Talk:Philip Larkin/GA1

GA Review

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

Just a note to start this page, as I have signed to review this article. --Kateshortforbob 18:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(Bear with me as it's my first attempt at article review. Comments and corrections welcome if I'm doing it wrong!)

Checked quick-fail criteria; I don't believe any of these apply here. --Kateshortforbob 19:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   see below for detailed comments

   B. MoS compliance:

   complies with MOS guidelines on lead section, jargon, words to avoid. I think the secondary sources section may need reshuffled to comply with layout guidelines. It suggests that sources used directly in the article should be in the references section, whereas other works should be in the bibliography/further reading section.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Inline citations for statements which require them; all quotations appropriately marked. Verified citations of Andrew Motion, Richard Bradford, Anthony Thwaite (Larkin at Sixty), and all weblinks. a couple of minor queries about sources, see below for details

   C. No original research:

   No evidence of original research

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Gives a good overview, covering the major points of the subject's life. The sections on Creative output and Legacy were particularly informative, and the comprehensive bibliography very useful.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Coverage seems generally fair; both admirers and critics are represented. Appears written from a neutral point-of-view

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   The article history and talk page shows a steady article improvement over time, no edit warring or vandalism issues.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Appropriate licenses are provided, and I believe the single non-free image complies with the 10 criteria at Non-free Content Criteria

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Most photos have appropriate captions. I would consider expanding the caption on the photo of the subject, and perhaps wikilinking Fay Godwin done. Also, it may be useful to add alternative text describing some images, although captions may render this unnecessary.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Overall, I think it is a well-written article which provides ample and interesting material on the subject. With a few alterations, I believe this article could definitely meet the good article criteria.

Notes

Forgive me if these seem quite long or overly picky; I come from a family of avid readers and revisers, and can't seem to shake the habit. Most of them are just suggestions or very minor things, but I didn't want to make changes wholesale without discussion. I have made what I believe are small tweaks in the article itself, obviously subject to agreement. Because this is my first GA review, I hope to have an more experienced GA reviewer look over it as well.

I've added my replies to your comments. In most cases, the discussions need further thought! Since he's the GA nominator, and since his prose style is more fluent than mine, I suggest that Macphysto sorts out what needs to be done in each instance, and makes whatever alterations he thinks fit. almost-instinct 09:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Have made some changes already, and further thoughts are inserted below. Macphysto (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Since we have a process in place that seems to be working happily, could the more experienced GA reviewer wait until all these discussions are complete before commenting? Thank you! almost-instinct 11:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the points I made in the prose quality section were personal opinion only; your mileage may (and probably does!) vary (sorry, should have made myself clearer, there). The alterations look good to me; I seem to have run out of free time today, but I hope to read the rest of the discussion below tomorrow. --Kateshortforbob 21:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Prose Quality

• Brideshead Revisited image of university life had been put on hold. Consider rephrasing: "had faded/disappeared". I'm not sure it ever returned to that image.  Done

Aside from my own OR that the Brideshead image is still alive and kicking, I think this is a quote from the source almost-instinct 20:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this could usefully be changed. Will do that. Macphysto (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've now done it. Is the change okay in others' view? Macphysto (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• during his visits to her there the couple started sexual relations "started a sexual relationship" Assumed okay

They already had a relationship; I can't see what the problem with the current precise wording is almost-instinct 20:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the expression as it stands is more accurate. Macphysto (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• In June 1950 Larkin was appointed sub-librarian of Queen’s University, Belfast, a post he took up that September. Prior to his departure he and Ruth split up. At some stage between his appointment to Queen’s and the calling off of the engagement, his relationship with Monica Jones, a lecturer in English at Leicester, became sexual. maybe consider rephrasing. "In June 1950 Larkin was appointed sub-librarian of Queen's University, Belfast, a post he took up that September. Around that time, he began a sexual relationship with an English lecturer, Monica Jones, who had been a colleague at Leicester, and broke off his engagement with Ruth."  Done

Again, pls explain what the problem with the current wording is? It is accurate. The relationship with Monica Jones already existed, and had done since he went to Leicester. All we know is that between these two dates the relationship went from asexual to sexual. Maybe there is another of expressing this, but the proposed replacement doesn't do this. almost-instinct 20:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the existing wording usefully captures the overlap, but I'll slightly amend the phrasing, I think. Macphysto (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• a new and thoroughly modern library. I'm not sure "thoroughly" is required here. "a new, modern library"?  Done

