Talk:The Great Gatsby/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ImaginesTigers (talk · contribs) 16:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Gatsby? What Gatsby?

Hi there! I see this article has a lengthy history. What I'm going to do first is read through the entire article. During my first sweep, I'll create a list of issues I notice before applying the GA criteria in order to get this to you sooner. Once I've completed that, I'll use the notes (below) and this template to judge it, and place this review on hold. I won't be looking at the citations during this initial sweep, but I will note problems with their formatting — that I will do at the very end. You will see the template, with the part about citations being displayed as on hold, before I get to the references. That's going to take a little while.

This is a big article, so I hope you'll bear with me! If you need additional time to work on the article, I totally understand. Given that this text will soon be entering public domain (and is likely to get additional traffic as a result), I'm willing to spend the time to get this done fairly quickly.

The lead

1: The lead should serve as a summary of the article. A good rule of thumb is, would someone familiar with the material contest it? For a book like this, the facts are all very known. As a result, I'd ask that the citations given in the lead be moved to elsewhere (not the contents; only the citations). As often happens with articles with a long history, some of the information in the lead is only reflected in there. For example, as the lead mentions, Gatsby is often called one of the Great American Novels, but although that is in the lead, the term appears nowhere else in this article (though Fitzgerald is mentioned as one of the great American writers in 7. Contemporary reception, which might provide a place for it to go). The same is also true with the statement that the novel is often regarded as one of the greatest novels ever written, and the bit about it being part of high school curricula. On the other hand, there are examples of doubled-up citations: that Fitzgerald died believing the book was obscure, for instance — that reference is given twice when once (in the main body) is fine. For an article like this, a clean lead is a good idea. It’s just very cluttered right now.

Done. I shifted the lead citations to elsewhere in the article and inserted statements from the lead to other sections of the article. Deleted the LettersofNote.com web source as unreliable citation and deleted the Symkus 2013 citation as redundant. The factoid that the novel is about to fall into the public domain seemingly belonged elsewhere so I shifted that downward as well. Flask (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

2: Condense and rearrange. The plot summary is over-describing what should only be a sentence or two sentences long. Paradoxically, it doesn't mention Nick Carraway at all (who is Daisy's cousin). It is overly floral: creating a portrait of the Jazz Age that has been described as a cautionary tale regarding the American Dream. The book's specific sales figures are not that important; it only needs to say that it sold poorly (the specific details are already given with citations in the relevant section). I'd also recommend moving Many literary critics consider The Great Gatsby to be one of the greatest novels ever written to the end of the lead, grouping it logically with the part about the Great American Novel.

Done. I condensed and rearranged the lead section. The sentence that Many literary critics consider The Great Gatsby to be one of the greatest novels ever written seemed superfluous given the previous sentences stated its deemed a literary masterwork. Flask (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I will keep tweaking the lead section over the next few days until it flows better using the Hamlet article as my guide. -- Flask (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Structure

1: Headings. There are some headings which would be more suited to becoming sub-headings. I'd recommend 6. Alternative titles becomes a subheading of 4. Writing and production. Although 7. Contemporary reception and 8. Revival and reassessment could be conjoined, they are both large enough to warrant being standalone, so no issues there. Similarly, 5. Cover art justifies its status as a full heading.

Done. Moved "Alternative titles" to become a subheading of "Writing and production." -- Flask (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I also tucked Cover Art under "Writing and production." -- Flask (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

2: Adaptations. The bar for GA is obviously far lower than for FA. As a result, I won't ask that this section become converted into prose; I would only ask that each be referenced — and they are, so no issues. As I said, I'll make sure everything is properly referenced towards the end of this process.

I shall convert the Adaptations section into prose in the near future. I imagine Hobomok, myself, and others will try to nudge this article towards FA status once it achieves GA status. The novel's centennial is only a few years away, so I might as well start fixing these issues now. -- Flask (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Critical analysis

1: Excessive quotations. For a book like this, the themes section is not ready. Big topics, like Fitzgerald's treatment of the American Dream, quote directly far too much. Please paraphrase their ideas. For example, this:

Scholar Dianne Bechtel asserts Fitzgerald carefully plotted his 1925 novel to illustrate that this class permenance transcends wealth in America and is reinforced by an array of social dynamics: "East Egg and West Egg not only symbolize the economic dialectic of rich versus poor, but the strong social forces dividing them... Even if poor or middle-class agents manage to become rich, they cannot compete. Those in the old money system will nevertheless maintain its superiority."

... can simply become:

Dianne Bechtel asserts that Fitzgerald plotted the novel to illustrate that class transcends wealth in America. She continues that even if the wealthy become rich, they cannot become associated with old money.

The specifics of her argument can be found by people who want to go looking for it. All this section should be doing is providing a brief overview, moving from critic to critic. The same is also true with the Pearson quote (in 9.1.1. American Dream). The same problem exists in 5. Cover art. The Fitzgerald quote is attached to a sentence which is already quite long, and draws it out even further. Given that it’s important, some of the quote can be preserved to let readers know there's a quote to be found in the citation, but I would recommend mostly paraphrasing it. There are other examples of unnecessarily long quotations, such as the one from Hemingway in the same section, and a further example in Gender relations.

I have rewritten many of the direct quotes and tried to paraphrase as much as possible, especially in the Themes section. The only substantive blockquote that I believe should be kept is Pearson's definition of the American Dream. I fear removing this quote may lead to future editors edit-warring over a proper definition of the dream in the context of the novel. -- Flask (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

2: Citations. Firstly, citations must be attached to punctuation. I think the themes section suffers most heavily from this because it’s the one people will most readily add to (but the problem exists elsewhere — have a look through the article; if you don't catch them all then I'll clean up the remainder). A very similar problem is that references are very cluttered in the Themes section. The second sentence of 9.1.3. Gender relations has eight references; that is too many. Break this sentence and others like it up. The specific characteristics of the flapper do not need to be so heavily referenced to Fitzgerald's book. If there is a critic who identifies Daisy as a flapper, that's all that's needed there. I realise plagiarism is a problem word for this article, but that sentence is very close to being exactly word-for-word what Conor writes. All of the citations directly citing the book, then, are an issue, because it appears like that might be Conor's research. This article should not be directly referencing The Great Gatsby. That's for others to do.

Done. I have now checked all citations and ensured that they follow punctuation such as a period or a comma. I also broke up the second sentence of the Gender Relations section and removed several citations. I retained the "Echoes of the Jazz Age" citations since I believe that, as a primary source about the period by Fitzgerald, it is more reliable than later scholars' interpretations. -- Flask (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

More feedback will come when I add the template in a few hours. I know that the article was delisted, but its initial nomination was from promotion was from 2013, and standards have risen a little since then, I think. The citations won't be finished until over 24 hours from now (the plagiarism check will be sooner); I can't give you an exact timeframe for the citation checking. For now, if you have any comments, indent them beneath each of my points and I'll know what's being resolved as I go along. The section about adaptations is a bit rough, but the criteria for FA is lower than GA, so I am not going to ask that it be converted into prose. I'll just ask that it is rigorously referenced, which (on first glance), it is. Wishing you all the best — just let me know if anything is unclear or if you have any questions.

Reference check

I'll be tracking my progress here as I go.

Historical and biographical context: Approved

Passes. Removed one quotation from the body as it was given in the footnote. Have some concerns about the depth of the citations. Mizener accounts for the majority of citations (second to Fitzgerald himself). I am not, though, going to make this an issue for this review (though it may be something you have to defending during the FAN). Mizener and his work are widely accepted as authoritative on Fitzgerald (see Jackson R. Bryer, 'Four Decades of Fitzgerald Studies: The Best and Brightest' in Twentieth Century Literature 26 (1980), pp. 247-267). I would, however, imagine that some new resources have become available in 55 years since it was published.

Plot: Approved Passes.

Given the reason this article was delisted, I went through every instance of possible infraction and found nothing suspicious. Most instances seem to be sites pulling from old versions of this article.

