Talk:Finnegans Wake/GA1

GA Review

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

What is a good article?

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

   (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

   (b) 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:

   (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   (b) 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); and

   (c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

   (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

   (b) 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.
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:

   (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

   (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Comments

1. Well written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct;

Good prose.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

Lead section appears a bit short.

Lead section fine, and complies with MOS to GA standard.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and (c) it contains no original research.

There is much said that needs sourcing.

3. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

There are aspects of the book that need more attention. Some sections - "allusions" and "plot" need severe editing

Plot has been tidied up nicely, and may pass

It addresses the main aspects very well. SilkTork *^YES! 19:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

It seems sober and neutral

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Stable.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

File:Finneganswake.jpg is questionable. It's a page from a Penguin book which will be copyrighted to Penguin. I don't follow how the person who uploaded that can claim to own the copyright. And there are issues with File:Djuna Barnes - Joyce.gif, though it looks like they might be resolved.

File:Finneganswake.jpg has been removed, and I'm OK with File:Djuna Barnes - Joyce.gif. But I feel the banknote - File:CBI - SERIES C - TEN POUND NOTE.PNG is pushing Non-free use to the limit. We already have File:Anna Livia Plurabelle.jpg in the article which is a great demonstration of the work being "assimilated in popular Irish culture" - the use of the bank note is potentially contentious, and as it is unnecessary, would be better removed.

I have removed the currency image. The other images are acceptable. SilkTork *^YES! 19:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Starting review. SilkTork *^YES! 23:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Initial inspection. There are a good number of cites, though many of them are to the novel itself, or to editors notes, and few are online. Lead section appears to be rather short, especially for an article of this length. Prose on first glace is assured and literate. The article has been built up from 2002 by many different editors. Main editor since Nov 2007 has been User:Warchef who is still active on the article. Other editors have assisted, but mainly for brief spurts. The article looks promising. I look forward to reading it in depth. SilkTork *^YES! 00:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the review SilkTork. I agree about the intro, and I've started to expand it. As for cites, there are very few reputable online sources for FW, and unfortunately many which are based on conjecture and amateurish guesswork, so in my own edits I mostly concentrated on published works by Joyce academics, but if this is a problem I can search for some equivalent online quotes/sources. Hope you enjoy reading the article in depth. peace Warchef (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Concerns arising.

1. The lead section is causing me problems. It doesn't appear to give a standard overview of the novel, nor to reflect the contents of the article. FW was Joyce's last work - and that is usually mentioned in texts on the book, but it is not mentioned here. It is claimed that it is "one of the best-known books of the 20th century", but there are no cites for this, and that statement is not directly backed up in the main body. However, the main body states that FW is known for its difficulty (which is true) but that fact doesn't appear in the lead.
2. The Plot section is very long. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Style_guidelines#Plot_introduction. Wikipedia:FilmPlot#Plot recommends 900 as a maximum. This article has over 3,000 words of plot. The Plot section at times read like a text book - see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, and at other times it reads like an essay. I'd be more comfortable with the Plot section being about the plot, and the Critical response and Themes sections being about the differing interpretations of the plot. At present there is a tendency for the Plot section to be guiding the reader and interpreting and putting ideas and suggestions in place. This is not the purpose of an encyclopedia, and certainly not of a section in an encyclopedia which is meant to neutrally describe the plot.
3. Cites. There are places were cites are wanting. The L&S section - "best known" and "invented language"; Allusions - the Irish mythology paragraph. And by Literary significance some uncited weasel expressions are creeping in - "some admirers".
4. Clarity and focus needed in the critical responses sections. At present the critical responses/interpretations are diffused throughout the article and not appropriately and usefully gathered together in a helpful and balanced manner in the critical response sections. There is a feeling that the article is more of an essay/text guide than en encyclopedia entry. It's great research, and there lots of immense value here. But the presentation of the material is not appropriate or helpful for the general Wikipedia reader. If people want/need a text guide, they will go elsewhere. That's not our job. We give an overview of the whole thing for the common man. We don't dumb it down, but we do intelligently and clearly summarise the main points in the appropriate sections so people go to the section for what they want.
5. Consider a Publication history section
6. Allusions/references section needs trimming and a better focus. This is currently very poorly disciplined.
7. Literary significance section could be restructured and expanded as this is a major aspect of the novel.
8. Images

• Addressing issues.

There is too much work here for me to attempt to address the issues myself.

