Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Raven/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | The Raven
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 01:38, 29 September 2007.

The Raven edit

(Self-) Nomination for Edgar Allan Poe's most famous poem. I have done significant work on this article for the past several months. It was recently granted Good Article status. I think it's very neutral and provides a significant amount of analysis, history, etc. with plenty of sources. I'd love to get some feedback if it can be further improved but I'd be even happier if it passes FA without any dissent. ;) A previous peer review (before GA) is here. --Midnightdreary 12:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note before I run off elsewhere - shouldn't the overview section be called synopsis? The former is vague and doesn't described what the section is about, namely the story. Will read more later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't disagree there. I think I normally see "plot summary" and it's not really a plot as it's a poem. I like "Synopsis" though. Thanks! --Midnightdreary 21:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, For "Syllabic structure of a verse" I saw the citation is from a Poe book... is the structure given in there or just the verse? If it is given I assume there is some other author (unless Poe was in the habit of giving out the structures in his own works) who gave the stresses and maybe they should be mentioned--the author who annotated Poe's work. gren グレン 01:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed that; the Poe citation is for the verse itself, but I've added the correct source for the rhyme scheme and meter (I also found some additional info that I threw in; not sure if this complicates things). I'm not sure what the correct style is for presenting this kind of analysis of verse, so help is welcome. Thanks for the help people have been giving so far, by the way! --Midnightdreary 02:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good... just, I think it's a little confusing and from my recollection tables should always have independent citations because citing it in the text above can get messy and difficult to see what is being cited for where. Is Kopley & Hayes, 192 for the stresses? If so I would make citation 21 (for the table) into something like: "Verse, Poe, 773; Stresses, Kopley & Hayes, 192". It's a little confusing for me if the citation is in the sentence before... or, if it's the Sova citation that's equally confusing for me. I rarely support articles since I'm not smart enough to detect good language, but, I've enjoyed reading this article, thanks. gren グレン 02:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Poe citation is for the verse, not for the breakdown of the verse. The Kopley & Hayes sources doesn't break it down, but does use the poetic terms. I'm not too familiar with tables so I just stole what was at trochaic octameter; it's been modified since then. I agree, though, it's a little confusing the way it looks now! Any suggestions? -Midnightdreary 16:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • The lover, often assumed to be a student - citation needed.
    • The poem was inspired in part by a talking raven in the Barnaby Rudge: A Tale of the Riots of 'Eighty by Charles Dickens - citation needed.
I'm pretty sure these lines were from the introduction. I've added some references. Hope that works! --Midnightdreary 00:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've been bold and tweaked the prose and combined a few stubby paras that are deal-breakers in hte prose criteria. Clearly comprehensive and I feel the prose is smooth enough to get over the line. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for the votes of support and to the many folks that have contributed minor edits and clean up since this FAC began. I will be out of town for a few days and I'm not sure if I'll be able to respond quickly if there are concerns or questions. Please be patient with me! :) --Midnightdreary 19:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since there is an entire article on it I think the References in popular culture section could be expanded and needs a ref. Buc 08:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ornithological comment edit

