Henry Vaughan, which is on my to-do list of future projects, is hardly an exemplary article to compare in this instance. It is sorely lacking and badly organised.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, I didn't mean these are good articles. However, you might get good ideas from looking at what is wrong in bad articles. Michael! (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
This article is about a writer and poet. Although a list of his works is prominently included, none of his works is discussed, nor are there any links or hyper-references to (Wikipedia) articles on his books. The "Works" section is nothing more than a list of titles. What are his books, poems and stories about? I don't know and I don't learn this when I read this article. As long as his works aren't discussed (either in this article, or, even better, in new Wikipedia articles, one per title), the most important information is missing. Therefore, I can't rate this article as a GA. In my opinion, something like this would be the bare minimum.
Are you sure you read this article before posting your review? There is significant discussion of his works in the article beyond a mere "list" as you incorrectly allege. Because each of Traherne's works does not have an individual article in no way impinges upon this article's eligibility for GA status. That's a specious concern. But I think 2/3rds of the Traherne article is spent analyzing his works, the history of those works, etc. If you missed that large block of text, I seriously have to question your ability to review articles.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Further, I cannot use the Milton style list to which you direct my attention because of the nature of Traherne's publication history. Most of Traherne's works come to us not as original works published during his lifetime (as was the case with Milton) but in editions published long after his death after sporadic rediscoveries...I think your comment evinces that you did not read large swaths of the article carefully.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I chose to discuss his works in relation to larger themes instead of separately--as his themes cross several of his works and it was a more efficient way of discussing them. Your objection seems to be one that disagrees with my style of approach and not one focused on content. Considering the broad discussion of his themes vis-a-vis his works, this should not be grounds for a GA denial.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Certainly, his works/oeuvre as a whole is discussed in detail throughout the article, but this is more thematically. What is missing is factual, bibliographic information about each of his works in the "Works" section. There is some information in the "Publication history and posthumous success" subsection, but most of his works aren't discussed here.Michael! (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
For instance, take Roman Forgeries, .... What kind of text is it? Is it a poem (if so, epic, a ballad, lyric, etc.)? Is it a novel? An essay? If it is a drama, is it a tragedy, comedy, history? Is written as a dialogue? How long is the text, what is its size? Is it written in English, Latin, another language, a specific dialect? Is anything known about the circumstances how it is written? Could you describe the main characters (if any) in a few words or sentences? If only one manuscript survived, where is it currently located? Is it complete or are there any parts missing? In case there are multiple manuscripts, is the text basically the same, or are there large differences between them? Michael! (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
This kind of information is missing for most of his works. It should be added, and either be discussed in this article in the Works/bibliography section, each title separately, or, like is done in Milton's article, by turning each title into a hyper-reference/wikilink to a new article about the work, where anybody could find such information.Michael! (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
An article about Homer that discusses the Illiad and the Odyssey in great detail, but fails to inform us those works are epic poems, written in hexameters, in the so-called Homeric dialect of the (ancient) Greek language, and doesn't inform us that those works are probably about events in the twelfth century BC, created in the eight century BC by Homer, but written down in Athens in the sixth century BC, such an article about Homer wouldn't be a good article, in my opinion. However, if there are clear, direct links to articles which do give this information, than it isn't a problem.Michael! (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
That level of detail, IMHO, smacks up against WP:SUMMARY and if it belongs anywhere, it will be in articles on each of the individual works--and that lacking of such related articles on Wikipedia is not and should not be reflective of the GA-eligibility of a Traherne article. That level of detail you're demanding is far beyond mere encyclopaedic summary. Per WP:SUMMARY: (1) The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it. This does not go on forever: very long articles would cause problems and should be split. (2) A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. (3) This style of organizing articles is somewhat related to news style except that it focuses on topics instead of articles. The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of details, thus giving readers the ability to zoom to the level of details they need and not exhausting those who need a primer on a whole topic. Refer to WP:DETAIL, which recommends "a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic" ought to link to full-sized separate articles. I think it is far more efficient to get into a discussion of general themes across an ouevre than to use your word "clutter" the main article with discussions of page counts and individual characters and minutiae. And if you wanted to know about characters in Roman Forgeries, while discussing the themes you might have reread the "Theology and ethics" section--but that you ask the question seriously makes me wonder if you read it at all. Lastly, GA requires that an article be broad in its scope by "addressing the main aspects of a topic" (which IMHO a larger thematic discussion of all of his works meets)...GA criteria does not demand book length treatments, and especially, per WP:WIAGA when policy discusses "broad" it qualifies it with criteria 3b: the article stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail A detailed bibliographic treatment of Roman Forgeries, and other works on the level you're demanding would be unnecessary details cluttering up the larger article of the work's author. Sure an article on Homer should mention the Iliad being in hexameters because that is undeniably its form. However, getting into excessive detail with Traherne would be prohibitively huge (WP:LENGTH) because of the variations in forms, influences, minute details, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. It's also easier to offer such detail on Homer when Homer's oeuvre is two works while Traherne's reaches 3,000 pages. We have to keep in scope what "addressing main topics" means vis-a-vis unnecessary detail. And what you're asking, is demands unnecessary detail. After all, we don't discuss at that level of detail on the main T.S. Eliot article the various extent that Eliot employs Dante's terza rima in the Four Quartets, or the fact that each of the four poems are approximately 400-500 lines, or the details on why he wrote it, etc. etc., or the various discoveries and characters met along the way during the Dantesque passage starting "in the uncertain hours before the morning" in...that information belongs at Little Gidding (poem), which is briefly (emphasis: BRIEFLY) discussed/summarized at Eliot and Little Gidding (about the religious community inspiring its themes). And it is rather premature to start creating redlinks linking the titles of his works for separate articles because, per WP:RED, I doubt such articles will be written anytime soon. Lastly, I think such loosely relevant detail here will verge to close to violating policies on original research, and possibly WP:FORUM, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I seriously suggest that you need to realize the scope of GA and read more policy before you start demanding such extreme rigor with GA nominees.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
You don't have to be upset. It seems you've misunderstood my point and I failed to clarify it correctly. What I said in my first remark, is that information about his works (I meant bibliographic information, context, what kind of literature are those books?) is missing in the Works section.
In the second paragraph of the lead stands "His prose works ... include ..." and "His poetry was ...". The lead should be a summary. Everything in the lead should be discussed in more detail in the article. Where would you look for more information on his prose and poems first? In the Works section. Looking there, we learn that most of his works were either published posthumously in the 20th C or are still unpublished. This information is followed by a list of his publications and a list of compilations and editions. However, just looking at the Works section didn't give me any information what kind of literature each of those books are.
That's also why I gave that reference Milton. Although that article isn't a GA, you can see at one glance what kind of literature each of those works is. For more information, you can click on the title and read more information in a special article about that work, but that isn't required for a GA status.
So what is missing, from my point of view, is a brief description of each of those titles, but in the Works section. Keep it short but informative. "Roman forgeries: a polemic in the form of a dialogue" is minimal, but sufficient (just like "the Iliad is a epic Greek poem, written in hexameters" would be). More information, like I suggested in my previous remark, is certainly welcome, but not necessary.
And I do not think this is necessary, and given criteria 3b, I do not see a need to address this any further and assert that doing as you wish would give the article the "clutter" that you've lamented elsewhere. Given the length of titles, it would be clutter. If it is necessary, then someone should write about it at length in a separate article per WP:DETAIL.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
You can't expect any visitor to read the article completely. Most people jump in and just look at the section where they think they can find the desired information. Bibliographic information on his works should be in the "Works" section.
PS: "you need to realize the scope of GA". Yes, you're right. That's why I asked for a second opinion even before our discussion/disagreement started and before I finished my review.
I'm sorry if you don't like me reviewing it. Everybody has his own style of writing, and his own style of reviewing. Please don't take anything personal. I didn't notice at first I was also reviewing another article nominated by you - I discovered it only when I already had started to review this article. Nevertheless, I hope a second reviewer could provide some help, since this review is becoming quite ... "cluttered".Michael! (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I am not taking it personally. I am just considerably frustrated by your review that seems to wants the article to be something its not. This article is simply a biography of Traherne: a humble priest almost lost to the dustbin of history, discussing his small bit of importance among a vast sea of knowledge, offering a list of his works and their unique hard-fought path to publication and rediscovery, giving a discussion analyzing the broad themes and influences in his oeuvre. If you want detailed information on each of Traherne's works, it's not appropriate here. Per policy, as referenced above, that detailed material would be better served if someone were to write separate articles on Traherne's works. While I respect your opinions and suggestions (and have addressed roughly half of them), if they run contrary to my understanding of the GA criteria and relevant policies/guidelines I am going to strenuously disagree (as is my right).--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Don't worry, no hard feelings. It is your right to disagree and I don't have any problems with that. I suggest we leave this increasingly frustrating discussion as it is and wait for a proper second opinion.
Meanwhile, I'm willing to give this review a fresh start and make remarks on issues I didn't address before, but only if you don't have objections to it. If you prefer me to be silent while waiting on a second opinion, that's perfectly fine to me.
Michael! (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
PPS: WP:ORDER advises to put a list of publications at the bottom of an article. I didn't point this out before, simply because I considered it unimportant. However, since you seem to be so fond of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I suggest you to keep the Works section where it is right now and separate the Bibliography list from it to put that at the bottom of the article, just above "See also".
Only the Bibliography list itself should be at the bottom of the article, immediately above "See also". The text - including the subsection "Publication history and posthumous success" should stay where it was, in the article itself, separated from the list below. Michael! (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
PPPS: WP:5P: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone
Cute, but it's not time for flippancy. If you're going to review an article, you should be better aware of the policies and guidelines. Period.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
"Pantheism and Panentheism" should be worked out. It isn't clear why this paragraph has this specific title
the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; seems okay
it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. seems okay
Verifiable with no original research: seems okay
it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; passed
it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; passed
it contains no original research. passed
Broad in its coverage:
it addresses the main aspects of the topic; some disagreement
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). seems okay
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. passed
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. passed
Illustrated, if possible, by images: passed, but more images are welcome
images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; passed
images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. passed
I welcome the second opinion. I wish you would further explain more about "seems okay"--I do not find myself in any way advised by that ambiguity and lack of specific complaints.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
"Seems okay" isn't criticism on the article. It is a personal note for myself that I don't see any problems yet, but would like to have a second look at it. Michael! (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Another shortcoming of the article is that it fails to give the reader a taste of Traherne's idiosyncratic prose style. A number of illuminating quotations from his work were removed by an editor with insistent opinions who has made major changes to the article. I think that the current article reads more like a routine academic paper (inreach) than an article for an encyclopedia (outreach). Xxanthippe (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC).Reply
Are you still bitter from those days long ago when you surmised that I "impertinently" removed a bulletpoint/dumping-ground list of uninterpreted quotations per WP:QUOTE/WP:QUOTEFARM and put them where they belonged on Wikiquote? --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
And Xxanthippe, in case you didn't actually read the article (seems to be a trend), I incorporated two of those quotations (as I said in early discussions I would if it would be relevant upon revision) in the section marked "Theology and ethics."--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
The quotes you give relate to Traherne's spiritual musings about himself and his own soul. Worthy though they are, what he is best known for is his vision of God manifested in nature and humanity. You have removes these quotes. Traherne's approach to these matters sometimes causes unease among the theologically orthodox as it points in the direction of pantheism, but it is what Traherne is famous for. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC).Reply
True. But the other quotes that were previously in prior versions of the article were in a unincorporated list, a "quote farm" as were other lists of unenlightening popular culture references which you also objected to removing (despite WP:IPC). If there were to be a way to incorporate that material in a way that edified or elucidated something about Traherne's life and vision, and that interpretation was supported by sources (yes, this is key), I would never have any objection to adding such material. However, despite my best efforts, there was no supportable way to incorporate it. And the interpretation you're seeking, without sources, is original research, and at its worst, rather unencyclopedic. Given this, Wikiquote is the best place for that previously-removed material. I explained this then, and I explain it now. Nothing has changed and you've offered nothing more to that discussion besides revoicing already refuted objections. --ColonelHenry (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps, I can't say, although I don't think it's extremely important.
Xxanthippe, if you're willing to provide a proper and complete review and a neutral second opinion, than I would be happy to welcome you here. However, if you only want to return to issues which seem to have been solved in the past, than I hope a more neutral, uninvolved person could provide a second opinion as well.
Of course, never hesitate to make helpful suggestions.
This is a bit bitey (not that I am a newcomer). You asked for suggestions and I gave you some. The issue of theological orthodoxy has had some exposure before and is not resolved one way or another. The quotations were removed unilaterally. I asked above why quotations with a certain theological POV were retained in the article while quotations of a different theological POV were removed. The "In popular culture" items were supported by the editors who put them there and by myself and opposed by two other editors. I think that the issue is moot and not yet "solved", as you put it. On none of these matters is there a clear consensus. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC).Reply
Sorry, I didn't want to insult you. I apologize if I looked "bitey". I do appreciate your comments and suggestions and understand you ask those questions. However, I was also looking for a careful second opinion to resolve the discussion ColonelHenry and I had on a few points. Maybe one of the several outside "second" reviewers could have a look at the points you've raised?Michael! (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Xxanthippe, you get your own opinions, you don't get your own facts. (1) We NEVER got into a discussion about theological orthodoxy or POV. (2) No one else commented to protest when I removed the material but you. None of the "other editors" ever showed up to contest the removal. The only editor who commented was User:Deor who agreed with my assessment. So please, blatant dishonesty like that exhibited in your recent statement isn't only a logical fallacy, it's just morally despicable.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
"blatant dishonesty", "morally despicable". Strong stuff from an editor with a record of warnings for personal attacks [1][2], but Wikipedia editors are expected to put up with such. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC).Reply
True, and as long as you remain harmless and not disruptive, there shouldn't be a problem. However, dishonest accounts of events that are easily refuted by the record offer nothing to the conversation. If you have nothing to offer the discussion that leads to progress, it is no excuse for disingenuously conjuring up past grudges and expecting people to take them seriously.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I haven't read this article in detail for the other GA criteria, but if the only hold-up here is that it includes no summary of each of his published works, I would say that this is not a significant issue for GA, which only asks that "broad aspects" be covered. If a specific, major work is not discussed in the article, that would fall under "broad aspects", but that doesn't appear to be the issue here; so far as I understand Michael's concerns, it seems like a simple formatting concern (whether Roman Forgeries is discussed under the header "Theology and ethics" or "Works"), and therefore not a concern for the GA criteria under my understanding.
To compare some random Featured Articles (a far higher standard), like Chinua Achebe, Mario Vargas Llosa, and George Moore (novelist), they don't have anywhere near the level of detail that's being asked for here in their "Works" sections, either in textual information or in wikilinks for each work.
Just my two cents, and all this comes with the disclaimer that I'm no Traherne expert. But since an outside opinion was requested, I thought I'd offer one. Thanks to both editors and reviewer for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Another outside opinion, this article certainly does not need an overview of each of Traherne's works. Such a write-up would be useful in an article like Thomas Traherne bibliography, which would be a good candidate for featured list if done correctly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Concur with the above two editors if a fourth opinion is wanted. Thanks for taking the time to review this Michael. I think you can safely pass it if that is the only real concern you had. BTW which Council of Nicaea is being reffered to? Is it both? AIRcorn(talk)05:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much for your four outside opinions!
There were three points I wanted to have a second opinion on:
Whether or not there should be bibliographic information in the "Works" section.
The structure/ordering/arrangement of the article. (A clarification of my view can be found here.)
The expansion of the "Veneration by the Anglican Church" section.
I still have to look at some other things before I'll pass this article as a GA. For instance, I didn't have time to check all of the notes and references yet. I'll start a new section below to continue the reviewing process. But thanks again for all your second opinions! Michael! (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Reply #2 to User:Khazar2, User:Crisco 1492, User:Aircorn. Thank you for offering your time and opinions to sort through these issues. Your objective assessment is appreciated by Michael! and myself as we both work in the "combat of fully engaged intellects" to improve our little corners of Wikipedia.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
There were several points of disagreement which needed a careful second opinion. Now I can continue with the reviewing process in this fresh, new section and make remarks on things I couldn't address before. Michael! (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Most subjects in the infobox at the right are wikilinked, except for "metaphysical poetry", "meditations", and "theology". You might want to think about it again.
"Oxford", since other geographical places are links as well, just like "English".
