Talk:Sonnet 30/GA1

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

Reviewer: Xover (talk · contribs) 12:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Overall status
Individual sonnets are difficult to write good encyclopaedic articles about, and this article seems to exhibit several of the issues which makes it so fraught an effort. Overall the coverage (breadth) is decent without going off on any tangents (focussed), but in several areas the article appears to reflect an insufficient understanding of its cited sources, reflected in confusing and partially incomprehensible prose and excessive reliance on direct quotes. The sourcing is mostly ok, with some odd choices, missing details, and cites to non-secondary sources.

Overall the article has quite a bit of work needed to get up to GA standard.

Since it will, in my assessment, take a significant amount of time to fix the problems I'm going to close this as a fail. Please do renominate the article once tha issues are addressed. Feel free to ping me if you have questions or I can assist in any way. --Xover (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Detailed points

 * Lede
 * (1b) The lede summarises the article, but unfortunately that means it also inherits the problems from the rest of the article. In other words, it will need some rewriting once the other issues have been addressed.
 * (6) The article lacks illustrations. Could perhaps a cropped scan of this sonnet from the 1609 quarto be added?


 * Paraphrase
 * (2b) This section is entirely uncited.
 * "Shakespeare" does not need to be wikilinked here.
 * (1a,2b) "… the things I couldn't find" Or perhaps "the things I sought to achieve but failed to"? What do the sources say about this? Both the Oxford and Arden collections should address this at least briefly.


 * Context
 * (1a) "Sonnet 30 is thought to be …" By whom? Where? Do all scholars think so, or just some? If the latter, what do the others think? Is there a current consensus?
 * (1a) "… the first group of sonnets concerning a fair young man …" Usually referred to as the Fair Youth sequence.
 * Shakespeare really doesn't need to be wikilinked here.
 * (1a) "… as mentioned in some of Shakespeare's other sonnets …" And as we just read in the previous sentence.
 * (1a,2b) "Some view Shakespeare's relationship with the young man …" This presupposes the sonnets as autobiographical, with a firm identification of the poet-speaker with Shakespeare. This is by no means certain and even editors holding a particular opinion tend to equivocate and acknowledge the other options.
 * (1a) "… as a homosexual one." Using "homosexual" here places the emphasis on the gay aspect, which is fine if the context is queer studies or similar. In the context of the sonnets, however, the most relevant aspect is that that they are sexual (regardless of the genders involved), which using the term unprefixed would better get across. Or put another way, what's usually relevant to communicate is not that "Shakespeare was gay", but that the relationship between the personas in the sonnets—in this case the poet-speaker and the Fair Youth—are not platonic ones, but romantic and sometimes also sexual ones (as I recall this also goes for the Dark Lady, but not the Rival Poet; but I may misrecall here).
 * (1a) "… in Edward Dowden's book …" Who is Dowden and why do we care about his book?
 * (1a) The rest of this section reads much like a detective story where we are fed the clues: the dedication, the signature, the Stationers Registry entry. And then abruptly terminated by a list of suspects. In this section it's not necessary to drag the reader along as the editor makes these discoveries; the goal is to inform the reader by summarising the state of the art and occasionally, where relevant, the history leading up to it.
 * (1a,2b) "Some candidates for Mr. W.H. are: William Shakespeare …" Surely no one suggests Shakespeare is dedicating the sonnets to himself under an assumed name?
 * (1a,2b) The rest of these people need an explanation of who they are; at the very minimum a wikilink to their article.
 * (1a,2b) The two candidates most often put forth are Pembroke and Southampton, yet they are not even mentioned here.
 * Overall this section leaves the impression that its writers have insufficiently absorbed the source material to be able to summarise it.
 * I am also somewhat surprised that neither the Oxford nor Arden editions of the sonnets have been cited here.
 * Given the two previous points I suspect the initial survey of the literature was either rudimentary or somehow derailed.


