Talk:Porius: A Romance of the Dark Ages

Missing elements

There are a couple elements that weaken the article, in general:

• A plot summary (the current plot section mostly discusses themes and stylistic choices, and the current organization is rather distracting) see the section in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction) for advice on how to fix it
• A lead that summarizes the important points in the article (I started it),

Hope that helps, Sadads (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking about a lead, but when I checked some articles on major novels found that this wasn't that normal. But thanks.

Re plot I have no intention of doing a plot summary. I know that this is very common but Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia not Coles Notes. Most Wikipedia articles on individual novels are, unfortunately, boring. But I appreciate you comments (a rarity in my experience on Wikipedia) because I did wonder if theme and plot overlapped too much. I'll therefore try and re-do plot (but brief and to the point). I will also check the overall organization which I often complain about in other articles. Thanks for the help. Rwood128 (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that you had fixed the main title and tidied the citations. Thanks.Rwood128 (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes the plot section clearly is more about theme than anything -- I went overboard in attemping to avoid plot-summary.Rwood128 (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

As regards the leads: Are you comparing to the FAs? The lead is functionally rather important (see WP:Lead). The lead offers a reader a summary of the most important highlights so they can know what to expect from the article. For both length of plot and lead, I like the articles Jonathan_Strange_&_Mr_Norrell and The_Time_Traveler's_Wife. They offer good models on design, organization and depth. Also, my recent GA The French Lieutenant's Woman is a good model for GA quality work in novels (I have had several very positive comments from people about that one), Sadads (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Quotes

Something to think about with quotes, from the Freshman writing teacher in me: throughout the article, there are a number of moments where you use quotes to demonstrate the main concerns highlighted by critical authors. This is a good way to strengthen the verifiability of your claims, however, the lack of attributive tags or unclear ethos of the authors that you attributes quotes can be rather confusing as a reader, leading them to ask questions like "Who the heck is he?" and "why do I care about his opinion?" When transitioning to a quote, as you do in most cases, it is important to say who the quote is from and note their relative relationship to the topic. This both orients the reader to the topic at hand, and points to the relative Ethos which makes the author a reliable opinion. I like to use the model "According to ______ AUTHORNAME, SUBJECTOFDISCUSSION "Quote"" in which, I use the blank to highlight their professional reason for commenting on the work (i.e. academic, historian, critic, biographer, etc.). For examples, see the transitions to quotes I offer throughout the critical section of The French Lieutenant's Woman. Anyway, I hope that helps and improves the prose in the article, Sadads (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the further feedback, which is most helpful. I'll review things further. Rwood128 (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

DATES

Re the recent edit: I used square brackets for the dates because the year listed in Owen differs from the actual date of issue. I think it will save confusion (for someone who doesn't know the bibliographic history of the text) if we restore the brackets, even though the revised sentence is correct. Otherwise a brief note in brackets should be added, commenting on the anomaly. Rwood128 (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I would comment on the anomoly. I didn't understand what the square brackets were intending in my initial read. Wikipedia articles are read very quickly by most readers, so being as explicit as possible about the meaning that we wish to communicate, creates a more informative tool,Sadads (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference consistency and DYK

Currently there are a number of the footnotes that use different configurations of first name, last name, title of work, and page number. I would strongly recommend picking a standard, and confining all of the works to that. If I am citing a work that is treated in my bibliography/works cited, rather than a full citation, I tend to use the MLA-derived "Lastname, Firstname. "Signficant part of Title", PAGE#." This allows readers to find stuff listed in the bibliography in lastname alphabetical order, without having to anticipate what part they are looking for.

Also, once the references are up to scratch, I would recommend nominating the article for WP:DYK before the 5 day window closes. This is a pretty good initial bout of an article, and definitely should find its way to the front page. Sadads (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments and suggestions, and the further work in improving the article. I am aware that some tidying needs doing, but have been having fun working on a list of characters and on the physical geography of the novel, which I also find most interesting. I haven't had time to look closely at The French Lieutenant's Woman article, but my initial impression was that it was one of the better Wikipedia articles that I have seen.

Re WP:DYK I must admit to being totally unaware of that side of Wikipedia. Rwood128 (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Rwood128 (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Glad you are finding this helpful. I like providing feedback and helping shape content when the other user is receptive to mentoring :) With the number of edits and amount of time you have in the project, it seems like we need to get you a little more integrated into the community :P Some users find it easy to ignore the reward systems, and review processes, focusing on the content, but I find that understanding the context and organization that is happening throughout the community helps me create better content. DYK is great, because it gets a whole bunch more eyes on the article, both experienced and inexperienced, and sometimes will foster collaboration, feedback or copyediting. Also, I would recommend keeping an eye on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost- its the weekly community newsletter/paper and does a good job covering major real-world consequences of our work, as well as some of the highlights in community activity. I find I understand a lot of processes I am not involved in a lot better because of the Signpost coverage. If you need feedback on the DYK hook, go ahead and post one here. Don't be afraid to do the hook before the content is up to par, I rarely get an article accepted to DYK within a week. Cheers! Sadads (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You argue persuasively and I've been frequently frustrated by the lack of feedback in the past. I'll certainly check out Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. On the other hand Porius is an indulgence, because I'm more interested in improving existing articles than in creating new ones, and I usually start editing when I accidentally stumble on an article that irritates me. I never planned on working on the Novel -- it still needs a great deal of work. I frequently edit in the field of literature, though recently I did much in the area of hiking/footpaths and the outdoors generally, especially on Alleys and Hiking. I'm especially interested in the confusions that arise because of differences in usage between Britain and the USA (and other English speaking countries).

There are numerous errors in the citations which I have to fix. The bibliography is intentionally narrowly selected and only includes one book, the latest biography. A fuller bibliography is available on the JCP page. Rwood128 (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the further edits/ideas, I especially liked the two new links you introduced.Rwood128 (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. The article seems like one that should make its way to WP:GA eventually, and it doesn't hurt to get an extra set of eyes on it early, before we call in a reviewer. I have never read any Powys, however, he sounds like the kind of writer I would really appreciate (and right within my research on historical fiction). If you really like the kinds of plots and themes you are highlighting in the article, I think you would likely like the Camulud Chronicles by Canadian author Jack Whyte, which also run a historicized version of the Arthurian legend. Its not the most brilliant prose style, but many readers are big fans.

Also, good job on working on the broad scope articles. I tend to avoid those in favor of novel pages, because I can turn out something much more focused and thoroughly researched with narrower scope articles. Sadads (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

While it can be fun working on a broad scope article it can also be frustrating. I've been trying to improve Modernism for sometime, but it really needs someone with more expertise. Despite what you say about avoiding this kind of article you started Novelist, which looks a pretty challenging subject.

Thanks for the recommending reading. My first reaction is to say that I don't often read historical fiction. Which is true in that while I enjoyed Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall I haven't got the sequel. However, I've read five novels by unfashionable Walter Scott, in the last year or so. Rwood128 (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)