Talk:Cormac McCarthy/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Bibliography
I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Surely the capitalisation should be consistent with the titles of the articles about the books? I also think it's worth displaying the ISBNs, as they render as helpful links to the Special:BookSources service. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed, the ISBNs are useful. Seraphim System (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- I've restored the ISBN and capital letters. I've also removed his name from the citation template, as it seems a bit unnecessary to have McCarthy's name appear at the start of every entry in the list. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Santa Fe Institute
Several times the article mentions the Santa Fe Institute without ever clarifying what is it and the nature of McCarthy's involvement with it. Kumagoro-42 01:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- The Santa Fe Institute is an interdisciplinary think tank (research institute). I will wikilink it, and see what I can find re: his residency/involvement there. While the core group are physicists, they invite artists of various disciplines on a regular basis. Netherzone (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Year of second marriage
Is there a reason why the date of his second marriage to Annie DeLisle is stated as being 1966 in the second paragraph of the "Writing career" section, yet it is listed as 1967 in the info box and in the "Personal life:Family:Marriages" section? Netherzone (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- The only source cited for this in the article has it as 1966 (and her name as Anne). Cordless Larry (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- It would also be worth citing this chronology. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, Cordless Larry for your quick response. I've changed the date from 1967 to 1966 in two places, and added the citation you mention (Cambridge Chronology). There may be a better place for this citation in the article - if you have any thoughts on the placement, let me know and I will make that change. Netherzone (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Cormac McCarthy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Urve (talk · contribs) 19:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I will start reviewing this shortly. This is my first GA review, so if I make mistakes or am unclear, please let me know. Urve (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I will work through the sections and then do the lead last. Urve (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Life
Early life
- Period after "Rhode Island" is wrong
- Source does not seem to support that his mother's maiden name is McGrail; I think it just suggests it's part of her last name now. (
His parents, Charles Joseph and Gladys Christina McGrail McCarthy
) Is there a better one for that claim, or am I overlooking something? - "Subdivision" sounds unnatural to me (neighborhood?) but that seems to be how it's described, so change not needed if accurate.
(this house burned down in 2009)
may be better placed in an explanatory footnote or better integrated into the prose, like "which would later burn down in 2009".- Is there a better source for the claim that
He also hosted a radio show
? I am not too familiar with the guidelines on self-published info, so if not needed, disregard.
- Maybe nitpicky. But
Some sources dispute this and say his family changed it
does not seem supported by the source at the end of the paragraph. - May want to put the obit source after the quote so people know where it comes from.
- It's okay to place a single reference for a larger block of text as long as all of the content comes from a single source. ~ HAL333 23:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that aligns with my understanding of BLP. But my comment was based on my (admittedly inexperienced) reading of WP:INTEXT, which seems to require for quotes "attribution inside a sentence of material to its source, in addition to an inline citation after the sentence". That second clause is my concern. But since the source in the next sentence, I think that can qualify as an appropriate exception to the guideline and change is probably not necessary. Urve (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's okay to place a single reference for a larger block of text as long as all of the content comes from a single source. ~ HAL333 23:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Early writing career (1965–1991)
- Where is the quote
it was the only publisher [he] had heard of
from?
- Is the comma in
Also, in 1966
unnecessary? Don't know. - Maybe the "total poverty" quote should be clarified inline to say DeLisle said it; unclear where it's from right now.
based on actual events
such as? Source says it's based on newspaper accounts of a real person, maybe good to clarify.- Clean up
to the organization. .
- second period wrong.
Success and acclaim (1992–2013)
- I do not understand copyrights. But File:Graffiti in Shoreditch, London - Call It by Aske P.19 (11006858255).jpg has been nominated for deletion as a copyright violation as there is apparently "No freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK." Remove?
- On second look, this is fine. But on first read it felt choppy. Make of that what you will.
McCarthy's next book, No Country for Old Men (2005), was originally conceived as a screenplay before being turned into a novel.[37] Consequently, the novel has little description of the setting and is composed largely of dialogue.[2] The title originates from the 1926 poem "Sailing to Byzantium" by Irish poet W. B. Yeats.[38] It stayed with the Western setting and themes yet moved to a more contemporary period. The Coen brothers adapted it into a 2007 film of the same name, which won four Academy Awards and more than 75 film awards globally.[37]
- I think the ref for
fires up on the hill and everything being laid to waste
should be at the end of that sentence so it's clear where it came from. - Do we need to capitalize Father and Boy?
- Rest looks good.
Santa Fe Institute (2014–present)
- "trustee" for
- I would rework
He is unique, as nearly all other members of the SFI have a scientific background
. Maybe something like, "While nearly all other members of the SFI have a scientific background, he uniquely does not." - What work did he do here? We say he has done "considerable work" and that as a result of his work "at the Santa Fe Institute, McCarthy published his first piece of nonfiction...", but it's not clear (to me) what he did.
- The novel was announced for 2016 by SFI but his agents declined to comment. Unsure if that's a meaningful distinction, so leaving it to you.
- Otherwise rest looks good.
Have to go for a bit, will return with comments for later sections. Urve (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Writing approach and style
Syntax
- Wikilink polysyndetons in the prose? It is in the quote box but that feels unnatural to me; don't know.
- Otherwise this is very good; I really like the quote box.
Themes
the seemingly inhuman foreign antagonist Anton Chigurh of No Country for Old Men is said to reflect the apprehension of the post-9/11 era
- by whom?
- Otherwise nice.
Spanish dialogue
- I don't know if this section is particularly due. Unless there's scholarly discussion about the importance of Spanish, him being fluent and having Spanish-speaking characters is not all that important.
There's a great deal of scholarship on this topic. I changed the subheading to "Bilingual narrative practice" and added references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triphibious (talk • contribs) 00:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Work ethic and process
McCarthy has dedicated himself to writing full time, choosing not to work other jobs to support his career
- but he is a trustee for the SFI? Unsure how to reconcile this with the source.
- The section is in good shape.
Personal life and views
- Good.
Politics
- Unsure how
In the 1980s, McCarthy and Edward Abbey considered covertly releasing wolves into southern Arizona to restore its decimated population
relates to politics. It should be in this section - just unsure if this is the appropriate placement.
Science and literature
- Unclear what
who do not rate with him
means. - I don't have the full source, but should there be an apostrophe after
Latin American writers
? It looks possessive, but maybe that's not how TIME transcribed it. (In which case, maybe [sic]?)
Legacy
- Looks good to me.
List of works
- Is it acceptable to have an empty section with just a main article link? Unfamiliar to me, and couldn't find something in the MOS either way.
Lead
spanning the Southern Gothic, Western, and post-apocalyptic genres
needs to be supported in the body of the article somewhere
- Ditto for
He is widely regarded as one of the greatest contemporary writers
- Suttree not being a commercial success seems unsupported in the body
- Is "The Kekulé Problem" a big enough part of his career to be given the mention in the lead?
- Rest looks good.
So I think if the above are addressed, this is very close to passing and becoming a GA. Urve (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Pretty much
Done. I appreciate the review. ~ HAL333 14:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Addendum: Earwig looks good. Highlights quotes and common constructions only, according to my look. There is what appears to be a mirror site of Wikipedia that is being caught, but that's ok. Urve (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Pulitzer Prize-winning as 🦚
Someone reverted my last edit of the Pulitzer Prize as “peacocking.” As I understand it, peacocking 🦚 is vague and unattributed adjectives. This is a specific, cited award and is relevant to his biography. It literally will be in the first line of his obituary when the time comes. Jenny8lee (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- No doubt it's an important achievement that should be noted in the lead, but imo it's best left out of the very first sentence. William Faulkner is not introduced as "a Nobel Prize–winning American writer"; Steven Spielberg is not introduced as "an Academy Award–winning American film director, producer, and screenwriter". "Peacocking" would not be my concern per se so much as undue emphasis. And again, to your point that it is a specific and imminently noteworthy fact about Cormac, it's not that undue. His Pulitzer Prize should be and is duly noted elsewhere in the lead—just not as the very first adjective in the article. —BLZ · talk 22:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Disagree. I think it makes sense to put this in the first sentence. Josh a brewer (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Why? It doesn't really speak to McCarthy's accomplishment or noteworthiness, only our (subjective) ability to identify his most relatively prestigious award. It puts his reception before his work or even who he is at the most basic level. Cart before the horse. Presumes the general reader of any background or nationality will be familiar with the Pulitzer. Potentially suggests mistaken notions such as that McCarthy is a winner of multiple Pulitzer Prizes, or that there is a single "Pulitzer Prize" to be won when there are only categories of the Pulitzer Prizes. —BLZ · talk 21:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)