Talk:The Eolian Harp

Note

I've opened the GA review page with a few informal suggestions.See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Eolian_Harp/GA1

--Scott Free (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Eolian Harp/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'm considering reviewing this - for now, I'll just be making a few comments and suggestions - I read Coleridge on occasion. If anyone wants to tackle the actual review, feel free to do so.

Looking good at first glance - there's an interesting variety of sources.

• Sugg. #1 - The general guidelines for the lead section indicate that it should be at least a rough summary of the main body and should work as a somewhat complete statement in itself. So work would need to be done here. (see WP:LEAD)

• Sugg. #2 - Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.

Cheers, --Scott Free (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Expanded lead and added links. Anything else? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Good job. Interesting footnote format, what style guide is that from?--Scott Free (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It is the "Harvnb" but not automated with links - the links from the Harvnb template increases the size of the page by a lot and makes it harder to load. The style used by Harvnb is the "Harvard notable". MLA relies on a similar type for footnote citations when there is a work cited page. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I'm still reading through the article - Right now, I find myself agreeing a lot with what Yllosubmarine is doing on the Ode to Psyche assessment. My suggestions will probably be similar. A lot of those kinds of points are covered in this interesting resource - User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a - Also, it think that some of the articles such as Proserpine, Midas, Tamerlane and Other Poems, The Botanic Garden are good examples of GA quality articles on specific works of poetry, especially in terms of structure and focusing content according to section topic. It could be worthwhile to gleen ideas and examples from them.--Scott Free (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I currently have many of the poetry GAs - by the way, Proserpine and Midas are not poems but plays. Tamerlane and The Botanic Garden are books. If you want examples of GA ranked poems, here are some - Burnt Norton, East Coker (poem), Ode on a Grecian Urn, and Ode on Indolence, each with different levels of content based on different critical approaches that vary on individual poets. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if you want an example on how to work a review - Talk:Halo: Uprising/GA1. That sections out the six requirements of GA. You can break down the page using that format. It would help you identify components of a "good article" (as opposed to a "featured article" which has higher standards). Ottava Rima (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info - I appreciate and respect the interesting work you're doing on some important literary topics - All things considered, I've nothing more to add and will not be undertaking a formal assessment - good luck with your work - all the best - Below are some web articles I came across while looking into the topic, perhaps they may be of some use at some point -

• http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3708/is_200807/ai_n28083143/
• http://britlitwiki.wikispaces.com/Eolian+Lute
• http://www.victorianweb.org/previctorian/stc/gw.html
• http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-95551846.html
• http://homepage.uab.edu/kgrimes/poems/rom-poems/IL-eolian.html
• http://www.blackwell-compass.com/subject/literature/article_view?article_id=lico_articles_bpl520
• http://www.essortment.com/all/samueltaylor_rbtd.htm
• http://etext.virginia.edu/stc/Coleridge/poems/AEolian_Harp.html
• http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/2030.html
• http://www.enotes.com/eolian-harp-salem/eolian-harp
• http://www.ronaldecker.com/harp.htm

Scott Free (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The real review

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

1. No images in the article. Its not completely a bad thing, but it helps :).
2. "However, the poem is not a love poem" - try to reword - using "poem" twice sounds weird.
3. "The Eolian Harp was started on 20 August 1795." - Vague - try adding a couple words.
4. Something I noticed that was missing that was in Ode on Indolence is that you don't describe any rhymes or workings of the poem.

• Being the first reviewer covered a bunch of stuff and this is way better than Ode of Indolence, I will put it on hold for 7 days, because these are easy fixes :)Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 14:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I added two images and applied fixes. The "Ode on Indolence" had a book devoted to the mechanics of the work. Unfortunately, Keats is one of the few in that regard, as Keats was very mechanically oriented and Coleridge... well, he tended to dodge such things. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)