Talk:The Old Man and the Sea

A few points
Hi, I've been watching your impressive work here and see it's been sent to FAC. I'm thinking it probably needs some more up-to-date sources re themes & writing style to satisfy the comprehensive criterion. Via TWL you can get to Project Muse which hosts The Hemingway Review. The most up-to-date critical analyses and scholarly writings can be found there. For i.e I'm wondering what James Nagel, Zoe Trodd & others have to say. I just got called on for using sources from the 1960s for a 10th century female author about whom little is known & I will be updating before TFA; based on that I think for this we need to be up-to-date & there's a cottage industry of Hemingway criticism. Also, I'd suggest using literary present tense (see Historical present but that's not a very good article). It's difficult if not used to writing about literature, but generally kind of standard & the other EH pages use it. But ymmv. Victoria (tk) 01:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks for your words. I'm aware that there's a lot of scholarship out there, but I didn't want to put too much in because of WP:BALANCE issues; you raise a good point about the "comprehensiveness" aspect, though.
 * Larson, Kelli. “Trolling the Deep Waters: Hemingway’s Cuban Fiction and the Critics” is basically a chronology of scholarship from 1988 until 2013 (much of which is from The Hemingway Review). Thing is, Larson's chapter is 60 pages long, and so I, not a littérateur by training, don't really know which articles to focus on (I don't think Nagel and Trodd are mentioned). It seems to be available on Muse—could I ask you to have a look and advise me on which to emphasise? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The reading is overwhelming, which is why this article has been languishing for so many years. I'd suggest starting with this: Herlihy-Mera, Jeffrey. "Cuba in Hemingway." The Hemingway Review, vol. 36 no. 2, 2017, p. 8-41. Project MUSE, https://doi.org/10.1353/hem.2017.0001.
 * The trick is to skim & then pick out what seems relevant. I don't have time at the moment to look at Kelli Larson but will try to get to it. Re balance vs. comprehensiveness, you don't have to use all the literature, but the main scholarly points should be presented. Victoria (tk) 14:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding, okay I've looked at Grimes, Larry and Bickford Sylvester. Yes, the chapters to look at for the crit. analysis are 11 (Alma Derojas), 12 (Larry Grimes), and 13 (H. R. Stoneback). That's an excellent source btw. I'd take a look at the biographical pieces as well. Okay, I've got Larson now and have read it in the past. I'll need to re-read to refresh my memory, but sadly, yes, this is an excellent source w/ good background material. Victoria (tk) 14:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding, I think Chapter 13 (Stoneback), is particulary good. Victoria (tk) 14:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject banner shell
, just to clarify, have you seen the comments I placed on your talk page earlier today? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, sorry. I rarely check my talk page. I have been trying to clear the vital articles maintenance category: . Having the wikiproject banner shell in the other configuration makes articles show up there as being unassessed. I was also unaware of the consensus against the Vital Articles template being outside of the banner shell or of the impending template merger. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * no worries. I've posted about the issue at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell—hopefully the technical folks there can resolve it. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This appears to be fixed now. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Illustrated edition
Should there be a mention of the illustrated edition? With drawings by two notable illustrators, it seems to be notable enough that the article should at least mention its existence. If the British Library catalog referenced from the Worldcat reference is still on the blink, here is the illustrated edition's catalog entry at the Bodleian Library. Philh-591 (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Biased wording
Most of the article, especially the introduction and the reception segments, is written mostly without references and in a language that is biased and closer to an opinion than to an article. It must be revised and amended. 186.102.90.70 (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello. You need to be more specific. The lead section summarizes the body of the article and normally does not require references except for direct quotes. Reception sections for a literary work, by definition, are based on opinions by literary critics. Cullen328 (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)