"Raven" is a biologically vague term; is it reasonable to assume that Poe is referring to the Common Raven? Also, we should probably make it clear that real ravens actually can talk (at least in the sense that parrots can talk), a fact which is probably unfamiliar to most of our readers.--Pharos 03:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Unless you have an article or book claiming that these details are important for the poem or for Poe, I would leave such orinthological particulars out of the article. This is an article on a poem, not on a bird. If Poe scholars have published material claiming that Poe did research on the raven, for example, or that there are important scientific themes in the poem, excellent - add that in. However, we should not add details to the article that we believe are relevant. That is original research. Awadewit | talk 04:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, for the first I was just thinking of the disappointing disambiguation page that is Raven—and if that page is to be believed (and I have no authority on this myself), then almost all Western literary references to "ravens" are actually to Common Ravens. As to the fact that ravens are talking birds I think that's quite relevant to the poem itself, as it means it's not necessarily some magical bird, but just has an ability that ordinary ravens have (which many readers will not be familiar with).--Pharos 04:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, we cannot assume that Poe did what everyone else did with his references, can we? This is why links inside quotations can be misleading and linking "raven" is basically linking a quotation. We need sources!
  • The Common Raven is the only "raven" species present in Europe or eastern North America. It's hard to imagine he could be referring to another one. Since "raven" is sort of a meaningless term by itself (unless you superimpose upon it the western cultural assumptions that are tied to the Common Raven), I think it would only be helpful to say that he presumably meant the Common Raven (with a caveat pointing out this is the only "raven" present in Europe), rather, than say this one.--Pharos 06:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poe does not have to be referring to any specific bird species. As the article states, Poe may have been alluding to any number of raven literary traditions as well (ravens in literature are not the same as ravens in the real world). This is poetry, not science, which makes it much more speculative and elusive. I must reiterate that unless you have a source that states Poe was referring to this specific type of raven, we cannot justify including that interpretation, for that is what it is - an interpretation. Awadewit | talk 07:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second of all, your sentence demonstrates why the talking raven bit is original research: "I think that quite relevant to the poem itself...". Obviously you are free to interpret the poem however you want, but wikipedia only includes information in its articles that published experts have seen fit to write about. Find us a series of Poe scholars who discuss that detail in relationship to the poem and we will be glad to add it in. Awadewit | talk 05:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poe was drawing from Barnaby Rudge, a story where, because of the mundane setting, it is quite clear that ravens do not have to be magical to talk (Dickens even says in the preface that the raven is based on his own talking bird). The Raven is a rather strange poem, and it's possible to imagine all sorts of things about it. My concern is that readers unfamiliar with ravens as talking birds will assume (as I did when I first read the poem years ago) that the raven's talking is something wholly magical (maybe speaking "Nevermore" is supposed to reflect the supernatural, but that's a literary issue). Now, imagine one were writing an article on a fictional pirate with a fictional talking parrot, and the reader was totally ignorant of the concept that parrots can talk. Surely the reader would assume that the story concerns a pirate and his magical bird—this is the variety of possible misimpression I'm trying to correct.--Pharos 06:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, Dickens's Barnaby Rudge was not Poe's only influence (see article) and Poe's raven is not identical to Dickens's raven.
  • Second of all, in your hypothetical about the fictional pirate and parrot - facts regarding real parrots would be irrelevant. In a fictional story, authors can make their people, animals, and things do anything - they do not have to resemble the real world. One must also take into account that "The Raven" is a poem and contains symbolism - the raven is a symbol.
  • Lastly, and most importantly, you seem to be missing the most important point. We can only include information on "The Raven" that literary scholars have deemed relevant - see WP:V. Once you find references to the importance of this fact about ravens being able to talk and its relevance to the poem in expert works, we can discuss how to integrate it into the article. Go forth and research! Awadewit | talk 07:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents, if you don't mind: because there is such ambiguity in what type of raven Poe is using here (and, possibly, he's referring to the whole world of ravens, including folklore and mythologies), it's not easy to assume it's the common raven. If I had a source that suggested it, I'd go for it, but I don't. I do, however, agree that it is important that ravens can be taught to speak - the previous analysis before I heavily edited it actually said it. It was, however, unsourced, and I haven't found anything that points it out. This possibly suggests that the bird's talking is somewhat magical or supernatural, or that the various scholars have not found it prudent to add that kind of realism to the poem (same thing with remarking on the specific type of raven). Either way, it's a big question mark on both points so I, personally, would feel comfortable leaving it out until a source is found. --Midnightdreary 12:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly many sources that verify that ravens can be taught to speak—besides the scientific sources, Charles Dickens commenting on his own real-life talking pet raven, which (through Barnaby Rudge) was actually an indirect inspiration for the raven in the poem, might be a good way to introduce this information. I agree it would be nice if we had a piece of literary criticism on this, but I don't think that's strictly necessary because this isn't introducing a theory but just correcting a common possible misconception, or rather a lack of context (just because parrots have overshadowed ravens as talking birds with the growth of the international pet trade in the last century).--Pharos 23:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you don't quite understand original research. You are proposing a theory: that Poe was referring to a specific species of raven that could talk. If that theory has not been published, you cannot include it. We are not discussing the scientific facts here, we are discussing the literary theories - this article is about the poem and what has been written about the poem. Please reread WP:V as well. (By the way, you seem to be suggesting that there is only one correct interpretation of the word "raven" in the poem. As the article amply demonstrates, that is far from true.) Awadewit | talk 00:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I finally found a scholarly discussion of "The Raven" which indicates not only that ravens are capable of speech, but also that Poe was well-aware of that fact. Hooray! --Midnightdreary 23:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixes needed, I left some sample edits of minor issues like overlinking needing attention. These refs (blue links only) need expansion to indicate publisher, last accessdate, etc (see WP:CITE/ES):
  • Edgar Allan Poe Society online - Timeline of poems published by Poe
  • Digital Gallery for Édouard Manet illustrations
  • Anamorphic illustration for "The Raven"
  • The poet in the mirror - the same illustration with a chrome-plated brass cylinder
  • Illustrations by Ryan Price

