Talk:Love Among the Ruins (poem)

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Oregon State University/ENG 206: The Victorian Period to the Twentieth Century (Spring 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

For the "Love among the Ruins" article by Robert Browning, it will begin with a lead section, defining the topic, establishing the context, explaining why the topic is notable, and summarizing the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Making sure that we do not put any undue opinions or extra attention on any specific details.

The sections will be broken down into context and history of Robert Browning, and the time period in which he wrote "Love Among the Ruins". This will also cover any influences that drove him toward this poem, and why it was an important piece in society. This will then segway into a section about the analysis of the poem, there is already an existing piece that discusses the first stanza and some of the themes, the speaker, syllables, and rhyming scheme. We will elaborate on these through other sources that we have found online and in peer reviewed journals from the OSU library.

Lastly, we will add in two sections about how the poem was received in the culture, and whether or not it was a positive or negative reaction to this poem specifically or to the entirety of Robert Browning's Men and Women. This will be elaborated on through the use of sources from the Victorian Era into the modern day. The last section will continue on society's reaction to the poem by talking about the criticism and analysis from many different outlets. We will find resources from websites and peer reviewed journals.
It is very good job, I like the fact that you put a picture. I would suggest to put a sub-title after the excerpt. I guess you are doing the critical interpretation at that point. It would be nice to put the title at that place for any reader to know what is going on. Besides that, it is a great job.Jonathan isengingo (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also if it would be possible to add some citations for your critical explanation. The sources that you used.Jonathan isengingo (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great start. Be sure to add a History or Critical Interpretation page. You also might want to consider adding a break between the intro and the first stanza to give it a bit more separation. -ItisSteve (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The illustration you all added is a nice aesthetic touch to the page; I would suggest trying to enlarge it or maybe even centering it to catch users attention. Also, I appreciated the references you found for the "In Culture" section but maybe adding how it is relevant without incorporating any biases would make the page as a whole seem more fluid. Perhaps even just stating that seeing these references within culture is a mark of the poem's notability could be a simple addition but more importantly, a nice transition for your page. - brittanysch (talk)

Peer Review[edit]

The basis of your article is really great. Your first section - which I believe to be the introduction and form - is very well put together. The picture is also a nice touch. However, I would be sure to add your critical interpretations and/or history section onto the page. I noticed that there was an attached "Analysis" document, but a summary of it on the page itself is always good. Otherwise, you are doing great! Sicoras (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I liked it, and enjoyed that you put some poem on the page. I would suggest maybe putting some spacing between (or making a new section entirely for) the interpretation of the first stanza and the rest of the poem. Maybe leave the poem alone in a single section, and then next section take bits and pieces from the stanza and show how the Browning created them, or highlight the style of writing used. Also, while looking up this page I saw that there were other portrayals of this poem (such as in movie, etc), and maybe it would be good to add another section for the various -iterations of the poem.JjoeE360 (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

I'll have to disagree a little with the previous review. I don't know if that is necessarily the best approach to structure your article. I would suggest that you have a separate section for the first stanza and any information about the structure of the poem itself. As for the very first paragraph, I would keep it to a minimum in terms of depth. I would imagine that mentioning where the poem came from, the year, any general information about it would suffice and then if you started a whole new segment of the article entitled "Form" or something of the likes, then that would be a little more pleasing to the eye and keep your information organized a little better. Other than that, I think you guys did a great job including all the necessary information and then some. Great job! AmeliaCarr (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Love Among the Ruins (poem). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071106114240/http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/1273.html to http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/1273.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]