Wikipedia:Peer review/Jabberwocky/archive1

I stumbled upon this article and found it very imformative and was tempted to nominate it for GA, but saw that is could probably use a bit more finishing - particularly in sourcing. Any other ideas?--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 18:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review by Midnightdreary

Okay, not sure why this wasn't done sooner, but here are my thoughts, having recently brought an article on a poem ("The Raven") to Good Article status.

First, the intro should be expanded, as per WP:LEDE so that it works as a stand-alone mini-article and introduces all aspects of the full article below. Take a look at "The Raven" for a good intro to a poem. You should also get a source for that part about teaching in schools here in the intro and later when it's mentioned again. It sounds like original research.

I think the full text of the poem should be kept on Wikisource and away from its encyclopedia article. Others would disagree with me. WP:L&P suggests that copyright-free poetry should be included, but it says elsewhere that only short poems should be included (with no definition of "short"; to me, short is "Three Blind Mice"). There has been some debate at Talk:Dover Beach. I think it's at the discretion of the editors here but I would personally suggest putting it towards the bottom so that the analysis, etc. can get some attention.

The glossary section is fantastic and a wonderful addition! It is well-sourced and brief. If you choose to move the full text of the poem, I'd recommend keeping the glossary as a subsection following it.

I would think about collapsing "Pronunciation" into the "Origins and structure" section. It should also be clearly referenced. Also, Through the Looking Glass should probably be italicized in this section.

"Origin and structure" section needs more references and be careful to use italics when necessary. The line It was entitled "Stanza of Anglo-Saxon Poetry." is choppy and cuts off the flow; incorporate that info into the previous sentence or break them up differently. The final paragraph in that section starts with two redundant and wordy sentences; consider cleaning up. How is Menella Bute Smedley related to Carroll, by the way? What is this Shakespearean source that Palmer suggests? I also think that the "Structure" aspect should be expanded upon. I'm sure there has been some scholarly analysis of the poem somewhere, so make sure it's cited. Either way, I think this should be the first section of the article after the intro. Consider it, anyway.

Really, the next section should be "Critical reception and impact" (suggested because that is a similar section used by the behemoth Wikiproject Novels). You already have a similar section but it is buried. It should be expanded and sourced like crazy. Although, expansion may not be necessary. Similar sections "The Reach of the Poem" (remember to only capitalize the first letter of section headers) and "Translations" could fall under the main heading as subsections.

"Derivative works" borders on Trivia, especially if unsourced. These sections always have the potential to fall into cruft or original research traps. Consider a narrative introduction to this section, discussing the poem's impact on popular culture or literature, etc. (with a source), make sure all the references are notable (if you have to say "relatively obscure" and include a redlink, it's probably not notable) and/or verifiable, then move the whole section to the bottom right before "See also."

I think this article is well on the way to becoming a Good Article but sourcing is super important at this stage. Future considerations might be a full "Analysis" section or an "Allusions" section (if relevant) or a summary of the "plot" of the poem. I'm sure those sections would be difficult or not even necessary considering the nature of the beast... err, poem. Best of luck. --Midnightdreary 11:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]