Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Poetry/archive3

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

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 9:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC) [1].

Poetry

edit
Notified: WikiProject Poetry
Note on closing—already listed at WP:FFA as re-promoted; if demoted, does not get added to tally, rather moved.

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has unsourced statements, statements needing verification, single sentence paragraphs and vague or ambiguous times. It has been tagged for expansion for 6 months. DrKay (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a very important topic, but on the other hand it is currently very, very far from FA standard. I agree with the recent comment on the talk page by EmilyReNew that the history section is particularly unsatisfactory. buidhe 16:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute this nomination. Some An editor doofus walks off the street, in August, adds a "Subjects" section and an expansion tag, and we are to FAR it? The logical response is to remove the random addition which I have just done. As for the other issues, sure they are there, but they are easily fixed. I looked at some of them with inline tags, and there are many sources that can be cited for those statements. As for EmilyReNew's post, she says, Biblical Poetry is not represented? Does she mean Psalms, Proverbs and Job? I never heard anyone compare those in poetic achievement to Gilgamesh, Rig Veda, Mahabharata, Illiad, Odyssey, Aeneid, The Divine Comedy, Canterbury Tales, Faerie Queen, Paradise Lost, ... Where is Step 1: Raise issues at the article's talk page? Has Dr Kay made any attempt to improve the article him/her-self? There are some easy fixes anyone can make. Please remove this from FAR. Please first post on the talk page, and give the regulars there and others a month or thereabout to improve the article. I mean seriously we can't make these unilateral single-person judgments without attempting to discuss transparently and in some detail why we think the article does not meet the FA criteria. The article passed FAR in 2011. It is not even ten years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC) Updated with sincere and hearfelt apologies to the IP editor. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, I think proponents of keeping the article as a FA should make a case as to why it meets the criteria as interpreted in 2020. Default state of an article is not to be an FA. buidhe 03:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article is an FA. Its every state is FA right now. Someone comes traipsing on the talk page and pronounces that it is not. Well, they have to tell me why, especially when they haven't lifted their pinky to figure out where that expansion tag came from. Then you come along and pronounce your agreement with a talk page post. Well, tell me what history, or are you too bemoaning the absence of Biblical Poetry? Which Bible and which poetry? Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Wycliffe, Tyndale, KJV, Quaker, RSV, ... Psalms, Proverbs, Job, like I've already asked? You guys have to do better than that, or do you have an inspector's badge certified by the Poet Laureate? We are all abiding by WP's rules. The rules are cited when an article enters FA-land; they need to be cited, when it is being pushed out. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the default state is not to be an FA, i.e. every FA is presumed not to be an FA until and unless proven otherwise, then why would FAR be needed? What meaning would delist have when something is not on the list? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep process discussions on FAR talk, so we can focus on improvements needed on this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I can see both sides - Buidhe and DrKay are correct in that Featured Articles have to fulfil criteria, and if there is a lack of consensus then they are defeatured. But that does not mean ZAP - defeatured, that means there is time given to review the article systematically to see if issues have arisen, which is where we are now. I note that the last FAR was in 2011, which is a fair while ago. It is a broad subject so let's just look at it neutrally and go from there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok comments - the article has 47kb of prose so some (slight) wiggle room for enlargement. Surely we can expand a bit on the first two sentences in History section - like some explanation underpinning the assumptions of the first two sentences. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issues
  • There are numerous maintenance tags, that have been there for almost a year. This 2006 FA has never had a serious review. Practically no one showed up for the 2007 review, and the review it got in 2011 was quite abbreviated. Attention to this article should then be as thorough as it would be at FAC.
Prose
  • There is vague, unattributed writing throughout, sample: Some scholars believe that the art of poetry may predate literacy.[9][10] Others, however, suggest that poetry did not necessarily predate writing.
  • There is a problem throughout with terms related to time ... recently, later, etc ... that need clarification.
  • Overuse of however should be reviewed.
  • There are throwaway sentences that could be better phrased, samples:
    • The types and use of differing rhyming schemes are discussed further in the main article.
    • See the article on line breaks for information about the division between lines.
    • Additional forms of poetry may be found in the discussions of the poetry of particular cultures or periods and in the glossary.
  • In fact, there are entire unsourced paragraphs which aren't adding much. Could we not do a better job at not bouncing the reader around all over the Wikipedia?
Sourcing
  • There are entire unsourced paragraphs and list of who's who and who is important or known for certain styles or factors that need some sort of citation or attribution as in "according to whom". Notable poets of certain styles according to whom? There should be ample textbooks for attributing these opinions.
Comprehensive

As indicated by a student editor on talk, the article does mention Biblical poetry but that is not covered in history; considering the number of universities that offer courses on same, sourcing something for History should not be difficult.

