Jump to content

Talk:Kent Haruf

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kent Haruf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kent Haruf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by History6042 talk 15:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that author Kent Haruf wrote his final novel, inspired by his relationship with his wife, as he lay dying?
  • Source: Wall Street Journal article Kent Haruf knew he was dying... it was May of last year, and Mr. Haruf... had been diagnosed with an incurable lung disease. “I have an idea,” he said to his wife, Cathy Haruf. “I’m going to write a book about us.” In the months and even days before he died, the author worked with his wife and his editor, Gary Fisketjon, to finish it. The book went through a round of editing. Then it went to a copy editor. Knopf express-mailed a copy-edited manuscript to the Harufs on Nov. 25. Mr. Haruf was very weak. He told his wife she would have to give it the final read.
  • ALT1: ... that author Kent Haruf felt the Hallmark Channel adaptation of his novel Plainsong was "pablum"? Source: Denver post article Revenge for a Hallmark TV adaptation he called “weak . . . inoffensive . . . pabulum.” While “Plainsong” is an ultimately uplifting story about family, Haruf writes unflinchingly about harsher realities of small-town life, such as drunkenness, sexual abuse, adultery, violence and depression. Not exactly Hallmark’s hallmarks.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/WRBW
5x expanded by Ganesha811 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 11 past nominations.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Long enough, expanded 5x three days ago, sourcing is fine, prose style is good, QPQ has been done. Earwig gives 28%, but this seems to be due to coincidental phrasing.
  • I like ALT 0, which is hooky and short enough. The source is fine. I am not sure that it supports "as he lay dying", nor is this mentioned in the article. How would you feel about ALT2: ... that author Kent Haruf wrote his final novel in 45 days after being told he had incurable interstitial lung disease? or similar? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, "as he lay dying" isn't 100% literally true, but it's true that he was actively dying, knew it, and partially bed-ridden while working on the novel. The reason that I phrased it that way is essentially as an Easter egg referring to As I Lay Dying, Faulkner's famous book. Faulkner was Haruf's favorite author and he collected some Faulkner memorabilia. If ALT1 is preferred, that's fine by me - ALT2 doesn't have as much hookiness as ALT0 or ALT1, in my opinion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I typo'ed ALT1 above, when I meant ALT0 - now corrected. I am not keen on ALT1, which I don't find hooky at all. This may be just me, but I think a variant of ALT0 is the way to go. Would you care to have a go at one? It will all need to be true, sourced and in the article. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we'll have to lose the Easter egg for literal accuracy, which is a pity, but generally not a big deal. How about ALT0:...that author Kent Haruf, inspired by his relationship with his wife, wrote his final novel in 45 days while dying of a lung condition? —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. I'm going to call it ALT3 and sign off on it. Nice article BTW. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT3: ...that author Kent Haruf, inspired by his relationship with his wife, wrote his final novel in 45 days while dying of a lung condition?


Contents of captions

[edit]

I changed a caption and it was changed back. Readers should not be expected/forced to read the captions as being part of the article, and in this case that was the effect. The article needs to still be complete when the captions are omitted. (This might not be strictly true when e.g. captioning a diagram of how a machine works, but certainly true with a picture of a place.) TooManyFingers (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think your comment is fair, but I don't see how the article would be incomplete without the current captions. How does that principle apply to the specific situation here? —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
Passed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kent Haruf/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 00:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 17:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this review. Comments to follow within the next few days. Please consider reviewing another nomination at WP:GAN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking this one up! I should be available to respond to comments and make changes as needed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    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:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Source spotcheck

[edit]

Several sources checked; only one problem, that "and classmates" not verified by the citation 11a). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

[edit]

Prose is generally good, with only a couple of points:

  • Per MOS:OPEN, the opening paragraph should define the topic. For very cursory readers, "Haruf struggled to find success as a writer" in the first paragraph might give the impression that Haruf was commercially unsuccessful throughout his life. It would be better for the first paragraph to provide more of an overview, rather than a summary of the first three paragraphs of #Life, which can be incorporated into the meat of the lead.
  • No need for the "[to be]" in the lead quote. Also, Denver hasn't yet been mentioned in the article, better to define it as "a Colorado magazine" for an international audience. Also also, if such a quote isn't in the body it probably shouldn't been in the lead, per MOS:LEADREL. I doubt you need both it and the Dublin Review of Books quote.
  • The distinct "Overall view" subsection also seems like MOS:OVERSECTION, considering there are two paragraphs at the start of "Writing" that already take an overview approach. Just lob the single paragraph at the end of those two.

Very nice article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I should be able to address these points today. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I rearranged the lead some and made changes to address your other comments. Let me know if you think it now flows better. The only thing I hesitated to change was including both the 5280 quote and the DRB quote in the lead - I shortened the latter and added the 5280 quote to the body. Together, I think they provide a good overview of his reputation, despite his personal reluctance to be seen as a regional writer. Happy to make further adjustments as needed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kent_Haruf&oldid=1301245917"