I am sure "thoroughly", or some equivalent term, is required: Hull University Library was absolutely cutting-edge, and was a great example to other British universities. almost-instinct 20:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The modernity of the library facilities at Hull is worth emphasizing, not least because it is so at odds with the image of Larkin as a fusty reactionary. Macphysto (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you suggest a rewrite of the sentence which will incorporate this point, please? (I think I've been trying a bit too much of "show don't tell"!) almost-instinct 09:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Macphysto (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• In spring 1963 Brennan persuaded him to attend a SCR dance with her, despite his preference for smaller gatherings I know the senior common room is mentioned earlier, but I wonder if the full name should be used again here - trying to remember what SCR stood for took me a moment!  Done

I think it would be a bit clunky to write it out in full. Macphysto (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It is wikilinked as best could be almost-instinct 10:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think SCR should be in full (or an equivalent phrase) on this page.Snowman (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

One problem would be that people who don't know that SCR means Senior Common Room are fairly likely not to know what a Senior Common Room is, and would still need a wikilink. Maybe something along lines of "a dance for the university's academic staff"? almost-instinct 11:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not a bad solution. Macphysto (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I see your amendation didn't include the word "academic". Does "staff" imply that anyway? almost-instinct 11:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Was Maeve Brennan "academic" staff? I think not. She is described in the Motion biog as L's "superior dogsbody". So she would hardly have been dragging L to a dance for academic staff, since if it had been such a thing he'd have had to be the one doing the dragging. Macphysto (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry! I thought all library staff counted as "academics" in universities. Whereabouts is the dividing line? (a propos of nothing at all, since Brennan was at one point Motion's colleague that was pretty charmless of him. You wouldn't have to poke around Hull University for long to find someone with a cutting line about Motion) almost-instinct 13:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• In 1971 Larkin began corresponding with his schoolfriend Colin Gunner, who had led a picaresque life. It feels like this either needs expanded or removed, as it's relevance is not clear as is. I know that Larkin and Gunner's correspondence is mentioned in the biographies, as well as the help Larkin gave Gunner with his manuscript, but I'm not sure how significant it is overall.  Done

It is significant because the correspondence with Gunner is mentioned later in the article: it was the letters to Gunner that contain the very strongest examples of Larkin's racism etc almost-instinct 20:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a little more detail would focus this. Macphysto (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Might there be an elegant way of to insertin a reference to this correspondence's subsequent notoriety into the sentence? almost-instinct 10:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I can do that neatly. Macphysto (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Done now. Is it okay? Macphysto (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reworked your reworking. No doubt you'll want to return the compliment ;-) almost-instinct 11:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Anyway, I misspelled one word! Macphysto (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• From that moment on he and Monica were a monogamous couple. From what moment? "From then on", maybe?  Done

Yes, this I've amended. Good point. Macphysto (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• It was during this time that he made his final attempts at novel writing "It was during" is used 2 sentences previously. Consider rephrasing  Done
• 1953 PEN Anthology Does PEN = International PEN? Wikilink?  Done

Done. Macphysto (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Larkin was seen to be a part of this grouping May want to mention that Larkin didn't see himself as part of this group, or perhaps that he didn't think there was a group as such (per Motion).Assumed okay

Actually there is a quote from Larkin at some point where, for a moment, he admitted that it (somehow) existed and that he (to some degree) was involved. Hence my deliberate hedging almost-instinct 21:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This quotation appears in Motion on p.243. Might the ref be included? Macphysto (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, do you think that his ambivalent relationship to The Movement is worth mentioning? almost-instinct 14:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Btw that ref has been added, presumably by McPh almost-instinct 10:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Annus Mirabilis", "High Windows" and "This Be The Verse". In the 1970s Larkin wrote a series of longer and more sober poems: "The Building", "The Old Fools" and "Aubade." "Annus Mirabilus" and "Aubade" are linked to the articles on the phrase/forms. Is this in lieu of an article about the poems themselves? In the bibliography, "Annus Mirabilus" (under "High Windows") is linked to the John Dryden poem of the same name. Should be delinked, or changed the same link as this one.  Done