MOS
  • There are too many images, they are sandwiching text, and their captions are inadequate. Considering how old this FA is, once they are pruned, the images should probably be reviewed as they would at FAC, and alt text checked.
  • On layout, hatnotes in sections should go before images.
  • MOS:LQ review needed.
  • A hyphen used where there should be a dash, check throughout.

That's enough for a start. For all the defense this article has gotten it was a weak 2006 promotion, promoted over several Opposes, never seriously reviewed since, and IMO has never been an example of Wikipedia's best work. User:Nihil novi has been active recently at the article and should have been pinged. I suggest that unless someone is willing to seriously rework this article, it is not likely to retain its star. I don't know why DrKay brought it to FAR without notifying talk, but it is abundantly clear that a talk notification would not have yielded the needed improvements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, SandyGeorgia This is a much better critique. An editor with knowledge or interest can work with it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone reworking the article should probably take a look at Britannica's poetry page, written by Howard Nemerov, twice poet laureate of the US. Before they make significant mention of Biblical poetry, which is about the Hebrew Bible, they should add something about the English Bible (KJV, that is) which has had a profound effect on English literature both poetry (Milton, ...) and prose (Bunyan, ...). Nemerov alludes to this too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And please don't neglect translations of the Bible into languages other than English, which translations have likewise influenced their respective languages! Nihil novi (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic poetry
That's a wise remark. @Nihil novi: Why don't you fix the article? You have the knowledge, the wisdom, and a long record of edits
Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
What shadow Falls? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A beautifully phrased sentiment! A quotation, or your own words?
I'll be content to mostly kibitz, and defer to those with more systematic knowledge of the subject.
Nihil novi (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, its Eliot's The Hollow Men, with a twist, for making my point. I memorized it in middle school, along with Eliot's Preludes, Portia's "Quality of Mercy," Mark Antony's "Oh What a fall there was my countrymen," and "Friends, Romans and Countrymen," (speaking of which, it is the Ides of March today,) Brutus's "There is a tide in the affairs of men," long passages from Gray's Elegy, Shelly's Ode to the West Wind, Tennyson's Unwatched the garden bough shall sway, Hardy's Darkling Thrush, Masefield's Sea Fever, ... and lord knows what else. They mostly stay subliminal until "a fresh association blow"s (Tennyson). All this is off-topic, of course, but consider them traditional examples that the eventual restorer of this page might want to keep in mind. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outriggr and Casliber made a few edits, but most of the issues are unaddressed, and there has been little participation. Unless Outriggr thinks he can deal with this alone, Move to FARC for further discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the hurry? I'm completely mystified by this relentless pace? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a hurry, and it is not a relentless pace. At two weeks, we would hope to see someone engaging; no one is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine on second thoughts. I would have offered had it been English poetry (perhaps regretted it thereafter) as an excuse to dust off my late mother's English literature history and criticism books from her college and grad school days that lie neglected in one of our bookshelves. But the scope here is too wide. Even Howard Nemerov, in his Britannica article, clears his throat a few times, and apologizes a few more, before embarking ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist this is a Level-3 vital article, so there should be a very in-depth treatment of the matter with top-notch sources and professional prose in order for this to meet the criteria (sure, that's for all articles, but something as important as this doesn't have the excuse of being "too niche" or neglected by sources). Unfortunately, this reads more like a C-class article than an FA. Here are but a few issues with the prose:
    • The lead has a whopping six paragraphs, some of which are quite choppy. The final one is A Western cultural tradition (which extends at least from Homer to Rilke) associates the production of poetry with inspiration – often by a Muse (either classical or contemporary)., which should either be expanded on in the lead or left out.
    • There are also LEADCITEs which while not fatal with the criteria are not needed given that they cite uncontroversial facts.
    • to panegyric and elegiac court poetry of the empires of the Nile, Niger, and Volta River valleys. is not brought up in the body.
    • In the "History" section there's a section for western traditions as well as 20th- and 21st-century disputes, but not anything else such as non-western traditions or pre-20th century disputes.
    • The citation format lacks internal consistency, with both shortened and unshortened footnotes to book sources.
    • Do we really need a "Further Reading" list for this? Most FAs lack them because most sources should be incorporated into the article rather than serve as a supplement. This, however, has the opposite problem; there's no way we'll ever incorporate every single source on something as broad as "poetry" into the article (nor should we), but that leaves an issue as to which sources to include in further reading and which to exclude. This might just be me and doesn't affect my overall result, but perhaps something better could be arranged.
These are just things I found in the first 10 minutes of looking through the article, the rest seems similarly disorganized. All in all, this article is a big mess right now and would take a rather Herculean effort to bring back to FA status, which looking through the history has been rather lacking. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:03, 2 April 2020 (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_review/Poetry/archive3&oldid=950417414"