User:Lazman321/Source check/The Old Man and the Sea

This is where I will be performing a spot-check for The Old Man and the Sea for its GAN. I will be checking between 25 to 30 random sources. Focus will be placed on verifiability and copyright violations. Lazman321 (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have finished with the first ten sources and will continue in due time. Most of the verification issues are fairly minor in nature and can easily be addressed. I do apologize for my inability to access Sylvester, Grimes & Hays 2018, since that does seem to be a major source in the article. I am noticing a frequent usage of quotes in the article, especially in the analysis section, something that was mentioned in the FAC. I'll elaborate more on what I am concerned about once I am finished with this source check. Just know that the quotes for source 55 were one of many subjects of concern for Phlsph7 in the FAC. Lazman321 (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

*[16] - I can't access this edition of The Old Man and the Sea, so I can't verify whether the information in the article is mentioned in the edition (perhaps a foreword section) or if it is even significant, something I'll probably talk about when reviewing the focus criterion. What I will note is that the publication year appears to be incorrect. According to WorldCat, the edition being referred to here was published in 1955, not 1953.
 * [21] - Pass
 * [14] - I seem to be unable to verify that both editions of the book were being bootlegged, given that Baker 1988 only says about the bootlegging, "Meantime, the bookstores, fearful of losing sales because of the serial appearance, were bootlegging the book to their customers."
 * [19] - AGF (I do not have access to Sylvester, Grimes & Hays 2018)
 * [57] - AGF (Ditto)
 * [28] - I'm concerned about using the word "already" in the article, saying that the novella was "already" being taught in schools by the cited book's publication of 1985, given that Meyers 1985 gives a matter-of-statement thereof without using "already" or anything to that extent.
 * Rephrased. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * [58] - Pass
 * [6] - AGF for the most part, though since I do have access to Baker 1988, I was able to verify the quote.
 * [35] - One of the quotes appears to be incorrect. The article says, "wordy and sentimental drone", when Macdonald 1960 actually says, "the drone of the pastiche parable, wordy and sentimental".
 * Removed, so moot. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * [24] - Pass
 * [55] - I was able to verify the Stoneback 2014 quote. AGF on the Sylvester, Grimes & Hays 2018 quote, since again, I don't have access to it.
 * [46] - Pass
 * [12] - Pass
 * Struck per notes elsewhere. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * [54] - Pass
 * [34] - I can't find where Macdonald 1960 says that Hemingway's prose is trying to pass itself off as "high culture". In fact, Macdonald isn't even talking about The Old Man and the Sea when "high culture" does appear within the cited pages. There are a few ways I could imagine that someone would connect Macdonald talking about how "midcult" literature tries to pass off as "high culture" with his discussion of The Old Man and the Sea, but unless the connection is explicitly stated in the source itself, it's original research. Perhaps a better thing to add instead would be how, according to Macdonald, the prose is foolishly appealing to the "midbrows".
 * [41] - Pass, although I am curious about the purpose of the second range of pages in the citation "256–261".
 * [39] - Pass
 * [48] - Information from Backman 1962 is verified, the rest I AGF.
 * [50] - AGF
 * [40] - Pass
 * [61] - Pass

So sorry I have to break up the source check. It appears some sources have been removed since I last updated this page. For further reference, the above 21 sources are as of revision 1185438367, and the remaining 11 sources I've checked down below are as of revision 1187113968. This source check is finished. Lazman321 (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * [5] - Pass, even if the translation I used for verification was different.
 * [31] - Pass
 * [42] - Pass
 * [37] - Technically, the quote is "extraordinary quantity of fakery", not "extraordinary fakery".
 * Quote removed, so moot. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * [30] - Pass
 * [29] - Pass
 * [43] - Pass
 * [10] - With the given pages, I couldn't verify Hemingway's year-long suspension on trying to publish the Santiago story nor his increasing belief that it could be published separate from the trilogy he was writing. I can't even find the quote "sea trilogy".
 * p. 499: ; "sea trilogy" is not a quote but a reference to earlier in the article; on the belief that TOMATS could be published separately, p.493:  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * [58] - I recommend shifting the page range in the citation from 141–146 to 145–147.
 * [51] - I think it's best to elaborate upon what Stonebeck 2014 thinks is a "simplistic, ill-informed approach" to analysis.
 * Quote removed, so moot. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * [46] - Reading Waldmeir 1962, I don't think he exactly thinks The Old Man and the Sea is better at expressing Hemingway's philosophy than his previous works, more that The Old Man and the Sea is the culmination of how Hemingway's philosophy was expressed in earlier works.
 * I don't think "culmination" is quite the right word—that implies a sort of overall coherence. Rather, Waldmeir is stating that Hemingway conveyed his religious philosophy in all his works, but he did it best in TOMATS. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)