Talk:H. P. Lovecraft/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Realmaxxver (talk · contribs) 20:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Good article nomination template I will be using is at the bottom. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Lead

I think the period= parameter of the infobox could be replaced with the years_active= parameter.

It is done. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The third paragraph of the lead

"In these letters, he discussed his world view and his daily life" the second "his" could be removed.

It is done. I look forward to reading any other comments that you may have. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 6 - St. Armand 1972 might be linking to the wrong page (p. 3).

The source has been removed from that sentence. It was a bit too indirect. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Lead

"According ot this philosophy, humanity was an unimportant part of an uncaring cosmos that could be swept away at any moment." misspelling of "to".

It is done. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage and Move to New York

"Lovecraft's single-room apartment at 169 Clinton Street in Brooklyn Heights, not far from the working-class waterfront neighborhood Red Hook, was burgled, leaving him with only the clothes he was wearing." Not sure that the specific location should be included here, already mentioned two paragraphs earlier.

I removed it. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal views

"Lovecraft began his life as a Tory.[121] This is likely the result of his conservative upbringing." The two sentences can be merged into "Lovecraft began his life as a Tory,[121] which was likely the result of his conservative upbringing."

It is done. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Influences

"One of Lovecraft's most significant literary influences was Edgar Allan Poe, whom he described as his "God of Fiction".[146] His fiction was introduced to Lovecraft when the latter was eight-years-old." Does "the latter" refer to Lovecraft or Edgar Allan Poe?

"The latter" refers to Lovecraft. I have made it a bit more clear. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In "H. P. Lovecraft: New England Decadent", Barton Levi St. Armand, a professor emeritus of English and American studies at Brown University,[155]"

It might be a bit excessive to add a source to prove that he was a professor at this university.
Wikilink to Brown University

Both have been done. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

"According to Joyce Carol Oates, Lovecraft (and Edgar Allan Poe in the 19th century)" "in the 19th century" is also a bit redundant.

It has been removed. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lovecraft studies

"After Derleth's death, the scholarship entered a new phase." The date of Derleth's death could be specified

The date has been added. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

All of the images have fitting licences, and except for H. P. Lovecraft, 1930.png, the images are relevant to the section that they are included in.

I chose an image of the subject, as that section is not the easiest to illustrate. If you want, I could replace it with a photograph of one of the critics. Unfortunately, it looks the image of Edmund Wilson is going to be deleted from Wikimedia Commons. That was my first choice for a replacement. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the image with one of Colin Wilson. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source check[edit]

Ref 239 - Since Karr 2018 is split into multiple sections, the section that is cited might be included to improve verifiablity. this can be done with the loc= parameter (see the Template documentaion). This can also apply any uses of Karr 2018 in the article (Ref 243 and Refs 246 – 249)

I will look into this. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is done. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gale 1960 - Citation contains two links to an archive url.

I am not sure what was going on there. It might be linked to the power outage that disabled the Internet Archive itself. For now, I have replaced the links. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

de Camp 1979 - does'nt include a url and / or a ISBN / ISSN.

I added the ISSN. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio check[edit]

After a check on copyvio, I think this might be ok, as long as it can be proven that these specific three urls copied from the article, and not the other way around;

I saw the third one on a previous check through Earwig's service. It appears to be triggered by the quotes and titles that are in the article. The other ones look like spam. The "erneacouniphypoul.tk" website—which was not there a month ago—appears to have copied at least one of my edits. The dating website appears to have never been archived. This implies that it was recently created. Meanwhile, the text was first placed here between 2011 and 2014. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall rating[edit]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. 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:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).	I may need some feedback from a more experienced reviewer, specifically with reliable book sources, but it looks alright. After a source review that I have done, I found no issues; pass. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio issues adressed above; pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. 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:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

@Susmuffin:, the article has passed the Good article criteria. I'm just pinging you in the case that the bot notifies you of a failed good article nomination; which can happen if the article has previously failed a good article nomination.^[a] I think we should see if we can bring the article back to featured status. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^ For more information, see the good article instructions;
See also: H. P. Lovecraft's article milestones on the talk page.

[1] For more information, see the good article instructions;
See also: H. P. Lovecraft's article milestones on the talk page.

[a]