Talk:Beowulf/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 07:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

At first glance this article looks to be of high quality, but before I start a close reading, may I first make sure that any points raised will be dealt with? The GAN instructions state:

Anyone may nominate an article to be reviewed for GA, although it is preferable that nominators have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with its subject and its cited sources. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination. The reviewer will be making suggestions to improve the article to GA quality during the review process; therefore, the review will require your involvement as nominator. Before nominating an article, ensure that you will be able to respond to these comments in a timely manner.

I can see no evidence that the nominator is a significant contributor to, or has consulted regular editors of, the article. Tim riley talk 07:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I didn't. Fail the article if you'd like. - MagicatthemovieS

@Tim riley and MagicatthemovieS: although preferred, this is not a requirement. Anyone can nominate an article for GA: WP:GAI. It certainly isn't grounds for failing the nomination. Neither is consulting regular editors required, unlike it is for FA.

That aside, the following short footnotes are boken: Aaij 2013, Tolkien 1958, Tolkien 2006. Additionally, the references – both broken and working – to Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics could be harmonized using a single edition. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Quite so, but I don't especially want to go through the article in the usual GAN detail unless I have a sporting chance of getting some answers to my queries. Happy to go ahead with the review if the two editors above (and any others) will be available to deal with my comments. Tim riley talk 23:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I won't undertake that. I suggest you fail the nomination at the first genuine concern (if applicable), or if withdrawn by the nominator. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Initial comments

• We need to be clear which language the article is written in. At present it is a mixture of English and American spellings: I spotted metre, armour, Christianisation, fibre, hypothesise, criticised, and emphasise on the one hand, and on the other honor, defenseless, favor, analyze and fulfill. Please go through the text carefully to standardise (or standardize) spellings. Strictly, you should find the first version of the article in which it is possible to see an English or an American spelling, and whichever it is should be the precedent for all later versions. There is room for common sense, though, and a quick note on the talk page is probably all that is needed when proposing to adopt one or the other.
• I have amended one obvious typo, but am unsure about "otherall", a pleasingly Joycean word which may or may not be meant to be "overall".
• Are they the Geats or the Geates? I noticed both forms in the text.

Please consider the above and we can progress matters. Tim riley talk 16:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Not correct, Tim. Here there is a "strong national tie" (the policy wording) to BE, so it needs to use that. See WP:ENGVAR. Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• The 2nd or so line included the very contentious claim that the poem probably originated in Northumbria, which I have removed, as Mercia for one has just as many supporters. There is quite a bit on the date, but very little on the location of the composition. This chapter in the Handbook gives great detail on both matters. Generally, many of the references here are older than I am, which is saying a lot. Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • How very pleasing to bump into you here, Johnbod! Point taken about Engvar, and I could easily amend the Americanisms myself, but more generally, unless you are prepared to ride to the rescue, I think I shall have to fail the article this time round, given a drive-by nomination and no-one out there to answer my queries when (or rather if) I start a proper close reading. What think you? Tim riley talk 13:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Likewise! I wasn't planning to take it on, I'm afraid, so you'd better fail it. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Failing GA

This time round I fear the nomination must fail. Editors more expert on the topic than I have identified inadequacies in the references, and the prose won't do as it stands. With nobody out there to deal with these points the nomination has to fail. I shall take it upon myself to tidy up the spelling, but other editors will need to bring expertise to bear if the article is to be renominated. Tim riley talk 17:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)