Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ezra Pound/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:22, 5 October 2010 [1].

Ezra Pound

edit

Ezra Pound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra Pound is the biography of a complex and controversial 20th century modernist poet. Thanks to Ceoil and Malleus for the copyedits and Elcobbola for a preliminary image review. This was a difficult page to tackle - thanks to Ceoil who had my back all the way, and to Modernist for a preliminary read-through. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria

edit

Smallman

edit
  • Comment - You've done an excellent job on a very difficult prominent poet. I'd suggest that you add additional notable works to the "Selected list of works" section. I'd also suggest that you add additional quotes to add some pizazz to the article (for readers with short attention spans). I'd still like to see a mention of the fact that he was tone deaf. I'll do a copyedit when I get a chance...the article is 8.6k words...Smallman12q (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See this notre dame review, The Cambridge companion to Ezra Pound. I'll do a more thorough review when I can.Smallman12q (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have that source - but the essay mentions that he has a bad singing voice, not that he was tone deaf, so doesn't quite verify that fact. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the first few lines of the notre dame review?Smallman12q (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would like to think about adding additional text boxes - the quotations that are in the article would have been in as block-quotes, but as far as adding more, I'd have to review a few biographies and decide what specifically to pull out. Will revisit this after a little more thought. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about this quote

He doesn't know a damn thing about China ... That's what makes him an expert. He knows nothing about music, being tone deaf. That's what makes him a musician ... And he's batty in the head. That's what makes him a philosopher.

Smallman12q (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the reference above is from Dictionary.com which isn't of the caliber of sources in the article. However, one of the biographers quotes the Williams piece which I've added to article about music that I intend to expand once done with this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary.com provides a source William Carlos Williams (1883–1963), U.S. poet. First published in Ezra Pound in Melbourne: Helix 13/14 (1983). quoted in Humphrey Carpenter, A Serious Character, pt. 5, ch. 6 (1988).Smallman12q (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Smallman, the page is already very large, and a lot of thought had been put into what should be included. Ceoil (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So there's no longer room for petty blue boxes with quotes?Smallman12q (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have in a request at New Directions Publishing who own copyright to the Pound material for copyright information on a couple of images that might be free. They are researching for me, but it may take up to two months, but I'm slightly hopeful we'll get at least one more image at some point. My feeling is that there are enough blue boxes, but if consensus is to add more, then more can be added. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well...as such, I respect your efforts Truthkeeper and won't push this request any further...Smallman12q (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is significant. As it happens I left out mention of that particular trip to Italy to keep from having the choppiness of he was in New York and then Paris and then Italy. I'd very much like to expand the section about troubadour poetry and music in the Arnaut Daniel section of Le Testament de Villon and have it add there. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria continued

edit

Further comments as promised:

  • "From 1912 until the mid-1920s he lived in London and Paris...In 1908 he moved to London where he lived until 1921 before relocating to Paris" - contradicts itself, did he move in 1908 or 1912?
  • "his work included the poems Hugh Selwyn Mauberley" - according to the linked article this is a single long poem. Is that not the case?
  • St. Elizabeths or the St. Elizabeths? St. Elizabeths hospital or Hospital?
  • "In 1907 he left the University of Pennsylvania" - didn't he transfer to Hamilton College back in 1903? When did he go back to Penn?
  • How did Yeats win a prize for a poem submitted by Pound?
  • "He helped finding publishers" -> "He helped find publishers"?
  • "established Gaudier's reputation" - be consistent in using or not using the hyphenated name
  • The Little Review or the Little Review? The New Age or the New Age?
  • "In 1921 Boni and Liveright published his Poems 1918–1921 and in 1923 earn money by translating" - grammar
  • The Waste Land or "The Waste Land"?
  • Fenellosa or Fenollosa?
  • "A number of Pound's books were published in the 1930s including an American edition of A Draft of Cantos XXX, Eleven New Cantos, the English edition of The ABC of Reading, English editions of Social Credit: An Impact and Jefferson and/or Mussolini; and in 1938 A Guide to Kulchur" - why the semi-colon?
  • "on the first he was denied passage on by plane" - grammar
  • What happened to Omar after he met Pound?
  • "When Pound found Mary he chose at that time to admit he had a wife and a son who lived in London" - isn't his wife in Italy at this point?
  • "Hugh Selwyn Mauberley" or Hugh Selwyn Mauberley?
  • Ref 26: need year
  • New York Times or The New York Times? Period or comma between newspaper and date (in References)? Month Day, Year or Day Month Year formatting for dates in References? Use a consistent formatting for news sources
  • Use a consistent formatting for retrieval dates
  • Ref 46: title?
  • Surette and Carson are not in Sources
  • Stock: 1970 or 1973?
  • Wilhelm or Wilhelms?
  • Meyers: 1980 or 1985?
  • Xie Ming or Ming Xie?
  • Ref 88: which Carpenter?
  • Nichols or Nicholls? Witmeyer or Witemeyer?
  • Kenner: 1971 or 1973?
  • Hyde and Perloff are not in References
  • Micheal or Michael Witkoski?
  • Why do you use the a,b system for Carpenter refs but not for Sieburth?
  • Be consistent in including or not including publisher locations
  • Check references for typos
  • Page numbers for Perloff?
  • Why do you include a retrieval date for Reynolds and not other web links to print-based sources?
  • New Directions or New Directions Publishing? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice job & good catches! I've done about half of them. Will finish tomorrow after work and post comments. Thanks for reading. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fixed per comments above and hope I've caught all the errors. A few responses below:
      • Hugh Selwyn Mauberley consists of groupings of short poems. I've tweaked the lead a bit anyway.
      • Omar stayed in England after his grandmother's death.
      • I used the a, b system for Carpenter because both works have long titles but not for Sieburth which can be differentiated with a single word title. Am happy to make these consistent if you think necessary.
      • The Carson book shows a location for printing, but not the location of the publisher (Yale University Press). I can guess that it's New Haven or use the printer's location. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin (includes image review)

edit
  • Oppose. Truthkeeper, I'm going oppose this for now, with apologies because it's clear you've done all the heavy lifting as Ceoil put it. But I think you brought it too soon to FAC. In trying to copy edit it, I keep finding material I don't quite understand and I have to check the sources before I can edit it. There's a lack of a strong narrative flow, where the reader is carried from event to event with an increasing understanding of his life and thought. Instead, several sections are just lists of facts. He went here, he went there, he met this person again (he had already met them), this person gave him a lot of money (we don't know why), and so on. Also, I wonder whether the article is clear enough about his mental illness. He was ill for a long time, not just after 1945. I think you need to go back to the sources to make sure you're very familiar with them, then go through the whole article—a top-to-bottom edit, not just tweaks—reading it as though it's the first time you've heard of any of it, and try to impose a structure on it that will allow what's important to be understood by a first-time reader. I think shorter subsections would help a lot.

    Bring out some of the colour, things that make him three-dimensional for the reader. Sentences like this are good because they bring him to life: "He would spend his mornings studying in the British Museum library, then would have lunch at the Vienna Café on Oxford Street, presenting himself as an aesthete, serious about his art while affecting a distinct flamboyance—he dressed in brightly colored capes, wore an earring and hand-painted silk shirts." But sentences like this are dull: "He established himself within the literati of London, and his talent was realized as his poetry, reviews and essays were published."

    And I think this work needs to be done by you alone, because with lots of people copy-editing it (people like myself who don't have easy access to the sources), there's a risk of errors appearing and things becoming even less clear.

