Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Philip Larkin/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Philip Larkin

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is on its way to FAC, so please evaluate accordingly! Thanks in advance! Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Couple of comments

Just a couple of thoughts; I understand the article has some comprehensive reviews lined up.

  • By the end of the lead, we don't really know anything about the kind of poetry he writes. The Critical Opinion section has "dour pessimism and anecdotes of a disappointed middle class" versus "It is under the defeatist veneer of his poetry that the positive side of Larkin's vision of life is hidden." Perhaps the lead could touch on those opposing interpretations, especially his perceived pessimism. If that's too involved for the lead, maybe just include a few quotes: "piquant mixture of lyricism and discontent", "detached, sometimes lugubrious, sometimes tender observer" etc.
  • The lead has "...despite controversy about his personal life and opinions", but I'm not sure that that gives due weight to the heavy criticism levelled at his alleged racism and so on.


  • "Thanks to his poor eyesight, Larkin failed his military medical and was able to study for the usual three years." I'm not sure about "Thanks to..." I think it would be better either to discuss how he felt about not being drafted, or just have it as "Larkin failed the military medical because of his poor eyesight..."
  • "...arts programme Monitor, directed by Patrick Garland.[26] The footage of his him being interviewed by fellow poet John Betjeman in a series of locations in and around Hull was not insignificantly responsible for the creation of Larkin's public persona."
The point about it building his public persona is probably true, but it reads like the editor's opinion, and doesn't say what the persona was. Including that the program was called "Down Cemetery Road", and that Betchamin interviewed him in a graveyard might fill out the persona, but is perhaps a little unfair.
  • "The most favourable responses to the anthology were those of Auden and John Betjeman." A quotation from either would be good here.
  • It's a real shame that there is none of his poetry included. I guess that's for copyright reasons. Is there no way that we quote the odd stanza here and there?
  • The article for This Be The Verse reckons that he said he "expected to hear it recited in his honour by a thousand Girl Guides before he died." If that's true, it'd be a nice addition to this article, too.

