Talk:Beowulf/GA2

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 11:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork (talk)


 * Many thanks - I saw your edits and wondered if you were about to do a review, but the gadget didn't ping me, so I just found it by accident ... I'm on Yoga-by-Zoom tonight (there's a phrase I never thought to hear until you-know-what) but will attend to this promptly after that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am detached from that bot. I prefer to handle the communication myself - it seems more personal, also, as I tend to be slow, I'd prefer not to nudge people about something that may not start for a little while, and may take a while to complete the first stage. SilkTork (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ingenious! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Tick box
GA review – see Good article criteria for detailed criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. Prose is clear and concise, understandable, without spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. Complies with MoS guidance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain media such as images, images, video, or audio  to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Media are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Media are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain media such as images, images, video, or audio  to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Media are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Media are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Does it contain media such as images, images, video, or audio  to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Media are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Media are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * B. Media are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments on GA criteria

 * Pass
 * Article is stable. SilkTork (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Beautifully written. SilkTork (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you!


 * No copvio. SilkTork (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Complies with MoS for layout, lead, etc. SilkTork (talk) 10:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Images have appropriate copyright tags. SilkTork (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Balanced and neutral. SilkTork (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article covers all the aspects that an average reader would be interested in, and should find the article satisfying, with helpful suggestions for further reading. SilkTork (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Illustrations are helpful and on topic. SilkTork (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Query


 * Minor image quibbles (I think it's just a matter of putting on the appropriate licensing tag) regarding licencing for the following images:
 * Copyright status and USA permission needed for File:Beowulf Cotton MS Vitellius A XV f. 132r.jpg. SilkTork (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Added.
 * Worldwide permission needed for File:Beowulf death.png (or select a different image). SilkTork (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Added.
 * USA licence needed for File:BLBeowulf.jpg. SilkTork (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Added.
 * Licencing concerns need to be dealt with for File:A minstrel sings of famous deeds by J. R. Skelton c 1910.jpg. SilkTork (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Image has worldwide and US PD tags.
 * Licencing concerns on File:David Woodard Exploding Beowulf.jpg. SilkTork (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure about this one, removing for now.


 * Those licensing tags are fiddly as they need certain parameters filled in. They are still not quite right. I've done Beowulf's death - though not sure if both PD-Art and PD-US-expired are needed, but better to be safe than sorry. Take a look at the licensing tags I used on that one, and see if you can fix the others. Let me know if you have problems, and we'll see if we can work them out together.  SilkTork (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added parameters like yours. Quite a system those guys have devised! The whole area reeks of "drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring"... Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fucking pain in the arse is how I think of it. Your view is much more poetic! SilkTork (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I had to fiddle some more to get rid of the alerts - all ok now! SilkTork (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The Historical background section is struggling to comply with MOS:LAYIM. The preference in the guidance (MOS:IMAGES) is to have images on the right side of the page, and also to keep the images within their own section - on my browser the Eadgil's barrow image is pushing into the next section. My suggestion to to have both images set at 1:4, remove the left tag from Beowulf Tribes, and add a space template to the bottom of the section . This tidies it up and complies with M<OS. SilkTork (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * I feel the article is beautifully written, however, the Editions and translations section is a little loose - there are several one sentence paragraphs which inhibit the flow of reading, and look sloppy. It may also be the case that the section has too many sub-sections per MOS:OVERSECTION. I think a pulling together of the translation sub-sections into one sub-section, and perhaps either filling out some of the detail in statements such as "Many retellings of Beowulf for children appeared in the 20th century", or perhaps deciding to leave them out as not essential, would be useful. SilkTork (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merged short paragraphs and subsections. Added ref to NYT review of multiple children's versions of Beowulf (and it was only scratching the surface)
 * The Sources and analogues section, as with the Editions and translations section, contains too many short sub-sections per MOS:OVERSECTION. SilkTork (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merged short paragraphs and subsections.


