Talk:Sonnet 110/GA1

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

Reviewer: Xover (talk · contribs) 14:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Overall status
Beginning review, more to come. --Xover (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Writing articles on individual sonnets is hard, but unfortunately what tripped this one up was the prose. The state of it was so bad that I actually had to give up about halfway through: trying to untangle it enough to review other aspects would have given me an ulcer. It needs a really good copy-edit (a thorough one!) before it's even possible to complete a review.

Unfortunately, I don't think this issue can be addressed within the customary 7 days, so I'm failing this nomination. Keep in mind that there is no minimum wait before you can renominate: once you believe you've adressed the issues identified so far you can immediately resubmit it. If you like you can ping me and I'll take a second look. --Xover (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Detailed points

 * Lede
 * (6) The article lacks illustrations. Could perhaps a cropped scan of this sonnet from the 1609 quarto be added?


 * Paraphrase
 * (1a) "Below is scholar David West's paraphrase translated to modern English:" Why does West's paraphrase have to be translated into modern English?
 * (1a) Giving West's entire paraphrase is, apart from laziness, also a copyright violation. The entire paraphrase will have to be removed and rewritten from scratch.


 * Structure
 * (1a) "… the traditional sonnet scheme called the fourteenth line pentameter rhyme …" I'm sorry… what?
 * (1a) "… where each of the fourteen lines of the sonnet contain ten syllables." Which is also known as…?
 * (1a) "The iambic pentameter below shows …" There is iambic pentameter below?
 * (1a) "… you can see …" Adressing the reader directly and as "you" is a bit too informal for an encyclopaedia article.
 * This entire section is uncited. Is it supported by a source or is this your own interpretation of it?


 * Context
 * (1a) "… the exact date of when they were written is unclear." Unknown, perhaps?
 * (1a) "It is estimated that the sonnets could have been written between 1588 and 1593." Why those particular dates? Is this universally agreed?
 * (1a) "… the Dark Lady and an unknown young man." What, no love for the Rival Poet?
 * (1a) "… and an unknown young man." Almost universally referred to as the "Fair Youth".
 * (1a) "… Kenneth Muir states …" Did he make a statement? At a press conference?
 * (1a) "… Shakespeare's dedication to a 'Mr. W.H'" Which some, but certainly not all, scholars speculate may be the same individual as the Fair Youth.
 * (1a) "In Raymond Macdonald Alden's book …" Who's he then? And what's his book called?
 * (1a) "… he has a chapter dedicated to …" That's pretty passive.
 * (1a) "… who 'the friend's' true identity may be …" Who's this "the friend" you suddenly bring up? I though we were talking about "a young man"?
 * (1a) "William Harte was one name that was thrown out there."
 * Who is William Harte?
 * Who "threw it out there"?
 * In what context did they do so?
 * Can you find a less colloquial way to put it?
 * "William Harte was Shakespeare's nephew …" Oh that's who he is. Why didn't you say so to begin with?
 * "… but the dates do not match up with the sonnet." Which dates? How do they fail to "match up with the sonnet"? What's the significance of the lack of a "match"?
 * (1a) "Scholar Tyrwhitt suggests the name William Hughes."
 * Has the poor man no given name?
 * When and where did he make this suggestion?
 * Did he just like the way the name sounded, or did he have some particular reason to suggest "William Hughes"?
 * Is there perhaps some specific person named "William Hughes"?
 * (1a) "This name was quite the popular choice."
 * So lots of people liked how it sounded?
 * Where did it rank on the Billboard chart?
 * Did everyone like it, or were there some critics that disagreed? If so, did they give a reason (even though they were probably just being mean)?
 * (1a) "The list goes on and on." But it was too tiring to read every entry? The dog ate the last half of it? The Bavarian Illuminati stole half of it and hid it in the Ark of the Covenant? Stop teasing me, I'm on the edge of my seat here!
 * (1a) "Scholars thought …" All of them?
 * (1a) "Scholars thought …" But they no longer do?
 * (1a) "… any man … that were …" Was.
 * (1a) "Mr. W.H. will remain a mystery till this day." But not henceforth? Is there an exciting new discovery about to be announced?


 * Overview
 * "It has been debated …" If it's worth mentioning the debate, perhaps the reader would be interested to know more details of it?
 * "… by many critics and scholars …" Such as?
 * "… written about Shakespeare's career in the theater …" But the sonnet doesn't even contain the word "theatre"! Maybe it's one of them "metaphorical" thingies?
 * "… to a young man." Just any young man, or do you think he had a specific one in mind?
 * "The lines in the sonnet …" Which ones?
 * "… could be related to the stage …" In what way?
 * "… Virginia L. Radley and David C. Redding disagree stating that …" In what context did they make this statement? Also, press conference, &c. (see above)
 * "… 'addressed to an old friend of the poet's' …" An old friend? I thought we were talking about "a young man" of indeterminate specificity?
 * "… made when he decided to …" "When", or "in"?
 * "The poet confesses to the young man his infidelities and regrets in order to receive pity from the young man for what the poet did was wrong but should be forgiven since he claimed the young man is the best person he will ever love." Man that's a lot of work for one sentence. Maybe spread the load out a bit?


 * Quatrain 1
 * I'm not sure repeating the relevant lines for each quatrain's section adds much value.

I have to stop here because I can feel myself getting acerbic, which isn't a becoming trait in a reviewer, because the prose in these sections is really quite atrocious. I can sort of make out what it's trying to say, but a general reader will have no chance and will leave more confused than before they read it. This was either incredibly hastily written, or whoever wrote is somewhat confused about what the sources are telling him. It needs a really thorough copy-edit. I suspect it would quite literally take me less time to rewrite it from scratch than to comment on them in detail.

The actual information, what I can make out of it, appears mostly good, but the prose quality is such that the information content is completely lost. A case in point:

"The last line of this quatrain uses the word offences is used in the correct term as in offending the poet's lover by this new affairs he has encountered."

I'm not sure that sentence is even written in English.

Anyways, this issue applies to all of the Exegesis section.


 * References
 * Several of the cited works lack ISBNs or other identifiers.