I thoroughly enjoyed the article. I think it'll make a fine FA. MoreThings (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!
  • The lead: both are good points. I think GuillaumeTell is on a short wikibreak for a couple more days; I think he would be the best person to sort these two issues out. I've made starts with the second point both points. I expect someone to improve on them!
    • I think the first point has already been sorted; I've added a bit of detail re the controversies - how does it look? --GuillaumeTell 18:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That looks good to me. Regarding the controversial views, I thought this quote from Andrew Motion probably deserves a place somewhere the posthumous reputation section. I played about with putting it in a quote box but that might jar as all the others are Larkin, on the other hand it's rather lengthy to add in to the body. Anyone have any thoughts? "We know the worst and the best of his personal life, and each of us can make our own estimate of how it does and does not connect with his work. Or to put this another way: we can see the beauty and truth of the poems in spite and because of what lay behind them." MoreThings (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have changed "thanks" to "due". I don't recall Larkin expressing any opinion on the matter.
  • 'Monitor' - again, perhaps GauillaumeTell could have a go at rewording this when he returns? [I'll start making a little job-list for his return... :-) ] I'm not sure who wrote this paragraph - I think its been on the page a long time; I had always assumed that it was meant in a good way - as if Larkin was happy to have created this persona.
  • Auden&Betjeman - I think the source I was working from didn't give any quotations from them, unfortunately. I tried to get as much info on reception as possible out of the Motion/Bradford books, I believe. If someone has Motion to hand the reference is page 431, I think.
  • quoting poetry. To tell the truth this didn't cross my mind. Are there any good examples of FA articles on poets that we could use as a model?
  • He did indeed say that about "This Be The Verse"! I think the quote appears in the collected letters, which I don't have to hand. Once I do I'll see if I can get it in. Maybe someone else has a copy?
Thanks again for your time almost-instinct 09:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! I'll have a look around and see if I can find anything from Auden or Betjeman on the anthology.
Regarding the inclusion of extracts from his work, I clicked through a few articles in the English Poets category and found that some include a verse or two. Only the first of these is an FA: Yeats, Byron, Kipling. One way to do it would be to include the poetry in the article body along with some textual analysis. The other way, which is one I was thinking of, would be to include it in quote boxes. I had in mind the type of boxes used in Samuel Johnson, though they're not actually used for poetry in that article. The more experienced reviewers will probably have a better take on whether or not that would be appropriate. I think there will be some copyright constraints.
As for what to include, probably some of his more well known stuff—maybe the first verse of Ambulances or something from Toads. I guess everyone will have an idea on what would be good. I thought the Girl Guides quip could be included with an extract from the poem. It did subsequently occur to me that This Be The Verse might be a lot more offensive to some of the worldwide WP readership than it is to me. And what I hear as wry joke might not play that way elsewhere. On the other hand, quoting that poem might grab the attention of a reader who would not normally look twice at a dusty old poetry article. MoreThings (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given how often the opening line of "The Be The Verse" gets deleted from that page, it may not be a good idea to quote that! (Or "High Windows", or "Vers de Societe", or "Love Again"...) Perhaps the last stanza ("Man hands on misery to man / it deepens like a coastal shelf / Get out as early as you can / and don't have any kids yourself") would be more user-friendly? I've been trying to think of poems that help illustrate the text: maybe the opening of "Toad" ("Why should I let the toad work Squat on my life? / Can't I use my wit as a pitchfork and drive the brute off?") and the end of "Toads Revisited" ("No, give me my in-tray, / My loaf-haired secretary, / My shall-I-keep-the-call-in-Sir: / What else can I answer, / When the lights come on at four / At the end of another year? / Give me your arm, old toad; / Help me down Cemetery Road") - the first could go in the middle of the Life section and the latter in the Legacy section, between Career as a Librarian and Posthumous Reputation? almost-instinct 09:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added those two for starters. What do people think of that? Given a choice between quotes from the poems and some of the slightly random pictures we have, I know which I would choose! almost-instinct 14:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still like the idea, and I like the extracts you've included. I think you're probably right about the opening lines of This Be The Verse, their inclusion would be a bit sound bite-ish. I'd be okay with using the last stanza. My initial reaction was that it lost quite a bit without the rest of the poem. But, on reflection, I guess that Man hands on misery to man summarises the earlier part, and gives some justification for And don't have any kids yourself. Like you, I'd be happy to replace some of the photos with further extracts, but I'm interested to hear what others think. One problem is that the lines are being broken in random places on my screen, and it's spoiling the effect. MoreThings (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I added the boxes I just increased the size until the lines worked on my computer. I'll up them a notch. Please tell me if sorts things out from yr POV almost-instinct 11:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. That's done the trick for me. 00:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Image review by Awadewit
  • File:WBYeats1908.jpg - Where was this first published? We need to know to establish the host country. On Commons, each image must have a tag indicating its PD status in the US and its host country.
  • File:John Betjeman statue.jpg - Please add the location of this statue to the description. The licensing of 3-D objects is different from country to country.

These should be relatively easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I plucked these images from Commons yesterday, knowing absolutely nothing about the rules about images almost-instinct 09:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Appears in the FA W. B. Yeats
That doesn't matter. FAs aren't perfect! Awadewit (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This is a recent statue that stands in London's St Pancras railway station
I've added the location to the image description page for these two images. Awadewit (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This tomb stands in Chichester Cathedral in Chichester, England almost-instinct 11:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a problem-free picture of Yeats: File:William Butler Yeat by George Charles Beresford.jpg? almost-instinct 22:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No - the source link does not contain the image and, therefore, any verification for the license. I would suggest looking around at the NPG to see if the correct image is at another link. Awadewit (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm totally out of my depth with images, and a picture of Yeats is nonessential, so I'll just remove that one and leave it at that almost-instinct 09:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the problems with File:William Butler Yeat by George Charles Beresford.jpg, so you can use that if you wish. Awadewit (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The alt text that has been added to the article is largely a copy of the caption. Alt text is supposed to help those who cannot see the image. Please see the advice on writing alt text at WP:ALT. Awadewit (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This review is a bit piecemeal as I have had to attend to it in fits and starts. I apologise if points I raise have already been addressed. I was generally very impressed by the article, and share the view expressed above that this will make a fine FA. I have numerous suggestions which I hope will help:-

