Talk:Pablo Neruda/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Olegkagan (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 21:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article within the next week or two. I did cursory reading and it looks very good but there a few fairly small things that need to be improved. Will post everything together once I give the article a thorough reading. --Olegkagan (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   a. I found a few small things but since they were so minor, I corrected them myself.

   b. Parts of the lead section do not correspond with article. Time periods are not always clear when words like "soon", "later", or "during this period" are used.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   a. There are a lot of unsourced information in this article. This is currently one of two major issues with this article.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   a. Though covered briefly in the biographical section, in order to truly address the main aspects of the topic, this article needs to discuss - in its own section, imho - the themes and technique of Neruda's poetry. There is also very little about the critical/scholarly reception of Neruda's work both during his lifetime and posthumously. In addition, while Neruda's contemporaries are mentioned, there is nothing here little here about who influenced Neruda, and who was influenced by him. For a poet of Neruda's stature, where there is a lot of biographical articles and literary criticism, it is unecessary for a GA article to be close to comprehensive, but it should, at least, include these items.

   b. Below I've listed individual lines that lack focus or are extraneous to the flow of the article. On a larger scale, however, the section on Borges should not be its own section. It should be cut down and incorporated in the article (either somewhere in the current structure, or in a "Criticism" section) or made into a sidebar.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   b. Just a suggestion: in the photos of Neruda's homes, include the years he lived there in the caption. That information is included nowhere in the article and thus the images tend to lack context within the poet's life.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Detailed Comments

Lead

• "He chose his pen name after Czech poet Jan Neruda." - This information is important to include in the lead, but it is completely unsourced in the article.
• "Neruda always wrote in green ink as it was his personal color of hope." - Not only is there no source for this mentioined here, but it is trivial in any case. It certainly doesn't belong in the lead.
• "On July 15, 1945, at Pacaembu Stadium in São Paulo, Brazil, he read to 100,000 people in honor of Communist revolutionary leader Luís Carlos Prestes." - This does not fit in with the lead as it basically jumps to a specific reading towards the middle of Neruda's life. It can be included in the article, just not in the lead.
• Later, Neruda escaped into exile through a mountain pass near Maihue Lake into Argentina. Years later..." - This is an example of a place where the time periods are not clear. It's okay to be a little bit vague in the lead since you go into detail later, but "later" is also repetitive here.
• "When Neruda returned to Chile after his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, Allende invited him to read at the Estadio Nacional before 70,000 people." - My Spanish is not great, but I can't find where in the source 70,000 people is mentioned.

Time - The time is not clear in these lines:

• "Later, mired in isolation and loneliness, he worked stints in Colombo (Ceylon), Batavia (Java), and Singapore."
• "After returning to Chile, Neruda was given diplomatic posts in Buenos Aires and then Barcelona, Spain." - When did Neruda return to Chile?
• "During this period, Neruda became slowly estranged from his wife and began a relationship with Delia del Carril, an Argentine twenty years his senior." - Does "this period" refer to the life of his daughter?
• "Neruda moved later to Valdivia in southern Chile."
• "Del Carril eventually learned of his affair with Matilde Urrutia and he sent her back to Chile in 1955. She convinced the Chilean officials to lift his arrest allowing Urrutia and Neruda to go to Capri, Italy. Now united with Urrutia," - The sequence of events in this part of the article is generally unclear (who did Neruda send back?). When, for example, in relation to 1955 did "She" convince Chilean officials?
• "Upon Neruda's return to Chile, he stopped in Peru, where he gave readings to enthusiastic crowds in Lima and Arequipa and was received by President Fernando Belaúnde Terry." - When did Neruda return to Chile?

Citations Needed - Though not all of these lines are controversial or likely to be challenged, it's good form to stay away from unsourced statements in Wikipedia articles. This article is, unfortunately full of them. There is also incidents of citations at the end of the paragraph only being the source for the very last statement. I've already checked the sources I've been able to check for accuracy, and I'll be able to check the rest once I get my hands on Feinstein's book and Tarn's introduction. (See the Lead section above for a few more of these)

