Wikipedia:Peer review/Sir Gawain and the Green Knight/archive1

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight edit

This article was cited by a news source as being an example of wikipedia's poor quality. Since then, I have been making huge changes, adding scholarly sources, etc. I am aiming for GA status, and need some tips. Wrad 20:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Longer and more descriptive lead section. Also the symbolism/interpretations section, etc, have so many subsections I would consider making separate articles for them and leaving behind a link and a little blurb. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the lead. What would be the best way to go about making separate articles for the symbolism and int. sections? Wrad 21:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be something in the Wikipedia:Manual of style relating to that. JoeSmack ^Talk 22:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked it over, and realized I need to fix the capitalization of the headings. However, the article doesn't pull up a length warning yet. For now, I think I'll forego creating subarticles unless other reviewers also suggest it, as I think it may make several very short articles where I'd rather have one good one. Wrad 22:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Awadewit edit

I am so glad that you took this article up after seeing it trounced in the press - a noble effort. Here is what I would suggest to improve it.

First and foremost, I would suggest doing a bit more research. I noticed that you have quoted from some academic articles (excellent) and from some anthologies (not so good). Anthologies purposefully leave out a lot of material because they have very little space for criticism, since their main function is to print primary source materials. Also, they do not necessarily reflect the state of the profession - they take many years to edit and often great compromises are made to the "senior" people which does not leave a lot of room for innovative and new scholarship. Thus, I would encourage you to read something like the Cambridge Companion to Medieval Romance which has material about Gawain and can guide you to better sources. I'm sure you know about the MLA database as well. Once you do this, you will realize that there are entire books written on every aspect of Gawain. More of this criticism needs to be reflected in your article.

I agree that research needs to be done on some of the things mentioned below, however, I think the use of anthologies in this article is appropriate. They are only used if a) backed up by other sources b) they truly represent the common opinion or general facts, such as the dialect or time period of the poem, not literary opinions. Your later questions, though, open up some questions for further research, as I state below. Wrad 04:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should be a summary of the article. Some of the details in your lead should be reserved for the article (where the manuscripts are located, for example) and some major pieces of information are missing (themes). See WP:LEAD.

Done

I would cut the character list and rely on the plot summary to introduce the characters.
I would try to cut down the plot summary (looking at it, I would say to 1-2 paragraphs) and delete the subheadings as well - they are distracting. Remember that a plot summary does not have to be told in the same order as the story itself and should tell only the essential plot elements and character relationships. It would also be helpful if the summary began with a summarizing statement such as "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight tells of four eventful days in the life of Gawain in which he responds to the challenge of the Green Knight and attempts to resist the seductions of a lady" (or something like that). That way readers know where you are going in the summary; give them a "topic sentence" of sorts.

Question: Does the plot need to provide background for the criticism later in the article? I had that in mind as I edited the old version. Also, can a plot be longer if it has more "essential" elements than other plots? Different critics see different things in this poem as essential, and I wanted to avoid bias.

You need to provide enough background so that readers can follow the criticism later but you do not have to introduce everything up front. Writing a good plot summary is actually much more difficult than most people realize - in their efforts to be fair and represent every part of the story, they forget about the fact that it is supposed to be a summary. I understand your concerns about bias. If it is any consolation, all plot summaries represent an interpretation of the text in some way, so you cannot avoid foregrounding one interpretation over another in your summary. One way to counter this is to be aware of which interpretation you are foregrounding and try to balance that interpretation with others in the criticism. Also, always remember that you want the reader to go beyond the summary and get to the "themes," etc. which will tell them a lot more about the text. You don't want them to get bogged down in the details of the text. Awadewit 06:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to cut it to four paragraphs. Could you give an example of a similar article with a good synopsis? Wrad 18:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must explain what a manuscript is and what the Cotton manuscript is in particular in the "Poet" section (you just jump right in at the moment). You cannot assume that your readers know anything about medieval manuscripts.

I think this is better now after doing the below.

Do more scholars accept single authorship or not? Where is the preponderance of opinion?

Done I think this has been cleared up as I did the below.

The "Poet" section seems a little disorganized - try to make each paragraph have a single idea.

Done

How do we know that the author was a "he"?

All possible authors I know of are men.

In the "verse form" section, give an example (from the original text), of the various styles you are referring to.

Done

"Similar stories" looks like a prose list. Make these sentences cohere into paragraphs.

Done Or at least attempted.

I would introduce sections entitled "Themes" and "Symbols" and move the appropriate material there rather have the broad "Literary criticism" (there are just too many subsections there).

Done

The "color green" and "green Knight" sections should be integrated.

I hesitate to do this, although I see your point. I think both sections need to be developed more. As I look at it, there is much more to say about both which, I think, would merit their separation.

I would vote for development, then. Awadewit 06:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Many of your sentences begin "some believe" or "others believe" - are these scholars? If the ideas you are quoting are specific to particular scholars, you should name them; if they are generally accepted by a group of scholars, you should say "some literary critics" or "some historians."

Done

"The Order of the Garter" doesn't seem to merit a theme section as you have written it.

Agree, changed some wording and moved to interpretation section.

I would put the "Theme" section before the "Symbols" section. Can you add more themes?

Done Good idea, other articles do this. And yes, I can.

Again, I would make "Interpretations" its own section.

Done

Certainly there are more than two modern interpretative schools?

Yes, this needs to be expanded.

The writing in your article often becomes convoluted - you often try to pack too much information into a single sentence. Also, some of your verbal constructions are a little off. Why don't you post this over at the League of Copyeditors or find a trusted wikipedia copyeditor to help you out. Awadewit 02:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post it when other major edits are done, so it doesn't need to be repeated.

I know you don't mean this, but I just want to point out that although I have done a lot for this article, it isn't mine, it's everyones. I hope others will edit this as well. That said, I'll see what I can do about your suggestions. Wrad 02:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware of this. Often, though, editors have worked so much on one article that the article ends up being entirely their own work. I'm sorry if I have slighted the work of others here. I, too, hope others will assist you (I often wish for this on articles on which I am working, but, alas, I tend to do all of the heavy lifting myself). Awadewit 06:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, somebody's gotta do it. Wrad 06:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]