  • Juvenilia
    • I think this subsections needs further subdivision between "Juvenilia" and "Early works". The Brunette Coleman corpus counts as juvenilia, as does his early poem "Ultimatum". Jill and The North Ship were written when Larkin was in his twenties, and are not really juvenilia as the word is normally understood. That is even more true of A Girl in Winter; these would be better described as "early works".
    • You say he "wrote five full-length novels, each of which he destroyed shortly after completion." Is ther a source for this statement?
    • Booth's collection of the Coleman fiction and other early writing has a lengthy introduction discussing these works. It would be good to see this used as a source. In particular there is discussion of two unfinished novels No For An Answer and A New World Symphony, dated as between 1948 and 1954. These are not mentioned in the article, and I believe they should be, particularly as Booth's book has long (80+ pages) extracts from both.
  • Larkin's letters: It seems that too little use is made in the article of the collected letters, which could be used to flesh out more details of his private life, including some quite significant incidents. Among things not mentioned in the article are his being made a Companion of Honour in summer 1985 (letter to Anthony Powell 7 August 1985) and his being too ill to receive it from the Queen (letter 18 October 1985 to Colin Gunner). Also, we learn that Larkin was made a Companion of Literature (C.Litt) by the RSL, a more singular honour than a Fellowship (letter to Robert Conquest, 4 July 1978), and we can read what he thought about this ("Down among the dead men").
  • Images: not an image review re. licensing etc (I'll leave that to Awadewit) but some thoughts about what they add to this article.
    • The illustrations of Larkin's various homes, or his parents' homes, or where his parents' homes used to be, are in my view a bit too numerous. The one of the Coventry ring road seems particularly uninformative and could be dropped. If the Radford council house is Larkin's birthplace the caption should say so. The term "council house" should be linked or explained for the benefit of non-UK readers.
    • The building in the Wellington Civic Library photo looks distinctly post-1943 to me. Is this the actual building in which Larkin worked 1943-46? If not the caption needs to explain the situation. Also, the "alley visible to the left of the photo" is not visible to me.
    • I would have thought one rather than two photographs of Hull streets was sufficient. The older one, with the trolley-buses, is worth keeping.
    • Betjeman: the caption should be reworded to say that this is a statue of Betjeman, not the man himself. It should also say where this is situated.
    • At present the pictures look rather small and poky. With the relaxation of rules relating to image sizing you could make some of them bigger.
  • Miscellaneous points: I have not done a thorough prose check and this needs to be done. Here are a few things I picked up:-
    • "Larkin's childhood was at first unusual" - it's the "at first" which niggles, the implication being that later it became usual. Rather than open a debate on this I would change the wording: "Larkin's childhood was in some respects unusual"
    • The phrase "was not insignificantly responsible" is a clumsy double negative and sounds a trifle arch and pompous. Suggest a simpler wording; and the assertion needs a citation.
    • The section title "1969-85: "Beyond the light stand failure and remorse" is, I believe, too literary and cryptic for an encyclopedia. It suggests the editor's voice in summarising Larkin's career. I'd go for something less personal.
      • Could you suggest something please? I found thinking up titles hard (originally I just went for dates) I think something that at least hints at the poetic silence that followed the final mid-70s burst of "Show Saturday", "Aubade" etc almost-instinct 09:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Monica Jones should not be referred to as "Monica"
    • Clumsy formation: "During his first five years in Hull the pressures of work slowed Larkin's output to an average of just two-and-a-half poems a year, but it was during this period..." I think it's the repeat of "during" that jars.
    • "Love Again" could not have attracted close critical attention if it remained "unpublished" in the fullest sense. Do we know where it was first printed/published/broadcast or whatever?
    • "Prose non-fiction" section: we should be told whose view it is that in Required Writing his scepticism is at its most "nuanced and illuminating" (and preferably what this means), and at its most inflamed and polemical in the Daily Telegraph reviews. The sentence beginning "His scepticism.... is much too long and needs dividing.
    • "The admiration for the volume was genuine for most reviewers, but one also senses anxiety in their prose,..." The editorial voice again: who is "one"?
    • "Cooper draws on the entire canon of Larkin's works, as well as on unpublished correspondence, to counter the oft-repeated caricature of Larkin as a racist, misogynist reactionary." Your use of the word "caricature" indicates that the view of Larkin as racist, reactionary etc is wrong, or at least distorted. Having heard and read a geat deal of Larkin, I have no doubt that this was a significant part of his character. It was doubtless not all of him; but to suggest that he was "caricatured" as a racist etc is unjustified.
    • The library budget expansion, though impressive, is seen in better focus when adjusted for inflation. According to MeasuringWorth.com, £4,500 in 1955 is worth £88,000 now; £448,500 in 1985 is worth £1.02 million now. In real terms that's about a twelvefold rather than a hundredfold increase in the budget.
    • The words "later to become Sir John Betjeman" should be removed
    • I think the programme was recently re-broadcast on BBC4; the channel's name is normally shown as a numeric
    • "...extracts can be heard during a Sky News report." This is very vague; what Sky News report? When was it broadcast? And do you really mean "can" be heard?
    • Larkin's description of his "normal" voice needs to be cited.

