Talk:American proletarian poetry movement/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 20:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Reads fine to this ESL.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Dabtool identified one link that needs to be disambiguated: 2) WP:LEAD requires that the intro provides a summary of the article and does not contain any new information. Current lead fails on both counts, as I see numerous claims in the lead that are not present in the article (aesthetically disparate, African-American slave work songs, Mike Gold); at the same time the lead does not mention issues that form major section (major works, reception, legacy, etc.). 3) Section headings need to be decapitalized (Manual of Style/Capital letters); also - why is the word Communist capitalized? 4) Improper bolding used at least once (Kenneth Fearing's "Dirge"), see Manual of Style/Text formatting 5) External links should not normally be used in the body of an article (see ELINK #2) 6) Per WP:BTW, more blue links are needed. The article mentions topics that should be blue or red linked, for example, in the first body para, William Carlos Williams, Upton Sinclair, and Jack London are not linked. Please note those represent examples, not a comprehensive list of what should be linked. 7) WP:WEASEL terms detected ("Some saw...").
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * At least once, another Wikipedia article is used as a self-reference. Three references are bare urls without any formatting. Most journal references are missing urls, those should be added (in book cases, Google Books is optional but helpful).
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Citation density is not satisfactory. For example, in the "Background" section, second part of the first para is unreferenced. First sentence in "Critical reception" section has a ref in the middle, suggesting that the second half is unreferenced. I'd strongly recommend the improvement of citation density to each sentence.
 * C. No original research:
 * I have some doubts here, particularly with regards to the examples in the legacy. Who is saying they are related? It seems to me like somebody found some examples of art that touches upon economic inequality, and is making original research arguments on Wikipedia that they are related to the proletarian poetry. This is most visibile in the claim about Dropkick Murphys which simply links to their web press release (primary source). We need proper secondary source that tie the work of others to this topic, we cannot go and claim that such and such is related simply because we think they are.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * "Major works" section suggests multiple works will be discussed, but only one is. "Critical reception" section is stub-lenght and needs significant expansion. See for example Juliusz_Slowacki and Legacy sections for what I'd expect to see as relatively comprehensive length for such sections.
 * B. Focused:
 * Seems relatively on topic.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Not a single source reviewing this genra positivly, only a short negative criticism suggests bias.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * Seems fine.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Check.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * A good and free image has been added. There is room for another one like this, but it is not requried.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: }
 * On hold awaiting responses. Please let me know if anything is not clear; please consider pinging me on my talk page to ensure I am notified ASAP. If something is addressed, please make a clear note of that both here and in the edit summary. If I am not notified of any changes on my talk page, I may not revisit this page before a week or so, when I will assess the progress made based on the comments here, and if no rationale have been presented for extra time, I'll pass or fail the article based on its state at that time. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 21:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the assessment! I will be working to address all of these concerns in the next day or two. Aerdil (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's good to hear. I'll revisit in in a few days, feel free to ask any questions in the meantime. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that if there are no further comments here, I'll rereview and pass/fail this article within a week of my previous comment. Please note, in particular, that this article will be failed if even one of the things I mentioned above is not fixed, so I strongly encourage you to ask questions if anything is not clear. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Still working on a few things, I should hopefully have time to update the page some more tonight to get it much closer to GA-quality. With regard to the Legacy section, however, would you suggest moving it to the talk page for now? I agree with your assessment about original research, but don't want to tread on the other editor's toes. I do intend to expand that section with some mention of the genre's repression due to the McCarthy era and only relative recent resurgence/attention in literary analysis. Aerdil (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Moving content to talk rather than outright deletion is always preferable, so that's a good idea. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 05:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, I just cleaned up the legacy section with more objective wording, took out some stuff, and added a lot more sourcing regarding quotes and general statements to back things up. I think it looks a lot better. Let me know. Sorry I got to this so late, didn't realize I had to watch this part of the talk page separately. Rahorvath (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It does look better. However, there's still a key problem. You need sources that connect the genre of "proletarian poetry" to the stuff in the legacy section. So even if you have references to show that "The populist proletariat movement of the 1930s has had a lasting effect on artists and voices to this day" that might not be the same thing as showing that the poetry has a legacy. I'll ask the reviewer to stop by and say what they think. Cloveapple (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is indeed a major issue. For just one example, the article claims that Rage Against The Machine is somehow connected to this issue, yet the ref used  mentions neither poetry, nor proletariat. The WP:OR red flag in that section is still quite visible (pun intended). I am also a bit disappointed that the editors added a number of bare URLs; I've fixed that. "Poetry Foundation" references are still incomplete, missing author and date. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me  23:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Status?
What is the status of this review? If it is completed, but the reviewer is waiting for improvements, please place it on hold. AstroCog (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I did: "#:Pass or Fail: }" I will hold it for about three more days, at which point I will fail it if there are no responses from the editors. For the record, I'd prefer to see the article improved, but this review is approaching a month mark slowly... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me  23:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I have to fail it. Issues remain unaddressed, and communication from editors (students) involved was very sparse, including no comments for the last week. As I said earlier, this means I have to fail the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 15:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)