Annus Mirabilis was recently rewritten, removing ref to Larkin, it should def go. Prob Aubade, too. I think these wikilinks predate my rewrite almost-instinct 20:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• the reviews were generally favourable, with the notable exception of Robert Nye in The Times, but each reflected the difficulty of writing a 500–1,000-word piece on a collection which, while short, compelled fascination and confusion. The admiration for the volume was genuine for most reviewers, but one also senses anxiety in their prose, particularly on how to describe the individual genius at work in poems such as "Annus Mirabilis", "The Explosion" and "The Building" and at the same time explain why each is so radically different. Nye overcomes this problem by treating the differences as ineffective masks for a consistently nasty presence."[77] consider making a block quotation Assumed okay

the whole section is full of quotation; a block quote might suggest that this is more important, which it isn't. almost-instinct 20:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Macphysto (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• In 1980 Neil Powell could write that "could" or "would"? Either makes sense, but I think "would" is more common  Done

This, I think, is based on a misunderstanding of the argumentative flow of what has been written here. It's a "could ... but" construction to highlight a change in position (here a change in critical fashion); a "would" sentence could be used, but it would not achieve the desired contrast. Macphysto (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• between asbtracts and concretes I wasn't able to get hold of this source. Is the abstracts typo in the original? If so, add "(sic)" to prevent confusion  Done

Just a typo. Thank you. Macphysto (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Larkin is not a nihilist or pessimist consider wikilinking Nihilism and Pessimism  Done

Done. Macphysto (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Chatterjee's lengthy study suggests the degree to which Larkin is now transcending old stereotypes Does this mean "degree to which old stereotypes of Larkin's work are now being transcended/revised". Larkin's no longer in a position to transcend anything himself  Done

Good point, well made. Amended. Macphysto (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wolfgang Gortschacher’s book on Little Magazine Profiles has essential information on the economics of magazines during the period. What his quantitative evidence shows is that Would consider ellipsing (ellipsising?) this section. The quote is already quite long, the Andrew Duncan source is readily available for readers, and I'm not sure how much the explanation adds  Done

Agreed. Macphysto (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• "detached two-storey 1950s house in a thoroughly suburban street called Newland Park" Snowman (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Assumed okay

• Is the word "thoroughly" needed? Snowman (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The answer could be either

1. No, I just put it in because I was bored
2. Yes.

Now, which do you think it might be, huh? almost-instinct 11:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

But "suburb" has slightly different meanings in different parts of the world. It may be better to say "(affluent or alternative adjective) residential area outside the city centre", to avoid unexpected interpretations. Snowman (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think perhaps it would be fruitful here to quote Motion. I'll do so. Macphysto (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• "The view that Larkin is not a nihilist or pessimist". Could you clarify what sort of nihilism is referred to? See the disambiguation pages, Nihilist and Nihilism (disambiguation). The link to nihilist needs disambiguation, or unlinked, or rewording. Snowman (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Assumed okay

I altered the target of "nihilist" to the article on Nihilism from the disambig page. Feel free to change if there's another page more appropriate --Kateshortforbob 22:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

2. References

• References Some references use cite templates, some have only <ref></ref> links. These should be standardised one way or the other IS THIS NOW SORTED?

Honestly, I can't remember what point we got up to with templates. IIRC then every ref that included a citation to a unique source has a cite template (though some may be missing) but those refs that merely gave a page number for a work in the bibliography was left plain. I believe all but two items in the bibliography have templates (see talk page for details of those two) almost-instinct 11:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Macphysto (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

But it would appear that another editor has the matter in hand. Macphysto (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the references are all correct up to number 95 now, but I am starting to get a headache; can someone have a look at the rest of the references and put them in cite format. You might have the book source and easily add the isbn or something and change it to a cite tag. Snowman (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand this aspect of things - the argument for templates versus <ref></ref> links - so this is for someone else to do, I think. It's clear Snowman has done a lot of work on this. Macphysto (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Links to web sites etc, all appear to be using the structural cite templates, while book citations use the other form of ref tags. Having looked at several other good and featured articles, this seems perfectly reasonable for the structure of this article. --Kateshortforbob 21:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• This vantage point was later commemorated in the poem "High Windows".[21] Reading the source here, in the source the connection is implied but not specifically stated (Amis said that he liked looking at women out the window, the poem is about looking at people out windows). This sentence could be rephrased, or if there's another source that draws a direct line, it could be used. IS THIS NOW SORTED?