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The "in popular culture" section doesn't seem very well co-ordinated with the paragraph above it. Kappa 01:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment noted. The version that I nominated for featured article did not have this section at all. I don't personally support it; I'd love to remove it entirely. As for other suggestions noted above, many thanks, but give me a day or two to make the changes (I've been out of town). --Midnightdreary 02:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That section was my doing. The "See Also" section used to include The Raven in popular culture (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The Raven&oldid=157272464 for an example), and it seemed silly for the main article on "The Raven" to contain no mention of these references whatsoever. If there's a better way to integrate the section into the article, go for it, but deleting it entirely would cause an odd discordance between the two articles.Bolt Vanderhuge 04:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There have been a few edits since what I originally intended but I've brought it to (I think) a reasonable compromise. My concern is that a full section on pop culture references only invites cruft (which, by the way, it did, only a few edits after that section was created; it was quickly reverted). --Midnightdreary 02:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Impressive and worth my support, but I was hoping for a Wikimedia reading of the poem rather than the relying on links to external material. - Mgm|(talk) 10:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really necessary for FA, but I do think it would be nice to have an audio clip on the page with someone reading the full poem. Wrad 14:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Following this publication the poem appeared in numerous periodicals across the United States, including the New York Tribune (February 4, 1845), Broadway Journal (vol. 1, February 8, 1845), Southern Literary Messenger, (vol 11, March, 1845), London Critic (June 14, 1845), Literary Emporium (vol 2, December, 1845), Saturday Courier, 16 (July 25, 1846), and the Richmond Examiner (September 25, 1849).[22]" Was the London Critic really an American periodical?--Carabinieri 13:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Any chance of another citation for "it remains one of the most famous poems ever written"? I think ideally this kind of claim should have at least two citations. Kappa 23:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's a bit loaded. I did a quick (superficial) search through my print sources and didn't find another person use words that strongly resemble that claim; I'm okay with its removal. --Midnightdreary 02:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hi MidnightDreary. I was a bit surprised that this article wasn't longer. Other than the section on "Allusions", is there no "interpretation" to speak of? (Maybe the poem is "popular" enough that there isn't much literature on its interpretation?) For me to support I'd prefer to see more of that. I think the lead is excellent, but the fact that the narrator may be a student seems unnecessary in the lead. On a small matter of style, I think there's an acceptance for punctuation of phrases outside quotes on wikipedia: e.g. Elizabeth Barrett's poem "Lady Geraldine's Courtship." and the various "Nevermore."s should be changed. Great work, –Outriggr § 04:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild oppose. The article is very good. Based on discussion below, I really feel like this article needs more literary criticism. Your source Kopley and Hayes talks about the autobiographical aspects of the poem; this seems like a good addition. There is room here for viewpoints other than Poe's (that is, other than his essay). It's a heavily dramatic, psychological sort of poem and surely this can be explored more. The first paragraph under "Analysis" is heading in the right direction.–Outriggr § 23:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done as much digging as possible. Almost all of the analytical work I've found on "The Raven" is regarding its complex structure and about the individual allusions/symbols - that's why those subsections are fairly weighty. I guess it's hard to critically analyze a work when the author has already done it for you, as is the case here. I'd argue that it's not going to get much longer than it is but, if I find more, I'll certainly add it. --Midnightdreary 04:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Do you mean Poe's essay has done it for us? Now, I've seen one of our most helpful lit experts, Awadewit, warn nominators about the intentional fallacy–just because Poe has explained himself doesn't prevent other meanings of the poem from taking hold. If there are any important ones, I'd like to know. That's where I'm coming from... I'll take a look at the additions. –Outriggr § 04:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I certainly wouldn't discredit other interpretations... I'm just not finding many! I'm suggesting that it's not often analyzed for meaning, considering the meaning was already explained by Poe himself. That's why, I think, most of what I've founded is based on symbols and/or obscure allusions and references (and lots of possible influences, most are huge leaps and not particularly notable). Other ones I've found are more than a little far-fetched, for example that the raven is representative of a black man overpowering white aristocracy and, perhaps, is transsexual ("with mein of lord or lady"). Actually, the authenticity of what Poe says is certainly questionable; there's a minor section on the Wikipedia article on "The Philosophy of Composition" which I'm building up... slowly. --Midnightdreary 04:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if an author expressly states his intent, it's one of the few ways that we can know it for sure. The only way to see into someone's mind is if they tell what's in it themselves. I don't really think there's a problem here. You can't really go against that kind of evidence, so it really may be legit. There might not be anything wrong here. Best to double check, though. Wrad 04:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a valid point. Poe actually wrote an essay (see here) outlining exactly how he wrote the poem, describing his own decisions on meter and wording. It is pretty rare for such a writer to reveal so much about his methods. I don't see any reference to this essay in the article, though, or to any sort of analysis other than "Allusions" and meter. Surely there is more. Wrad 04:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that essay is mentioned in "Composition". –Outriggr § 05:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of works on Poe's "The Raven" - really - I just checked some databases. The question is which ones does the article have to rely on to "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge", as outlined in the FAC criteria? Some are obviously a great deal more important than others. Does anyone here know which ones? Midnightdreary, do you? Knowing the answer to that question would help us answer the question of what may or may not be missing from the article. Awadewit | talk 10:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, the essay the editor mentioned "The Philosophy of Composition" is not only notable, but it wouldn't be a good article on "The Raven" without it. It's not only mentioned, (as Outriggr says), but it's got its own section and is constantly referred to throughout. Other than Poe's own essay, I can't really think of "must read" essays on "The Raven." Really, I don't think it's about essays but about individual scholars. The sources that I've used give, I believe, a thorough representation of old and new, contemporary to Poe and more modern, points of view. If you're a Poe fanatic, you'll recognize the authors I've used, I think. Does that answer the question? Also, I just noticed the suggestion earlier that "student" isn't necessary for the lead; considering Poe himself said it was meant to be a student, I think it ranks that highly. :) As an aside, I had the co-author of The Poe Encyclopedia take a look at the article. He was very helpful in working in additional allusions and critical reception and was overall very supportive of this article in its present state (not that it matters). --Midnightdreary 14:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed that the essay was already there. You're right, it's pretty important. Glad to see it featured. Wrad 14:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Midnightdreary, since you've had an expert look over the article, you might consider asking them to write a formal review for Wikipedia:Academic peer review for the page. Awadewit | talk 19:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Espirit15d edit