• "In the winter of 1914, Neruda composed his first poems."
• "Neruda's father opposed his son's interest in writing and literature"
• "Neruda received encouragement from others, including future Nobel Prize winner Gabriela Mistral, who headed the local girls' school."
• "The young poet wanted to find a name that would mislead his father."
• "Years later, Pablo Neruda in recognition of the Czech poet, left a flower at the foot of his statue in Prague “Confieso que he vivido”."
• "The first name Pablo is thought to be inspired by the French poet Paul Verlaine."
• "a collection of love poems that was controversial for its eroticism, especially considering its author's young age."
• "While on diplomatic service, Neruda read large amounts of poetry and experimented with many different poetic forms. He wrote the first two volumes of Residencia En La Tierra, which included many surrealistic poems."
• "After leaving his wife, he lived with Delia del Carril in France." - Not only is this unsourced, it is also unclear; previously it seems like his wife and daughter left him, but here it says that he left his wife.
• "Neruda later said he did it at the request of Mexican President Manuel Ávila Camacho."
• "This enabled Siqueiros, then jailed, to leave Mexico for Chile, where he stayed at Neruda's private residence."
• "In exchange for Neruda's assistance, Siqueiros spent over a year painting a mural in a school in Chillán." - I've included the last three, though I expect they may be covered by citation #16. If I find that they are, I'll strike them out here.
• " Martín Espada, poet and professor of creative writing at the University of Massachusetts, has hailed the work as a masterpiece, declaring that "there is no greater political poem"." - I have no doubt that Mr. Espada did say this, but it needs to be cited?
• "However, despite his disillusionment with Stalin, Neruda never lost his essential faith in communist theory and remained loyal to "the Party"."
• "While in hiding, Senator Neruda was removed from office and in September 1948 the Communist Party was banned altogether under the Ley de Defensa Permanente de la Democracia (Law for the Permanent Defense of Democracy), called by critics the Ley Maldita (Accursed Law)..."
• Neruda moved later to Valdivia in southern Chile. From Valdivia he moved to Fundo Huishue a forestry estate in the vicinities of Huishue Lake. Neruda's life underground ended in March 1949 when he fled over the Lilpela Pass on the Andes Mountains to Argentina on horseback. He would dramatically recount his escape from Chile in his Nobel Prize lecture." - All of this needs to be cited.
• "...a Whitmanesque catalog of the history, geography, and flora and fauna of South America, accompanied by Neruda's observations and experiences. Many of them dealt with his time underground in Chile, which is when he composed much of the poem." - This need to be cited otherwise it constitutes original research.
• "In fact, he had carried the manuscript with him on his escape on horseback."
• "Neruda returned to Chile in August of that year and rejoined Delia del Carril, who had traveled ahead of him some months earlier, but the marriage was crumbling." - Particularly that the marriage was crumbling.
• "Miller later opined that Neruda's adherence to his communist ideals of the 1930s was a result of his protracted exclusion from "bourgeois society"."
• "However, this visit also prompted an unpleasant backlash; because the Peruvian government had come out against the government of Fidel Castro in Cuba, July 1966...even after receiving an invitation in 1968." - No parts of this episode carry any citations.
• "a decision that did not come easily because some of the committee members had not forgotten Neruda's past praise of Stalinist dictatorship."
• Technically, all of selections of Neruda in popular culture (what is currently the "Legacy") section should be cited, but I'm not going to insist on that since it doesn't look to be standard among recent Good biographical Articles.

Other

• You might list the years covered in the subsections of "Life and career". For example "Early years (1904-1914)".
• Contradiction in need of clarification: In the section "Mexico" it says that Neruda and Octavio Paz "...nearly came to blows in 1942", but later in the section on "Neruda and Stalinism" it says "Their differences came to a head after the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact when they almost came to blows in an argument over Stalin." -- So 1) In what year did they nearly come to blows? and 2) using the phrase "come to blows" twice is repetitive and should be replaced in one of these sections.
• In the section early years, "In the winter of 1914, Neruda composed his first poems" does not follow from the previous sentence. It looks like it was tacked on to the end of this paragraph.
• "She convinced the Chilean officials to lift his arrest allowing Urrutia and Neruda to go to Capri, Italy." - You mentioned going to Italy before, but you mention it again here but the chronology of Neruda's time in Italy, and the reason for being in Capri specifically is not clear.
• It'd be nice to have a section of "Los versos del Capitán" added to the article, if possible, since it's mentioned by name.
• "But his Swedish translator, Artur Lundkvist, did his best to ensure the Chilean received the prize." - I'll check the source on this and try to make it clearer myself, but off-hand, I'm not exactly sure what Mr. Lundkvist did? Did he lobby on Neruda's behalf? Pay off the committee? There are better ways to say it then "did his best", methinks.
• The little sentence on the investigation re. Neruda's death that was started in June 2011 should have a little more detail. At least that the Chilean Communist Party called for the investigation and that Neruda's is not the only one.
• The paragraph on houses in "Later years" should be moved to the "Legacy" section.
• Not necessary for a GA, but for the record, the section on "Early years" needs to be expanded. It says nothing about education or influences, which seems to be standard in biographical articles of poets.
• The "Legacy" section should be renamed "In Popular Culture", I think Legacy refers more to a more general influence in poetry and politics.
• Finally, I notice that the majority of citations in this article come from only two sources. While these sources look to be of good quality, more biographical and literary sources should really be used to add depth.

I apologize if some of the above may look like nit-picking, but I think a Good Article should be just that. Further, I'm a fan of Neruda and would love to see this article improved. I'm willing to keep this open for a two weeks, till 28 September, 2011. If you can fix the above issues by then, I'd be happy to pass it. Otherwise, feel free to delist it, take as long as you want to improve the article, list it and message me (I'll be happy to review it again). It's up to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olegkagan (talk • contribs) 05:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, because User:Haidill hasn't responded, I am going to fail the article. --Olegkagan (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This article still seems uneven and strays far from accurate in it's description of the man's life. For example: Neruda was already living underground in 1948 when Conservative Chilean President González Videla outlawed communism in Chile. A warrant may have been issued for Neruda's arrest at that time, but he was already in hiding since 1947 due to his protests against President Videla's policy against striking miners. Neruda was in hiding for a total of two years until he managed to leave in 1949. The Wiki only mentioned his friends hid him for a few months when the warrant was issued! He was already living "underground" for a year or so at that time.. --75.17.209.19 (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Dr. S