Talk:Al Aaraaf/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

YThe article lacks any form of images. With the publication date of the book long passed, it shouldn't be too hard to get a book cover somewhere with a PD license.

Got a couple. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y References: All the references are to books and the article only has one external link. Surely there are more reliable internet sites covering this poem...

I haven't found anything worthwhile, but I also don't see external links as a requirement for GA. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's required, I just think that readers would like to see some. If something worthwile truly can't be found it's not something that would make me fail the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With any luck, a drive-by editor will add something at some point. I guess this poem is kinda obscure. :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YTo me it makes more sense to mention the publication history before the critical response.

Done. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YThe Raven has a section on composition which is missing here.

Err... "The Raven" (not italics!) has a very lurid story about its composition. "Al Aaraaf" does not. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedits and content suggestions

Y"Nevertheless, the negative response to "Al Aaraaf" may have inspired Poe's later poetic theory that poems should be kept short." -> This should be attributed to a specific person, otherwise it's unreliable speculation.

Not if it's commonly understood. It's not a theory from one or two critics but a theory held by most readers of Poe. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled over the wording "may have". On reflection, it's not a pressing issue. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YIn the lead you say that Poe claimed the audience didn't deserve a new poem, which isn't found later in the text. The sentence itself is grammatically incorrect, but I'll give you a chance to change it yourself, before I make a suggestion so I don't push my own preferences.

I changed the wording, I think, for the better. And, of course, if you look again, it is definitely later in the text. It's the huge blockquote from Poe himself. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally overlooked the blockquote. Sorry. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did Poe dislike the Boston/New England literary scene and the Transcendental movement?

It's not really certain. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y If Poe did write this in his youth, the lead should mention it, and it should be more visible in the text (rather than buried in a late section). If it's dubious, it should be explained why and if he said it to rile up the Bostonians, we want to know too.

I'll add a mention of it under the Publication history, which might also cover your above comment about a lack of composition history. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The legacy section says he wrote it before he was 12, publication history and lead say 15. I can't read the sources myself. What is causing the discreprancy? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The easy answer is that Poe was a liar. ;) I'll try to word that more clearly. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y "This nova was identified by Poe with Al Aaraaf, a star that was the place between paradise and hell." is (at least in part) a passive sentence.

Fix. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YWhat was the name of the supernova?

That's all the info I have on it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y"Al Aaraaf" mixes historical facts, religious mythology and elements of Poe's imagination. --> The mythology and imagination are obvious, but what are the historical facts involved?

The discovery of the star and the Koran as a historical document, I believe, count as history. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YThe article should briefly state what Sura 7 covers.

It does: Al-A`raaf (Arabic الأعراف) was a place where people who have been neither markedly good nor markedly bad had to stay until forgiven by God and let into Paradise, as discussed in Sura 7 of the Qur'an. That's what it's about. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YThe star which prompted Poe to write "Al Aaraaf" was believed to foretell disaster or punishment due to breaking God's laws. -> I doubt the star itself broke God's laws, so I suggest adding a subject to the second part of the sentence that makes it clear who is breaking the laws.

Done. Good catch. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y...though she admitted its author was a genius... --> The word 'admitted' makes it sound like she did something awful. How about: "Sarah Josepha Hale of Godey's Lady's Book noted that "Al Aaraaf" must have been written by a young author because it was "boyish, feeble, and altogether deficient in the common characteristics of poetry". Nevertheless, she still called the author a genius."

Much better. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"which would prove him right" This borders on POV. I suggest removing it (if kept, the grammar should be fixed).

Wait, what? Neal thought he would be proven correct in thinking Poe might show he was superior to other poets... A Critical reception section is going to have POV, from the POV of the critics. There's no way to have "neutral" opinions on the poem. Let me know if you have any ideas on re-wording; I know those sentences are a bit clunky. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally reception sections are going to have POV, but these are not Neal's word. If kept, I suggest "which would prove to be right."

That's what I'm saying though: these are Neal's words. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im talking about the words "which would prove him right." which is obviously a statement made by someone who knows Poe's whole career. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the same thing, and I'm not sure what's the problem. Neal was saying that Poe was spouting "nonsense" by thinking he was greater than all other poets, but said that he might, after all, produce such a poem to prove he was right. Again, these are Neal's words. Neal wouldn't know a thing about Poe's career because, well, Poe didn't have one at that point. I'm not sure what's so wrong about giving Neal's prediction. Yes, it's POV, but it simply has to be if it's a section on how people responded. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y"The work was reviewed in at least four different publications when published and the work was described by one critic as "highly creditable to the Country"." --> Unless named earlier, it's a good idea to name the publications. Especially the critic who is cited should be named and referenced here.

Sorry, didn't realize that stuff was still there. Removed. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y The claim the poem wasn't finished is well-referenced, but it would benefit from clarity as to who claimed it and why. -- Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references actually verify the statement that "some critics believe Poe never actually completed the poem", not in the voice of any specific critic. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are the sources more clear about why those non-named critics believed he intended to write 4 parts or 400 lines? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I altered it slightly to show that Poe was the one that implied the ultimate length. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as sources, I'm not sure what's on Google Books - probably Quinn's book but none of the others. I'm an ink-and-paper sources kinda guy so I'm not too savvy on the web as a source. ;) --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]