Characters: ✗ Fail

The reference attached to the end of Nick Carraway's section is a soft fail. It doesn't say that he is in awe of their lifestyle and morals — it says: "Carraway provides a moral center. But perhaps because Marlow comes to the reader in a number of stories, he may lose his individuality, be accepted merely as the storyteller with each successive tale" (40). I'm not entirely sure why it’s attached here. It does provide useful insight on Carraway, but doesn't support everything in that paragraph. The reference to Gatsby's studying at Oxford is judicious — it’s an entire chapter (available via clicking the reference). References for Daisy (repeat of Conor from Themes), Tom, Jordan, Myrtle and Wolfsheim all pass. ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I have replaced the unsupported claim in Nick Carraway entry with a claim supported by Mizener 1965 p. 190. -- Flask (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Accepted Revised, but preserving the original fail for documentation. ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Writing and production: Approved A soft pass.

I cannot, however, track down the Bruccoli source online. I'm fairly confident that it would pass, given Bruccoli's pedigree & quotes supplied by the citations. Similar problem with Monica Randall's reference. I can see that Beacon Towers is references in the book, but the page cited does not appear via Google Books' search function (it’s mentioned 10 times, and I can only see two — so I believe it’s there). We'll come back to this. Mizener is, again, a credible source (this is a different piece of his, appearing in a publicly available NYT archive). On a side-note, it might be worth including what Fitzgerald's advance (sourced to his ledgers) is equivalent to in 2020.

Alternative titles: ✗ Fail

If you could find an alternative, non-primary source for the textual reference to Trimalchio, that would be preferred. It’s currently citing the opening sentence of Chapter VII. Studio 360 I would usually permit under the grounds that it was a longstanding literary program; unfortunately, although the link is archived, the audio program is not, so that fails verification (it’s the citation saying that Gatsby considered calling the novel simply Trimalchio). There is a later reference to the Trimalchio title in The Huffington Post by the Cambridge Editor on the Works of FSF, so that seems sufficient. The reference attached to under the pen name of Thomas Parke D'Invilliers — called Wullick, 2018 — seems to be a study source/grade saver website, so I have to fail that too. ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: The audio of the Studio 360 episode is still available at https://audio.wnyc.org/americanicons/americanicons112610.mp3. I'm not sure the best way to indicate that in the citation, but the cited information does appear at timestamp 14:26 in that file. Vahurzpu (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd recommend just updating the citation! ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, ImaginesTigers. Since accessing the claims made in the radio program will likely be difficult for future reviewers, I updated the citations to use Mizener 1965 and Bruccoli 2002. Both books list the same names regarding the other alternative titles. You can verify the Bruccoli 2002 book citation via the "Look Inside" feature on Amazon.com and using the search function. I can restore the radio program as a tertiary citation if you wish, but I think three citations might be overkill. -- Flask (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to you. There's nothing wrong with three citations (additional references are always good, especially from good sources). If you decide to keep it, you can always group the references. ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I think I'll stick with just the two book citations. -- Flask (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Accepted Revised, but preserving the original fail for documentation. ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Cover art: Accepted

Although the first sentence is rigorously cited, it fails because the link is now dead and leads to nowhere. You'll have to find an alternate. The same is therefore true with every other statement supported by that source, so every other reference in that paragraph. That sucks, and you have my sympathy there. ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I removed the dead link to the PDF for the Scribner 1992 citation. Luckily, the JSTOR link within that same citation is functional and retrievable. You can view the Scribner 1992 article here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26410056 -- Flask (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Accepted Revised, but preserving the original fail for documentation. ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Contemporary reception: Approved

First impressions: there are a lot of quotes in this section. But the topic sentences are good and immediately establish what the paragraph will contain. Second impression: referencing checks out. A couple I can't access but they are reliable sources and the words quoted do appear in the source (I just can't see them). On a non-referencing note, the last paragraph of this section opens with a very clumsy sentence. ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I cut that clumsy sentence since, upon further analysis, it had little bearing on the paragraph. -- Flask (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Revival and reassessment: Approved

Well-chosen and judicious use of sources. Side note: there's a typo in this section — umremarkable.

Fixed typo. -- Flask (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Critical analysis: A big one so we'll do it in sections.

American Dream: Approved

A few minor comments which are not related to the references, because the references are completely fine and acceptable. Regarding the quote here, I'm just worried that it falls outside of the scope of this particular article. It’s about Gatsby, after all, and it’s a big quote establishing something which isn't that relevant to Gatsby. I'm not going to contest it, and won't stonewall because of it, but my guess is that it'll come up in FAR. If you visit Hamlet, you'll notice that there's only one inset quote like that. They tend not to be liked, and only needed when they convey information that cannot be suitably or efficiently paraphrased. I don't think that's the case with this. I'll leave this to your discretion. Regarding our prose, contrived isn't the right word there. I'd rewrite He posited that Fitzgerald contrived the character of Gatsby to serve as a false prophet of the American dream [...] to He suggest that Gatsby serves as a false prophet of the American dream. There's also inconsistent capitalisation: use either "American Dream" or "American dream", but not both. American Dream capitalises dream, but its sources do not. Your call. ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Class permeance: Approved

My assumption here is that this was a recent addition to the article (I might be wrong). The citations are well-chosen, again, but the issue is the prose: it can be quite convoluted. Let's look at some examples: Scholar Sarah Churchwell notes that Fitzgerald's novel underscores the limits of America's ideals of social and class mobility, and the hopelessness of lower-class aspirants to transcend the stations of their birth could be simplified to something like: The novel underscores the limits of the American lower class to transcend their station of birth. There are other such instances where the phrasing is the issue, like the immutable American lass system which defies upward mobility. Articles like this one are often going to be used by high school and undergrad students using Wikipedia as a trampoline for additional research; concepts should be, at the very least, understood by them, so they know what they're heading into. Using words like parvenus, for example — I just wouldn't recommend it. Whoever has written that knows that the word is not in regular usage, because it’s attached to a Wikitionary article. I recommend reading over and making sure that everything is as simple and as clear as it possibly can be. ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Race and displacement: Approved

Another well-referenced section, but with similar problems to what I described above. To illustrate, I've edited this section. Be aware of the no Easter eggs policy regarding some of those links. It should be very clear where they lead to before a reader clicks on them. There's no need to include the names of their writing, either, because that's included in the footnote and just clutters things up. Aim for clean, accessible prose. There's an argument not even to include the names of scholars unless there's a reason (for example, they have an article on Wikipedia, or are an established expert on the subject), and instead simply relate their ideas and tie them to other critics. I hope my edits were helpful and show you what I changed. Also, sorry for accidentally restoring an old version of the page. My bad! ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I will also add that there's a very important part of the book, with Tom near the beginning (where he has his scree) regarding the permanent damage the workers sustain as a result of... I think... silver polish. It might come up during GA that it’s weird that it’s missing from here. ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Technology and environment:  Needs discussion

Same again, though this section is better than the two above. Words like prescient are editorialising; excrescence should be changed. Do you know where I can access Keeler's The Great Global Warmer: Jay Gatsby as a Microcosm of Climate Change? It’s the only one I'm struggling to get access to — my institution doesn't grant me access on JSTOR (which is pointed to by Keeler's website), or Project MUSE. ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I originally read the Keeler article in full via Questia.com but, strangely, I can't find that link now. It's almost as if Questia.com took down the full article? Many of the summarized claims are reflected in Keeler's abstract which can be previewed on the JSTOR page. -- Flask (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Approved Abstract should be sufficient. ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Controversy: ✗ Fail

I do not believe the first statement (that Fitzgerald's other work) is reflected in its citation. There is only a mention to one other story by Fitzgerald, so it feels like there's an implication (that his other major novels contain antisemitic characterisation and caricatures) which isn't really borne out. I expect there's other writing on this topic, but as it stands the section is a little thin. Re: the last sentence – "This claim is further supported [...]" –isn't clear on what claim is being supported. ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Accepted Revised, but preserving the original fail for documentation.

Adaptations: ✗ Fail

Washington Ballet has a primary source, but there's a secondary source there, too, so it’s fine. The iPad game's release date is sourced to Metacritic, which the WikiProject Video Games lists as an unreliable source for release dates. It’s best to defer to them on this (knowing their stuff, as they do), so I think an alternative source has to be found for that one. Everything else is fine, and you've indicated that (at some stage in the future) you intend to convert it into prose, with additional contextual information. ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Accepted Revised, but preserving the original fail for documentation.

Additional notes:  Needs discussion

There is a citation in Online sources to The Frisky, a website which appears on the MediaWiki blacklist. It looks like nothing in the article is cited directly to it, so it’s likely able to just be removed. ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Accepted Revised, but preserving the original fail for documentation.

GA Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is generally clear and concise — the lead, however, is particularly clotted and unnecessarily floral; spelling and grammar are correct. :

   Revised; issues have been resolved.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Revised; issues have been resolved.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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:

   Awaiting changes. Changes implemented.

   C. It contains no original research:

   No original research on the page.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Page is stable.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Most images are public domain; others are appropriately tagged with correct rationales.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass.

Discussion

Hi, ImaginesTigers. Thank you for undertaking this review! I shall begin implementing the first round of requested changes later tonight. -- Flask (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm heading to sleep, so I'll likely see them when I wake up. Looking forward to working with you! ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Couldn't sleep. Made some follow-up changes to the lead; it’s important that it reflects some of the literature (given how much of the article is devoted to it). It might warrant being a little more in-depth, but — as I said — the bar for GA is much lower than GA. You can hash it out there. Since you're interested, though, I'll point to Hamlet as a very good piece of literary Wikipedia-ing. I'd also recommend, once this GA is complete, that you run it through the Guild of Copy Editors, telling them you're planning to try and get it to FA. I'll also help, if I can. I estimate I'll have looked through the references within 24 hours, but if there's some I'm unable to check, it might take a little longer. I'll let you know promptly in any case. I have educational access so I'm hoping it won't be an issue. Good work so far! We're moving through this very quickly. ImaginesTigers (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

On a related note, if we manage to get the article through this process fairly quickly, you could try and determine if it’s possible to fast track a Did you know... nomination in time for its public domain debut. ImaginesTigers (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, ImaginesTigers. Thank you for helping to edit the lead section; I agree the lead section needs more work. Tomorrow, I will take a look at the Hamlet article and use it for a stylistic example. I'm still rewriting the article to remove direct quotes and paraphrase ideas. -- Flask (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

ImaginesTigers, The Great Gatsby is not eligible for Did You Know, since it has already appeared several times in the On This Day section of the main page. So DYK should not come into your reviewing calculus in terms of speed or timing. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, Thanks for letting me know. I'm still going to go as quickly as we can to have the article done by the time the text becomes public domain, which might result in some additional traffic! But I didn't know that, having not seen the article's OTD/DYK history. ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Flask: This basically concludes my review. I've made a few additional changes. I hope this hasn't been too painful for you — it’s a big article, and all things considered it was looking good when we started. I think it’s looking pretty strong now, and on track to not be such a difficult FAN, especially with a few of you working on it. I recommend your last step – before you call me back here – be ensuring that the lead is a good summary of the rest of the article. Once you're satisfied, just give me a ping. ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Changes have been implemented. Promoting to GA. ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, ImaginesTigers. Thank you so much for speedily undertaking this extremely thorough review. You are a whirlwind of energy and effort! I will be spending tomorrow further refining the lead using a fresh pair of eyes. Again, thank you so much for your time and effort! -- Flask (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It’s the biggest one I've undertaken yet, for sure, but it’s my holiday and I have some time off. You were very efficient in implementing, and it takes two to tango. Well done. ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Good job, everybody! I worked on the previous Good Article reviews. I didn't notice this was going on until after it was over (it is mentioned in this edition of the Signpost because it's going out of copyright). Keep it up. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jason Quinn: Thanks for your earlier work on the article! I did have a look back at the version you originally produced, and it was a great foundation for them to build on. Onwards, and to improving literature coverage on Wikipedia! (It’s such a huge shame that the WikiProjects for Novels and Literature are both mostly dead.) ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)