Talk:Morris Bishop/GA1

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

Reviewer: M4V3R1CK32 (talk · contribs) 23:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

#::Infobox: Though not technically required by MOS:LEAD (and not why the article failed this criteria), to be complete this article should have a proper infobox, using Template:Infobox academic or Template:Infobox writer.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Grammar:There are few, if any, instances of dropped commas, dangling participles, or run-on sentences. Excellent work.
 * Sentence structure: The biggest issue with this article from a writing standpoint is sentence structure. The length of many sentences and the way they are organized makes them confusing at times. While long sentences certainly have their place, the length of most sentences in this article (particularly those which include semicolons and parentheticals) make it difficult to follow. A good example is the following sentence from the Early life and career section:
 * "He then sold textbooks for Ginn & Co, joined the US Cavalry (and unhappily served under Pershing in the "punitive expedition" in Mexico), was a first lieutenant in the US Infantry in World War I and a member of the American Relief Administration mission to Finland in 1919, and worked as a copywriter in a New York advertising agency, the Harry Porter Company, for one year."
 * Was he selling textbooks while in the cavalry? A member of the ARA and the infantry at the same time? Was he cavalry or infantry? This could be at least three sentences, with further timestamps to help the reader understand the timeline of Bishop's military service and ARA work. Breaking it up ensures that the reader will not be confused. There are instances of this throughout the article. Breaking these sentences into smaller constituent parts will dramatically increase readability. In particular, I suggest reassessing if the parentheticals impart encyclopedic information or merely trivia, and seeking to eliminate all parentheticals not explaining an abbreviation.
 * Layout: See also sections should be a bulleted list of related articles not already linked to in the main article body.
 * Other MOS items that are part of GAR are fine.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Due to the article's length and failing two other points, I did not do an in-depth check for OR or copyright violations/plagiarism, nor did I do an in-depth review of the sourcing used. Though without a thorough check I have to acknowledge the possibility that a copyright violation/plagiarising sentence exists, the sheer volume of citations (both inline and via in-text attribution) suggests that if any such violation does exist, it is minor and completely unintentional. A quick survey of the sourcing indicates it is primarily from literary journals and newspapers, all of which seem to meet RS criteria. One could argue there are too many instances of citing the non-independent Cornell Alumni News, but the overwhelming majority of sources are third-party and I don't find the usage of CAN egregious by any means.
 * Though not one of the criteria this article is being tested against, the Awards and honors section has some WP:OVERCITE going on.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It is undeniable that this article is broad in its scope. It covers every significant event and publication in Bishop's life and career, and thus passes that criterion with flying colors. However, the level of detail in which his work and the opinion of reviewers is discussed throughout the Writings and scholarship section lead me to believe that section should either be dramatically trimmed down, or be split and made into its own article. It seems many of these books may warrant their own articles as well.
 * At present, the Writings and scholarship section comprises roughly 80% of the article. It gives readers a good understanding of what other academics thought of his work, but not the impact of his work. I would suggest that it may be more beneficial to try to include more information about that impact, and to trim significantly the quotations of opinions of his work, seeking to paraphrase as much as possible to trim the section back.
 * It may also be worthwhile to consider a general restructuring, weaving that content into the Early life and career section, or trimming down the section to focus on broad areas, like biographies, novels, and poetry, focusing on the most significant examples of each. FAs like John Neal and Maya Angelou do an excellent job of this and break the work and reception of that work and its impact into separate sections.
 * Similarly, I would create a separate list for Bishop's full bibliography. Currently, the bibliography takes up about 10% of the article.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * One might argue that the article text is too effusive in reporting the praise of Bishop and does not include enough negative criticism of his work, but at some point, the sources say what they say. I think this meets NPOV just fine.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * The last significant edit was in January 2023 (and was made by the nominator), the rest are largely copy and category edits. Easy pass.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Though the image of the books the shelf is a fun one, I think readers would be better suited by seeing the full covers of the books rather than just their spines. Such an image should be covered under Fair Use much like movie posters. I don't see this as a hugely pressing issue though.
 * 1) Overall: This is a remarkably thorough article and Hoary has done an excellent job tracking down and incorporating sources. Unfortunately, I think the problems of article size and sentence structure are too great. For those reasons, I am failing this GAN (but would be happy to review again in the future!).
 * Pass/Fail: