# Talk:Charles Wilkins (writer)

I assessed the article as B class after checking it against the criteria:

The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations.
The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
The article has a defined structure.
The article is reasonably well-written.
The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.
The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.
However, as I revised the article to bring it to this stage I would welcome other editors' thoughts please. Thanks. ~ RLO1729💬 14:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Resolved by article's change to GA class.  ~ RLO1729💬 06:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Charles Wilkins (writer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 11:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


### Comments
An interesting article on a remarkable figure. The article is well-structured and I have only a few comments to make. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess a key question is about his notability, given that both his writings and the reviews of these were in the same newspapers where he had considerable influence, i.e. the sources cannot be assumed to be independent of him, and along with the citations to his own writings those newspaper reviews must be seen as more-or-less WP:PRIMARY. The article needs to state more clearly the way in which he is seen to be notable outside those sources.
I felt the two modern sources (Stephens (1986/1998) and Dictionary of Welsh Biography) established his notability. I have revised the DWB citation to emphasise its more modern nature and added it to the lead section to give more balance between contemporary and modern citations there. I will work some more on bringing out the modern viewpoint in the body text and see if I can find some later, more independent, newspaper references to Wilkins.  ~ RLO1729💬
Thank you, looking forward to it.
It is more usual to list "Works" in a (sub)section of that name, or something similar such as "Bibliography".
Happy with that - done.  ~ RLO1729💬
Death and legacy: perhaps the "On his retirement..." paragraph belongs in an earlier section, or perhaps the section could just be headed "Legacy". It feels a bit lumpy going from death (para 1) to retirement (para 2) to reviews during his working life (para 3) to later research (para 4). Some reorganisation is needed.
Good suggestion - done.  ~ RLO1729💬
More from modern sources added to the Legacy section, please comment. Thanks.  ~ RLO1729💬 13:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
That's definitely more defensible for notability. There's certainly scope for more detail there if such can be found. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
More added to the Legacy section from a modern perspective but I have probably now exhausted the resources available to me.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
The legacy section passes muster. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Overall the account of Wilkins's life seems fine: it's very brief but given the situation (ordinary postmaster turns literary) it may well be all that can be said. What is absent is a section on how the critics from further afield (and later in time) have seen him.
Will see what I can come up with in terms of other critics but at least we do have the two modern sources and the article ends with a modern view.  ~ RLO1729💬
This is the one outstanding item. It remains a close judgement call on notability at the moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again for the feedback, I've added further evidence of notability to the Legacy section. I suggest that the following sources satisfy the general notability guideline criteria WP:GNG (a. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail; b. "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity; c. "Sources" should be secondary sources; d. "Independent of the subject"):
• Stephens, Meic, ed. (1986/1998). Oxford Companion to the Literature of Wales. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 640. (Separate article on Wilkins.)
• Williams, Edward Ivor (1959). "Wilkins, Charles (Catwg; 1830 – 1913), writer". The National Library of Wales: Dictionary of Welsh Biography. (Separate article on Wilkins.)
• Ballin, Malcolm (2013). "Welsh Periodicals in English: 1882–2012". Cardiff: University of Wales Press. pp. 10–22. (Separate section discussing Wilkins and one of his major works.)
• Also (in External links): Roberts, Brynley F. (2001). "Charles Wilkins the Historian of Merthyr Tydfil". Merthyr Historian. 12:1–19. (Separate article on Wilkins in a scholarly journal. Although I do not currently have access to this article, its existence supports notability.)
• Perman, A. J. (17 April 1909). "Literary Associations of Merthyr Tydfil". The Merthyr Express. p. 8. (A contemporary view of his work, now reviewed in the Legacy section. I agree that the contemporary newspaper journalists' accounts of Wilkins cannot be considered independent. However, this paper can be considered a secondary source as the author was not connected with the newspaper. It includes what appears to be a balanced, independent summary of Wilkins' contribution, written towards the end of his life but not as a panegyric.)
Taken together, these sources would seem to indicate Wilkins' notability.  ~ RLO1729💬 15:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Maybe Catwg needs explanation. Evidently it's Welsh with the meaning "Battle": perhaps there is a reason such a name was chosen? Also remarkable for an Englishman to get a bardic name. Is there a story there waiting to be told?
I've not seen anything on why he had that bardic name or how frequently non-Welsh people were given them. It was common for eisteddfod submissions to be written under these pseudonyms. Catwg may also be more of a reference to St Catwg rather than its literal meaning, but I wouldn't want to speculate in the article, so better to leave it unsaid? More generally, the bardic name article indicates they can be accolades in the eisteddfod context. This would seem to have been the case here from the way Catwg is used in connection with Wilkins' name when referring to him in other places. However, establishing this with in-text references might take us too far afield for little real benefit.
It may have been more unusual for him to have been initiated into the druidic rites, but again I have no data on how many non-Welsh people were invited to join and perhaps the general idea that it was an honour is already evident to the reader.
Thanks for your very helpful and constructive suggestions.  ~ RLO1729💬 12:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
OK.
OK, I'm persuaded. The article is well-structured and robustly-cited, and since the man is notable, this must be a Good Article. Congratulations! I hope you'll feel able to take the time to pick one or two articles from the ever-growing GAN queue to review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks (my first GA). It has been a pleasure working with you.  ~ RLO1729💬 15:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)