I no longer have the sources, but in any case the combination of looking down at young people, and seeing the sky through the windows is explicit in the poem. Finding a source is almost certainly feasible almost-instinct 21:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be sorted by adding a word such as "apparently" or "seemingly"? Macphysto (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done This has been altered. --Kateshortforbob 21:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Not long after the second, much larger phase of construction was completed in 1969,[28] Is the citation here correct? I wasn't able to find this information where referenced. I wonder if it's on another page (or it's entirely possible that I missed it). Done

this will def be in Motion, sorry for error almost-instinct 09:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I just re-read this passage and wonder if the page number given in Bradford was a citation for the other part of the sentence: his being free to direct his attention elsewhere. almost-instinct 15:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Have changed the page ref. Macphysto (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• publisher of barely legal pornography, who also issued serious fiction as a cover for his core activities From my reading, Motion asks rhetorically if this is why he published poetry, rather than asserting it outright. "who also issued serious fiction, possibly as a cover for his core activities"?  Done

IIRC Bradford has something to say on this, too almost-instinct 21:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

He does, and he is explicit where Motion is not. Amended ref now. Macphysto (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• "come increasingly to rely on Larkin's judgement ... I have delegated to him rather larger areas of responsibility than normally falls to the lot of a sub-librarian ... He has the ability to assess a problem, arrive at a decision and act upon it without delay, which is not too common among academic administrators." Per Wikipedia:Cite#When_to_cite_sources, citation may be required after quotes, as well as at end of section Probably in need of further development

the whole section is from a single, non-paginated source. I've a better source for improving this section but see talk page for my uncertainty at how to begin almost-instinct 21:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• his friend Robert Conquest, of the group known as The Movement.[122] this link has gone. I found this alternate.
• • Harrald, Chris, Mr Larkin's Awkward Day, The Afternoon Play broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on Tuesday 29 April 2008[124] this link gone. Alternative? IS THIS NOW SORTED?

No. The link doesn't take you to the right place any more, and an alternative doesn't seem to be available. Macphysto (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing at all available at the BBC site, so I have inserted an alternative - a link to the review on the Guardian website. Unfortunately, I have made a mess of this. It also needs changing in the links list at the foot of the page. Macphysto (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've undone my mess, but someone probably still needs to pass judgement on what I've done and modify accordingly. Macphysto (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done An alternate link providing the information is in place. --Kateshortforbob 21:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• you may want to use {{reflist|2}} to make a 2 column ref list, as it is quite long, but the individual lines are reasonably short. IS THIS NOW SORTED?

• the page uses {{reflist|colwidth=30em}}, which gives two or three cols depending on the screen width which can give a better appearance than forcing 2 cols. Snowman (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

At the moment some of the refs are rather long, which doesn't suit a multiple column approach. Macphysto (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be counterbalanced with a many more very short notes in the reflist, which would look odd if every one was on a single line. I have just shortened some of the refs by using the actual title on the external website rather than a longish description. On most screens the current format will give 2 cols, but on a wide screen (some laptops) it will give 3 cols, which is ideal. I see this as an issue that needed discussion, because {{reflist|colwidth=30em}} does give 2 cols on most computer screens and seems to me to be satisfactory. Snowman (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Changing refs to make them look pretty strikes me as, generally speaking, an unwise move. Anyway, on my widescreen computer (Vista; Internet Explorer) the whole list comes out in one column, and I can't say that its ever made life miserable for me almost-instinct 14:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Not a major issue; the code is in place to allow (but not force) multiple columns. Readers can adjust for their personal preference. --Kateshortforbob 21:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

--Kateshortforbob 18:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• the last reference (currently 122 - but may change with tidy up work) "BBC Radio 4 Publicity (29 April 2008). "Mr Larkin's Awkward Day". BBC Radio 4. http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/radio/wk18/tue.shtml." The website seems to have changed and there is nothing about PL on the page now. Probably will need a page modification. Snowman (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been amended, but someone else will need to tweak. It also needs amending in the list of external links. Macphysto (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Because of a deadlink, this needs a new reference "He lived with his family in Radford, Coventry, until he was five years old". Snowman (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)  Done

I've sorted this one out. Macphysto (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ref: "ed. by James Booth (2002), "Trouble at Willow Gables" and Other Fiction 1943–1953, Faber and Faber, ISBN 0-571-20347-7". At first sight this does not appear to be anything to do with PL, so could the ref details be expanded. Snowman (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)  Done

Possibly the clue was the fact it was in the section dedicated to Larkin's works. Btw, congratulations on making this section look like a dog's dinner. You know perfectly well how much effort I went to get to the templates right for that, so top marks on the arrogance of thinking you could do a better job. Just so you know: you haven't. I recommend you do something about it. Those dates are totally random, something you would know if you actually knew anything about the topic. almost-instinct 19:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing significant has been deleted. Collaboration continues. Snowman (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've also sorted this, although it looks a bit weird now. Macphysto (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• I am going to try and track down the rogue quotation from Andrew Swarbrick tomorrow. Macphysto (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)  Done

• Several of the publications have two dates, which is a bit confusing; "Philip Larkin (2001), The Less Deceived, The Marvell Press (published 1955), ISBN 978-0900533068" - the difference between these two dates is 46 years, why is that? Snowman (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)  Done

I guess because the 2001 edition was the one consulted for the purposes of the article. Macphysto (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason is straightforward: The Less Deceived was first published in 1955. This is useful information. The ISBN number is for the currently available edition of The Less Deceived. This is also useful information. The "2001" is a useless bot-generated date. This is a cautionary tale; don't use a bot unless you know what its doing to do. I'm sure I saw a Disney cartoon warning me about this when I was growing up almost-instinct 09:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

MOS

• Thank you, to me it looks like you have done a thorough review. I do not know much about Philip Larkin; nevertheless, I agree with you about the MOS changes you have suggested to conform to MOS including the layout guidelines of "Bibliography" and "References". Incidentally, what do you think of having "&" in subheadings. Snowman (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• alt text; this is new to me. I have added some alt text for two of the images on the page. Is this ok.? Snowman (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note the difference between a guideline and a rule. In the talk page archives one can see a third party - one with a very clear knowledge of the topic - agreeing that the current structure suits the information that the article contains. No one looking at this article without knowledge of the MoS guidelines would think that there was any problem with the structure: it is clear and logical. If this GA process becomes a compliance exercise in the interests of meaningless uniformity rather than an attempt to improve it in itself, then my involvement in it will cease immediately. almost-instinct 13:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is the quote from User:GuillameTell:

"Can I stick my oar in here? My view is that "Works" should be part of the Bibliography, and should be cited in similar manner. Furthermore, the footnotes really ought to be the penultimate section in the article, directly before External links. They look seriously weird where they are now. My headings would be as follows: 4. Bibliography, 4.1. Works of Philip Larkin, 4.1.1. Poetry, 4.1.2. et seq - the rest, 4.2. Biographies, 4.3. et seq - the rest, 5. References, 6. External links"

quoted from this diff almost-instinct 13:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, see the MOS at Wikipedia:Layout#Standard_appendices. The previous discussion is archived at Talk:Philip_Larkin/Archive_3#Bibliography. Snowman (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether that is more to the point is matter of opinion. Actually the list given at the link you give there is pretty useless to our purposes: we have no further reading list, nor a "see also" list, and this guideline does not specifically mention where secondary sources used in the refs should be placed. I wish I were surprised to see a GA review being used as an excuse for a lone voice to bring up an issue on which it was previously defeated, but I'm not almost-instinct 13:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The wikipedia is not a democracy; see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Snowman (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Since we've been lucky enough to get a GA reviewer who's going to the trouble of getting herself versant with the topic, why don't we let her continue her methodical approach to this, which (see above) is bearing fruit, rather than button-holing her with a list of tired grievances? I'm well aware of the adage that "the majority is always wrong" but sometimes the minority loses not because it is a minority, but because it is ignorant and/or misguided almost-instinct 14:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Equally, WP is not a battleground. My view is that having an ampersand in a subheading is fine. The alt text added by Snowman seems the sort of thing required. More to the point, the structure of the bibliography and references is sound. Macphysto (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I generally agree with the reviewer about some MOS changes needed, and I do not see anything wrong with saying that. The current structure of bibliography, works, cited texts, sources, references, and what ever is listed there is not standard on the wiki and, I think, needs to be reorganised to be consistent with the wiki style. Also, is there a way of writing alt text for the infobox image? Snowman (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you give a single reason why you think the current structure "needs" to be reorganised? Other than your desperation to see every possible guideline treated as a blanket rule? almost-instinct 23:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A full explanation of MOS is probably elsewhere. There can be exceptions to MOS, however, I see no reason why this page should be out-on-a-limb, and I would not say that I am desperate to see every possible guideline treated as a blanket rule. Actually, I think that I apply MOS with common sense. It would be quite easy to reorganise the headings into the MOS style. I see these reasons for reorganising subheadings, and there might be more reasons that I have not thought of:

• 1. Uniformity across the encyclopaedia is important. I see no overriding exceptional feature of the page that would require an alternative style to MOS. Snowman (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• 2. It can take some searching to find a reference on the page from the note, because there are several headings to search and there is not a single list of cited texts in alphabetical order. Snowman (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• 3. "Secondary sources" is not a standard wiki heading to deal with references and notes, and it would be unclear to many what "Secondary sources" is. Snowman (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Following encouragement from User Macphysto's comment on my talk page with this comment, I have done some heading reorganising. I need some clarification on the three references previously under the heading "Dramatised interpretations", as some are duplicated in "Notes" and the websites have changed for at least one. See also WP:CCC. Snowman (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have retained some of the previous structure of for "Cited texts" section, but they may need to go in one alphabetical list. Is there a better heading than "Miscellaneous" for the publications section? Snowman (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Introduction: The lead should be longer, see Wikipedia:Lead_section#Length. The article is about 39kb or 6500 words of readable pros,e and so it should have three or four paragraphs in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What sort of information do you think the Introduction should include in addition to what is already there? Macphysto (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• OK, this is my opinion. I am not saying that I will be right about the content of the introduction, and introductions are often known to be difficult to write. Try to include a short bit from every section of the article. Lets say we are aiming for four short paragraphs. The fourth paragraph could be about legacy, partly because much of the article is taken up with this. The third paragraph could be about the years between 1955 and 1985, which appears to me missing from the introduction; this could be important things about his creative output and relationships. The second paragraph is about his early career particularly its logistics, which seems to be ok. The first paragraph is about why he is notable. There may be some repetitious between paragraphs and deletions may be needed from the first and second paragraph when the third and forth paragraphs have been written. Snowman (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems fine. I'll have a go at this. Macphysto (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That is quite a good simple three-paragraph introduction. Have you finished already? One of the four volumes was first published in 1945, that was before he went to Hull. Is the first volume not part of the significant body of poems? or that is how it might be misread. Snowman (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought I might do some more work on it, but actually this simple tweak has made the opening a bit stronger, I think. The first volume of poetry isn't important to Larkin's reputation, but I still think I should work it into the opening. Macphysto (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no hurry; it can take some time to write a good unambiguous introduction in good clear English. I think the introduction needs a brief bit on the relationships. Snowman (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, IMHO the intro is good and unambiguous and is in "good clear English". And I know a thing or two about writing. But I'm happy to give more thought to how it could be improved. I'm not sure that Larkin's relationships - except perhaps the one with Kinglsey Amis - warrant discussion in the intro. Macphysto (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Snowman (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Waste of time

This GA review process started off well and has turned into the kind of brainless exercise in uniformity that does nothing for the topic. I'm unwatching this review and the Larkin page itself. Just for the record I think the end section now looks utterly ridiculous. I have zero respect for that kind of alteration. Bye for now. almost-instinct 22:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

But the format is just a "technical issue" for the wikipedia. Standard formats are not that unusual, often journals have their own format to conform to. Think what difficulty readers would have if every wiki page had a different style. Anyway, everyone is entitled to their own views and opinions and constructive criticism would be welcome. You have a lot to contribute. An aspect of the wiki is that a editors contributions can get reworked and reworked. Snowman (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It is possible that not all the people using Wikipedia have Asperger syndrome almost-instinct 23:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that the article appears to be approaching GA, can you give an update on how you think the review is going so far? Snowman (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Since I couldn't care less whether or not the article passes GA or not my opinion is irrelevent, I think almost-instinct 11:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

I have contacted User:Skomorokh, a Good Article mentor, and asked him if he would be willing to look over the article and review with a more experienced eye. I think the article looks very well, and, in my view, would certainly meet the good article criteria. Once any further revisions have been finished (I notice that it was still being worked on quite intensively this evening), I would expect to move on the the next stage of the good article review process.--Kateshortforbob 00:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)