Talk:True at First Light/GA1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 19:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am reviewing this article. I did some copy editing, which you are free to change, and stuck in the date of Hemingway's death which I feel needs to be there for context.

Lead

  • I messed with the lead, and I think it still needs more work to sound cohesive. It might be good to mention here how controversial Patrick's actions were at the time. I guess some of the outrage has diminished as critics learned to appreciate the work.
  • added
  • You need to have the date of Hemingway death in the lead. It is essential to the context.
  • added

Background

  • It needs to be made clearer that the "trip" was a safari and not the journey to Africa. The two seem to be blending in the first para.
  • reworded
  • "When the hunting was done Hemingway chartered a sightseeing flight" - wasn't that the end of the safari?
  • Before you move to Contents in the next section, there should be some description of the writing process and what Hemingway experienced in trying to complete this work. I see that you have it under Composition but I think it needs to come before you describe the book. Also, I don't think Hemingway's experience writing it should be combined with Patrick's editing/rewriting some forty years later.
  • reorganized

(edit conflict)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    There are places where the wording is awkward and punctuation could be improved
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    The organization is fundamentally flawed, making it difficult for someone who does not already know the story to follow it.
    B. Focused:
    The overall picture would be clearer if details were provided chronologically.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: Pass!

Lead

  • It is essential to have the date of Hemingway's death in the article, as that stopped his writing. One of your sources calls it his "sudden death" and that was certainly the case. Also, his death eventually allowed Patrick to be involved, something Hemmingway would have never allows.
  • If the work is considered part of the "canon", that happened some time after the original publication and I would guess by a "newer school" of critics rather than being endorsed by all Hemingway scholars.
  • The book was only published once - in 1999. Everything I quoted was published in 1999, and was written by current Hemingway scholars. The biographers (i.e. Baker, Meyers, Mellow, Reynolds) never saw the published version of the book and some never saw the manuscript. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember when it was published and the brouhaha that surrounded it. Many scholars were quite displeased, in large part because it was not "pure" Hemingway but had been monkeyed with by Patrick. (It can be seen as sacrilegious to "rewrite" the manuscript of a famous author some forty years after his death and publish it.) Since then I have not paid attention to what is considered the "canon" but I would guess those who endorse that view are newer critics who were not wedded to the older beliefs. Xtzou (Talk) 20:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To some extent, yes and no. I had considered adding a controversy section about the "rewriting" of another person's work, but ended up folding the controversy into the reception section. Perhaps that doesn't work? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, take an iconic author, rewrite an unreleased work and publish it under his name. Is that bona fide? The issue was that Hemingway did not feel it was fit for publication, even though he released "Old Man and the Sea" which used to be seen as an inferior work. Xtzou (Talk) 21:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And is still considered inferior though he considered it good. At any rate, based on your comments, when I have time, I think I'll separate the controversy into another section. In the meantime I've fixed most of the rest. Is it still a pass? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(will continue)

  • I think it is much better. Give me a little time to read the whole thing. I am almost sure it will be a pass. My concerns have been resolved and I think you have done a good job of giving the overall picture. One tiny quibble, you say at the being of a para that the work grew to 800 pages, but the subsequent statements in the para are about a work less than that. It would be better if the para was chronological. Xtzou (Talk) 20:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you can advise how to reconile: the critics say 800 pages (and the reason I added two references) but Hemingway himself wrote in the letters 650. Often critics take Hemingway's letters with a grain of salt, but I didn't really know what to do there. I could delete one for chronological order. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put it in parentheses, but if there is a doubt about its accuracy, you could just remove the 800 page mention, as there are subsequent comments on page length. That is strange that critics would have a different number than the author. What would be his motivation to under report the length. Strange. Anyway, I am going to page the article. Excellent work. Xtzou (Talk) 21:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: Pass!

Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 21:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:True_at_First_Light/GA1"