article, which got promoted to Featured status, despite been just dummies propaganda. When we come to literature, and the humanities in general, despite the 8 years since Wikipedia has been in place, we are still down to the level of a small-town high school teacher. The subject of this article is considered by experts in the field to be one of the best writers ever, along with Joyce and Nabokov. Articles on these top subjects should be at an Academic level, it's a pity for Wikipedia that this one is not there yet. Sum (talk) 10:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I continue to wonder at the inconsistency of the citations. Why are there no page numbers for many book references? Why are only two of the four references to Gussow 1998 clickable? Is it because the "back" buttone will not work for the last two? Also, as mentioned above, this article on an important author is woefully in adequate. For example, the "Influence" section mostly an prose list and is not well cited. It is not specific and makes statements like "Examples of such works might include ..." and "Other contemporary American authors whose fiction is often categorized alongside Pynchon's include ...". It is way shorter than the "Media scrutiny" section, which should be considered less important than the influence of a major writer. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.