Please let me know if you would like clarification on any of these points. I look forward to watching the progress of this article. Brianboulton (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moni3

  • His sister Catherine, known as Kitty, was 10 years older than him than he? Can you combine this sentence with the next? was a singular individual who combined a love of literature with an enthusiasm for Nazism Is there a reason why "singular individual" is used instead of "unique man"? I think it tends to sound like bigger words are used when more direct ones would suffice. As for the use of "individual", it's oddly a staple of police and military speak. I dunno...just sounds off.
    • To me there is a degree of irony present in the words "singular individual". Combining a love of D. H. Lawrence and Nazism is not just "unique", but slightly odd too. I don't know if this is an American/British English thing, but "individual" to me does not sound "off" almost-instinct 00:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why no one ever visited his home when Larkin was a child? Were his folks hoarders?
  • he fitted in Isn't "fitted" for pipes? Would "fit" be more appropriate?
  • who encouraged his taste for ridicule and irreverence and who remained a close friend throughout Larkin's life This is oddly worded. "who encouraged his irreverent humor and tendency to ridicule (something).
    • IMO that's a matter of opinion. What's odd about "a taste for irreverence"? Larkin definitely had one of those. If you don't like my prose there's nothing I can do about it, but I dispute that this sentence is jerry-built almost-instinct 00:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my points above are matters of opinion, that's true, and you can choose to ignore them and justify them away. That's your prerogative. However, the designation of FA itself is also a matter of collective opinion. My attention to how sentences flow together and tell a compelling story is not as sharp as other FA reviewers. My comments are based on those I have received when I have submitted FAs. But, as I have said, you can take them or leave them. --Moni3 (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not asking of Amis really became famous. I was pointing out cheekily because I thought Awadewit was going to respond and she may be in tune with my voodoo by now, if rhyming like this is really the best way to present the sentence. I halted in the middle of it and laughed. It broke my concentration and I ceased taking the article seriously. I thought it was a play on words, which is inappropriate in an encyclopedia. If you're not in the US, "Famous Amos" was a restaurant chain and coincidentally, is a line of cookies unrelated to the chain. --Moni3 (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. One of the hallmarks of a FA is that readers should not have to click off it to find out what specific terms mean. Even if you insert a clause describing what the term is, as in "Q.C., or members of the Queen's Counsel who argue on behalf of the royal government,..." (or whatever is accurate). --Moni3 (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not getting a sense in the Creative output section of how Larkin's poetry style or themes resounded with his generation, whether he was revolutionary or not, whether he was as plain as any poet who gets into a magazine. I must admit I am unfamiliar with Larkin's work (and a bit thick when it comes to poetry, but I recognize at least that Pound was a voice for postwar apathy, etc.), so if there is any value in my commentary here, it is that it's from someone who has never read Larkin before. So it's me, generally, to whom you will be writing if the article ever appears on the main page. Why should I store this information in my head? When I scan the shelves for my next book (and imagining I might actually check out or buy a book of poetry), why would I reach for Larkin? What will I learn about him, his country, or his generation from his poems?
  • The Legacy section I need to re-read, but it's my first impression that it's a bit unpolished as yet. I find the Reception history and Critical opinion sections making assumptions that I should be familiar with the critics and writers who have characterized Larkin's writing. I am also wishing for a statement or paragraph in this section or the Creative output section that roundly states what his poems were about, what essence they captured, and how critics have since described his career.
  • How did Larkin epxress his racism? As an apparent fan of jazz, surely not against blacks? If so, can you reconcile how someone could love black music so much and hate blacks?
    • eg extensive use of the N-word in private correspondence in the main, IIRC. Hull, where he lived from 1955, experienced very little immigration from Commonwealth countries, unlike most large English cities, which makes it mostly a case of ignorant fear, as far as I can fathom. Within the subject of Jazz, he was very eloquent about the role of race - which rather adds to the irony. [My best guess, wandering off into the realm of OR, would be that his idealised picture of the oppressed pre-war Jazz musician failed to mesh with his limited experiences of real, living, breathing, poor non-culturally-notable immigrants] almost-instinct 00:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some discussion in your sources about Larkin's racism. Can you expound on it just a bit? At least how it was expressed. I automatically assumed it was related to foreigners and Jews. --Moni3 (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Awadewit

