Talk:Philip Larkin/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

From October 2009 to November 2009

FA?

With the 25 anniversary coming up has anyone thought about getting the article up to FA status by then, the anniversary may be a good time for a front page appearance. Keith D (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It may get on the main page in the "on this day" section, but I am not sure how an article is chosen to be shown there. This also might be something to work towards. I might only be able to support the main editors of the page with a little formatting work. Snowman (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

IMO to bring this page through FA one very experienced editor needs to volunteer to take charge of the nomination. Those of us who have done the bulk of the work on this page have at times fallen out of over various (rather minor) issues. Someone with good experience of FA nominations (and a strong personality) would be very helpful in keeping the process orderly and temperate, overseeing and directing. Personally I'm not keen on the abuse which gets thrown about in FA discussions (I remember following the Samuel Johnson one; ugh!) but if the article is taken to FA I'll do what I can to help. Incidentally the editor who adjudicated the GA acquired the various sources and would prob be able to help. almost-instinct 14:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that it would be ideal to have a team of editors to take the article through to FA status. Snowman (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

almost-instinct asked me whether or not I thought this article was a good candidate for FAC. (I have some 30+ FAs, including 5 author biographies.) At first glance, I think this article looks very solid, however I would recommend a peer review first, in which you solicit reviews from people like myself who will go over every line of the prose and dig into the sourcing. I know some other literary-minded editors who would probably be interested in reviewing the article. Let me know if this interests you. I have found that thorough peer reviews from careful editors create easy FACs rather than difficult ones. Any problems are uncovered and fixed ahead of time in a leisurely fashion. (Note: The Samuel Johnson FAC was an anomaly, for many reasons.) Awadewit (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I think that a peer review will not help this page a lot. Snowman (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I think that a peer review is worth a go, and I'd vote for giving Awadewit the go-ahead to contact her, er, contacts. --GuillaumeTell 21:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Cannot see a problem with a peer review, it may not turn up much but always good to have a new set of eyes on things before going for an FA review. Keith D (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Having never seen a Peer Review I'm disconcertingly short of an opinion ;-) The idea of any discussion about the article happening in a leisurely, unstressful fashion strikes me as appealing. As for the sourcing there shouldn't be many problems as the GA reviewer, Kateshortforbob, acquired the few sources that are mostly used and checked up. One section of the article was entirely the work of an editor who hasn't been around on WP since the GA review: Macphysto. That section, on literary criticism, looks solid to my undertrained eye, but I'm not sure any of the rest of us who have worked on the page much would be a position to answer any querying of it. If the article were to be scrutinised line by line, IMO it would be good to do it one section at a time. I don't think anyone is in a tearing hurry almost-instinct 23:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are some examples of very detailed peer reviews: Wikipedia:Peer review/Hamlet/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Emily Dickinson/archive1. Let me know what you want to do! Awadewit (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I recently went through the Life sections, checking my grammar, and ensuring that previous ce-ing hadn't clouded the meaning. If anyone were wanting to go through those three sub-sections making a list of queries about the meanings etc, I suppose this would be a good time for it. The reasons for the inclusion of all the pieces of information are clear to me, but I realise I might have left some things opaque almost-instinct 16:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Brief summary of the state of the text

1. Life

1. 1922–50 checked over, ready for peer review &c.
2. 1950–69 ditto
3. 1969–85 ditto

2. Creative Output

1. Juvenilia - similarly ready
2. Mature works - ditto; third of the four paragraphs may be in need of some polish
3. Poetic style - this section is a smoothed-together collection of seperately-written paragraphs and it might show. Fresh eyes needed.
4. Prose non-fiction - ditto. This paragraph might need further expansion

3. Legacy

1. Reception history - built in one go around series of quotations collated from the relevent sections in the Motion and Bradford books. Ready.
2. Critical Opinion - written in one go by User:Macphysto, who seems to have retired from WP. Closely picked over in GAC, so presumably ready.
3. Career as Librarian - written from one source; could be expanded if that were deemed desirable.
4. Posthumous reputation - expanded from early version of this article; main, opening paragraph might need expansion/polish
5. Recordings - three short pieces of information
6. Fiction based on Larkin's life - ditto

GuillaumeTell, please could you express opinions on my doubts about 2.3, 2.4, 3.3 & 3.4? almost-instinct 10:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll get going on that now. (I've just looked through the rest of the Life section and made a couple of changes. I wondered whether something about his mother's later years and the frequency of his visits might usefully be added?) --GuillaumeTell 17:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• 2.2 - mainly reducing duplication (and I have a particular aversion to the word "iconic"). I'm also wondering whether the stuff about "Lucky Jim" could be omitted or reduced, as it's already been covered further up. As for "Annus Mirabilis", we don't have to assume that the poem (or any of his poems - "Dockery and Son", "A Study of Reading Habits"?) is autobiographical, do we? Anyway, that bit reads rather oddly and (IMO) would be best in an article on the poem. --GuillaumeTell 17:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I rather like to imagine that the point made here was that there are teasing hints of autobiography throughout Larkin's work, and that one would be foolish to take anything in the poetry at face value :-) I've tried to make this explicit [Bradford has an entertaining line on this, says something along the lines that at this point Larkin is actively laughing at us] almost-instinct 18:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• 2.3 - A whole para on "The North Ship" (or is it?), but only a mention of "The Less Deceived" and nothing on the other two collections apart from a disquisition on "Going, Going". The section either needs to be expanded (quotes from contemporary reviews?) or contracted to the 1st, 2nd and 5th paras. --GuillaumeTell 17:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write that paragraph but I believe that what it is saying is that the clear influence of Yeats in The North Ship wasn't jettisoned in favour of Hardy in the three mature collections, but was retained, bound up within the Hardy. Or something. I've had a go at improving this. Hopefully I haven't just made it worse ;-) almost-instinct 18:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• 2.4 - Any expansion might include a quote or two, especially from AWJ (which I don't have) - I particularly like the "Parker, Picasso, Pound" one. --GuillaumeTell 17:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a copy too, but I might be able to track one down. I think you're right about a well-chosen quote; I might be able to find one in a review, say almost-instinct 18:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• 3.3 - I dunno what the MOS says about this, but if most of the quotes come from the article cited at the end, it might be better to reference them individually - I started the section wondering why the Dunn, Dyson and Graneek quotes had no citations. As for the content, I don't really think it needs expanding - it's not a very big part of Larkin's fame - but it might be possible to glean a bit more from L@60 or Motion to add variety. --GuillaumeTell 17:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If we had access to the original published copy then we could use the individual pages numbers; IIRC the online version I used was just one long "page". Glad you think the section is roughly the right length. I think it worth including, if only because it rather explodes the "Hermit of Hull" myth. The editor who added the SilverLarkin website might be able to help; I'll ask him almost-instinct 18:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately that editor hasn't been seen on WP since s/he first created the account. By using a refname tag I've been able to repeat the reference throughout the section. Though inelegant, it at least removes the ambiguity as to what has been sourced from that ref. almost-instinct 10:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm here... (Is there a way to communicate directly?) I'll keep checking back. I'm happy to help, and dig out information where I can. Allriskinrev (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Allriskinrev! I've asked you something on your talk page almost-instinct 18:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. The page numbers for the references to the Goodman article in About Larkin 4 are (in the order they appear) p.4, p.6, p.7, p.10. Hope this is useful. Allriskinrev (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I've added these to the article and added the Goodman article to the list of references so that the references are uniform with everything else almost-instinct 20:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the references to the Goodman article might be better referencing the original quotations in the sources Goodman lists at the end of his article? Allriskinrev (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• 3.4 - looks OK to me. [comment made by --GuillaumeTell ??:??, 22 October 2009]
• 3.5 - I've added the information on the recordings, but I'm not sure if this is the right place or if the information should appear under Publications. Please feel free to make changes. Allriskinrev (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, almost-instinct, for putting right my careless mistake re. Bloomfield. Allriskinrev (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem! :-) almost-instinct 10:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello almost instinct. I'm not sure if it was you who added the initial reference to this, but Larkin's comment on his dislike of his own voice comes from his auto-interview on the sleeve of the 1968 re-issue of the recording of The Less Deceived (and reprinted on page 36 of Further Requirements). Larkin writes: "Another thing I dislike rather is my voice - I come from Coventry, between the sloppiness of Leicester and the whine of Birmingham, you know - and sometimes it comes out." Allriskinrev (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Other parts of page