    I'm really sorry I can't support it this time round! SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize. You've given a good review, which ultimately is what this process is for. It's a complicated page that presents quite a bit of difficulty. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions:
  • Having trouble understanding this: "In 1944 he and Dorothy were evacuated from their Rapallo home. He intended for Dorothy to live with his mother Isabel in Rapallo, while he joined Olga in Sant'Ambrogio. Instead Dorothy chose to live with Pound and Olga." Is that saying he wanted Dorothy to live with his mother, who was also in Rapallo?
  • "On 2 May 1945, when Dorothy and Olga were out on errands, armed partisans arrived while Pound was at work on a translation. He stuffed the copy of Confucius in his pocket and allowed himself to be taken "to their HQ in Chiavari, where he was soon released as possessing no interest". " Is there a reason those words are in quotation marks, and who is being quoted?
  • "Unable to renew her passport, Dorothy did not arrive until June 1946, when her 'legally incompetent' husband was placed in her charge. She was allowed infrequent visits until his move to Chestnut Ward the following year ..." In what sense was he placed in her charge if he was still in hospital? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for reading and for the comments. Replies:
  • Isabel and Homer Pound moved permanently to Rapallo in 1929; have clarified this point. Yes, he wanted Dorothy to live with his mother while he lived with his Olga.
  • Added the reference to the quote - thanks for catching it.
  • Reworded to clarify that Dorothy took charge in a legal sense. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi TK, the quote is still odd-looking even with a ref tag after it. Why is it in quotation marks, and who is being quoted? It's sometimes okay to leave quotes unattributed, where it's obvious why and who, but when it's not we need to signal to the reader why we're quoting the phrase. Same with "deprived of all reading matter" a few sentences later. Also "the copy of Confusius": why "the" and not "a"? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about that SlimVirigin - I misunderstood. The first quote is from Hugh Kenner's description of the events; I've added an in-text attribution. The second is from a paper about Pound's experience in the prisoner of war camp. After re-reading the paper I've reworked the section and left in a quote from the psychiatrist's report with an attribution, although it might be bit redundant now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that quote, as it just seemed a bit odd. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does the bit about Pound having been placed in Dorothy's charge legally work now, or does it still require expansion? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what it means—something like she was given power of attorney—but I wonder if it could be spelled out. It's a minor point though, and it's okay as it stands. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bit about it being believed that he had a nervous breakdown in the cage: first, that's a very imprecise thing to say—it's not clear it means much. I can only see the first page of the source, [2] but it seems to say that Pound's lawyer's description gives the impression that Pound had a serious mental breakdown while in the cage, and that this information came from Pound himself, and was compounded by the lawyer's desire to make the most of it. That's not quite what our article says. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just looking at it now and agree that it's too vague. A few pages in the psychiatrist's report states, "the prisoner apparently developed transitory anxiety state" while in the cage. I'm happy to reword accordingly and to fix the lead as well. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also confused about his demanding to be taken to the Americans after the Italians released him. Who did he demand it of, if he had been released? And he asked "to be allowed to finish a prepared radio broadcast that recommended a post-war policy of leniency toward Italy and Germany. His requests were denied and the broadcast forwarded to J. Edgar Hoover." If the request was denied, how did he manage to make whatever broadcast was forwarded to Hoover, and what is a "prepared" radio broadcast? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworked the piece about the script. Also reworked the section about turning himself in. It's a bit overwritten now, but the details conflict in the sources and I decided to document that and added two sources. Feel free to tweak or trim as you see fit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back to the steel cage: this source (p. xiii if the link doesn't go there) gives a description of it, and explains why it might have caused a mental health problem. I think this issue either needs to be described properly or left out, because just saying he was kept in a steel cage raises all kinds of questions, such as what is meant by a steel cage, and why it was different from a normal cell. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The cage was actually outside and was in fact a steel cage. I'd like to re-work the entire section - he was dehydrated from having been left outside, according to the army reports. I will also rework the points you raise above - essentially the partisans were executing people but released Pound. He feared another group of partisans might arrest him, and asked to be taken to the Americans. I can switch out the sources and clarify the events. The article underwent a great deal of trimming, and I'm thinking perhaps some important points were trimmed away. Will take me a few days to do this, though. Btw - yes, the Sieburth introduction is one of the sources used in the section. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added this own description of what happened to him to the lead, using this source. I'm hesitant to try to add a footnote, as you're using Harvard refs and templates, so I don't want to mess it up. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the footnote. You've raised some good issues - it's a difficult piece and hard to get right. Thanks for the help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the difficulty. Please don't mistake my input for overall criticism or not valuing your work, by the way. I don't like doing FA reviews for this reason, because they necessarily focus on the bits that might need improving. Overall it's clear that a tremendous amount of work has gone into it, for which you're to be thanked and congratulated. I'm sorry that there's a need to be picky! SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all - honestly I've had difficulty getting eyes on this article, so any feedback is more than welcome. Picky is good! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead: I'm not sure that this acts as a stand-alone section explaining why Pound is important. The first paragraph is okay. The second—what his father did, where he studied, who he married, his children, that he lived in Italy until his death: they don't tell us why he matters. Why are the Pisan Cantors important? Why was it controversial that he won the Bollingen Prize? Why is he influential? The lead should gather together the most important points about him, or the most notable or interesting. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will rework. I'm somewhat busy workwise for the next few days, so it may not be immediate, but will get to it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the lead. Might need to cook overnight and be tweaked a bit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No rush for any of this. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is much better. More detail than you wanted maybe, but it's engaging, and it tells the reader what happened. There's a danger with being so succinct that the reader loses the significance. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotations without in-text attribution: I'm noticing this a fair bit throughout the article, and they're still being added, e.g.

DTC's temporary commander placed Pound in one of the camp's "death-cells"—"a six-by-six-foot steel cage, open to the elements, which had been specially reinforced".

I think this should always be avoided, unless it's clear from the context who is being quoted. But it's not clear at all who is saying "a six-by-six-foot steel cage, open to the elements, which had been specially reinforced," or why it needs to be in quotation marks, because it's a straightforward description. Providing a source in a footnote doesn't tell the reader who is being quoted, because even if you look at the citation it's still not clear whether the author is being quoted, or whether he is quoting someone else. But above all it's not clear why the words need to be in quotation marks.
I agree with this; quotations should only be used in an article like this if they express an openion or are particularly colourful. Otherwise paraphrase. Am on it. Ceoil (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some things in the early-life section are unclear: (a) he "took private lessons in Provençal," linked to Provençal dialect. He was taught the dialect (is this possible?), or he went to Provençal to take private lessons in something else? (b) His being forced to leave college because he rescued an actress: not clear what that means unless you already know. (c) "Thaddeus Pound owned mine-holdings in Wood River Valley, adjacent to Hailey, and his father ran the local United States Land Office": Thaddeus's father did? (d) He travelled somewhere (where?) on a postgraduate fellowship (did you mean studentship/scholarship?) Who paid it and to which institution did it send him? The studentship was to study X for his PhD, but in fact he started studying Y for his PhD, and only did it for a year: that's a bit confusing.
  • Does the article need a section on his antisemitism? It's the issue that has coloured his legacy, and it was very extreme. An example from the broadcasts:

    The big Jew is so bound up with this Leihkapital that no one is able to unscramble that omelet. It would be better for you to retire to Darbyshire and defy New Jerusalem, better for you to retire to Gloucester and find one spot that is England than to go on fighting for Jewry and ignoring the process.

    It is an outrage that any clean lad from the country—I suppose there are STILL a few ENGLISH lads from the country—it is an outrage that any nice young man from the suburbs should be expected to die for Victor Sassoon, it is an outrage that any drunken footman's byblow should be asked to die for Sassoon ... You let in the Jew and the Jew rotted your empire, and you yourselves out-jewed the Jew ... And the big Jew has rotted EVERY nation he has wormed into. [4]

SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very conflicted about this. There is absolutely no doubt about of his antisemitism, but also no doubt of his contribution to 20th century poetry. The article has always been difficult for me as far as walking a straight and narrow line between emphasizing one over the other. I'd like to leave this to consensus. If consensus is to add, then I'll add. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Getting caught up and just had another look at the quote above. I'll swap out the stuff from the existing quote box and replace with the material above to give a better flavor to the nature of the broadcasts. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks Truth and SV for adding the quote, I'd prefer to not see a whole section on his antisemitism; it is the overdone ravings of a deluded nauseating bitter fool who ultimately went mad; on the other hand it should be emphasized, it cannot be understated or brushed under the rug either; he made art; he was a prick; I personally think his art is overrated however the issue is so cold that it is best that it stays that way - in my opinion...Modernist (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question about citation style: I recently added two sources to the lead, a primary source (his broadcast transcripts) and a secondary source discussing them:

<ref>Doob, Leonard W. (ed.). ''Ezra Pound Speaking: Radio Speeches of World War II''. Westport: Greenwood, 1978.

*Also see Gill, Jonathan. [http://books.google.com/books?id=ttMlqGMYCsIC&pg=PA115&dq=ezra+pound+radio+broadcasts&hl=en&ei=F9WmTIu8FsaUnQfQy5mRAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ezra%20pound%20speaking&f=false "Ezra Pound Speaking: Radio Speeches on World War II"] in Tryphonopoulos, 2005, pp. 115–116.</ref>
You changed this to two citation templates:

<ref>{{Harvnb|Doob|1978}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Tryphonopoulos|2005|pp=115–116}}</ref>

I was wondering (a) why do the refs have to be separated, given that they go together and are addressing the same issue; and (b) why did you remove the author, Jonathan Gill, from the second? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't clear that they go together and haven't a clue how to do that in the Harvard style but can try to figure it out. Tryhonopoulous is already in the sources - I will reformat to reflect Gill's piece in the book. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You just put them between one set of refs tags, the same as without the templates. Can you check when you cite Tryhonopoulous elsewhere as editor that you're also citing the authors? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source request: Can you post here what Hugh Kenner said when he called him the most influential poet of the early 20th century, with a page number? I looked through Kenner but couldn't see it, though Google books isn't letting me see much. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's strike or reword. I've had to send Kenner back and it will take weeks to get it again through ILL - can't find it in Google books. Might be in my sandbox, but otherwise we can paraphrase the information from the legacy section if that's fine with you. On second thought, I believe it's in a biography - will look.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW - the source you found is fine, but I'm fairly certain this came from one of the biographies. Will start plowing through them now before they get sent back to the library. I used very little from Kenner because his book isn't strictly a biography. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The actress issue is still unclear: "In November he was admonished for sharing a meal in his room with a traveling vaudeville performer. During the winter his behavior was considered scandalous when he rescued a stranded and hungry vaudeville actress during a snowstorm, leading the college to dismiss him for immorality." Were these two vaudeville performers or are both sentences about one incident; and what did he actually do that was scandalous -- have the woman in his room? I think it needs to be rewritten, not tweaked. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The actress incident is very unclear. There was an actress in his room for which he was fired. The first incident may or not have occurred - he wrote a letter and perhaps exaggerated. I'd prefer to leave less information than more here, if that works. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DCGeist

edit

Comment: Overall, the writing is of very good quality, but there are some issues of stylistic consistency (all of the following references are to the lede):