edit

I'm greatly enjoying reading this article. I will be doing my review in parts.

Lead and Life
  • The article seems overlinked, in general, with repetitious links and obvious links, such as jazz.
  • Please redlink any of Larkin's works (novels, poems, etc.) which could sustain their own articles.
  • Philip Arthur Larkin, CH, CBE, FRSL (9 August 1922 – 2 December 1985) is commonly regarded as one of the greatest English poets of the latter half of the twentieth century; he was also a novelist and a jazz critic - It is awkward to have both the present and past tense in one sentence.
  • to follow the traditional full-length degree course - Perhaps "programme" rather than "course"?
  • Shortly after graduating from Oxford, Larkin was appointed municipal librarian at Wellington, Shropshire - This sounds awkward to me - wasn't he appointed municipal librarian at a public library in Wellington? This sounds like he was appointed librarian to the entire town.
  • Having developed under the influence of W. H. Auden, W. B. Yeats and Thomas Hardy, Larkin's poetry, usually written in "highly-structured but flexible verse forms", typically displays a "piquant mixture of lyricism and discontent". - It is unclear from this sentence whether or not Larkin knew these writers personally or was just influenced by their works.
  • From 1927 to 1945 the family home was 1 Manor Road, a large three-storey detached house near the city centre that would be demolished in the 1960s to make way for Coventry's inner ring road. - I'm not sure this detail needs to be included. I don't feel that this is adding much to our knowledge of Larkin.
  • Although home life was relatively cold, Larkin enjoyed support from his parents. For example, his deep passion for jazz was supported by the purchase of a drum kit and a saxophone, supplemented by a subscription for Down Beat, the first of Larkin's many jazz magazines. - "support" is used twice in a row; The second sentence is a bit unclear - it sounds as if Larkin is subscribing to a magazine he also edits.
  • The Brideshead Revisited image of university life had, at least for the time being, faded, and most of the male students were studying for highly truncated degrees. - I'm not sure we can rely on most readers understanding the BR reference. This should probably be replaced by an explicit description.
  • Due to his poor eyesight, Larkin failed his military medical and was able to study for the usual three years. - "military medical exam" or "military medical review", perhaps?
  • While his relationship with Monica Jones developed, he also had a sexually adventurous affair with Patsy Strang, who at the time was in an open marriage with one of his colleagues. - What made it sexually adventurous? (This is a very subjective phrase.)
  • For his first year he lodged in bedsits. - Is "bedsit" too colloquial for an encyclopedia?
  • For the first 15 years of his time there, Larkin was deeply involved in all aspects of the creation of a new library—its thoroughly modern nature at odds with the image of Larkin as a reactionary - In what way is Larkin viewed as a reactionary? At this point in the article, the reader hasn't heard that view yet. What made the library modern?
    • The details on the library are included in the "Career as a librarian section" - should I add "(see Career as a librarian, below)"? almost-instinct 10:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have started to rewrite sentence, but not sure what elements of the library's modernity to emphasize... Guillaume: help please! almost-instinct 18:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've removed the modern/reactionary stuff. Even reactionary librarians wouldn't have built a non-modern library, or at least not since they stopped using quill pens. Furthermore, the original brick BJ library was hardly the height of modernism - the modernism came with the second (concrete) phase and the stand-alone automated system, all dealt with below. BTW, the following sentence, about Betty M, sits rather oddly here, IMO. --GuillaumeTell 22:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The footage of him being interviewed by fellow poet John Betjeman in a series of locations in and around Hull was not insignificantly responsible for the creation of Larkin's public persona - What persona is that?

