Talk:Dylan Thomas/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 23:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know now. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements, though if there is a lot of work needed I may suggest getting a copy-editor. Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Pass. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Captions are acceptable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Stable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Prose is clear and readable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• References section. Appropriate references section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Query

• Most of the images are OK, but the lead image is problematic as it belongs to Getty Images, and there are other images of Thomas available. I think our lawyers may have a case if that was the only image available, but as there are others, Getty Images could reasonably ask why we are using that one. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Is that because Getty Images has expensive lawyers and the copyright owners of the others probably don't have any? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The thinking is that this aspect of Non-free media use: "No known free use images are known to exist. Photograph is not replaceable Thomas died in 1953" is unlikely to be true. The photograph is replaceable as there are many photographs of Thomas, and there is a strong possibility that a free use image exists. If a photo was published in USA between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice, and the person is dead, it is in the public domain. There are also several other possibilities. A reasonable search should be conducted for an appropriate alternate image. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. A quick Google search that has been done has revealed that quite a few images have no copyright information attached or credited. What should be done? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You're better off using a photograph for which you have done a reasonable search for the copyright owner and found none, than using one which is copyrighted by a commercial company who are still earning money on the image, and may well ask Wikipedia to take it down. You could also write to the Dylan Thomas Society to see what they have. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just emailed Membership Secretary Huw Davie. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Broad coverage. Tricky criteria this one, as it is often quite subjective. I haven't really examined the article that closely yet, though I note that there is no mention of his time at New Quay. His time at New Quay is regarded as significant because of the work he produced there, and for its inspiration as the location for Under Milk Wood. Of minor, but passing interest, is also the shooting incident at New Quay. I think a few lines on New Quay would be useful, and I don't think that would be contentious. Somewhat more debatable: I am wondering if there is quite enough information on Under Milk Wood. It is mentioned, but almost in passing, as something he read while touring America. It's not to be expected that a Good Article is comprehensive, so I wouldn't be looking for a lot of information, but some sense of when it was started, where he wrote it, some of his thoughts on it as it developed. On the other side of coverage is Focus, and I note that there is quite a lot on his death. Indeed, the three sections from the American tours to Aftermath, take up a considerable portion of the article. While his death and tour is perhaps quite notable in America, his broadcasts are as notable in the rest of the world. He was known as a consummate broadcaster, and that was a large part of his popularity. Such is the power of his reading voice, that it would be worth getting a clip for the article. Have you looked on Commons to see what is there? Anyway - my thinking is that some of the material on the death could be cut back, and to compensate, some extra material on his broadcasts - perhaps a section - could be added. This is up for discussion, not a requirement. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope this helps, a section on New Quay and there it mentions Quite Early One Morning and its links as a prototype for Under Milk Wood. I know IMW needs more but maybe a start. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This gives me goose bumps all over. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

He was such an awesome reader of his own work. There is a recording, and I'll need to dig out my books to recall which one, in which there was an air raid on London while he was doing a recording, and he simply lifted his voice to cover the noise of the planes overhead. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've now beefed up the poor second half of the 1940s into its own section which focuses on his Broadcasting for the BBC. I hope this addresses your concerns. (nothing on commons) Cheers, FruitMonkey (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Fail

*Layout. The List of works is split across several sections, and mixed with Further reading. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I've made a quick and crude edit to those sections, though it needs tidying up as some publications appear to be duplicated. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• NPOV. Phrases such as "His passionate musical lyricism caused a sensation in these years of desiccated Modernism", "regarded by critics and historians as one of the most innovative English language poets of the 20th century", and "Thomas' reputation was such that he was embraced as the 'poetic herald' for a group of English poets, the New Apocalyptics" (while his work itself did influence that group, it was his work, not his reputation), are too inclined to praise. I don't think this is a major problem in the article, as the Critical reception section appears to be fair and balanced, but it's worth adjusting those sentences, and keeping an eye out for others. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