Oppose: The article is a solid work; it's especially thorough for an article on something as simple as a poem. I fund a few areas that require improvement however, before I could support its promotion. Of the four featured article criteria, I recommend addressing the following:

1. Basic criteria met?:
1a. Well written?
  • "(the name was previously used in Poe's poem of the same name, "Lenore")" - this is to distinct a statement to go in parenthesis. It should either be a footnote or a new sentence.
  • "the raven perches itself on a bust of Pallas, "perched, and sat, and nothing more."" - redundant. say "the raven alights on a bust"
  • "though will not say anything further. - false antecedent. Say "thought it will not say"
  • "convinced that single word" - missing a definite article "that" or "the" before single
  • "possibly learned from a previous owner with bad luck" - move this to after "single word" and put commas around it.
  • "He sits in that bleak December reading" - too poetic for an encyclopedic article and borders on POV. Just say "During December he is reading"
  • "Dickens's bird had many words" - what does that mean? He could say more words? That needs to be rephrased to be more clear.
  • "Poe emphasized the bird's more" - by saying "the bird" it implies that Dickens and Poe were talking about the same bird, when they weren't. So earlier in the sentence, you should say "Dickens's raven had many" to indicate the similarity was their being ravens, not the actual bird.
  • "symbolic prophetic purpose" - this should either be "symbolicly prophetic purpose" or "symbolic, prophetic purpose"
  • The sentence that starts "At the end of the fifth chapter, Grip..." should follow the sentence that ends "...'Tale of the Riots of 'Eighty by Charles Dickens'".
  • The sentence that begins "It has been suggested that this..." is pure opinion, so it should be attributed to
1b. Comprehensive?
  • "His description of its writing is probably exaggerated," - this statement needs to be defended or removed
  • It would be nice if the paragraph starting ""The Raven" has influenced many modern works..." briefly showed how these works were influenced by "The Raven."
1c. Factually accurate?
  • "this lore may be about the occult or black magic." - this is highly speculative; the proof cited it tangential at best. It is better to say this is the opinion of someone in particular (with a citation) or remove this sentence all together.
  • The lead section says "The poem was inspired in part by a talking raven" but a later paragraph says "Poe's raven is thought to have been inspired." Which is it? Do we know or do we think that to be so. Either way, it needs to be referenced.
1d. Neutral? Yes
1e. Stable? Yes
2. Complies with Manual of style and relevant WikiProjects?:
2a. Concise lead section? Yes
2b. Hierarchical headings? Yes
2c. Well-structured table of contents? Yes
2d. Consistently-formatted inline citations? Yes
3. Properly placed, captioned and/or rationalized images?: Yes
4. Appropriate length?: Yes

When these issues are addressed, note the changes here and notify me on my talk page. Thank you for your work so far. — Esprit15d 20:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made most of the suggestions you made about the writing; much of it was minor or honest mistakes. The line "It has been suggested" was reworded and worked into the Critical reception section. Any thoughts on that? I agree the reference to the older poem "Lenore" was a bit awkward; it's now a wikilink under "See also." Also, check out what I did for the scene that seems to echo "Barnaby Rudge." I think it works. I'll be back in a bit to address the concerns under "Factually accurate?" Thanks for the heads-up on all this! --Midnightdreary 02:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have since made some additions and corrected/clarified/cited the suggested spots from Espirit15d, above. I am struggling a bit to find additional sources that the speaker is reading about the occult or black magic. As far as I know, this is a commonly-held belief but I just can't seem to find more sources to confirm that. --Midnightdreary 05:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Raven/archive1&oldid=1192288687"