Talk:Philip Larkin/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

From January 2009 to October 2009

Currently this section is one long, single-sourced paragraph. I now have a copy of the second edition of Larkin's own account of Hull Library. Since his account stops at 1979, this second edition includes an account by Maeve Brennan of the Library from 1979-1985, ie covering the rest of Larkin's time as Librarian. My intention is to shorten the existing paragraph, to make it more of an overview, and to expand the details in, say, two or three subsequent paragraphs. I'm thinking that the best way of referencing this book in the inline citations would be

Larkin/Brennan 1987, p.xx

Do people agree? As you can see, I have added this edition to the Works section. As a matter of interest the proportion of Larkin/Brennan is 25pp to 9pp almost-instinct 15:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A while ago I requested help from some WP Librarians on this section, and no one's commented on it. Could I get an opinion, any opinion, on which direction this section needs to go? Thanks almost-instinct 12:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The reference to computerising the library's stock is, I think, a little misleading. He was presumably implementing a computerised catalogue, rather than digitising the holdings. Can this be made clear? Macphysto (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(Its address was 32 Pearson Park, and the three-storey red-brick house had at one time been the American Consulate.^[1])

I removed the above from the biog section as there doesn't seem to be any relevence to the information almost-instinct 18:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is quite interesting, actually! Macphysto (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is worth a mention in the article. Snowman (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Two to one, fair enough. I'll put it in, but hopefully a bit less clumsily almost-instinct 11:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

How is it that this article has not achieved a more favourable rating yet? IMHO it is better than some FAs. Macphysto (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

To achieve GA status it should be formally nominated and reviewed. Anyone can nominate an article for GA. Newer FAs undergo a lot of examination. Snowman (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not nominate it for GA status as a first off step as it looks like it meets the criteria. Go to

Good article nominations to nominate it. Keith D (talk

) 18:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Before this article is put up for examination, something needs to be done about the section "Poetic style", which is still a bit of a joke (excepting the marvellous juxtaposition of the quote from "Going, going" and the photo of the Coventry ring road) Unfortunately I'm not remotely qualified to write anything on this topic, and don't have any sources that have much useful to say. almost-instinct 12:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note it is a photograph of the inner ring road. Snowman (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: the article was nominated for GA by user Macphysto on 7 April 2009. See banner at top of this talk page. Snowman (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Since some reviewer is bound to point this out, let's get it done now: when I moved the Bibliography over to templates I left two undone in the "Dramatised interpretations" section as I wasn't at all sure how it ought to be done. The whole of the template is at Template:Citation if someone wants to have a go almost-instinct 15:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I am proposing to improve this section significantly in the next week or so. Macphysto (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the best news I've heard in ages. While you're at it could you cast an eye over the new paragraph that's appeared at the bottom of the Critical Opinion section, and see if there's anything that could be added to it? The IP who contributed made the reasonable point that dissenting voices weren't well represented. Given that there is such a large Critical Opinion section, IMO the Poetic Style section should be as free of opinion as possible. almost-instinct 08:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made a start on this. It's impossible to talk about style in a completely neutral way, but I'm certainly keeping my own opinions out of it! Macphysto (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This is great stuff. Will you, in due course, be doing anything about the technical side? almost-instinct 12:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - put this in the wrong place previously. What exactly do you have in mind? Macphysto (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

For example, a couple of paragraphs developing ideas about the "highly-structured but flexible verse forms" you've already mentioned. His use of form, metre, rhyme, enjambethingy &c. On a different note, if anyone has had anything useful to say about those more transcendent final stanzas ("Now night comes on. Waves fold behind villages", "Rather than words...", "I listen to money singing...") that, too, would be most useful. almost-instinct 15:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any good published material in this area, and obviously I want to avoid incorporating anything sane but citation-free, as that would take us into the dreaded territory of Original Research. Macphysto (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Philip Larkin/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Just a note to start this page, as I have signed to review this article. --Kateshortforbob 18:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(Bear with me as it's my first attempt at article review. Comments and corrections welcome if I'm doing it wrong!)

Checked quick-fail criteria; I don't believe any of these apply here. --Kateshortforbob 19:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   see below for detailed comments

   B. MoS compliance:

   complies with MOS guidelines on

   layout guidelines

   . It suggests that sources used directly in the article should be in the references section, whereas other works should be in the bibliography/further reading section.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Inline citations for statements which require them; all quotations appropriately marked. Verified citations of Andrew Motion, Richard Bradford, Anthony Thwaite (Larkin at Sixty), and all weblinks. a couple of minor queries about sources, see below for details

   C. No original research:

   No evidence of original research

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Gives a good overview, covering the major points of the subject's life. The sections on Creative output and Legacy were particularly informative, and the comprehensive bibliography very useful.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Coverage seems generally fair; both admirers and critics are represented. Appears written from a

   neutral point-of-view

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   The article history and talk page shows a steady article improvement over time, no edit warring or vandalism issues.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have

   fair use rationales

   :

   Appropriate licenses are provided, and I believe the single non-free image complies with the 10 criteria at

   Non-free Content Criteria

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with

   suitable captions

   :

   Most photos have appropriate

   alternative text

   describing some images, although captions may render this unnecessary.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Overall, I think it is a well-written article which provides ample and interesting material on the subject. With a few alterations, I believe this article could definitely meet the

   good article

   criteria.

Forgive me if these seem quite long or overly picky; I come from a family of avid readers and revisers, and can't seem to shake the habit. Most of them are just suggestions or very minor things, but I didn't want to make changes wholesale without discussion. I have made what I believe are small tweaks in the article itself, obviously subject to agreement. Because this is my first GA review, I hope to have an more experienced GA reviewer look over it as well.