These sentences have been addressed. FruitMonkey (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm hoping the new lead now leans more in the correct direction. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• This is a full, detailed, well presented, clearly written and well cited article which looks very promising. I like Dylan Thomas and have some knowledge of his life and work, so I shall enjoy this. A few things which have stood out at first glance: a) the lead is going to need development, but that is common to almost all GA reviews; b) there is a statement in the Early life section that "the front bedroom where Thomas was born had a view of the 'sea-city'" - this is cited to a source I cannot see, though appears to be a mistake as the front bedroom faces away from the city, and at the time when Thomas was born, overlooked a girls school; c) the opening sentence of the lead says Thomas "is regarded by many critics and historians as one of the most innovative English language poets of the 20th century" - in my study of Thomas, opinion has been divided, and this appears to be a strong statement to be making. I checked the source given, and I couldn't find where it said that, but it did confirm my own reading - both informally as a reader, and formally at Swansea University where I took a Dylan Thomas option, that opinion is divided as to Thomas' merits and importance as a poet. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "writing fewer works in later life" - I've not yet got my books down from the loft to check on composition dates, but I'm fairly sure this statement is inaccurate. He continued to write until his death, and his major work, Under Milk Wood, was written in his final years. As well as the poems, he also wrote scripts, stories, radio broadcasts, and various pieces of hack work, which have gradually emerged over the years. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Certainly Under Milk Wood seen as a major, if not the major, work was still being hastily finished, and re-written, just before he died in New York. But deciding this might be a bit tricky - do we count individual poems? or published works? or numbers of lines/words, or what? A clear statement from a reliable source is what is really needed. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, what is needed is greater research. A good amount of Thomas' major works, including his poetry (such as "Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night"), was written in his later years. I haven't got my books down yet to check dates, but that he wrote some of his best work in later life, and that his death cut short a promising career is what I remember as being understood. I am not suggesting that what is put into the article is that he wrote major works in his later life, but that the statement that he wrote fewer works in later life needs checking carefully, and a source found for it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm just checking through some books, and found this, which is illuminating:

LAST POEMS: The five poems that follow Fern Hill in Thomas' Collected Poems, together with the Author's Prologue to this volume, constitute the only separate pieces, since the appearance in 1946 of Deaths and Entrances, which the poet has wished to preserve.

The frequency of composition has therefore been lowered to an average of one poem per year. But it would be difficult to say whether this fact signifies a diminution of poetic capacity. During this time Thomas was engaged in much other work; some purely commercial and some of literary importance. Besides lecturing in America, he produced a filmscript The Doctor and the Devils, a verse-and-prose play for broadcasting entitled Under Milk Wood, as well as further miscellaneous writings.

The six poems which remain from these years are substantial compositions, and longer than most of Thomas' pieces. What these facts seem to indicate is, that while inspiration of a worthwhile order came less seldom to the poet, its duration and strength--when it did visit him--were of considerable proportions.

— Dylan Thomas, Derek Stanford, page 129

A summary of that would be worthwhile. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Worth checking at WP:EL that all the External links are appropriate. The first link is to a Wiki, and appears very dubious. This is not a GA requirement, but is something worth doing as this article is going through a review. There are a lot of links, and some appear to be doing the same thing as this article, giving an overview of Thomas. Such articles are not appropriate for an external link - especially in a Good Article, which should be providing the same information - if there's anything in those articles that is not in this article, then bring it over, and close the link. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• I must admit I am not sure how much, if anything, that first link (to [1] adds. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've been rather diverted by other stuff recently, but should be able to devote some time to this now. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• After failing to find my books in the loft, I ordered some from the library, and picked them up today. I'll study the article again with the books beside me and see where we are. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Pass

This has developed very well over the past month, and much of my concerns have been addressed. This is an accessible, useful and reliable guide to Dylan Thomas and his work. There are still areas to further work on, but that is part of ongoing development, and the article as it stands now meets the Good Article criteria. I am still a little uncomfortable about the use of the lead image, though it does appear to meet our free use criteria. Two of the most iconic and famous images of Thomas are the first public reading of Under Milk Wood (the one with the fag in his mouth as he stands at a lectern pointing with a pen), and the one of him and Caitlin in Browns Hotel in Laugharne - I've not seen a copyright notice on either of these images, and it may be worth thinking about using one of those.

I see that New Quay now has a mention. For further development toward comprehensiveness, a summary of other places where he lived might be useful. Public perception appears to be that he lived in Swansea and Laugharne only - though he did live in various other places, including Oxford, and had some short periods of living in Italy (where Caitlin returned after his death). The readings in America and his death there are significant topics - though I feel that coverage of these events tends to dominate this article, and it would be useful to have a stand alone article on the tours and the death, and to move the bulk of the material to such an article, leaving behind an accessible summary per WP:Summary style. The external links section is very long and appears to contain links that do not meet WP:EL, so that needs attention.

Well done to everyone involved in working on the article. And keep up the good work in driving it forward toward Featured Article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)