 * Structure
 * (1a) "The 154 sonnets of Shakspeare's collection was published in the 1609 Quarto and they followed Shakespearean Sonnet form."
 * Urp. I'll need a sub-list to deal with this sentence.
 * "Shakspeare's collection" is redundant with either "The 154 sonnets" or "the 1609 Quarto", depending on what you're trying to communicate here.
 * That it could be either is a sign that the sentence is confusing (or possibly just confused).
 * That Shakespeare's sonnets "followed Shakespearean Sonnet form" is tautological.
 * The phrase "the 1609 Quarto" suggests that the quarto has been previously introduced and explained, which is not the case.
 * (1a) "When creating this certain form …" What's so certain about it?
 * (1a) "… Shakespeare focused on using 'English' of 'Surreyan' forms …"
 * So not "Shakespearean form" after all?
 * What's the difference between English and Surreyan sonnets?
 * Quote marks should be double quotes (see WP:QUOTEMARKS).
 * "of" → "or"
 * (2b) "These forms consisted …" Cites Merriam-Webster, which is a either a ternary or primary source (depending on what you cite and how you use it). Wikipedia articles should be cited to reliable secondary sources. See Primary, Secondary, and Ternary sources. And as it happens, Wikipedia has articles on most of the key terms here (sonnet, quatrain, couplet, etc.) that can be linked to lessen the need to use external citations to explain a term (vs. supporting the term's relevance or applicability to the subject).
 * This issue applies to every one of the several instances where Merriam-Webster is cited.
 * (1a) And speaking of links, the specialist terms in the second paragraph in this section should be wikilinked (e.g. Volta) to aid readers not familiar with them.
 * (1a) "… is primary law of sonnet harmony for Shakespeare." That's a fairly colloquial way of putting it. Could this perhaps be expressed somewhat more in tune with encyclopaedic language?
 * (1a) Describing the volta as a "pause" is somewhat reductionist. Perhaps the explanation could be expanded to better capture the full meaning?


 * Overview
 * (1a) "… and many other legal terms." Which? How many?
 * (1a) "… taking meticulous accounts of his own grief and adds an unhealthy dose of guilt to the proceedings." That's… quite poetic. Does it perchance echo the cited source?
 * Ditto for the following sentence.
 * (1a) Aaaand several of the later sentences appear to be copied verbatim from the cited source (without proper attribution, and without any quote marks; more commonly called "plagiarizing"). This is a copyright violation, and thus the plagiarized material will have to be removed entirely and the relevant parts rewritten from scratch.


 * Quatrain 1
 * I'm not sure repeating the relevant lines of the sonnet for each quatrain's section adds much value here.
 * We really don't need "Shakespeare" wikilinked on every occurence. See WP:OVERLINK and WP:EGG.
 * (1a) "…become painfully rather than 'sweet'." Perhaps "painful" was intended there?
 * (2b) The final sentence of the section is uncited.


 * Quatrain 2
 * (1a,2b) "… not being able to fully reminiscence about his friends using his own eyes." Are we sure he's not just crying? What do the sources say is meant here?
 * (1a,2b) "…as a more legalese …" More legelese than what?
 * (1a) "… uses the term cancelled to …" Lacks use—mention distinction.
 * (1a) "… how is costs him …" It?


 * Quatrain 3
 * "Renaissance" should be wikilinked. Stephen Booth needn't be.
 * (1a) Overall this section lists a lot of facts, often quoted directly from the sources, but does not do enough to explain what they mean. The end result is that the reader is told much, but understands as little as before they read this section.


 * Couplet
 * (1a) "… they seem to be used to …" Seem to? Are they or aren't they? What do the sources say? Do all editors agree, or are there multiple opinions? In iether case this article should tell the reader.
 * (1a) "… to clinch the sonnet's ending." That's a rather colloquial way to put it. Can we find a more appropriate way to put it?
 * (1a) "It offers the compensation as all woes vanish in recollection …" I have no idea what this sentence is trying to tell me.
 * (1a) "Others agree …" Who? Where?
 * (1a) "Some also say …" Who? Where? Does anyone disagree with this assessment?


 * References
 * (2b) The citations to Merriam-Webster will need to be replaced with reliable secondary sources.
 * (2b) Several citations lack ISBNs or similar identifiers.