1. Read WP:LEAD and rewrite
2. Remove critical commentary and analysis from the Plot section
3. Provide cites for each paragraph and for challengeable statements such as "best known". Rewrite to avoid WP:WEASEL words. Use Google Books - there are hundreds of texts to use.
4. Restructure the critical response sections to contain the critical analysis that will be removed from the Plot section
5. Consider a Publication history section
6. Trim Allusions/references section
7. Expand and restructure Literary significance section
8. Check File:Finneganswake.jpg and remove if questionable.

• Conclusion.

There is much to admire here. The research and devotion is impressive. It does need some restructuring to make it more useful. I should image the work will take a little longer than the standard 7 days. I'll put it on hold until the end of January 2009. If it has improved before then it will pass. I can be contacted on my talkpage to answer any questions or offer any advise or suggestions. SilkTork *^YES! 20:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Some very good editing has taken place here which makes the article much more accessible. I'm still making my way through and have yet to examine parts closely or to look at sources, but I am noticing statements that don't appear to have cites: "This is the earliest reference to what would become Finnegans Wake." - "The Jolases gave Joyce valuable encouragement and material support throughout the long process of writing Finnegans Wake" - "For the next few years Joyce worked rapidly on the book, adding what would become chapters I.1 and I.6, and revising the already written segments to make them more lexically complex."

• Plot is hugely improved. But straightaway I am caught by "before the flood, before the fall". It's a problem with a text like this where so much of the essence of the plot is allegorical and so needs to be interpreted. However, where there is a critical interpretation, that interpretation is best kept away from the plot section which is intended to be an incontestable description of what is said. That Joyce incorporates allusions to The Flood is best discussed later.

• A lot of Joyce scholarship is now online. It's not a GA requirement, but can be quite useful to link to the critical passage quoted. For example - Glasheen's "before the flood, before the fall". SilkTork *^YES! 01:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've been tapping my fingers on my desk over this - "In an echo of Ulysses the female protagonist has the final word..." It's the "In an echo of Ulysses" that's causing me problems. It's an interesting observation. And it could be a useful one if expanded. It more properly and helpfully belongs in a section where FW is compared to Joyce's other works. But at the same time, until such a section is created it could stay here in the Plot section as a mild - and clearly unchallengeable - observation of fact. However, it seems to fall foul of policy - WP:SYNTH - as the author of that statement is directing the reader to make a connection between the two novels. Hmmm. SilkTork *^YES! 01:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• This needs citing: "The challenge of compiling a definitive synopsis of Finnegans Wake lies not only in the opacity of the book's language, but also in the radically unique approach to plot which Joyce employed." SilkTork *^YES! 01:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• A reconstruction of nocturnal life. There is no balance in this section. It puts forward the view that most critics see the novel as nocturnal. There are no opposing views. This is too one-sided. We should have the views of the non-nocturnal critics. SilkTork *^YES! 02:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Characters. The introduction to this section is excellent. This is how it should be done. Giving the critical views without lending weight to any of them, and treading with care along that fine line between authoritative yet neutral summary of information and original research. This: "Such concealment of character identity has resulted in some disparity as to how critics identify the book's main protagonists" is a walk that Charles Blondin would admire. SilkTork *^YES! 02:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with the progress of this. I've tidied up the Lead and I'm content with that. I'll examine the rest of the article carefully over the next couple of days, and I'll add in references if I can find them - or remove contentious text if I can't find a reference. The work done on tidying up the Plot has been very good. SilkTork *^YES! 01:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, i have a foolscap of emendations and corrections to be implemented, but, unfortunately I've had some personal situations in the last week which have precluded my involvement. I hope in the next couple of days I'll be able to integrate the changes, which I think will absolve all of your reticence re: the article's GA status. peace Warchef (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Getting there. I think the work done on this has been very impressive. When I first saw it I didn't think it could be turned around in this space of time. The article is really looking very useful. I've put in a few more refs. I'll pop back in a couple of days to see how things are going. SilkTork *^YES! 19:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There's some brilliant work been done on this. I'm happy that it now meets GA criteria. Keep the ball rolling and go for FA! SilkTork *^YES! 16:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

More quibbles

• "a new version of Finnegan is sailing into Dublin Bay to take over the story". I'm uncertain on the assertion that HCE is a "new version" of Finnegan. Do we have a source for this, or a possible rewording. SilkTork *^YES! 18:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• I don't think there is enough about Mr Porter - especially as there is a view that the book is his dream. SilkTork *^YES! 19:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• "mysterious minor characters" - why mysterious? SilkTork *^YES! 19:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Mr Browne the Jesuit" - it sounds plausible that the character was based on his schoolfriend, but I couldn't find any source. SilkTork *^YES! 19:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Allusions/references in other works section is longer than the Literary significance & criticism section. Some serious trimming is needed. SilkTork *^YES! 19:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll get to work on these right away. And add comments as I do as needed.

