Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
I've recently been reading through this book and wanted to use the Wikipedia page.
Given the previous discussions on the edition used in the summaries, I think it would be productive to add Italic text specific edition and page numbers. Up until the chapter summaries, this article does a pretty good job of referencing primary and secondary source material for corroborating claims on facts about the Spanish Civil War.
However, the Summaries of each chapter remain uncited. Each section here definitely has a corresponding page section to edition, with very specific facts being cited. I believe this could improve this article's classification.
This is a project I will work on slowly over the next few weeks. Improvement Machine (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I've gone through all the references and cleaned them up, adding authors and dates, etc. where they were previously missing. In the process, I converted the article to shortened footnote style, as I feel this suits the needs of the article better – citing different pages from the same source will be significantly easier. This is especially relevant if/when I or someone else were to add citations to the chapter summaries. However, in order to comply with WP:WHENINROME, I have not yet pushed these changes to mainspace. I am therefore asking for your opinions on whether we should carry through this change. You can see my version of the article at User:Maddy from Celeste/Sandbox/Homage to Catalonia. Please let me know what you think. lav:~ % Maddy from Celeste (they/she) :: talk to me uwu 11:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I had a look at this article today and found some issues. From the reviews section, there is this sentence...
Hostile notices also came from The Tablet, where a critic wondered why Orwell had not troubled to get to know Fascist fighters and enquire about their motivations, and from The Times Literary Supplement and The Listener, "the first misrepresenting what Orwell had said and the latter attacking the POUM, but never mentioning the book".
This was supported with footnote end reading "Shelden, pp. 320–21", and marked with an inline "verification needed" tag. Though not in the bibliography or otherwise mentioned, it is a reference to Michael Shelden's biography of Orwell. I checked this: Sheldon does discuss the review in The Listener, saying it "barely mentioned the book itself, devoting most of its space to unsubstantiated attacks on the leaders of the POUM, whom the anonymous reviewer vilified as 'traitors'". It goes on to say that Orwell wrote a letter to the editor taking issue with the Listener reviewer. As far as I can tell from the brief check I made for the purpose of verifying the quote, Shelden does not discuss other reviews of Homage.
I checked wikiblame and here is the original edit which added the paragraph. Other than the addition of some links and other stylistic edits, it is pretty much unmodified, except for changing the reference. The original edit cites Bowker's autobiography, referenced throughout the article (and presumably many others on Orwell). Here is what Bowker's autobiography says at pp. 238-9:
There were hostile notices in the Tablet, however, from a Catholic critic who wondered why he had not troubled to get to know Fascist fighters and enquire about their motivations, in the TLS, from a Party-liner misrepresenting what Orwell had said (prompting an indignant letter from the author), and in the Listener, also from an obvious Communist, attacking the POUM but never mentioning the book — producing another angry response from Orwell.
At risk of stating the obvious: the entire sentence started out as plagiarism—thanks to fourteen years of editorial chip-chopping, it is now misattributed plagiarism (and possibly copyright violation). I've reduced the sentence to one that is neither, and referenced it against Bowker's book. I leave it up to others to decide whether to add any more detail to this sentence, hopefully without plagiarism, copyvio or misattribution. Since the Listener review has been discussed in preceding paragraphs, I removed it from the sentence. I'd encourage people to check the rest of the article for similar issues. (Tagging in @Grnrchst as they've recently been editing the article.) —Tom Morris (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.