 * Images are varied, useful, and on topic; however, the caption to Skelton's minstrel in the Debate over oral tradition section is a little long (though arguably acceptable, so not something I'm really going to quibble over), but contains the phrase "chanted by a scop to string accompaniment", which information is not found in the main body. We prefer the main information to be in the main body. The image and caption should be illustrating the main body, rather than replacing it. In addition, should we be giving the reader the assumptions being made in this caption, that the manuscript was intended as a script for performance (even without the string accompaniment)? While Beowulf may or may not have had an oral tradition predating the manuscript is a separate issue from the statement that the manuscript was read aloud rather than quietly. This has prompted me to consider if there should be more in the article on the performance aspect of the poem, and I think an expansion of that detail about chanting to string accompaniment might be helpful - perhaps in the Form and metre section, or - if there's enough material - a section just on Performance. Perhaps including some reference to modern performers, such as Benjamin Bagby (YouTube). SilkTork (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Cited the caption and a new paragraph about performance within the oral tradition to Liuzza 2013. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I like the new paragraph. We still have a problem with the caption as it asserts that "Beowulf was composed for performance", when the section itself explains that much modern thinking is that it is possibly a work of literature which borrowed from the performance tradition, but was not itself written out for performance. As scholars appear to still be arguing this, I don't think it is Wikipedia's place to come down firmly one way or another in the argument. Perhaps something like this: "The traditional view is that Beowulf was composed for performance, possibly chanted by a scop to string accompaniment;[70] however, modern scholars are considering that it originated as a piece of written literature which borrowed from oral traditions." SilkTork (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Focus. The article deals in succinct and appropriate length with most aspects; the only section that is giving me pause is Debate over oral tradition, which seems rather long in comparison with the rest of the article, and the relative importance of what is being discussed. Indeed, there is a paragraph in there - Scholarly discussion about Beowulf in the context of the oral tradition... - which is causing me problems in regard to both sourcing and original research. It is also giving me problems in regard to the thread of its thinking, which starts at an account of scholarly dispute about oral tradition in a narrow period past, explains (in Wikivoice) the nature of the debate, and then concludes with speculations on Christianity in the poem, which is perhaps best suited in the Paganism and Christianity section. I suspect that if that paragraph were to be re-written in a more concise manner, more securely sourced, and remained on-topic with the "oral" or "literate" debate, leaving considerations of "pagan" or "Christian" to the appropriate section, that the section would be clearer and more on point. I suspect that entire paragraph could be removed without harm - indeed, to considerable benefit. Is the paragraph something you feel strongly about, Chiswick? Without it (or with it rewritten) I could immediately tick Focus, Sourcing, and Original research as being passed. SilkTork (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, moved Schaefer's paragraph to Christianity, and split Performance out as a separate section, taking the image with it, so at least I'm not making Debate longer. I agree that the section is too long and have shortened it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Fail
 * I see nothing as failing in the article - just stuff that needs talking about a bit, and perhaps adjusting. SilkTork (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

General comments

 * This is more a question than a quibble; and, though there is the very faint possibility that it may have relevance to the GA criteria in 2A: "Has an appropriate reference section" per the Further reading guideline: "a reasonable number of publications", in that they may be room for a debate as to how many is reasonable, I am placing the question here in the General comments section as the matter is mere curiosity, not serious enough to quibble about on GA terms. What is the rationale for an extra 16 works in Further reading, given that there are already 24 works cited in Sources, plus several others used, but not listed (Chase, Lapidge, Podgorski, etc)? And what is the criteria for the selection - is it based on personal choice, or a summary of the texts that most Beowulf scholars will list? Incidentally, Neidorf's Dating is used as a source, so should be in the Sources section rather than the Further reading. SilkTork (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be churlish to imply there are only the cited sources available. The list has developed over many years, so it is the interpersonal selection of all interested editors. Whenever a book has been cited multiple times, repetition of citation has been avoided by moving it to Sources; I'm aware that some editors put singly-cited books there also, which looks nice I guess. I've done a bit more polishing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved Neidorf to Sources.
 * I've been rather diverted by seeing Eric Mottram's name in the list of sources. I assume that would be in relation to his Book of Herne. I knew Eric. I published some of the works that later appeared in Book of Herne in my magazine, Angel Exhaust, and also interviewed him. I note that interview has recently been reprinted in an anthology: Don't start me talking. I remember the interview well as we argued a lot! And when I went to get my car, a quickly rusting first generation Honda Accord, which was parked out Kings, it had been towed away, and I hoped it had been stolen so I could be free of it, and claim the insurance! Gosh, that's forty years ago..... SilkTork (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow!


 * "(Beowulf lines 2712–3182)" - I like this, and find it useful. Not a GA requirement, as it is conventional that plot summaries do not require source information; however, would you be willing and able to do this for the rest of the Summary? SilkTork (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Slightly unwilling: I carefully indexed The Lord of the Rings like that, only for someone to rip the whole lot out after the GA!