I've added my replies to your comments. In most cases, the discussions need further thought! Since he's the GA nominator, and since his prose style is more fluent than mine, I suggest that Macphysto sorts out what needs to be done in each instance, and makes whatever alterations he thinks fit. almost-instinct 09:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Have made some changes already, and further thoughts are inserted below. Macphysto (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Since we have a process in place that seems to be working happily, could the more experienced GA reviewer wait until all these discussions are complete before commenting? Thank you! almost-instinct 11:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the points I made in the prose quality section were personal opinion only; your mileage may (and probably does!) vary (sorry, should have made myself clearer, there). The alterations look good to me; I seem to have run out of free time today, but I hope to read the rest of the discussion below tomorrow. --Kateshortforbob 21:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Prose Quality

• Brideshead Revisited image of university life had been put on hold. Consider rephrasing: "had faded/disappeared". I'm not sure it ever returned to that image.  Done

Aside from my own OR that the Brideshead image is still alive and kicking, I think this is a quote from the source almost-instinct 20:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this could usefully be changed. Will do that. Macphysto (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've now done it. Is the change okay in others' view? Macphysto (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• during his visits to her there the couple started sexual relations "started a sexual relationship" Assumed okay

They already had a relationship; I can't see what the problem with the current precise wording is almost-instinct 20:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the expression as it stands is more accurate. Macphysto (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• In June 1950 Larkin was appointed sub-librarian of Queen’s University, Belfast, a post he took up that September. Prior to his departure he and Ruth split up. At some stage between his appointment to Queen’s and the calling off of the engagement, his relationship with Monica Jones, a lecturer in English at Leicester, became sexual. maybe consider rephrasing. "In June 1950 Larkin was appointed sub-librarian of Queen's University, Belfast, a post he took up that September. Around that time, he began a sexual relationship with an English lecturer, Monica Jones, who had been a colleague at Leicester, and broke off his engagement with Ruth."  Done

Again, pls explain what the problem with the current wording is? It is accurate. The relationship with Monica Jones already existed, and had done since he went to Leicester. All we know is that between these two dates the relationship went from asexual to sexual. Maybe there is another of expressing this, but the proposed replacement doesn't do this. almost-instinct 20:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the existing wording usefully captures the overlap, but I'll slightly amend the phrasing, I think. Macphysto (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• a new and thoroughly modern library. I'm not sure "thoroughly" is required here. "a new, modern library"?  Done

I am sure "thoroughly", or some equivalent term, is required: Hull University Library was absolutely cutting-edge, and was a great example to other British universities. almost-instinct 20:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The modernity of the library facilities at Hull is worth emphasizing, not least because it is so at odds with the image of Larkin as a fusty reactionary. Macphysto (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you suggest a rewrite of the sentence which will incorporate this point, please? (I think I've been trying a bit too much of "show don't tell"!) almost-instinct 09:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Macphysto (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• In spring 1963 Brennan persuaded him to attend a SCR dance with her, despite his preference for smaller gatherings I know the senior common room is mentioned earlier, but I wonder if the full name should be used again here - trying to remember what SCR stood for took me a moment!  Done

I think it would be a bit clunky to write it out in full. Macphysto (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It is wikilinked as best could be almost-instinct 10:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think SCR should be in full (or an equivalent phrase) on this page.Snowman (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

One problem would be that people who don't know that SCR means Senior Common Room are fairly likely not to know what a Senior Common Room is, and would still need a wikilink. Maybe something along lines of "a dance for the university's academic staff"? almost-instinct 11:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not a bad solution. Macphysto (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I see your amendation didn't include the word "academic". Does "staff" imply that anyway? almost-instinct 11:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Was Maeve Brennan "academic" staff? I think not. She is described in the Motion biog as L's "superior dogsbody". So she would hardly have been dragging L to a dance for academic staff, since if it had been such a thing he'd have had to be the one doing the dragging. Macphysto (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry! I thought all library staff counted as "academics" in universities. Whereabouts is the dividing line? (a propos of nothing at all, since Brennan was at one point Motion's colleague that was pretty charmless of him. You wouldn't have to poke around Hull University for long to find someone with a cutting line about Motion) almost-instinct 13:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• In 1971 Larkin began corresponding with his schoolfriend Colin Gunner, who had led a picaresque life. It feels like this either needs expanded or removed, as it's relevance is not clear as is. I know that Larkin and Gunner's correspondence is mentioned in the biographies, as well as the help Larkin gave Gunner with his manuscript, but I'm not sure how significant it is overall.  Done

It is significant because the correspondence with Gunner is mentioned later in the article: it was the letters to Gunner that contain the very strongest examples of Larkin's racism etc almost-instinct 20:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a little more detail would focus this. Macphysto (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Might there be an elegant way of to insertin a reference to this correspondence's subsequent notoriety into the sentence? almost-instinct 10:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I can do that neatly. Macphysto (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Done now. Is it okay? Macphysto (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reworked your reworking. No doubt you'll want to return the compliment ;-) almost-instinct 11:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Anyway, I misspelled one word! Macphysto (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• From that moment on he and Monica were a monogamous couple. From what moment? "From then on", maybe?  Done

Yes, this I've amended. Good point. Macphysto (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• It was during this time that he made his final attempts at novel writing "It was during" is used 2 sentences previously. Consider rephrasing  Done
• 1953 PEN Anthology Does PEN =
  International PEN
  ? Wikilink?  Done

Done. Macphysto (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Larkin was seen to be a part of this grouping May want to mention that Larkin didn't see himself as part of this group, or perhaps that he didn't think there was a group as such (per Motion).Assumed okay

Actually there is a quote from Larkin at some point where, for a moment, he admitted that it (somehow) existed and that he (to some degree) was involved. Hence my deliberate hedging almost-instinct 21:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This quotation appears in Motion on p.243. Might the ref be included? Macphysto (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, do you think that his ambivalent relationship to The Movement is worth mentioning? almost-instinct 14:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Btw that ref has been added, presumably by McPh almost-instinct 10:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Annus Mirabilis", "High Windows" and "This Be The Verse". In the 1970s Larkin wrote a series of longer and more sober poems: "The Building", "The Old Fools" and "Aubade." "Annus Mirabilus" and "Aubade" are linked to the articles on the phrase/forms. Is this in lieu of an article about the poems themselves? In the bibliography, "Annus Mirabilus" (under "High Windows") is linked to the John Dryden poem of the same name. Should be delinked, or changed the same link as this one.  Done

Annus Mirabilis was recently rewritten, removing ref to Larkin, it should def go. Prob Aubade, too. I think these wikilinks predate my rewrite almost-instinct 20:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• 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."[77] consider making a block quotation Assumed okay

the whole section is full of quotation; a block quote might suggest that this is more important, which it isn't. almost-instinct 20:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Macphysto (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• In 1980 Neil Powell could write that "could" or "would"? Either makes sense, but I think "would" is more common  Done

