Wikipedia:Peer review/Jabberwocky/archive2

Jabberwocky

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like us to work up the page to GA status and would like some pointers.

Thanks, Span (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doing....... Although Keats comes first in my priority list, and I'll prob just copy edit with a few suggestions here and there. Good luck though Spanglej, TK knows this work well so your lucky. Ceoil (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Span (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put up organized comments soon, but looking at it, I think it needs some explanation of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and that Through the Looking-Glass was a sequel. This can probably be added to the "Origin and Publication" section. Also, I do remember reading somewhere that Tenniel was reluctant to do the illustrations but can't remember why - if a source can be found for that it might not be a bad idea to add because the illustrations are so iconic. More later. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Consider rewriting to reflect the full content of the article.

Origin and publication

As I mentioned above, try to add a very small piece of background here. I think it mention that Through the Looking Glass was a sequel, the dates of the books, that Carroll is a pen-name, and that he taught mathematics at Oxford.
The sentence about Darlington should be sorted out. This source is used to cite that he lived in Darlington and wrote the last stanza nearby. I can't find the info in the source, so it should be replaced. I know as a child he lived in Daresbury (have visited the church where his father was vicar) and that the family moved to Yorkshire later, and if it was to Darlington then that just needs a better source.
Interesting that the poem is based on an earlier German poem - perhaps move this information to a separate paragraph?

Structure

I'm wondering whether it might make more sense to have "Linguistics and poetics" following "Origin and publication", then "Lexicon" and then the "Translation" section. That would solve the problem of the bulleted list in the middle of the page by moving it down. Also, I have a paper on the structure of the poem, which I've added to the further reading section. I think the information should be added. Either I can do it, or I can send the paper on. There's a Jstor paper that should probably be looked at as well - I'll retrieve it and have a look at it to see if the material should be added. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

I think this section needs to be cleaned up and brought into focus or retitled "Reception and Legacy". I hate to see it devolve into the long list of popular culture stuff that's in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. I think, depending on what the sources say, it would be best to discuss the reception at the time of publication, all the way to the present. This is touched on but needs more focus in my view.

Images

The Tenniel images are free, so fine. As originally published the poem had three images - it would be nice to add the one of the little boy with the sword if that can be found. I can look for it later if it doesn't get done.

Sources

Need to look at these more carefully - almost done and will return with final comments. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks for your time. Span (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]