 * "The dating of Beowulf has attracted considerable scholarly attention and opinion differs as to whether it was first written in the 8th century or whether the composition of the poem was nearly contemporary with its eleventh century manuscript and whether a proto-version of the poem (possibly a version of the Bear's Son Tale) was orally transmitted before being transcribed in its present form." This might be more usefully broken into two or three sentences - or perhaps just more punctuation, such as "The dating of Beowulf has attracted considerable scholarly attention; opinion differs...". SilkTork (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Punctuated.


 * On the subject of dating. You summarise the critics who feel the date is the 8th century; however, would it be worth giving the background that prior to 1980 the consensus was the 8th century, and it is scholarship post the "Dating of Beowulf" conference in Toronto 1980 that push the dates forward to the 11th century? If you're not familiar with that conference, you can Google it. SilkTork (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There's this paper: A Scandal in Toronto: "The Dating of "Beowulf" " a Quarter Century On, Roberta Frank, Speculum, Vol. 82, No. 4 (Oct., 2007), pp. 843-864. SilkTork (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice find. Added.


 * In the Debate over oral tradition sub-section, whose voice is this: "The debate might be framed starkly as follows..."? That's an authorial voice which is found in essays and older encyclopedias rather than modern ones. SilkTork (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Reworded.


 * I feel that the summary "Scholarly discussion about Beowulf in the context of the oral tradition was extremely active throughout the 1960s and 1970s" would benefit from a source to avoid any speculation that this might be the Wiki-author guiding the reader. I paused at "The dating of Beowulf has attracted considerable scholarly attention and opinion differs..." in the Authorship and date section, but then felt there was enough cited information following that summary to justify it being in unsourced Wikivoice; but here, the scholarly discussion summary is followed by several sentences of explanation which appear unsourced. The nearest sourcing is "The Christian Coloring in the Beowulf" which discusses heathen v Christian authorship, and so does give us some background to the heathen v Christian aspect of the sentences following the scholarly discussion summary, though not quite to the oral tradition aspect, nor the active discussion during the 1960s and 70s. Essentially, I think some more obvious inline citing would be of benefit here. SilkTork (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See above on 'Debate over oral tradition'.


 * "the Grendel's equal" - is the use of "the" here a typo? SilkTork (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed.


 * Just for the record: Earwig's Copyvio Detector throws up this blog: written in 2015. I've looked at our article from before the date of that blog:, and it is clear that the blog copied our article at that time, word for word. SilkTork (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Noted.
 * Another false positive copyvio - - the text was in our article before it was copied over to that website. SilkTork (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Noted.

Final quibbles

 * We're almost there. I've just reading through and picking up quibbles that I didn't notice previously. "Beowulf survived to modern times in a single parchment manuscript dated on palaeographical grounds to the late 10th or early 11th century."
 * This sentence is the only mention of parchment as the material on which Beowulf is written. I'm not sure if more needs to be said here or elsewhere (perhaps also in the lead), though perhaps a slight rephrasing for clarity ("Beowulf survived to modern times in the only known copy, written on parchment later partly damaged by fire, and dated....) and a wikilink to parchment.
 * Done.
 * The dating here of "late 10th or early 11th century" is supported by the nearby British Library cite, however the "on palaeographical grounds" is not. That sourcing is in the previous section, and is rather more complete "some scholars argue that linguistic, palaeographical, metrical, and onomastic considerations align to support a date of composition in the first half of the eighth century;[53][54][55]"
 * Indeed, removed.
 * Both here and in the previous section ("some scholars argue...") some consideration could be given to making it clearer, per WP:TECHNICAL, that the dating was done via an analysis of the handwriting, and the words used.
 * Added glosses in previous section.
 * Within that Manuscript section there could be some mention that the manuscript passed from private hands to the Crown in 1702, when Sir John Cotton died. Also, perhaps mention that the manuscript passed from Robert Cotton down to his grandson John.
 * Done.
 * And while we're at it - "It suffered damage in the Cotton Library fire at Ashburnham House in 1731" is a little awkward; "It suffered damage in a fire at Ashburnham House in 1731, in which around a quarter of the manuscripts bequeathed by John Cotton were destroyed" might be clearer.
 * Done.
 * There may be sources in Cotton library which could help with citing some of the above. SilkTork (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Citation added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Pass/Hold/Fail
I'm happy. Passing as GA, and listing. Well done Chiswick. SilkTork (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the attentive review and dialogue. It's a special pleasure to get such a major article to GA, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)