This, I think, is based on a misunderstanding of the argumentative flow of what has been written here. It's a "could ... but" construction to highlight a change in position (here a change in critical fashion); a "would" sentence could be used, but it would not achieve the desired contrast. Macphysto (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• between asbtracts and concretes I wasn't able to get hold of this source. Is the abstracts typo in the original? If so, add "(sic)" to prevent confusion  Done

Just a typo. Thank you. Macphysto (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Larkin is not a nihilist or pessimist consider wikilinking Nihilism and Pessimism  Done

Done. Macphysto (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Chatterjee's lengthy study suggests the degree to which Larkin is now transcending old stereotypes Does this mean "degree to which old stereotypes of Larkin's work are now being transcended/revised". Larkin's no longer in a position to transcend anything himself  Done

Good point, well made. Amended. Macphysto (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wolfgang Gortschacher’s book on Little Magazine Profiles has essential information on the economics of magazines during the period. What his quantitative evidence shows is that Would consider ellipsing (ellipsising?) this section. The quote is already quite long, the Andrew Duncan source is readily available for readers, and I'm not sure how much the explanation adds  Done

Agreed. Macphysto (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• "detached two-storey 1950s house in a thoroughly suburban street called Newland Park" Snowman (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Assumed okay

• Is the word "thoroughly" needed? Snowman (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The answer could be either

1. No, I just put it in because I was bored
2. Yes.

Now, which do you think it might be, huh? almost-instinct 11:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

But "suburb" has slightly different meanings in different parts of the world. It may be better to say "(affluent or alternative adjective) residential area outside the city centre", to avoid unexpected interpretations. Snowman (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think perhaps it would be fruitful here to quote Motion. I'll do so. Macphysto (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• "The view that Larkin is not a
  Nihilist and Nihilism (disambiguation). The link to nihilist needs disambiguation, or unlinked, or rewording. Snowman (talk
  ) 20:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Assumed okay

I altered the target of "nihilist" to the article on Nihilism from the disambig page. Feel free to change if there's another page more appropriate --Kateshortforbob 22:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

2. References

• References Some references use cite templates, some have only <ref></ref> links. These should be standardised one way or the other IS THIS NOW SORTED?

Honestly, I can't remember what point we got up to with templates. IIRC then every ref that included a citation to a unique source has a cite template (though some may be missing) but those refs that merely gave a page number for a work in the bibliography was left plain. I believe all but two items in the bibliography have templates (see talk page for details of those two) almost-instinct 11:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Macphysto (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

But it would appear that another editor has the matter in hand. Macphysto (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the references are all correct up to number 95 now, but I am starting to get a headache; can someone have a look at the rest of the references and put them in cite format. You might have the book source and easily add the isbn or something and change it to a cite tag. Snowman (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand this aspect of things - the argument for templates versus <ref></ref> links - so this is for someone else to do, I think. It's clear Snowman has done a lot of work on this. Macphysto (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Links to web sites etc, all appear to be using the structural cite templates, while book citations use the other form of ref tags. Having looked at several other good and featured articles, this seems perfectly reasonable for the structure of this article. --Kateshortforbob 21:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• This vantage point was later commemorated in the poem "High Windows".[21] Reading the source here, in the source the connection is implied but not specifically stated (Amis said that he liked looking at women out the window, the poem is about looking at people out windows). This sentence could be rephrased, or if there's another source that draws a direct line, it could be used. IS THIS NOW SORTED?

I no longer have the sources, but in any case the combination of looking down at young people, and seeing the sky through the windows is explicit in the poem. Finding a source is almost certainly feasible almost-instinct 21:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be sorted by adding a word such as "apparently" or "seemingly"? Macphysto (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done This has been altered. --Kateshortforbob 21:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Not long after the second, much larger phase of construction was completed in 1969,[28] Is the citation here correct? I wasn't able to find this information where referenced. I wonder if it's on another page (or it's entirely possible that I missed it). Done

this will def be in Motion, sorry for error almost-instinct 09:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I just re-read this passage and wonder if the page number given in Bradford was a citation for the other part of the sentence: his being free to direct his attention elsewhere. almost-instinct 15:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Have changed the page ref. Macphysto (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• publisher of barely legal pornography, who also issued serious fiction as a cover for his core activities From my reading, Motion asks rhetorically if this is why he published poetry, rather than asserting it outright. "who also issued serious fiction, possibly as a cover for his core activities"?  Done

IIRC Bradford has something to say on this, too almost-instinct 21:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

He does, and he is explicit where Motion is not. Amended ref now. Macphysto (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• "come increasingly to rely on Larkin's judgement ... I have delegated to him rather larger areas of responsibility than normally falls to the lot of a sub-librarian ... He has the ability to assess a problem, arrive at a decision and act upon it without delay, which is not too common among academic administrators." Per
  Wikipedia:Cite#When_to_cite_sources
  , citation may be required after quotes, as well as at end of section Probably in need of further development

the whole section is from a single, non-paginated source. I've a better source for improving this section but see talk page for my uncertainty at how to begin almost-instinct 21:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• his friend Robert Conquest, of the group known as The Movement.[122] this link has gone. I found this alternate.
• • Harrald, Chris, Mr Larkin's Awkward Day, The Afternoon Play broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on Tuesday 29 April 2008[124] this link gone. Alternative? IS THIS NOW SORTED?

No. The link doesn't take you to the right place any more, and an alternative doesn't seem to be available. Macphysto (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing at all available at the BBC site, so I have inserted an alternative - a link to the review on the Guardian website. Unfortunately, I have made a mess of this. It also needs changing in the links list at the foot of the page. Macphysto (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've undone my mess, but someone probably still needs to pass judgement on what I've done and modify accordingly. Macphysto (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done An alternate link providing the information is in place. --Kateshortforbob 21:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• you may want to use {{reflist|2}} to make a 2 column ref list, as it is quite long, but the individual lines are reasonably short. IS THIS NOW SORTED?