  • What is your numbering style? We have "fifty days" but "25 hours". Please choose either figures or numerals for numbers over ten and apply consistently throughout.
  • What is your comma style for introductory adverbial phrases? We have "After World War I" but "In the early 1970s,"; "Following his arrest for treason in 1945," but "On his return to the United States". You have three choices here: (1) place a comma after every introductory adverbial phrase; (2) place commas after long introductory adverbial phrases, but not short ones; or (3) do not place a comma after any introductory adverbial phrase. Please make a choice and apply consistently throughout.—DCGeist (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The truth of the matter is that I worked on the article during a period when I was experiencing problems with my vision and couldn't actually see the commas. Am recovering from eye-surgery performed two weeks ago. Have since tried to go through and fix the problems and had hoped a copyeditor could help. Will go through again, but perhaps I was hasty in submitting the article to FAC. I will ask to have it de-listed and return when I'm in a better situation to fix these problems. Thanks for having a look. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you hold off on that request until tomorrow night at least Truthkeeper and I can give a hand (bad week....) Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Requested before I saw your edit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reply to DCGeist, my general preference is not to have commas after short introductory phrases, and I'll try to go through the article and make that the consistent approach if Truthkeeper agrees. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Malleus. I appreciate the offer. I prefer not to have commas after the introductory clauses either and have tried to remove them. I wouldn't worry about the lead as it needs to be reworked entirely per SlimVirgin's suggestions above, but I'm taking a break for a few days until I feel better. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imo there is absolutely no need for consistency here at all, in fact as an aim it is a bad thing, as placing a comma may depend on the length and meaning of the whole sentence, and the degree of emphasis desired for the introductory phase. Everyone has their own style, but I would firmly ignore any demand for consistency for consistency's sake here. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnbod, certain forms of consistency are expected of writing that aspires to a professional standard. This is one of them. As I noted, an author has multiple choices of what sort of consistency to apply, and only a narrow-minded reader would insist on absolute consistency at the expense of good expression. However, where we encounter inconsistency of the sort I identified, where there is no apparent logic to the inclusion or exclusion of commas after introductory adverbial phrases, whether short or long, and especially—as here—where we encounter multiple examples of such inconsistency in even brief passages, there is the impression of a sub-professional effort.
  • Given how "firmly" you wish to dismiss the issue, why don't you prove your point using the examples I provided. Please formulate a compelling literary rationale for why the third paragraph's inceptive adverbial phrase ("After World War I") currently doesn't get a comma, but the fourth paragraph's ("In the early 1970s,") does. Please similarly formulate a rationale for why one sentence in the third paragraph begins "Following his arrest for treason in 1945, he...", while another in the very same paragraph begins "On his return to the United States he..." I'm fascinated to see what you come up with.—DCGeist (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may apply to technical manuals or something, but there is simply no need to be consistent on this point in normal prose. I haven't looked at the context of the examples and have no intention of doing so; your premises are just wrong as a general rule. If anything professional writing might want to vary the treatment to avoid monotony. Having said that, I'm more likely to remove such commas than add them, but I refuse to accept that this is a matter where consistency should be an aim, and oppose such matters of personal taste being brought as a requirement into FAC comments. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but its moot now anyway. Ceoil (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but Johnbod has "no intention" of actually backing up his plaint. So that's moot to boot. "I haven't looked at the context of the examples"—that's exactly why your input is vacuous, my slacker buddy. Guess what: professional manuals of style for "normal prose" address this issue specifically and invariably argue for stylistic consistency generally. The fact that you don't want even to "look at" deviations from such norms suggests that you lack competence in the matter.—DCGeist (talk) 09:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or whatever. Its outside scope, a stylistic matter, and as I say moot. I will say though, Johnbod is one of the best writers has on wiki, look at the mans contibutions on visual arts. But again, whatever. The probs you hightlighted have been resolved, or to put it another way, the inconsistencies I introduced have been removed. I know full well how good a writer you yourself are Pulp Fiction, so can I ask that the stuff above is put to bed and you engage us with fresh eyes. As its a lit article I'd like the prose to be just so, and I already know you are fairly good at that yourself. Ceoil (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead has been copyedited or tweaked by multiple editors in the past few days, which may explain some of the inconsistencies....and honestly, I simply made a mistake by not removing the comma after 1979s. It's really that simple. I'll fix the lead now for punctuation consistency, and re-work later per SlimVirgin's comments. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its probably fair to say TK is light on commas, I'be been adding them to bits like "In the 1940,...". Can comb through the article any remove any that are left. Ceoil (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modernist

edit
  • Support - The lede looks tougher and more to the point, it still seems a little dense but it is much closer to seeing pound as pound the poet and pound the p..ck, and well done TK, MF, Ceoil, Deor, SV and the rest...Modernist (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I've seen that and read most of it, but ended up leaning on the synopsis from one of the critical essays. Will take another look at it. Thanks for the encouragement. I think we're going to give up this time around, after all. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ezra_Pound/archive1&oldid=1048167363"