Publications: I am not clear on what basis individual poems are listed under the title of the volumes in which they appear. Maybe better to just list those with WP articles? And, by the way, there is absolutely nothing in the article about XX Poems until this section. Surely there should be a short para somewhere? --GuillaumeTell 18:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This structure was here when I first came to the page and never had any strong feelings; occasionally another editor would add a favoured poem, at which point I'd prune another one from the list, so keep it to five each. I think the idea was to have the five most well-known ones; of course making that decision is terrifically subjective! For what its worth I definitely think there should be some. I also think that many more of the poems should have their own page, but that's another story, one to do with my general laziness ;-) The point about XX Poems is absolutely right. I'll insert something about this little production in the Life section once I've got my hands on a copy of Motion again. I think it's only included in the list here because Faber and Faber will insist on including it their list of original volumes in the Collected Poems. As far as I can recall from every biog I've read of PL it was a completely inconsequential little pamphlet. almost-instinct 18:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't got Motion to hand; until I can get hold of it I've added a sentence or two about XX Poems and put a cite tag in lieu of a proper reference almost-instinct 15:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Using a pair of relatively reliable online sources have clarified the info. Still need a proper ref in Motion/Bradford almost-instinct 09:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for photos

It was pointed out that the majority of pictures on the page are of buildings. Here are some suggestions for images of people and pictures of Hull from Commons that could be added:

1. Yeats [1] - to be put in the Juvenilia section?
2. Hardy [2] - to be put in the Mature Works section?
3. John Betjeman [3] - to be put in Recordings section?
4. A street in 1963 with buses [4]
5. A drawing of ships arriving in Hull [5] fairly irrelevant, but I could find a good quote from one of his poems for the caption
6. A 1952 photo of Humber Dock with a ship [6]

almost-instinct 13:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added nos. 1-3 and KeithD's added a good photo of Hull that illustrates the poem "Here" rather nicely. almost-instinct 15:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Number 4 brings back memories of the trolley buses especially the number 63 along the Beverley Road. Keith D (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to think of a quotation from one of the poems that would go with it :-) almost-instinct 15:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Found a place for it to work as an illustration of the text. The page now has 14 photographs, of which less than half are of buildings. almost-instinct 16:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There are now 15 images on the page. Image selection becomes more important. Snowman (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'm expecting that the fresh eyes in the Peer Review process will question at least one or two of the pictures. It seems to me that taking away will be easier than adding: we're now in a position to respond quickly to such questioning almost-instinct 11:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Captions

Please note the following from MOS:CAPTIONS:

"Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely nominal groups (sentence fragments) that should not end with a period"

Some are incomplete sentences and some are full sentences. Snowman (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Images should face into the page, so Thomas Hardy's photo should go on the right side. Snowman (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course. Now I think about it, that's why I put Yeats on the left in the first place almost-instinct 11:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

But when Yeats is on the left the image displaces the heading below to the right. It may not do this on some screens. In-the-round, I think that it would be best to put the Yeats image on the right as well. Snowman (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow you. Do you mean that its creating white space there? almost-instinct 16:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Or do you merely mean that the sub-header "Mature works" is not hard against the left margin of the article, but alongside the Yeats photo? If so, I have to say that on my screen this (having the sub-header to the right of a photo) happens no less than four times and that I really don't think its a problem; I can't find anything in MOS:IMAGES prohibiting it. I see that the same thing happens three times with today's Featured Article, twice with a sub-header and once with a main header almost-instinct 16:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the heading "Mature works" is not on the left margin. To me it does not look very tidy, and it is easy to avoided. Snowman (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As I say, this occurs throughout many WP articles, including three other instances in this article alone, and does not infringe any MOS policies/guidelines, nor those for FAC. MOS:IMAGES encourages a left-right oscillation in the placement of photographs. Furthermore, to me it does not look untidy. It seems to me logical to suppose that MOS guidelines are an expression of consensus, and therefore the consensus is that this is not a problem. almost-instinct 00:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: caption below photo of Larkin's parents' house. I have two quibbles with this caption. 1. This house appears to be a largeish detached suburban house, not at all what would be described in England nowadays (if ever) as a 'council house'. Clarification or correction required. 2. '...overlooking a spinney' There does not appear to be a spinney in the photo, just some grass at the roadside and parts of two trees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.51.195 (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Query about reference

The section "Career as a librarian" is taken based on a single article. In our citation we give the url as this which gives the contents page of that issue of the About Larkin journal. I was wondering if this url, which is the article itself, would be more useful? almost-instinct 23:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Plan for FAC

• 1) Peer review
• 2) Copyedit
• 3) Check image licensing
• 4) Check article against WP:MOS
• 5) Check all links in the article
• 6) Proofread
• 7) Nominate for FAC!

What does everyone think of this plan? Awadewit (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Private Instinct signing up for duty, sah! :-) Thoughts: could (1)+(2) be done in sections? User:Tony1 recently looked over the article so (4) hopefully won't be a problem. Neither should (6) as the GAC was pretty thorough. There are a couple of paragraphs in the text which are a bit scruffy/unfocused/short on detail; I'll try to sort them out ... almost-instinct 10:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I will put the article up for peer review one week from today, if that is ok. That gives everyone some time to spruce it a bit. Awadewit (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've done my best with text, and then responded as best I can to GuillaumTell's comments. I believe that I've cleaned up the references I've added. Maybe KeithD could cast an eye over the references and check they look as smart as they could be? almost-instinct 12:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have had a look over and done a few tweaks to add more detail and standardise the dates. The problem one is the Philip Larkin collected poems 1988 as there is no entry in the list I assume it is the Thwaite, Anthony entry that it is referring to. May be good to go to the Havard style referencing to get from notes entry to the actual book it is referring to but that would take some work and is not a necessity. Keith D (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph that that ref is in has been in the article for a long time; I'm rather expecting someone in the Peer Review process to take exception to it, so I think spending a lot of effort on improving that ref might prove to be time wasted almost-instinct 17:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for peer review (per almost-instinct's message on my talk page that it was ready) and asked some people I know to review it. I will also review it in the coming days. Awadewit (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been away for a few days. The Peer Review process has thrown up a lot of issues, some of which have been dealt with instantaneously, and some of which will require a lot of work. The PR page has become extremely unweildy; tomorrow I shall sort through the issues yet to be resolved, organise them and list them here on the talk page almost-instinct 00:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea. Please let me know when the issues from the peer review have all been resolved - you guys are all doing such wonderful work on this article! Awadewit (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

New statue for 25th anniversary

Just spotted this story in today's Hull Daily Mail on a new statue to be placed at Hull Paragon Interchange for 25th anniversary. Keith D (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Outstanding issues from Peer Review

Listed below are the various problems identified in the Peer Review that have not yet been attended to. Some at the end are just fiddly issues to do with sources, but a lot of them require more involved attention almost-instinct 10:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Life

1.1 1922–50

[Currently none]

1.2 1950–69

[Currently none]

1.3 1969–85

• BB says: "It seems that too little use is made in the article of the collected letters, which could be used to flesh out more details of his private life, including some quite significant incidents. Among things not mentioned in the article are his being made a Companion of Honour in summer 1985 (letter to Anthony Powell 7 August 1985) and his being too ill to receive it from the Queen (letter 18 October 1985 to Colin Gunner). Also, we learn that Larkin was made a Companion of Literature (C.Litt) by the RSL, a more singular honour than a Fellowship (letter to Robert Conquest, 4 July 1978), and we can read what he thought about this ("Down among the dead men")" Does anyone have with access to this book? If so, could they dredge up the information being pointed to by BB?

• BB comments: "The section title "1969-85: "Beyond the light stand failure and remorse" is, I believe, too literary and cryptic for an encyclopedia. It suggests the editor's voice in summarising Larkin's career. I'd go for something less personal."
  • I agree with BB. The two previous sections have factual titles rather than quotes from the poems. What's required is something boring like "Later life, death and aftermath". --GuillaumeTell 16:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I think I rather prefered your edit summary ;-) "The victory of the slow machine"? "The fear after the boredom"?? Seriously, I could never think of anything good, hence the quote, so please amend away :-) almost-instinct 16:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, I prefer my edit summary too, but that's also too literary and cryptic, and 63 isn't old, is it? (Well, I don't think it is.) Amended as above, so I'll award this a tick.

 Done --GuillaumeTell 16:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What was the problem with Guillaume's "Aftermath"? I just looked it up on Merriam-Webster: "3 : the period immediately following a usually ruinous event" - that seems an apt enough description. "Diaries", on the other hand, doesn't cover Monica Jones' will almost-instinct 18:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

2. Creative Output

2.1 Juvenilia &c.

• BB says: "Booth's collection of the Coleman fiction and other early writing has a lengthy introduction discussing these works. It would be good to see this used as a source. In particular there is discussion of two unfinished novels No For An Answer and A New World Symphony, dated as between 1948 and 1954. These are not mentioned in the article, and I believe they should be, particularly as Booth's book has long (80+ pages) extracts from both." I don't have this book. Does anyone else?

• "In what way did [The North Ship] show the influence of Yeats?"

2.2 Mature works

• "I feel like the analysis of Larkin's writing is a bit thin. The "Creative output" section doesn't contain any analysis of his novels, for example."

2.3 Poetic style

• M3 says: "I'm not getting a sense in the Creative output section of how Larkin's poetry style or themes resounded with his generation, whether he was revolutionary or not, whether he was as plain as any poet who gets into a magazine" and "I am also wishing for a statement or paragraph in this section ... that roundly states what his poems were about, what essence they captured, and how critics have since described his career"

• "Larkin's earliest work showed the influence of Eliot, Auden and Yeats, and the development of his mature poetic identity in the early 1950s coincided with the growing influence on him of Thomas Hardy. - In what specific ways did these other poets influence Larkin's work?"

• "The "Poetic style" section is almost entirley made up of quotations. Could some of these be removed and paraphrases used instead? It is jarring for the reader to read so many quotes."

2.4 Prose non-fiction

• BB says: "we should be told whose view it is that in Required Writing his scepticism is at its most "nuanced and illuminating" (and preferably what this means), and at its most inflamed and polemical in the Daily Telegraph reviews. The sentence beginning "His scepticism...." is much too long and needs dividing" This, IIRC was written a long time ago. It would be good if someone could rewrite the whole section, IMO

3. Legacy

3.1 Reception

• Paraphrase long Bradford quote on High Windows

 Done

• More wanted on Larkin at Sixty
  • I'll see what I can do (but not until after I've supplied alt text for another 10 images in Leeds). --GuillaumeTell 16:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you :-) (and I think a leisurely pace has been proved to be de rigeur round here) almost-instinct 16:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

3.2 Critical opinion

• BB says: ""Cooper draws on the entire canon of Larkin's works, as well as on unpublished correspondence, to counter the oft-repeated caricature of Larkin as a racist, misogynist reactionary." Your use of the word "caricature" indicates that the view of Larkin as racist, reactionary etc is wrong, or at least distorted. Having heard and read a geat deal of Larkin, I have no doubt that this was a significant part of his character. It was doubtless not all of him; but to suggest that he was "caricatured" as a racist etc is unjustified."

Changed.  Done almost-instinct 21:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• "The "Critical opinion" section is almost a list of opinions rather than a coherent, topically-based section. There is even a one-sentence paragraph. This section needs to be restructed so that the reader is led through the different ideas rather than through the different critics. The names of the critics are not so important as the ideas. Also, the critics should be grouped together better, to indicate broad trends in Larkin scholarship. The paragraph that begins "The view that Larkin is not a nihilist or pessimist, but actually displays optimism in his works, is certainly not universally endorsed, but Chatterjee's lengthy study suggests the degree to which old stereotypes of Larkin are now being transcended" is the best example of the kind of topical coherence that the rest of the section should have."

3.3 Career as librarian

[Currently none]

3.4 Posthumous rep

• M3 says: "If so, can you reconcile how someone could love black music so much and hate blacks?" Personally, I'm not sure a reconciliation is possible, I think the contradiction remains. I recall two contrasting quotes: (a) "The Negro did not have the blues because he was naturally melancholy. He had them because he was cheated and bullied and starved." Does anyone know the source for this? (b) something in the letters about "the patter of Caribbean germs on the Underground", which I think I recall from the Letters. Again, can anyone find this? I think these two make for a good illustration of the problem.

Quotation (a) comes from 'The End of Jazz' in All What Jazz (Faber, 1970, p87). Allriskinrev (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I know that User:Brianboulton has the Letters. I'm mentally compiling a list of of things I'm going to ask him to look up, all in one go. Either that or get hold of a copy myself (should be able to soon, but not exactly sure when) almost-instinct 16:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

3.5 Recordings

• "The last three paragraphs of "Recordings" are a prose list - can you integrate these a bit more seamlessly?"

This section now overhauled and expanded  Done almost-instinct 21:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Footnote 129 should indicate that the YouTube video is a recording of a SkyOne broadcast."

I see Allriskinrev has attended to this  Done almost-instinct 16:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

3.6 Fiction based on L's life

• "The first paragraph ... should explain the content of the play a bit more."