• the page uses {{reflist|colwidth=30em}}, which gives two or three cols depending on the screen width which can give a better appearance than forcing 2 cols. Snowman (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

At the moment some of the refs are rather long, which doesn't suit a multiple column approach. Macphysto (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be counterbalanced with a many more very short notes in the reflist, which would look odd if every one was on a single line. I have just shortened some of the refs by using the actual title on the external website rather than a longish description. On most screens the current format will give 2 cols, but on a wide screen (some laptops) it will give 3 cols, which is ideal. I see this as an issue that needed discussion, because {{reflist|colwidth=30em}} does give 2 cols on most computer screens and seems to me to be satisfactory. Snowman (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Changing refs to make them look pretty strikes me as, generally speaking, an unwise move. Anyway, on my widescreen computer (Vista; Internet Explorer) the whole list comes out in one column, and I can't say that its ever made life miserable for me almost-instinct 14:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Not a major issue; the code is in place to allow (but not force) multiple columns. Readers can adjust for their personal preference. --Kateshortforbob 21:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

--Kateshortforbob 18:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• the last reference (currently 122 - but may change with tidy up work) "BBC Radio 4 Publicity (29 April 2008). "Mr Larkin's Awkward Day". BBC Radio 4. http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/radio/wk18/tue.shtml." The website seems to have changed and there is nothing about PL on the page now. Probably will need a page modification. Snowman (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been amended, but someone else will need to tweak. It also needs amending in the list of external links. Macphysto (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Because of a deadlink, this needs a new reference "He lived with his family in Radford, Coventry, until he was five years old". Snowman (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)  Done

I've sorted this one out. Macphysto (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ref: "ed. by James Booth (2002), "Trouble at Willow Gables" and Other Fiction 1943–1953, Faber and Faber,
  ISBN 0-571-20347-7". At first sight this does not appear to be anything to do with PL, so could the ref details be expanded. Snowman (talk
  ) 15:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)  Done

Possibly the clue was the fact it was in the section dedicated to Larkin's works. Btw, congratulations on making this section look like a dog's dinner. You know perfectly well how much effort I went to get to the templates right for that, so top marks on the arrogance of thinking you could do a better job. Just so you know: you haven't. I recommend you do something about it. Those dates are totally random, something you would know if you actually knew anything about the topic. almost-instinct 19:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing significant has been deleted. Collaboration continues. Snowman (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've also sorted this, although it looks a bit weird now. Macphysto (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• I am going to try and track down the rogue quotation from Andrew Swarbrick tomorrow. Macphysto (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)  Done

• Several of the publications have two dates, which is a bit confusing; "Philip Larkin (2001), The Less Deceived, The Marvell Press (published 1955),
  ISBN 978-0900533068" - the difference between these two dates is 46 years, why is that? Snowman (talk
  ) 18:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)  Done

I guess because the 2001 edition was the one consulted for the purposes of the article. Macphysto (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason is straightforward: The Less Deceived was first published in 1955. This is useful information. The ISBN number is for the currently available edition of The Less Deceived. This is also useful information. The "2001" is a useless bot-generated date. This is a cautionary tale; don't use a bot unless you know what its doing to do. I'm sure I saw a Disney cartoon warning me about this when I was growing up almost-instinct 09:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

MOS

• Thank you, to me it looks like you have done a thorough review. I do not know much about Philip Larkin; nevertheless, I agree with you about the MOS changes you have suggested to conform to MOS including the layout guidelines of "Bibliography" and "References". Incidentally, what do you think of having "&" in subheadings. Snowman (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• alt text; this is new to me. I have added some alt text for two of the images on the page. Is this ok.? Snowman (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note the difference between a guideline and a rule. In the talk page archives one can see a third party - one with a very clear knowledge of the topic - agreeing that the current structure suits the information that the article contains. No one looking at this article without knowledge of the MoS guidelines would think that there was any problem with the structure: it is clear and logical. If this GA process becomes a compliance exercise in the interests of meaningless uniformity rather than an attempt to improve it in itself, then my involvement in it will cease immediately. almost-instinct 13:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is the quote from User:GuillameTell:

"Can I stick my oar in here? My view is that "Works" should be part of the Bibliography, and should be cited in similar manner. Furthermore, the footnotes really ought to be the penultimate section in the article, directly before External links. They look seriously weird where they are now. My headings would be as follows: 4. Bibliography, 4.1. Works of Philip Larkin, 4.1.1. Poetry, 4.1.2. et seq - the rest, 4.2. Biographies, 4.3. et seq - the rest, 5. References, 6. External links"

quoted from this diff almost-instinct 13:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, see the MOS at

Wikipedia:Layout#Standard_appendices. The previous discussion is archived at Talk:Philip_Larkin/Archive_3#Bibliography. Snowman (talk

) 13:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether that is more to the point is matter of opinion. Actually the list given at the link you give there is pretty useless to our purposes: we have no further reading list, nor a "see also" list, and this guideline does not specifically mention where secondary sources used in the refs should be placed. I wish I were surprised to see a GA review being used as an excuse for a lone voice to bring up an issue on which it was previously defeated, but I'm not almost-instinct 13:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The wikipedia is not a democracy; see

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Snowman (talk

) 14:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Since we've been lucky enough to get a GA reviewer who's going to the trouble of getting herself versant with the topic, why don't we let her continue her methodical approach to this, which (see above) is bearing fruit, rather than button-holing her with a list of tired grievances? I'm well aware of the adage that "the majority is always wrong" but sometimes the minority loses not because it is a minority, but because it is ignorant and/or misguided almost-instinct 14:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Equally, WP is not a battleground. My view is that having an ampersand in a subheading is fine. The alt text added by Snowman seems the sort of thing required. More to the point, the structure of the bibliography and references is sound. Macphysto (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I generally agree with the reviewer about some MOS changes needed, and I do not see anything wrong with saying that. The current structure of bibliography, works, cited texts, sources, references, and what ever is listed there is not standard on the wiki and, I think, needs to be reorganised to be consistent with the wiki style. Also, is there a way of writing alt text for the infobox image? Snowman (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you give a single reason why you think the current structure "needs" to be reorganised? Other than your desperation to see every possible guideline treated as a blanket rule? almost-instinct 23:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A full explanation of MOS is probably elsewhere. There can be exceptions to MOS, however, I see no reason why this page should be out-on-a-limb, and I would not say that I am desperate to see every possible guideline treated as a blanket rule. Actually, I think that I apply MOS with common sense. It would be quite easy to reorganise the headings into the MOS style. I see these reasons for reorganising subheadings, and there might be more reasons that I have not thought of:

