Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Objectivist poets/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Objectivist poets

edit

Self nom. A not uninformative (I hope) account of an important group of poets. This had a peer review that resulted in a number of improvements. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object, over a few, easy-to-fix, details in a very good article. The article wikilinks every year mentioned. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). The last two paragraphs of the the "Legacy" section fail to have the scrupulous referencing of the rest of the article; the statements of infuence aren't attributed to anyone (great work on weaving the references into the rest of the article, though!). There are few incoming links, so I'd suggest creating a redirect from Objectivist poetry, and see if you net some that way. There are something like a hundred links pointing at the disambiguation page Objectivism, some of them may want this article (although my quick scan didn't reveal any). One could spend a sentence on who the Beat poets and LANGUAGE poets were. Lastly, the article left me wanting to read some of the poetry, but it wasn't obvious to me from the External links section precisely where I should go to do that. I look forward to changing my vote. Jkelly 18:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found one link which should have been pointing to Objectivist poets, an article on the Beat movement. It is now properly disambiguated. The others look like the creations of Bland Rand enthusiasts, persuing their philosophy of self-interest by contributing to a free encyclopedia. Anville 22:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the MoS is a guidlene only. I believe that the links to the years are useful because they help provide an appropriate historical context for what was, after all, a group of poets who stood outside the mainstream of their time. Unless there is a really strong objection, I would prefer to retain these links. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have added links to texts and expanded on the Beats and lang. poets. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the year links should be retained, and I appreciate the expansion. (I probably should have mentioned that I preferred the years linked when I voted below, but oh well.) Anville 17:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I like the year links also. I guess I disagree with Mos here. Paul August ☎ 22:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, informative and beautiful article. I like especially that, purporting to be about the poets and not merely the poetry, it really is; i. e., the loftiness of poetic discussion and careers is supplemented with a biographical and humane "Objectivists after Objectivism" section on the later lives, which are sometimes part of the poetic careers, sometimes not. As always Filiocht's brilliant prose flows clear as water. (P. S. William Carlos Williams: what a babe.) Bishonen | talk 19:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Object for the moment (but this will probably be easily addressed): I believe that much as with images, quotes this lengthy from copyrighted poems need to acknowledge copyright and indicate whether they are used by permission or with fair use justification. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I understand it (and I have some experience of print publishing) quotes as short as this (to give a context, the Reznikoff quote is from a 20 page sequence, the Zukofsky is a 14 line part of a 6 page section of an 800 page poem, and the Oppen is a short section from a 30 page work) do not need to acknowledge copyright but are fair use by definition. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I don't necessarily think it is required to give such notice, it can't hurt to have it. To avoid cluttering the page, it should be a footnote (or inote, possibly). —Matthew Brown (T:C) 10:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't needed. I understand JMabel's original concern, as it's not made clear on the page that the outtakes come from poems that long; in fact I rather came away with the impression that the Oppen and Zukovsky quotes were whole poems. But now that Filiocht has explained the context, there is no copyright issue, they are indeed fair use by definition. (I have some experience of academic publishing.) However, I'd like to see the point that they're taken from long originals touched on in some way in the text, so as not to raise the same alarm in future readers. Also: "To avoid cluttering the page, it should be a footnote" is a contradiction in terms in my book; footnotes are clutter. Sometimes they're necessary clutter, but not here. And nobody should be made to use inote unless they want to, as there are very reasonable objections to it. Bishonen | talk 14:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak object for the reasons Jkelly and Jmabel gave above. I expect these issues can be addressed relatively easily. Anville 22:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that the context of the quotations is better explained. Anville 17:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Objectivist_poets/archive1&oldid=232729678"