More to come! Awadewit (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creative output and Legacy
  • The first time any published work of Larkin's is mentioned, please put the publication date in parentheses next to it.
  • Be sure that all critics, scholars, poets, etc. that are mentioned in the article have an identifying phrase in front of their names the first time they are mentioned. Many readers may not know who these people are.
  • This resulted in the publication, three months before Jill, of The North Ship, a collection of poems written between 1942 and 1944 which showed the increasing influence of Yeats. - In what way did this collection show the influence of Yeats?
  • In October 1954 an article in The Spectator made the first use of the title The Movement to describe the dominant trend in British post-war literature. - What characterizes this trend?
  • Larkin's earliest work showed the influence of Eliot, Auden and Yeats, and the development of his mature poetic identity in the early 1950s coincided with the growing influence on him of Thomas Hardy. - In what specific ways did these other poets influence Larkin's work?
  • The "Poetic style" section is almost entirley made up of quotations. Could some of these be removed and paraphrases used instead? It is jarring for the reader to read so many quotes.
  • I feel like the analysis of Larkin's writing is a bit thin. The "Creative output" section doesn't contain any analysis of his novels, for example.
  • I was wondering if more quotations from Larkin's writing could be worked into the "Poetic style" section. Showing readers examples of the claims made in that section would be very helpful.
  • Of the reception of High Windows Richard Bradford writes, "the reviews were generally favourable, with the notable exception of Robert Nye in The Times, but each reflected the difficulty of writing a 500–1,000-word piece on a collection which, while short, compelled fascination and confusion. The admiration for the volume was genuine for most reviewers, but one also senses anxiety in their prose, particularly on how to describe the individual genius at work in poems such as "Annus Mirabilis", "The Explosion" and "The Building" and at the same time explain why each is so radically different. Nye overcomes this problem by treating the differences as ineffective masks for a consistently nasty presence." - This is a very long quotation - I would suggest paraphrasing more of it.
  • In Larkin at Sixty,[40] amongst the portraits by friends and colleagues such as Kingsley Amis, Noel Hughes and Charles Monteith and dedicatory poems by John Betjeman, Peter Porter and Gavin Ewart, the various strands of Larkin's output were analysed by critics and fellow poets: Andrew Motion, Christopher Ricks and Seamus Heaney looked at the poems, Alan Brownjohn wrote on the novels, and Donald Mitchell and Clive James looked at his jazz criticism. - This is not a particularly informative paragraph - can you summarize their views at all?
  • Cooper draws on the entire canon of Larkin's works, as well as on unpublished correspondence, to counter the oft-repeated caricature of Larkin as a racist, misogynist reactionary. - It is difficult for the reader to understand, from the article, why Larkin would be portrayed this way. I think that the "Creative output" section needs to analyze the content of his works more - their themes, for example.
  • The "Critical opinion" section is almost a list of opinions rather than a coherent, topically-based section. There is even a one-sentence paragraph. This section needs to be restructed so that the reader is led through the different ideas rather than through the different critics. The names of the critics are not so important as the ideas. Also, the critics should be grouped together better, to indicate broad trends in Larkin scholarship. The paragraph that begins "The view that Larkin is not a nihilist or pessimist, but actually displays optimism in his works, is certainly not universally endorsed, but Chatterjee's lengthy study suggests the degree to which old stereotypes of Larkin are now being transcended" is the best example of the kind of topical coherence that the rest of the section should have.
  • Larkin made a great effort in just a few months to come to terms with these plans before they were placed before the University Grants Committee - Is "come to terms" the right phrase here?
  • ten years later Larkin took the equally ground-breaking decision to computerise records for the entire library stock - I'm not sure what was groundbreaking about his first decision with regards to the library.
  • The last three paragraphs of "Recordings" are a prose list - can you integrate these a bit more seamlessly?