• 1. Uniformity across the encyclopaedia is important. I see no overriding exceptional feature of the page that would require an alternative style to MOS. Snowman (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• 2. It can take some searching to find a reference on the page from the note, because there are several headings to search and there is not a single list of cited texts in alphabetical order. Snowman (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• 3. "Secondary sources" is not a standard wiki heading to deal with references and notes, and it would be unclear to many what "Secondary sources" is. Snowman (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Following encouragement from User Macphysto's comment on my talk page with this comment, I have done some heading reorganising. I need some clarification on the three references previously under the heading "Dramatised interpretations", as some are duplicated in "Notes" and the websites have changed for at least one. See also

WP:CCC. Snowman (talk

) 14:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have retained some of the previous structure of for "Cited texts" section, but they may need to go in one alphabetical list. Is there a better heading than "Miscellaneous" for the publications section? Snowman (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Introduction: The lead should be longer, see
  Wikipedia:Lead_section#Length. The article is about 39kb or 6500 words of readable pros,e and so it should have three or four paragraphs in the introduction. Snowman (talk
  ) 15:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What sort of information do you think the Introduction should include in addition to what is already there? Macphysto (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• OK, this is my opinion. I am not saying that I will be right about the content of the introduction, and introductions are often known to be difficult to write. Try to include a short bit from every section of the article. Lets say we are aiming for four short paragraphs. The fourth paragraph could be about legacy, partly because much of the article is taken up with this. The third paragraph could be about the years between 1955 and 1985, which appears to me missing from the introduction; this could be important things about his creative output and relationships. The second paragraph is about his early career particularly its logistics, which seems to be ok. The first paragraph is about why he is notable. There may be some repetitious between paragraphs and deletions may be needed from the first and second paragraph when the third and forth paragraphs have been written. Snowman (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems fine. I'll have a go at this. Macphysto (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That is quite a good simple three-paragraph introduction. Have you finished already? One of the four volumes was first published in 1945, that was before he went to Hull. Is the first volume not part of the significant body of poems? or that is how it might be misread. Snowman (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought I might do some more work on it, but actually this simple tweak has made the opening a bit stronger, I think. The first volume of poetry isn't important to Larkin's reputation, but I still think I should work it into the opening. Macphysto (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no hurry; it can take some time to write a good unambiguous introduction in good clear English. I think the introduction needs a brief bit on the relationships. Snowman (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, IMHO the intro is good and unambiguous and is in "good clear English". And I know a thing or two about writing. But I'm happy to give more thought to how it could be improved. I'm not sure that Larkin's relationships - except perhaps the one with Kinglsey Amis - warrant discussion in the intro. Macphysto (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Snowman (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This GA review process started off well and has turned into the kind of brainless exercise in uniformity that does nothing for the topic. I'm unwatching this review and the Larkin page itself. Just for the record I think the end section now looks utterly ridiculous. I have zero respect for that kind of alteration. Bye for now. almost-instinct 22:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

But the format is just a "technical issue" for the wikipedia. Standard formats are not that unusual, often journals have their own format to conform to. Think what difficulty readers would have if every wiki page had a different style. Anyway, everyone is entitled to their own views and opinions and constructive criticism would be welcome. You have a lot to contribute. An aspect of the wiki is that a editors contributions can get reworked and reworked. Snowman (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It is possible that not all the people using Wikipedia have Asperger syndrome almost-instinct 23:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that the article appears to be approaching GA, can you give an update on how you think the review is going so far? Snowman (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Since I couldn't care less whether or not the article passes GA or not my opinion is irrelevent, I think almost-instinct 11:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have contacted User:Skomorokh, a Good Article mentor, and asked him if he would be willing to look over the article and review with a more experienced eye. I think the article looks very well, and, in my view, would certainly meet the good article criteria. Once any further revisions have been finished (I notice that it was still being worked on quite intensively this evening), I would expect to move on the the next stage of the good article review process.--Kateshortforbob 00:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to know what more can be said about this image. However, I found this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/may/07/photography.art If I could be sure which year the displayed photo was taken, it would be possible to add Larkin's comment on it, although that might strike some as a bit trivial. Any thoughts? Macphysto (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Kateshortforbob, did you mean that the caption should mention place & date & reason for photo being taken? As far as I'm aware the photo seems to have taken on the role of the standard image of Larkin, you see it everywhere. Well, not on bus-shelters, but you know what I mean almost-instinct 09:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

My thought about expanding the caption really came from looking at some other good articles; I had wondered if it would be possible to find out where the photo was taken, but I had a look around Fay Godwin's website and a few other places with no success. I was thinking about it further last night, and I don't think it's a major issue - as you say, almost-instinct, the photo seems fairly ubiquitous. That Guardian article is pretty funny, though, Macphysto. I had come across the Times version (which is much less detailed) and enjoyed reading it.

I am intending to complete the remaining sections of the review today. I have some notes which I will put on this review page for discussion; however, there are also a number of smaller issues (possible wikilinks, tweaks to sentence structure etc.). I was wondering if you would prefer me to list them on this page also, or edit the article directly (to which further alterations/revisions can be made)? --Kateshortforbob 10:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If they're not straightforward corrections/links that you don't want simply to do yourself, feel free just to list them and whichever one of us is appropriate will sort it out pretty quickly. It's probable that funny-looking sentences should come here first - chances are that I'll have been trying to imply sometime and failing - I'm certainly going to be around a fair amount the next few days. I'm pretty sure that the Godwin photo was taken in Hull University Library, but can't remember the specific occasion. I think it's mention in the Motion biog, but I no longer have that to hand. Maybe Macphysto does? almost-instinct 11:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look at the photos in the Motion & Bradford biographies, with no success, and some of the plates in the copy I have of Larkin at Sixty seem to have been torn out (!). It's likely mentioned in one of them, I just can't find it! I suspect you're right about Hull, but I'm not too worried about it: it's no big deal. --Kateshortforbob 11:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If I had it, I would look up Fay Godwin in the index of the volume of Larkin's collected letters almost-instinct 13:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I hadn't thought about that. I've just had a look for it (knew that subscription to LibraryThing would pay off!) Sadly nothing definitive, although it may be one of a set he described as making him look like "the Boston Strangler" - or maybe not.... --Kateshortforbob 14:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, my caption for the infobox image should have more specific details, and I will be delighted if relevant information is found. However, it may not be critical for the GA review. Snowman (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Snowman that this is not critical at this point in time. Macphysto (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Other photographs

