Talk:Lemmons/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bruce1ee (talk · contribs) 14:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this nomination – I see it's been in the queue for over 5 months, so I think it deserves a look at. I'll follow up here with my findings in the next couple of days. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a first pass through the article and a little copyediting. But before I start the review, I do have one query: Why is

Hi Bruce, thanks for agreeing to review. I had a problem with the names throughout. I couldn't use surnames, because there were several Amises, and I couldn't mix first and last names (Kingsley and Howard married). But I dislike calling adult women by their first names. So, as I recall, when she is referred to alone, I call her Jane Howard (she was known as Jane, rather than Elizabeth), and when she's referred to with the others, I call her Jane. But I did this instinctively as I was writing, depending on what sounded right, so it may not be consistent. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But did she ever use "Amis" as her surname? If she didn't, then I don't see any confusion referring to her as "Howard". I don't feel too strongly about this if you'd prefer to leave it as it is, but my only concern is that MOS is one of the GA criteria. —Bruce1ee^talk 15:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't use Amis, but I don't want to use a first name and surname in the same sentence (Kingsley and Howard). I'd be surprised if the MoS recommends that, but in any event GAs don't have to comply with the MoS, except for the MoS subpages mentioned in section 1b of the GA criteria. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I'm happy to leave it as it is. I'm still working on the review – give me a couple of days. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bruce. Please take as long as you need. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review

This is an interesting and nicely written article, but please have a look at my comments below. I don't have access to the offline sources, so

• "... outside term time ...": does "term" refer to "school/college term"? – I think this should be clarified.
• "... as did one of Jane's brothers, Colin ("Monkey"), and artists Sargy Mann and Terry Raybauld.": There is no mention of Colin or Terry Raybauld in the cited source.
• "After 12 months at Sussex Tutors (a crammer in Brighton), he passed some O-levels and 3 A-levels, and won an exhibition to Exeter College, Oxford. He graduated with a congratulatory first in English in 1971.": Some of these facts in this statement (eg. "Sussex Tutors", "congratulatory first in English in 1971") I can't find in the cited source.

• Guests

• "... Cecil died on 22 May": not in the cited source.
• Is Day-Lewis' poem (or the last stanza of it) not copyright?

• Move to Hampstead

• "Kingsley never spoke to her again": this is too close to the source ("Kingsley never spoke to her again" here).

• Notes

• This may not be a GA requirement, but I see that none of the online references have a "Retrieved" date.

Response

Hi Bruce, thanks for the feedback.

• Re: lead:

• I couldn't find a free image of the house. I've moved the external image of Jane and Kingsley into the lead, as it's a bit more interesting.
• Married: not sure it matters for the lead to point out that they were married.
• "At Lemmons" italics removed
• I don't think we need to mention post-Lemmons in the lead; the lead says they lived in Lemmons until 1976, so that should do.

• Re: Residents

• "outside term time": I could say "when not in school or college," but "outside term time" seems clear enough.
• Colin and Sargy ref: this was moved by mistake to the previous sentence. Now fixed.
• Sussex Tutors, congratulatory first, etc: the refs should now be clearer.

• I don't see Sussex Tutors or Exeter College in the refs ([29],[30]), or am I missing something? —Bruce1ee^talk 07:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: Guests

• Source added for death date

• I added the Stanford ref to the 2nd mention of the death date. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Copyright: yes, it's under copyright, and we quote one verse. I'd be surprised if that's a problem. Later addition: I looked at Wikiproject Poetry and a page about song lyrics to see how much of a poem can be quoted. They don't say (I suppose it depends on whether there's an editorial need), so to be safe I've reduced the quote to two lines.

• Re: Move to Hampstead

• Reworded, and removed the bit about Kingsley avoiding her, which I can't find again via Google Books. It's probably in Slipstream, but I don't have any of the books in front of me.

• Re: Notes

• Access dates: I rarely use them.

• Not a problem. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: Spelling

• I hope you don't mind that I've reverted to organize, etc; I also added the Oxford spelling tag to the talk page. It's a minor issue, but those spellings are used in the UK, and I'd prefer to keep them where we can.

• That's fine – I didn't know Oxford spelling used -ize rather than -ise. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review. Hope the fixes help. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your fixes – I've responded above; there's just one issue outstanding. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Sussex Tutors and Exeter College, these are scattered throughout Amis's book, Experience (Amis 2000), but Google Books won't let me link; they are showing the pages, but not the page numbers. I've added a couple to footnote 29.

The offline source is fine, for which I'm

assuming good faith. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I just realized that I hadn't answered your question about images properly. I wasn't able to find images of Lemmons for which I could reasonably claim fair use. For a non-residential building, I would normally try to find a local Wikipedian to take a photograph, but it isn't a good idea to do that when it's someone's home and it's so close to the road. So I added the external link to the infobox as the next best thing. I'll continue looking out for a photograph. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine – I appreciate your efforts. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks fine now – I've promoted the article. Thanks for all your hard work on it. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bruce, thank you very much for your time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a pleasure. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

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.	No copyright violations found.
	1b. it complies with the list incorporation .	See above discussion regarding the naming of individuals.
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've assumed good faith for offline sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.
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 audio :
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images appear to be correctly tagged; no non-free image used.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions .
	7. Overall assessment.	Promoted to GA.