Talk:Duino Elegies/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 04:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. In the next day or two, I'll do a close readthrough, noting any issues here that I can't immediately fix, and then go to the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough
On first pass, this looks pretty solid; well written and well sourced, and it appears to cover basic information about the collection's history and legacy. I have a list of quibbles below, but don't be concerned by the length of the list. Many you'll be able to fix in moments, I think. The issues that seem most important to me for this review are the 2-3 questions about sourcing. I hope you'll find this helpful, and thanks a lot for your efforts on this one--it's great to see this article get improved! -- Khazar2 (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thorough review and for the minor copyediting work you were gracious enough to take the time to undertake prior to the review. I will work my way through the list today, and let you know. Most of them seem easy enough that they should be done shortly. I appreciate it. As for the Freedman source (repeating same citation for different pages), there was an old template that I used on Joyce Kilmer last summer that I should have considered here (but just this morning remembered) that allows for such a format, but puts the page number in the body of the text next to the footnote. I'll look into the best way to tackle that. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "would render him silent for several years." -- literally silent, or unable to write? Probably best to avoid metaphor here.
 * ✅ metaphor removed for "unable to write"


 * "during the fall" -- rewrite per WP:REALTIME (perhaps, "later in the year"?)
 * ✅ went with later in the year


 * This isn't necessary for GA, but given the number of times the same works are used in the citations, you should consider using a references/bibliography format that would allow you to just write (Freedman p. 340) for each individual page of an author.
 * ✅ I chose to use the template.


 * One of the books in further reading "Gass, William H. Reading Rilke: Reflections on the Problems of Translation." also appears in the footnotes; could probably be removed from "further" reading.
 * ✅ removed from FR.


 * "claiming that it invoked the legacy" -- rewrite claim per WP:WTA
 * ✅ rewritten


 * "noted critic Hans-Rudolf Müller was the" -- is it necessary to call him "noted"? Not a big deal, but seems like minor peacocking.
 * ✅ removed noted.


 * "Rilke's Duino Elegies are likely his most popular works in the English-speaking world." -- as a superlative and a guess, this probably needs a citation.
 * ✅ rewritten, i thought i had cited this but must have missed it.


 * This isn't a factor for the GA review, but the article has numerous redlinks--are you confident that all these are articles likely to be created and sure to be notable? If not, you might remove some or all of these. They can be easily restored if someone creates articles on these translators and critics in the future.
 * ✅ redlinks removed.


 * " The collection has been translated into English over twenty times since it was first published by London's Hogarth Press in England as Duineser Elegien: Elegies from the Castle of Duino in a translation by Vita Sackville-West and Edward Sackville-West (1931), and in the United States with a translation by J. B. Leishman and Stephen Spender published by New York's W. W. Norton & Company in 1939" -- this gets a little tangled -- Is it correct to say that the collection has been translated over twenty times since first appearing in 1931 and 1939? Or just since 1931? I wonder if it would be easiest just to split this long sentence into two: " The collection has been translated into English over twenty times. It was first published by London's Hogarth Press in England as Duineser Elegien: Elegies from the Castle of Duino in a translation by Vita Sackville-West and Edward Sackville-West (1931), and in the United States with a translation by J. B. Leishman and Stephen Spender published by New York's W. W. Norton & Company in 1939"
 * ✅ rewritten


 * "Other notable translations have" -- I'd suggest cutting the word "notable" here as a small bit of uncited editorializing (choosing which translations are most important.)
 * ✅ removed notable.


 * "He explores the nature of man's contact with beauty, and its transience, noting that man is forever only getting a brief, momentary glimpse of an inconceivable beauty and that it terrifies him." -- Does Rilke specifically put this in gendered terms? If not, gender-neutral language would be preferable here.
 * ✅ rewritten for mankind and humanity.


 * "Where there is incongruity that adds to man's despair and anxiety is that because we "cling" to the visible and the familiar, we find the invisible and unknown higher levels represented by these angels to be "terrifying" -- rewrite to avoid "we", which is mildly unencyclopedic; if "man" is to be used, keep going with he/him.
 * ✅ stuck with mankind and humanity


 * "when they began to received," -- is there an error in this quotation?
 * ✅ to receive


 * ""the world has fallen into the hands of men. -- where does this quotation close?