There is a colour photograph here. I think that the Fay Godwin photograph is difficult to trace and there is a series of correspondence between Godwin and PL listed here. One appeared in The Times on 9 August 1982. Snowman (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

When writing the biog sections I really should have included the information that during the 70s (IIRC) Larkin joined some social groups with a business rather than academic orientation. This may (or may not) have some relevence. Could someone with Motion or Bradford to hand (I forget which is the better source for this) look this up and add a line? If the dates work, I would have thought putting it straight after the Gunner correspondence in the 3rd section of the biog would be the best place for: all part of the same general drift, I think. I also wish that I had included Larkin's comments about what he found and didn't find when researching the Oxford Book of 20-C Eng Verse. The failure to find great seams of unheralded poetry was another early-70s disappointment ("The view is fine from fifty, experienced climbers say, so overweight and shifty, I turn to face the way that led me to this day...") Where such a quote should be placed would need some thought. almost-instinct 11:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Business"? He was a member of the MCC of the RSPCA, but that hardly counts. What sort of thing are you referring to? Macphysto (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added some info about the Oxford Book. Macphysto (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In Hull he joined something like the Rotarians, or some other shrine to the poetic muse. I can't remember where I read this. In Bradford? Great bit on the Oxford book. Pithily put. almost-instinct 15:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't find a reference to this. It can be added later if found, but surely is not germane to the present task of getting the article up to GA standards? Macphysto (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Were they "personal diaries" that were burnt? Can something about the nature of the diaries be added in the main body of the text where it appears in the detailed part of the article? Can the significance of this be explained more and how it affects what we know about PL now? Snowman (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have just added a bit about the diary burning in the introduction. Is that ok? Snowman (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Macphysto (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be unusual to have a five paragraph introduction on the wiki. I have moved the expanded section on diaries to the relevant section - it would need a ref. Apart from that, and perhaps a few other minor points to tidy up, I think it is approaching GA, so I would like to see if the reviewer has any points that he or she needs clarifying or improving. Snowman (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm unwatching this page and the GA review. almost-instinct 22:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What's happened here is fair enough... but I think it's just common sense to recognize that the destruction of his diaries would have had the effect suggested, and I don't see that it's a case of "citation needed". A citation cannot be provided, so it would make sense to delete the relevant half a sentence rather than grub around for some corroboration. Macphysto (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I had assumed that you had the ref, because you added the lines yourself. I only put the cn there to remind you about the ref. Please modify it and make the cn unnecessary. Snowman (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have stated the obvious so that it does not need a cn, which I removed. Snowman (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not have the captions written by someone who knows what they're talking about? The following contains three factual errors: "The Brynmor Jones Library, Hull University is a three storey building of red-brick constructions with many windows. It is near-by to the new library, which is a seven story building with external walls of grey concrete". The Brynmor Jones library was contructed in two sections, one of in brick and one concrete. These two sections together they make the Brynmor Jones library and are both part of "the new library". To be fair, you have correctly identified the shiny bits as windows. Do you not embarrass yourself? almost-instinct 23:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• I just want to get the work done; I had left a few alt text on images to last hoping that someone else would add the alt text to the photographed places I was not familiar with. Alt text was requested by the reviewer. I think you are referring to the alt text and not the captions. I have amended the alt text. Anyway, I think it is corrected now. Snowman (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• I see that two editors have made further amendments to the alt text, so it is probably about right now. Snowman (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"In March 1955 Larkin was appointed librarian at the University of Hull, a position he retained until his death due to oesophageal cancer in 1985" So he kept his job because of cancer? 92.3.170.247 (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "due" is an adjective, here modifying a noun, namely "death"; it does not modify the phrasal element "a position he retained". So the ignorance of sentence-making is... yours. Macphysto (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha! Fair enough! 92.3.170.247 (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm just having a look through the article and making a few small improvements. I notice that the Lead says that he was an assistant librarian at Leicester, but the following para says sub-librarian. Which was it? Also, the lead says "[asst/sub] librarian at" whereas subsequent paras say "[asst/sub] librarian of". The former is the correct formulation (I speak as someone who used to work in a UK university library - not the ones at Leicester, Hull or Belfast, though!). --GuillaumeTell 16:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it was assistant librarian at Leicester, sub-librarian at Queen's, Librarian at Hull, but pls someone with a copy of Motion check. I'll make the text consistent with this. If I recollect incorrectly both places will need to be changed. If I'm right nothing needs to be done almost-instinct 17:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

We have Librarian capitalised, but assistant and sub- not. Is this correct? almost-instinct 17:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd lose the upper case "L" in "Librarian". This is what Motion does. Macphysto (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. I've added "the" to try to indicate that to those who don't know that this meant he headed the library. There's probably a more elegant way of expressing this almost-instinct 08:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

May I double check that in this sentence about The Less Deceived

At first the volume attracted little attention, but in December it was included in The Times' list of books of the year

the absence of capitals is deliberate? To my eye it should be either both italicised and capitalised, or neither almost-instinct 08:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It should definitely have caps. Macphysto (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

DONE almost-instinct 13:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What about caps for "librarian" and "assistant librarian" and occupations in general? Snowman (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

See 3rd & 4th lines of this thread almost-instinct 14:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have just rechecked. The Guardian uses lower case for occupations (except Prime Minister, and King and others). I can not find anything to the contrary, so I assume lower case is ok on the wiki for occupations. There may be a specific wiki guideline, but I can not find it at the present time. Snowman (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

1st line of

WP:MOSCAPS: "Wikipedia's house style avoids unnecessary capitalization" almost-instinct

14:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, The Guardian style rules say lower caps for most occupations. Snowman (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would Guardian house style be relevant to this page? almost-instinct 14:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] I'm afraid that the revised version "the librarian" seems to me to imply that he was the only librarian at the U of H (as he was, I think, in his first job at Wellington). A librarian is just a librarian, but the librarian is the Librarian: the capital L distinguishes him from the underlings (assistant librarians, sub-librarians et al). --GuillaumeTell 16:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with GT. I think the definite article should be removed. I'm going to make that change. Macphysto (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Motion (p. 244) writes, "Late in September Graneek placed on Larkin's desk a copy of an advertisement for the job of librarian at the University of Hull". Macphysto (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

From the text it is not clear to me what his role was in the library. Would it be useful to add somewhere a little phrase saying "became librarian in charge at the UoH Library", or "with overall managerial responsibility" to emphasis the seniority of his job. Snowman (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to put it would be to describe his job as that of University Librarian. The current Librarian has a grander title but University Librarian (with caps) is part of it - see [1] and scroll down to Library Staff. --GuillaumeTell 21:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That would cover it, yes. And caps would be correct because it's an official title. Macphysto (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Changed in the biog section almost-instinct 09:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for someone to venture some constructive criticism of the section on Larkin as librarian, currently single-sourced. I've got another, better source, but need help working out what should be done almost-instinct 09:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This strikes me as something that does not prevent the article being GA, but is worth developing in due course. I think the section as it stands is at the very least useful and informative. Macphysto (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The captions to the picture of the Pearson Park flat both say first floor. The text, however, talks of the top-floor flat of a three-storey house. High windows implies top-floor to me, and the picture looks like a three-storey building. Indeed, the original of the picture [[2]] shows the front gate, which makes it clear that there were three storeys, so it looks as if the captions need changing. --GuillaumeTell 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Motion (pp. 276-7) says it was the top floor of a three-storey property, and adds "The worst problem was the noise of other tenants on the two floors below". Macphysto (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for noting my difficult in analysing the building partly obscured by foliage in the photograph that I mentioned in my edit summaries. It seems to me that the ground floor is not clearly shown. Perhaps those with references at hand might like to do the amending edits. The photographer might be able to help and provide further photographs. Snowman (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Update; I see that it has already been amended. Perhaps, the caption might need a reference for GA. Snowman (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does the caption need a reference? There is a reference in the text where the nature of Larkin's residence is mentioned. The ground floor is not "clearly" shown in the photo because there's a hedge in front of the property, but it is obvious from the photo that it's a three-storey property. Macphysto (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Rethink: with supporting text in the article, the caption is probably OK as it is without a reference . Snowman (talk) 09:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've always wondered what the "by contrast" part of this sentence is doing there: "Larkin was by contrast a notable critic of modernism in contemporary art and literature". Am I missing a point? almost-instinct 09:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that they add little. Moreover, as they appear in the first sentence of a new section they are likely to confuse many readers. I have therefore deleted those two words. The "contrast" (with Larkin's arguable embrace of a small number of Modernist strategies in his poems) is not strong, and anyone who comes to this section from the previous one will see the contrast, such as it is, while anyone coming to this section without having first read the previous one would simply be flummoxed by the words "by contrast". Macphysto (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was missing the point, but my doing so illustated my own point ;-) almost-instinct 10:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The article now seems very close to GA level. As the person who began this process, I feel I should announce (confess?) that after Friday I shall not be in a position - because of commitments elsewhere - to do any work on the article for quite some time. It seems to me that it would make sense to decide soon whether the article meets the necessary criteria. Macphysto (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

At this juncture, I also think the article is at or near to GA status. Snowman (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Its worth pointing out that there are at least four possibly unresolved issues from the GA reviewer's list. They are all marked "IS THIS SORTED?" in bold almost-instinct 13:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know why this bot is making nonsense edits to the page? almost-instinct 14:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

At any rate I've put on a "deny" tag which will prevent it from happening again almost-instinct 14:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

After all the recent activity, I'm having another read-through of the article. I'll put any further thoughts under this heading.

• However, he was allowed to stay on at school, and two years later earned distinctions in English and History, and passed the entrance exams for St John’s College, Oxford, to read English. Several things: 1) Was there more than one entrance exam? 2) Was it/were they St John's exams or U of Ox exams or both? 3) The "to read English" at the end seems tacked-on and ungrammatical. 4) There are an awful lot of commas in this sentence. 5. Why is
  St John’s College, Oxford in the above sentence a redirect to ... St John's College, Oxford (or am I missing something tremendously obvious?) --GuillaumeTell
  21:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

History does not record, but 1) Probably there was. 2) University-wide, but he'd have been applying to St John's and the exams would have been marked by dons at St John's. 3) Propose a felicitous alternative, please. 4) Hardly. 5) This is now amended. Macphysto (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• The Brideshead Revisited image of university life had at least for the time being faded... 1) Does the ref explicitly refer to Brideshead? 2) I don't think that the wikilink to the BH article is going to give anybody who's never heard of the novel/film/various TV adaptations, etc., any insight into what on earth this is is all about. --GuillaumeTell 21:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

1) No. 2) I'd just as soon scrub it. Macphysto (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't help wondering where I got that phrase from... Very unlike me to dream up anything remotely poetic. (The point made was that the traditional aspect of university life - three years of getting pissed and doing precious little work - was not to be enjoyed. I think it vaguely non-contentious to suggest that such an approach has made something of a come-back, post-1945) almost-instinct 23:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have looked over the article again, in light of all the work that has been done in the last few days; I believe that the comments I noted in the original review have been addressed, and that

22:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Garland

As a matter of interest, why is it notable that the Monitor tv programme was produced by Patrick Garland? Forgive me, this is well off my area of expertise. Thanks, almost-instinct 10:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not my area of expertise either, but a television producer has an important role in organising and, I think, shaping the programme. I imagine that a programme created entirely by Larkin and Betjeman would have been rather different. --GuillaumeTell 13:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I see your point. Ta! almost-instinct 13:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I just removed this link from the mainpage:

• "SilverLarkin.com (homepage)". Independent website commemorating the 25th anniversay in 2010 of the death of Philip Larkin.