More to come! Awadewit (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry to have replied to so few of these points: I really am not at all qualifed to deal with analysis of Larkin's output &c. :-( The critical opinion secton was written by User:Macphysto; his userpage says he has a PhD, which makes me especially wary of meddling with the content. Also I personally wouldn't be comfortable with the task of turning sources' well-written phrases into own awkward prose: I would probably make them no more pleasurable to read ... almost-instinct 18:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The points I have raised about the literary analysis are essential, so somehow these have to be fixed. Also, it is not about making the scholarly prose more pleasurable to read, but about making the writing style more consistent and removing some of the jargon. Awadewit (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources and MOS
  • What makes the Larkin Society biography a reliable source?
    • See, for example, the biog given here for the Vice Chairman, Jean Hartley: she worked with Larkin at the Marvell Press in the 1950s, was a colleague of Larkin's in the 1970s, wrote one of the books we give in the "Memoirs and Biographies" section, and worked with Maeve Brennan (Larkin's colleague and lover for many years) on the Larkin Society's journal almost-instinct 12:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this a reliable source?
  • Was this originally published in The Observer? It looks that way from the website. If so, that should be indicated in the footnote.
  • This artice was originally published in Twentieth Century Literature (Summer 1996) - this needs to be indicated in the footnote.
  • What makes this a reliable source?
  • Footnote 129 should indicate that the YouTube video is a recording of a SkyOne broadcast.
  • Footnote 133 - the link is broken.
  • Please add publication locations to the references.
  • Why do some of the references have two different publication dates?

I'll check for research comprehensiveness in a few days. Awadewit (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • One last question - I searched the MLA database for Philip Larkin. I found 22 books and over 400 articles. Since you obviously could not read all of the material on Larkin for this article, I'm curious what your research methodology was. Awadewit (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't speak for MacPhysto, who did the work on the Critical Opinion, the section that most needed proper academic research. Clearly that section was written with access to an academic library. The biographical sections, the reception history and the accounts of his artistic output all came from Motion, the standard, official and decidedly non-hagiographical biography, and Bradford, a more recent biography. I doubt that even warrants the title "research methodology". I am not an academic; neither my undergraduate nor my postgraduate studies were in literature. I joined Wikipedia because before I did the Larkin article looked something like this which I found, as an Englishman, embarrassing. It is clear that on Wikipedia there are both people with proper qualifications in this field and people who know more about Larkin than me; unfortunately, all the vacuum found to fill the gap was me. I've done my level best to avoid rushing into areas of this topic where angels fear tread almost-instinct 08:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • PS I've just been advised that in response to the question "what was your research methodology" I should have replied: "I read what I understood to be the seminal studies and used whatever else was accessible." almost-instinct 10:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SlimVirgin

edit

I didn't realize this article was going through peer review until after I'd posted this to the talk page, so I'm leaving a link here too in case it's helpful. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
edit

I don't know whether this peer review is still active. If it is, input would be appreciated from the reviewers regarding the lead, as there's a disagreement about it. I've laid out the three versions here. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the Peer Review process is looking pretty inert at the moment almost-instinct 11:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Scartol

Awadewit asked me to review this article, but it looks like it's been (being?) reviewed by many different editors already, and may be in a state of rapid debate. I think I could be most useful by offering my thoughts on a version that is stable and in need of a set of copyediting eyes before FAC. What do the editors involved think; do you want to holler at me when the article is at such a point? Scartol • Tok 20:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(a) we still have some things (some big things) to sort out from previous comments
(b) since the PR opened another editor has come on board with ideas etc
so I reckon that holding off for now would probably be best IMHO, not wanting to exhaust the supply of willing reviewers. I certainly don't imagine that FAC is imminent, just yet ;-) What do you think Awadewit? almost-instinct 21:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No imminence, no. :) I think asking Scartol back in a few weeks would be a fine idea. Awadewit (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That works well for me, as it will give me a chance to finish writing the thing I'm trying to do (the library is getting testy) and hopefully I'll be full of pep and vigor for when you need me. Have fun! Scartol • Tok 05:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Philip_Larkin/archive1&oldid=1136084798"