• Agree with the Finnegan/HCE comparison. I've excised the reference entirely, as it's really interpretation and not plot summary to say that HCE is the new Finnegan (although I'm sure a number of critics draw this conclusion - i'll look up some quotes for the Character section, perhaps) What would you think of this as a less problematic, but for now equally unreferenced alternative? "The chapter ends with the image of a new protagonist sailing into Dublin Bay to take over the story: HCE."? Warchef (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's OK. However, I'm pondering "take over the story" and "protagonist" - but you have established with appropriate referencing that HCE is the central character, so when he appears he does take over the story. But is he a "new" character as such. You have also presented the critical view that the characters are interchangeable. Finnegan is HCE. Perhaps the wording could be less certain? "The chapter ends with the image of the HCE character sailing into Dublin Bay to take a central role in the story"? That perhaps avoids the speculation over is HCE another version of Finnegan or is HCE a new character. SilkTork *^YES! 23:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agree. "mysterious" is not a very enlightening term. they're really just mysterious in so far as the critical community has never been able to figure out their function or the nature of their characters, and almost always almost exclusively focuses on the Earwicker family - but there's no need to bring that up here, I suppose - I imagine it's most useful to briefly name these characters and give some basic outline of some of the more prominent ones. I've cut Browne as well, I've never read about this before, and I also can't find a reference Warchef (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Allusions/references in other works section is longer than the Literary significance & criticism section" - agree, but my response is to expand the latter, as you've mentioned before, it's one of the most important aspects to FW: i've already added a paragraph on reviews of the book upon its publication in 1939, with google books links, and I have some more latter day quotes to add tomorrow. However, perhaps you could advise me as to the best way to edit down the Allusions in other works section - as as far as i'm concerned i could pretty much delete it all with no real significant loss to the article; but i imagine a scalpel might be better than a chainsaw? I just really don't know how to gauge what's relevant and what's not. i'd greatly appreciate it if you could advise. Thanks :) Warchef (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. SilkTork *^YES! 23:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made a clearer distinction between adaptations - which is valuable encyclopedic information - and cultural references, which is additional information of minor interest. Having gone through it this morning, what appeared to be referenced is simply notes which turn out to be unsupported comments. I've tagged all the statements, but - like you - I'm wondering if the bulk of this simply needs cutting out and replacing with a suitably referenced statement saying that the book has had a cultural impact and is oft quoted (but rarely read!). SilkTork *^YES! 08:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've moved all of the offending material to the Talk Page, from where it can be reintroduced piece by piece, if, and only when, a reference can be found. I think this is the most prudent course of action, considering the amount of unreferenced material, and also I don't think the article is significantly of any lower quality for its absence - although of course it would be nice to see the relevant details be reintroduced over the coming weeks.Warchef (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be cautious about reintroducing it, as cultural reference sections do invite unsourced contributions. A sensible overview linked to a reliable source which mentions that the text is sometimes referenced as being difficult would be appropriate - we don't need concrete examples. That the reader is made aware and there's a cite is enough. SilkTork *^YES! 14:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• What do you suggest might be done on Mr. Porter - apart from what's already in the Dreams section? I imagine it might be fruitful to better summarise chapter III.4, in which he appears, but I think the idea of the book being his dream belongs to a very early sort of critical thinking on FW, which has not really lasted - it's pretty much agreed these days (as much as any of these things can be pretty much agreed, which admittedly is not very much at all) that Mr. porter is just another name/cipher for HCE, probably because of his role as a barman, and that he doesn't hold any higher or external importance. But of course there's plenty of literature that would suggest otherwise which of course I could collect pretty easily. Maybe for the characters section? Please advise. Warchef (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're already answering the question yourself. More detail on him in the plot where appropriate; more mention of him in the character section, and a brief summary of critical interpretation much as you've given above, but with referencing. This doesn't need much work - it's just a few words here and there to give the character more coverage. SilkTork *^YES! 23:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Give me a ping when you think this is ready. I'll check back in 7 days if I've not heard from you in the meantime. SilkTork *^YES! 14:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)