Michael Billington review found in The Guardian, used as source for more info. I put "Set in the three decades after Larkin's arrival in Hull, it explores his long relationships with Monica Jones, Maeve Brennan and Betty Mackereth." Is that sufficient? I could add more  Done almost-instinct 12:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Footnote 133 - the link is broken"

Checked the link - is working now  Done almost-instinct 16:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

4. General issues: All  Done

• "The first time any published work of Larkin's is mentioned, please put the publication date in parentheses next to it."

I looked at the FA Samuel Johnson for guidance on this. When the publication date is mentioned in the same sentence as the title, the date is not added in brackets. I've added dates where needed both in the biography section and in the creative output section, as not everyone will read both. I have not added any to the intro  Done almost-instinct 11:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Article is overlinked

Severly pruned  Done almost-instinct 15:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Alt text needed for the photos.

 Done almost-instinct 15:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please add publication locations to the references

 Done almost-instinct 15:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• "What makes this a reliable source?"

Perhaps the reference should be changed to cite the original 'Monitor' film, where Garland's role as Director is noted in the rolling credits. But (also) Patrick Garland confirms his role as Director of the film on 'Philip Larkin: The Movie' (PLS CD2) a CD audio recording (of Garland's talk at the Larkin Society 2003 AGM) published by The Philip Larkin Society in 2004. [What makes any source reliable? eg the link to BFI pager about 'Monitor': "On-screen Participant: Jonathan Miller" !!???] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allriskinrev (talk • contribs) 20:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

One day I'll learn to sign my own contributions!! Allriskinrev (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not put in both?! Then if someone takes issue with one, then the other one remains :-) almost-instinct 21:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference now changed to finnal credits, so ...  Done almost-instinct 10:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Was this originally published in The Observer? It looks that way from the website. If so, that should be indicated in the footnote."

 Done almost-instinct 15:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• "This artice was originally published in Twentieth Century Literature (Summer 1996) - this needs to be indicated in the footnote."

 Done almost-instinct 16:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• "What makes this a reliable source?"

It's an example of dissenting opinion against a mainstream author: isn't it unsurprising that its web-published? We're not using it as a source for anything other than the opinions it itself contains. If we amended the text to "pinko.org website opines..." then we would be saying something factually indisputable. Would that be ok? almost-instinct 15:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've now made this clear, and I've found a good source - the University of Southampton's website - that confirms pinko.org as Andrew Duncan's  Done I rather think Andrew Duncan's website deserves to be mentioned on his page. Will see what I can do almost-instinct 18:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• "What makes this Larkin biography a reliable source?"

It quotes from the Motion biog. so we should be able to get the Motion page number. The only part of our text that it supports is that PL and MJ visited her holiday cottage a lot. I would like this little footnote link to stay, though - nice little clump of biographical info almost-instinct 15:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Motion page number added  Done almost-instinct 19:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• "What makes this a reliable source?"

Perhaps Allriskinrev would like to explain why silverlarkin is a reliable source? ;-) almost-instinct 15:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the same question regarding the same link as in bullet-point 5 above, which I've responded to. ;-) I've now changed the reference and created a new reference section: Television productions, adding 'Down Cemetery Road' to it. I hope this is better. It took me ages to work out what to do and how to do it ;-) Please feel free to change/correct as necessary. Allriskinrev (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of very good tidiers working on this page, don't worry ;-) Thank you for everything  Done almost-instinct 10:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks - again. I thought I'd used the correct date format, as shown in the example on the help page for citing an episode: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_episode , but by the time I got there I must admit I was somewhat frayed. I am gaining confidence now on how to 'find out' things, so you might not have to clean up after me for that long. How does 2 years sound ;-) Allriskinrev (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure that what I did was correct, either! - I was just making it consistent with what I saw in the section immediately above. And I recall KeithD doing something similar recently. Far better to add these things and then see them tidied up by someone else than not add them at all. Courage, mon brave! as someone once used to say to me a lot :-) almost-instinct 19:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Further issues arising...

• Photos. On the Peer Review complaints were made about the pokiness and quality of some of the photos. Since we had many photos I was able to trim away some and then made all the photos, which are now arranged on the right hand side of the page, balancing the quotations that were requested, the same size. Three of these have now been made non-uniform. Please may I get a third-party opinion on the sizes of the photos as they currently stand? Thank you almost-instinct 18:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Having spent a while on getting the balance of photos and quotations sorted out and looking nice, photos generally at the bottom right of each section, quotations at the top left, I find it upsetting to have this messed up, particularly in the middle of a Peer Review when we really are doing our level best. There's still a long list of things to do above. almost-instinct 23:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)