Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Ode on a Grecian Urn/archive1

Moved from main page

[Previous comments were removed for article clarity] Previous comments, and the comments below in reply to mine, were in relation to This diff, the article state as nominated. Major changes have occurred in the quality of the article, and I have snipped these, to clarify current debate.Fifelfoo (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The speedy close and some other problems will be ignored. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that by stating something is on JSTOR, you are contradicting your claims above that there were no articles used? I also find it troubling that you refuse to actually look at the bulk of references, which are not anything you have stated above. And saying that Cleanth Brooks is a "self published" source is absurd. Cleanth Brook's The Well Wrought Urn is one of the most famous New Criticism critical books. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, you are confusing -courtesy links- with references. Furthermore, you stated above things that were inappropriate. Please look through FAC and see various reviews and how they respond. There is no "speedy decline". Ottava Rima (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I apologise for BITING, and for allowing my dismay at the quality of the article's sourcing as nominated to let me feel justified in assuming bad faith. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This page is not about harping on the past but about discussing what is needed. It currently has its publication detail so there is no point in discussing it further. By the way, why are you reviewing brand new pages while there are dozens that desperately need reviews and have sat there for weeks? Ottava Rima (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"a level of insult in proposing an article in this state"? Fifelfoo, I have never come across you in my short days on WP, but I assure you that there was no insult and would like for you to apologize for not assuming good faith. I felt that this article, with a bit of tweaking, would be an excellent candidate for FA, and I asked Ottava to help me with the process, as he has put in so much of the information contained in the article. When I added the information from the Brooks work, I had only the text on hand and thought it would be a nice gesture to give a link to an online text that stated some of the same ideas, though through the median of a secondary source. I do now realize that this was a mistake,but nothing quoted in the text can not be found in the original source.Mrathel (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, it's possible to critique the work of FAC nominees without insulting it. "a level of insult in proposing an article in this state" was, IMO, impolite at the very least. Geraldk (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Uchuchu comments

Moved from main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I re-read the poem a few days ago and I have now had a critical read over this article. I made a number of small changes, which I hope improve the text, but please revert if necessary. Some specific comments:

• I changed "sequence" to "set": "sequence" to me implies order, but the article says here is "no particular order" among the Odes.
• There were two sentences about the poem's uniqueness and the non-existence of the urn it discusses which said mostly the same. I combined them.
• I changed "fringed" to "fring'd" in the quote of line 5, in accordance with my version (a little Dover booklet that says it is "reprinted from the standard text"). This seems to make metric sense.
• "the word "forever."" Both my version and the following quote spell this "for ever".
• Added a comma in the line "For ever panting, and for ever young", in accordance with that little book of mine.

Further questions and comments:

• Is there a reason you use "Moses'" (without an s in the possessive), but "Keats's" (with an s)?
• You capitalize "Classical" in some, but not all places in the article. Please be consistent there.
• In line 35, you give "sea-shore", but my version gives "sea shore". I didn't change this yet, but could you please confirm that the version with the hyphen is correct?
• It may be my ignorance of early 19th-century English prose, but the following phrase from the first review quoted seems ungrammatical: "... he thinks that anything or object in nature ...". Could you please confirm that this is the wording used in the quote?
• Is the punctuation in "words— Beauty" (in another review) correct?
• Did Richards really use four full stops in an ellipsis?
• The text seems to be inconsistent on putting punctuation before or after punctuation marks. Could you please check this and decide on one style?

In general, I believe this article gives a good and thorough overview of the poem and its meaning and reception: congratulations on that. I have a number of extremely nitpickety concerns that should be addressed and I'll give the article another good read, but will probably support its promotion. Ucucha 20:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

After checking over your changes, they all appear to be strong. I have also made various changes per the above. First set of responses: 1. That is fine. 2. Same. 3. Whatever version is fine to me. 4. Same as 3. 5. Same as 3. As for the rest: 1. Probably just didn't pay any attention. 2. Fixed to lower case. 3. There is no dash in the Stillinger edition so I don't see removing it as problematic. 4. There was a space missing between "any" and "thing". 5. In the original quote, there is a formatting gap that I do not know how to reproduce on wiki without putting forth a strange looking blockquote. 6. I wouldn't put it past him :). Here are various editions of the quote with the four ellipses. 7. The inconsistency is based on if there was a period in the original or not per current MLA/Chicago standards for quotations. I believe the MoS follows the same. A fullstop without a quotation mark denotes the end of a sentence whereas a fullstop after a quotation mark denotes that there was either another punctuation mark or none at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick check: "Classical" should be capitalized when referring to the Classical period of Greek history (Persian War—Death of Alexander the Great), or so I was taught. If any of the references refer to Keats studying or gaining inspiration from that specific period, would be proper to have those capitalized and not others that use the term in a general sense? I hate nitpicking, but since high school I have had an irrational fear of being incorrect on this topic. Mrathel (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have never heard of the rule Mrathel mentions, but that may not say much. Anyway, all uses of "classical" in this article appear to refer to classical antiquity in general, not just the period you mention.

I am not yet entirely convinced on the matter of the quotation marks. Is the use of "bid the Spring adieu." and "for ever." in the "Poem" section really correct? Also, I added closing quotation marks to one quote (that from Gilfillan) that lacked them; could you check whether I put the full stop in the correct place? Ucucha 21:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

Query: Mrathel, do you feel you can handle this nom without Ottava, or would you rather it be archived and brought back later? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Response I think with Kathryn's imput and Ottava's ability to speak beyond the grave into my email, I can handle it. I am not as prolific as he, but then again only one other editor has been this past year:). Plus, its pretty well covered at this point. Mrathel (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Image review - All images check out. Awadewit (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned out already. I was afraid someone inserted yet another one. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 36 is just a formatted link with no publisher listed or note that it's an .rtf file. It is a journal article or what?
• UP, U. P. or University Press in the references? I strongly prefer spelling it completely out for our non-scholars among the readers.
• Please don't just use a bare numbered link for the external links in the references, format the titles of the articles with the link.
• What makes http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/cs6/urn.html a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I will make the fix to the Rylance ref; I should have done so a long time ago. It is actually out of The Encyclopedia of Literature and Criticism.
• I am inclined to use UP out of habit, but I can understand if University Press would appeal to more readers
• Will rework links to incorporate text
• Absolutely nothing. I can't believe it has stayed in the article this long.:) Let me find something to replace it and I should have it gone by the end of the day Mrathel (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Have these been taken care of? (Your note above just says you will, not that you have...) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• I believe I have fixed the major sourcing issues. I have 9 other sources that I might slip into the critical response section as this is one of the most famous short poems in the English language and a lot of critics have opined on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe they have; I applogogize, I don't usually comment on things before they have been changed to avoid this very situation. But I am fairly certain all suggestions have been covered at this point. Mrathel (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)