If your references of Oxford are in the sentence where I reference his b.a. degree work, I already linked UofO earlier in the section and linking to the city itself would not appropriate here.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Linking to the Interregnum looks like a better alternative (I don't have any problems with "Monarchist leanings" (by the way "it's" or "its"?)). It might even be better to replace (unlinked) Commonwealth completely with Interregnum, since Interregnum is a technically correct and clear name for that short period in history - besides, it won't ever be confused with the modern Commonwealth of Nations, as could happen with Commonwealth. I'll think about it and return to it tomorrow. Michael! (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Done - its was a typo. tends to happen...muscle memory in typing. even though it had been 350 years, I didn't want to start a POV fight between the Monarchists and the Cromwell Republicans. ;-) --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Your "it's" nearly made me question my own knowledge of the English language - could I have been using it incorrectly for all those years? As for Interregnum, I don't think war will recommence/break out because of that single word. But if you think Commonwealth would be better to avoid any future conflict, then feel free to use that word.Michael! (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I notice, in addition to it's/its, typing "and" when I want "an" just because of "muscle memory." As an American of royalist leanings (much like T.S.Eliot), upon checking into the usage of "Commonwealth" prefer the innocuous but very slightly POV advantage of "Interregnum"...since after all, with an unfortunate execution and a little more bloodshed, the monarchists did win. Thank God neither of us expect a POV fight like the seemingly never-ending Gdansk-Danzig disputes. ;-) --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I noticed I ended up in the "English Literature" article.
"Catholicism"
Done linked it to Catholic Church although I'd prefer if that article were named were "Roman Catholicism" because of the wide variety of CoE/Papacy issues and associations with the word "catholic" in the Anglican/English Renaissance history.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
"Protestant" as well. ("Roman Catholic church") can be unlinked. I agree with you on the name of that article, but that's something we can't change. You can link to "RCC", which will redirect you to exactly the same article.
To avoid redirects, per MOS, linked as [[Catholic Church|Roman Catholicism]].
Done RCC unlinked.
Done Protestant.
"Hermetic" and "Cabalistic" and "Rosicrucian lore", "necromancy".
Several of the books I've used are not available in digitized versions, or if they are on google books, they are heavily redacted. I will give it another look.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Since most of the titles in the "Later compilations and editions" section are relatively new books, it would be nice if you could also give ISBN numbers - although this isn't necessary.Michael! (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
It isn't important or necessary, but a short reference to something would be nice - to a newspaper, a book review, a prospectus, the publisher, the series editor, anything - it just have to say "this is the series going to be/it'll contain these volumes/titles". I don't have a good example right now. Besides, this is a minor remark which you can ignore.Michael! (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Could you have a critical look at the lead section yourself? It is quite good right now, but there are several things that could be rewritten. For instance, the lead starts with "TT ... is a poet, clergyman, " etc., while the second paragraph starts with "Venerated as a saint", but continues with giving a very brief overview of his works.Michael! (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Explanation: While it looks odd for an English name, it is not a typo (see also Thomas à Becket, Thomas à Kempis). It is the more used form of his name in literature/scholarship/histories, and the last vestiges of French influence on English culture before the language and the class structure became "modern".--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Saying "little is known" would be comprehended idiomatically but not correct grammatically...as "little" is an adjective, not a noun. Removing "information" would remove the subject of the sentence that "little" serves to describe.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Can't "little" be a shorthand for "little information"? Just like "Not much is known" instead of "Not many things are known"? Or is this grammatically incorrect as well? - This is the second time tonight I'm questioning my own understanding of English.Michael! (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Shorthand, yes...but it's still an ungrammatical and informal idiom because the subject of the sentence is lost. Although, idiomatically, English permits a little bit of subject dropping because the influence of Romance languages on its syntax and construction, in its proper form English is not a null-subject language. The alternative of "things" is vague and most style guides eschew its usage.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Then I think it's my own knowledge of other languages which made me think grammatically incorrect English is sometimes correct. "Not many things" wasn't a serious suggestion ("things" is ugly and vague, I agree), I mentioned it to check if I understood your point on grammar.
Both "Catholic Church" and "Catholic church" are used, which isn't wrong, but is inconsistent. I can imagine something comparable happened with Anglican Church/Church in/of England, but I didn't/won't check.
Done changed the one instance of Roman Catholic church to Roman Catholicism. I don't see other instances of RC or of Anglican/CoE, etc.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Most issues seem to be addressed and solved (or no longer relevant), but I still have to check the references before I'll pass it as a GA.Michael! (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
PS: This reviewing page is already larger than the article itself.
