Talk:De Profundis (letter)

This article likewise has expurgated all references to the "Queensberry family," or at least no explanation is given regarding their identity.

This is better explained now in the background section. Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:De Profundis (letter)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Drmies (talk · contribs) 04:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Introduction: this is really a nice-looking article, fairly complete, fairly well-written, and it shouldn't take much for GA status. I have a doubt, though: this was nominated by someone who made one single edit to the article, but I started my review before I saw that. I hope I'm not doing this in vain. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Writing

For the most part OK, though there are some issues. I've left an edit summary or two with questions, and placed one "explain" template in the text. The text follows British English consistently, as far as I can tell. But there are punctuation issues: logical punctuation seems to be used occasionally, but not everywhere. I've removed a number of errant spaces; there may be more left.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable

I cannot find fault with it yet, but I have not yet checked what I am able to check. Will return to this at a later stage.

What struck me is a complete lack of journal articles. The article is probably well-referenced enough for GA status, but this is unexpected.

The references, though, I find problematic. First of all, the format is very unattractive--I don't know what format requires author (year:page), but it sure is ugly. Pardon my French. Also, there are works cited in the notes that need templating. I'm looking at this version, and notes 2, 25, 28, and a host of others are not consistent. All of them should be templated, just for consistency's sake. Some of the notes in the regular format are plain wrong--notes 18, 24, and 26 for instance.

Finally, the works cited is unattractive and inconsistent: here also templating is best. And is that one endnote really necessary? At least move the bibliographical note to the relevant section.

3. Broad

Not bad, but there is something mission, IMO: the legacy and enduring importance of the letter, as an LGBT text but also as a work of consolation--there are some hits on Google Books that suggest that the Consolation of Philosophy and De profundis are compared. At the very least, this here should suggest a bit more discussion of theme and perhaps genre (I note that the word 'epistolary' isn't mentioned in the article).

This brings me to another point: style and themes seems a bit underdeveloped. Mention of the genre of the epistolary might help, and the entire section seems a bit disorganized. The final sentence has no connection with anything at all, though there may well be something interesting there for another section.

4. Neutral

No problems here--it's almost neutral to a fault (considering the lack of a section discussing its afterlife).

5. Stable

No problems here.

6. Images

Images check out. What I'd like to see--after all, De Profundis is a book also--is an image from a cover, perhaps the first edition, or a page from the manuscript.

Article hasn't been touched since this opened; should it just be failed? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 01:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Failed and closed. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)