Talk:Devotions upon Emergent Occasions/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Just as a starting query, should the work's title be italicized in the article title and infobox? It looks like it probably should. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Both done. Straw Cat (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

On first pass, this looks very good. I see that things have been a bit contentious on the talk page at points, but having two experienced editors double-checking each other seems to have been much to this article's benefit. You're both to be congratulated. I've got some quibbles, listed below; mostly they're suggestions for adding a touch more context for clarity. I also made a few tweaks as I went. Feel free to revert any with which you disagree. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• " with "near super-human speed and concentration"" -- this opinion should probably be attributed in-text in the lead

  Yep, seems to be fixed. Ironholds (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• "the Devotions are one of only " -- The work is described in singular in the first sentence, and plural here. My thought is that it's best to keep singular throughout "Devotions is one of the only", but if the sources do otherwise, I'd say follow their lead. But either way it should be made consistent.

  That makes sense. I've changed it to 'is' consistently - mostly because, well, I can't think of a way to easily rephrase the first sentence. Ironholds (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• "The Devotions are" --another plural

  See above. Ironholds (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Elizabeth was soon remarried to" -- this is a very minor point, but "was remarried to" makes it sound as if someone else might have done it to her, whereas "Elizabeth soon remarried to" implies she chose it; would the latter be more correct?

  Done. Ironholds (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Written with "near super-human speed and concentration"" -- I'd suggest attributing this opinion intext here as well

  Done. Ironholds (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• All quotations from Donne, including the block quotations, need inline citations. It's also a bit confusing that one block quotation seems to have Donne's spelling and another modern spelling

  Fully agreed. I seem to have found some; I regret I cannot find the individuale italics, even if I have, in my sicknesse, succeeded in reclaiming the grammaire :P. Ironholds (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Welle played, sirre. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'd suggest standardizing 17th century or seventeenth century (the article uses some of each)

  Now standardised; good catch :). Ironholds (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• "particularly to Donne's Holy Sonnets, to which the Devotions are sometimes considered a sequel." -- backing up to the lead here, the body text identifies one professor as having stated this; the lead suggest it's a widely held opinion. Can this be reconciled?

  Another good catch! I'll weaken the lead - otherwise all I can go with is "X says that Y says that.." which always makes me uncomfortable. Ironholds (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• "draws on the devotional works of Joseph Hall" ... "and the Ignatian exercises" -- it would be helpful to add a phrase adding context on what each of these is.

  Hall is difficult (we don't have much coverage of him. Grrr. but Ignatian exercises are easy to explain, and I've now done so. Ironholds (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• as an "Arminian polemic" -- another spot where it would help clarity to give a one-phrase or one-sentence definition of Arminianism intext or in an explanatory footnote. It would also help to do this for Puritanism

  Efn added for Arminianism (I've never handled Efn templates, so apologies if I'm doing it wrong). Ditto for Puritainism. I'm humming and hawing over whether to put it in the lead or the body - I've put them in the body for now (let me know if you disagree). Ironholds (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

  Body seems best. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• The redlinks aren't an issue for GA purposes, but I find it unlikely that articles will be created on all these literary critics. I'd suggest cutting some or all, but it's up to you.

  I'd like to keep them in, personally; a lot of the figures are notable according to just a google search, so I'm confident that, inexorably, there will be articles - and every redlink is something for an interested person to write. Ironholds (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

  While some of the redlinks are professors so clearly candidates, a lot aren't, and "never would be missed."Straw Cat (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

  Can you give me an example? Alternately you are, of course, free to remove them yourself. Ironholds (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

  Sorry to reopen an old page wound with this--it's not an issue for this review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

  Not a problem; I thought I'd resolved them all, is the thing :). If I've missed any I want to know (or merely have them WP:BOLDly fixed). Ironholds (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Would it be too awkward to add a parenthetical or efn that Prince Charles was the future Charles I?

  Added :). Ironholds (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See some points above where minor clarity could be added for readers less familiar with the time
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	See one opinion above that should probably be attributed intext in two places
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Donne-shroud.png needs a tag addressing its US status
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

Onward and upward

Now it would be good to aim for eventual FA status. To that end:

• Shroud image

This is a particularly appropriate image, not least since it was used in some very early editions of this very work. It illustrates the main article. What is the problem with the US copyright, and can it be resolved?

• The problem is that it's tagged with its Australia/EU copyright status, but not its US status. (The Wikimedia servers are in Florida, US, so a US status tag is the one that's needed.) Once you find an appropriate tag here and update the image licensing page on Wikimedia Commons here, the image can be readded to the article. If this was first published in the 16th century, I don't see any reason it wouldn't be PD; it just needs the right tag. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Background

I intend to try to help to make this section more appropriate and relevant to the work. A few things which may appear to be even more relevant to the subject matter of the insecurity of health and life, than the current material:

• that Donne's great-uncle was also a famous Catholic lawyer-writer, and a Lord Chancellor who then had his head chopped off by the king;
• that his brother was a catholic whose betrayal of another recusant resulted in the hanging, drawing and quartering of the latter;
• Donne's previous career as a suces de scandale poet whose works were considered risque and sexually daring, which surely deserves a little more space
• that Donne decided he must for his own safety abandon Romanism for the established church, becoming reluctantly a priest and eventually not just any priest - Dean (i.e. CEO) of the most important cathedral in the land.

Straw Cat (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Those all sound good. I have a set of sources that cover his life, if you would like any assistance? Ironholds (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)