According to MOS:BIO#Tense, biographies of deceased persons should generally be written in the past tense. However, I don't have any problems with the present tense, so I won't check this. Besides, the article seems to be consistently written in the past tense, as is advised.
Spelling is something else I won't check - each his own. I prefer the Oxford spelling (which is different to both American and British), hence I write "centre", "harbour", "itemize", etc and dislikes "analyze" - but I'm too lazy to check my own writings for consistency. (By the way, "rigor" and "rigour" are two different nouns.)
I prefer it too, and often experience the same problem. I did have a British user copyedit the article to reflect British English usage (since Traherne was a Brit) so I think generally it follows a similar guidelines. I prefer the British rendering of "itemise" though--Z is a rather vulgar and overused consonant by the Yanks. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
ODE uses -ize and -yse because they're derived from Ancient Greek -ιζειν and λύω (although via Latin and French). I like etymology and therefore prefer the Oxford spelling. (Likewise, I use Colosseum and distaste Coliseum).
The last title of the "Further reading" subsection is the only book with a non-bluelinked ISBN.
"This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Thomas Traherne". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press." Yes, it is frequently used as reference [6]. However, is this sentence listed above the notes relevant, I mean, don't you say the same thing twice?
Comment: I think the template was placed in the article when large chunks of text were taken verbatim from the 1911 Britannica. I've edited and revised most of that out, but there are still a few sentences and concepts that remain sewn into the the text, so I thought keeping the template was appropriate. While I do reference it in footnotes for direct quotes, I think that the general spirit of Britannica that remains warrants keeping the template.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
One of the square brackets in the last note ([41]) might be wrongly positioned, please check.
Done fixed. the brackets around "complete set" (which was a result of "cut and paste" of the titling from the Camden House website) threw off the proper linking.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
According to the catalogue of my university library, "The Poetical Works of Thomas Traherne 1636?-1674 (edited by Bertram Dobell)" was published in 1906 (not 1903). I requested the book to check and should be able to answer this on Tuesday at the latest. - Problem solved: the 1906 version (from my UB) is the second edition. You've probably used the first edition. - Edit: the 1903 version is used in the Bibliography and notes [3], [7] and [8], the 1906 version in [24].
There's also a review of the 1932 edition by Geoffrey Tillotson in
The Modern Language Review, 1933, Vol.28(3), pp.386-387 [Peer Reviewed Journal], which can be accessed via JSTOR.
Although I didn't check all of the references, I checked many of them and didn't encounter any serious problems. I'll probably pass this article as a GA today.
I like the article structure ideas proffered on your userspace, and will move up the publication history section. I still am unsure, per the above, about the necessity. I will add an introductory paragraph or two for such a section, but I don't think it's going to be as exacting as you want it to be and as the second opinion contributors have said is not necessary.
As a personal preference, I tend to disagree with Further Reading as a level 2, I believe that should be part of a larger notes/reference/citations/biblio section as a level 3, and dislike the aesthetic of it being a separate section.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I realized some where published posthumously, but "life and time" looks ... strange. What about "during his life or shortly after"?Michael! (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
The alternative you suggest would be rather cumbersome and lengthy...especially as a section title. I would assert that the goal would be concision--something more succinct but of the same meaning as "life and time". I can't think of one.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Added a few photos of things relevant to his life because there aren't any portraits of TT. Trying to find a free image of St Mary's, Credenhill.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Wow! I'm impressed! You did more than I was expecting. Changing the article structure wasn't necessary for passing it as a GA - per the second opinions given above - but the article definitely looks much, much better than before. The colourful images make the article look more attractive as well. Although this is my first impression and I still have to take a better look at many things, it certainly seems to be a good article to me. Thanks again! Michael! (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
All issues seems to be addressed, the article has been improved a lot and I'm confident it meets all of the GA criteria. Therefore, it is passed as a GA and already listed at the appropriate section. Done
A special thanks to all those who gave a second opinion, which certainly helped.
ColonelHenry, thank you. Not only for your major contributions and nomination of this article, for your quick replies and comments, but especially for your willingness to continue with the reviewing process and have a second look at things you initially disagreed with. Although time consuming, this review was certainly satisfying and productive. Thanks again!