Potentially it could be quite interesting, but right now its a bit underdeveloped. Maybe as 2010 gets closer it will be worth putting back, but right now IMO its not up to scratch. almost-instinct 11:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason this article includes a photograph of "Coventry's inner ring road" by dint of its covering the site of one of the author's previous residences? Pretty big stretch, that. For that matter, the many photos of buildings in an article about a human being is a bit off-putting. Is the man known by the buildings he frequented? I think not.

I propose we come up with better illustrations for the man's life, and at least 86 the heinous, ugly roadway picture.Nickrz (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes there is a reason why this article includes that photo. Look at the quotation from "Going going" in the main text which goes alongside the picture.
2. "Is the man known by the buildings he frequented?" Yes: (a) librarian of the (notable library) at Hull Uni (b) High Windows

If you want to calm down a bit, we can probably have a sensible discussion. Yours, in great admiration of the photos provided by others for this page, almost-instinct 21:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing like a little passive-aggression to scare other editors away from your darling fiefdom, eh? The photograph adds nothing to this article and its relation to the text you cite is tenuous at best. Good thing his other houses still stand or we'd have a gallery of tarmac or ruins.Nickrz (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh! FWIW, I agree that the Ring Road photo is a waste of space and that there could be fewer pictures of buildings and more of Larkin (if available), plus other people (Amis? Monica Jones?), other things (book jackets? Bicycle clips? Ambulances? The Bodies?), whatever. --GuillaumeTell 00:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nickrz - so your opening salvo was pure charm and manners was it? Btw you missed the phrase "in my opinion" from the statement "the photograph adds nothing to this article". Again, if you want to find a different intonation we can have a sensible discussion.

Guillaume - if any non-copyright photo of Larkin can be found, great. I've no idea how to find any. People coming on the talk page and slagging off other people's efforts doesn't magic them into existence. No picture has ever been removed from this page as far as I'm aware, let alone one of Larkin. The editor who very kindly went and found some pictures for the page was doing so because one of the requirements for FA is that there should be pictures. I'm not going to disparage his efforts. almost-instinct 13:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I did a small part of work towards the illustrations on the page. Images of some of the places where Larkin worked are on the left of the page, and images of some of the places where he lived are on the right of the page. As far as I am aware, only one fair use image can be used of Philip Larkin in the article, when there are no "free" use images available. This fair use image must be of low resolution and the fair use rational must be explained - see the infobox image file details. Incidentally, I did not take the image of the inner ring road specially for this article, but it is one I took when I was enthusiastic about having a new camera a few years ago. We could have my photograph of the grammar school that he went to in Coventry - I have just added it to the PL cat on commons. Snowman (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really resolve the problem, though, does it? Surely a photo or two of book covers would add variety, and so would those pictures of PL's cronies that can be found elsewhere in WP. How about High Windows and Kingsley Amis? --GuillaumeTell 15:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The images that you refer to are copyrighted, and fair use only extends to articles with headings (or perhaps sections) about them. As far as I am aware, there is no fair use rational that would allow the use of either of these copyrighted images on the PL page. Here is some information on copyrights from wiki commons that might help in your search for suitable images. Snowman (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

An IP has changed "produced" to "directed". I've lost track of the various permutations this credit has been through. Could someone confirm that either "directed" or "produced" is correct, preferably with a source!? Will go looking myself later on almost-instinct

Source easily found! http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0307559/#producer almost-instinct 10:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Some comments: Garland apparently has variously produced or directed (maybe both together sometimes) programmes on TV (and stage performances). The IMDB is about as accurate as Wikipedia, i.e. not always accurate. I see that the IP you refer to is one of Kingston Communications's - i.e. is in the Hull area. Also, have you seen this, where it says "directed"? I suspect that this is a more reliable source than the IMDB. (I also think that the word "iconic" should be banned.) --GuillaumeTell 13:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

God, I hope I wasn't responsible for "iconic". Hadn't realised that IMDb was unreliable. What do they use as their sources, I wonder. Ill-informed people sitting at home typing away at their laptops? ;-) Anyway, thanks for the warning, will go and do more searching almost-instinct

Looking at the various bits and pieces I could find I'm thinking it more than just possible PG both produced and directed the programme. It seems he was a producer for Monitor; no other name is ever given in ref to either production or direction for this edition. Until proved otherwise and/or someone points out why it shouldn't be like that, I'll put it as "produced and directed" and use both sources. almost-instinct 08:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The recent BBC4 broadcast of the Monitor 'Down Cemetery Road' film identified Robin Keam as 'Producer', though it didn't credit any other personnel. However, the copy I have of the original broadcast names Patrick Garland as 'Director'. Further, Patrick Garland came to Hull in November 2003 to give a talk to the Larkin Society. In that talk (copies of which the Larkin Society issued on CD) he named the programme's "kind assistant" as Anne James, and the cameraman as Charles Parnell. Finally, for now, the Larkin Archive database at Hull University lists "Correspondence between Humphrey Burton (Editor of 'Monitor') and Philip Larkin..." I hope you find this information useful. Allriskinrev (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds lovely and conclusive! I'll delete the producer bit. Thank you very much almost-instinct 14:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

An IP has readded the link to the silverlarkin website [3] Since I removed it last month more content has been added; I'm not so experienced as to where the line is drawn with external links, and would very much like to hear other people's opinions on it almost-instinct 15:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I've just registered with WP as I'm the IP who readded the link to the silverlarkin website, and I wanted to let you know. I readded it because at present the Larkin Society's own website -- which should be providing any available information on the Larkin 25 commemorations -- has been inactive for some months, though this should be resolved in the very near future. And although there will shortly be a dedicated Larkin 25 website, this is still not yet available. Consequently the silverlarkin website is the only website where this information is currently available. As you will see, I've changed the link so that the silverlarkin News page opens, rather than the Home page. This way relevant information is presented immediately without visitors having to seek it out. I'm not yet conversant with the WP protocol for adding messages, so if I've made any mistakes in the way I've posted this, I apologize. I don't want to tread on anyone's toes, so if you still think the link should be removed, I won't try to reinstate it. --Allriskinrev (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The link is about Larkin, so it is probably a relevant external link, but I can understand if someone questioned it. If anyone wants to look up the wiki guidelines on external links there are some at

WP:EL. Snowman (talk

) 14:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.