 * "In the face of death, life and love, however, is not cheap and meaningless. In fact, it is the destiny of great lovers that is essential for understanding all three—life, love, and death—as part of a unity." -- these two sentences confuse me a bit. What does the "it" in "it is the destiny of great lovers"?
 * ✅ hopefully this is more clear.


 * "Rilke would assert " -- would assert or asserted?
 * ✅ asserted


 * "love could be understood through death giving it its " -- is "it" love or death here?
 * ✅ rewritten


 * "'pure too-little; had passed into 'empty too-much'" -- is there a quotation mark missing after "too-little"?
 * ✅ fixed


 * "In league with " -- makes it sound as if Rumi and Rilke plotted this together-- perhaps just say "like the 13th-century Sufi mystic Rumi"?
 * ✅ rewritten


 * "Rilke reinterpreted "as a master who can lead us to a more fulfilled and less anxious life.""-- not a complete sentence. Does this mean something like "Rilke has been..."?
 * ✅ has been


 * "Because of his work being ascribed as "mystical," " -- I think "described" is meant here rather than "ascribed"
 * ✅ described


 * "The Duino Elegies have had an indelible impact on literature and thought" -- citation needed for this judgement
 * ✅ rewritten


 * "as well as noted philosophers" -- again the "noted" seems to me to be minor peacocking per WP:PEA; simpler to just call them philosophers without introducing the judgement
 * ✅ removed noted


 * "It is claimed as a deep influence by several poets and writers, including Sidney Keyes, Stephen Spender, Robert Bly, W.S. Merwin, John Ashbery, and W.H. Auden, as well as noted philosophers Ludwig Wittgenstein and Hans-Georg Gadamer." --this seems like a sweeping and significant claim to source only to Parnassus, which doesn't appear to be peer-reviewed. And looking at the original source, CTRL+F doesn't turn up Merwin, Ashbery, or Wittgenstein--can you point me to the paragraph that contains this info?
 * ✅ had the wrong source. looked into it, obtained better sources. unfortunate problem with literary journals, most of them aren't peer reviewed, unlike the medical, mathematical and scientific disciplines.


 * "In My Belief: Essays on Life and Art, German novelist Hermann Hesse" -- is this legacy? It doesn't seem to be so much influence as just more description of Rilke's process.
 * ✅ moved it above to the "reception" section


 * "Rilke's rich symbolism and lyrical rhythms inspired many twentieth century writers" -- redundant with previous paragraph in this section
 * ✅ rewritten


 * Auden is mentioned twice in three paragraphs, which seems a little redundant.
 * ✅ rewritten


 * "The reference here to stroking "that little tower" is derived from a series of letters written while Rilke was completing the Elegies including a letter he wrote to his current lover Baladine Klossowska,[23] and one to his former lover, Lou Andreas-Salomé. In the letter to Andreas-Salomé, he writes "I went out and stroked the little Muzot, which protected it and me and finally granted it, like a large old animal." -- can a secondary source be cited for this connection? I agree that the connection seems clear, but it would be better to cite a scholar here connecting Auden's line to this reference from a letter.
 * ✅ found a secondary reference linking auden to letter.


 * it, like a large old animal.". --double period--one should be deleted, but should the survivor go inside or outside the quotation mark?
 * ✅ removed the period outside the q.m.


 * Started going through the list, I'll mark them done as I make progress through the list.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Great! All looks good so far. I've moved the two undone items below for both our convenience. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "Several of these translations have sold several hundred thousand copies." -- as a statistic, needs a citation.
 * ✅ chose to remove this sentence pending the relocation of the citation I based it on. I do recall reading a trade publication saying that Kinnell's translation sold 400,000 copies and Spender's 250,000 copies.  But until I relocate this source, it's better to remove it for the time being and reinsert it when the source is found.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The lead should include some information about the "Legacy" section. -- Khazar2 (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ added three sentences summarizing the Legacy section.


 * The article appears to switch grammatically at times between referring to the Elegies in singular (as a work) and in plural (as multiple elegies); see the publication and reception section for examples. This might be made more consistent.
 * ✅ I hope I clarified all the references with substitution of collection, poems, and using the full title Duino Elegies for the collection, and lower case e elegies if i meant the plural (one instance). If there are any remaining inconsistencies, let me know and I'll revise them.
 * Forgot to move this one down too, will complete these last three today (14FEB2013)--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I've completed the list. Please do let me know if I've missed anything or if you notice anything further that needs repair or revision. Thank you for your thorough and diligent attention so far.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)