Talk:The Lucy poems/GA1

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

Hello all. I didn't quite realize what I'd stepped into in signing up to review this article; I have some idea now, having read the FAC nom. I'll do my best to provide detailed feedback on all the GA criteria. Ricardiana (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead

 * unrequited love for the idealised Lucy I think a general reader would think, from this sentence, that Lucy is a real person. Can you add something like "the idealized and possibly fictional..."?
 * I think part of the problem here is the phrase "who had died by the time the poems were composed," which gives the strong impression that we are taklking about a real person. Let me see what I can do. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tried rewriting the sentence as "He channeled these feelings into poems that project his frustrations onto an unrequited love for the idealised character of Lucy, an English girl who died young." I think using "idealised character" implies her possible fictitiousness sufficiently at this point, and the question is addressed more fully in the lead's final paragraph. Thoughts? Kafka Liz (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I like that a lot - sounds great. Ricardiana (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether the character Lucy was based on a real woman - is "character" necessary here?
 * Removed. Unnecessary, especially if used above. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Ricardiana (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Some scholars have speculated that Lucy is based on Wordsworth’s sister Dorothy, while others see her as an idealised figure makes it sound as if WW could not possibly have idealized Dorothy (which may be true - but isn't the point here).
 * Changed to "while others see her purely as a creation," which is the point I think we're trying to emphasise here. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Ricardiana (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ultimately, Lucy is a literary device employed to meditate on loss, nature and beauty. Could you add something like "Ultimately, scholars/most scholars agree that"? Otherwise the sentence is in danger of sounding POV - as if the article is arbitrating which of several views is correct.
 * Done. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Background

 * The block quotation in "Separation from Coleridge" is formatted differently from the quotation in the preceding section. Whichever way you choose to format block quotations, they should be formatted consistently.
 * Done. Awadewit (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Soon, the expiration of the lease in Alfoxden provided the opportunity for the two friends to live closer. In September 1798, Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Dorothy travelled to Germany You've already mentioned this move to Germany twice, and the expiration of the Alfoxden lease and the move to Goslar once. The shift back in time when the reader thought to be going forward is jarring. I think this might be fixed by having the section on Lyrical Ballads talk only about WW&C's meeting and early friendship, the section culminating in a mention of the LB. The separation from C can then be amalgamated into the section so-titled.
 * Working on this... Kafka Liz (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reordered these sections somewhat. Please let me know if it all still makes sense, or if I've accidentally duplicated sections; I'm feeling a bit fuzzy this morning. I removed "The fourth Lucy poem, "Three years she grew in sun and shower", was written in the days preceding Wordsworth's reunion with Coleridge. The final poem, "I travelled among unknown men", came two years later, shortly before Wordsworth was again separated from Coleridge. ", which no longer fits very well. I'll try to reincorporate it, but if anyone else wants to take a crack at it, it's fine by me. Also, I'm going to double check the ref names to be sure they all still work correctly; please let me know if I've missed any. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This looks good to me; I think it reads much more smoothly. Ricardiana (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Coleridge's wherewithal allowed him to entertain lavishly I think the general reader will be thrown off by "wherewithal." Also, I think the sentence could be re-worded to be more concise; something like: Coleridge was able to entertain lavishly.
 * Done. Awadewit (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The poems

 * they are not about any one girl who has died To my mind, a girl is a little girl. Can we just say "person"?
 * Done. Awadewit (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Lucy is Wordsworth's muse and the poems as a whole are, according to biographer Kenneth Johnson, "invocations to a Muse feared dead", and represent the fear of a loss of creative energy Can we get rid of one of the "and"s here?
 * Done. Awadewit (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * the sterility of the imagery reflects the futility of his longing This is a nice sentence, but the word "sterility" is a bit vague. I can see already the freshman papers that latch onto this, and the blank look of the student when asked "So what did you mean by 'sterility'"? Can we explain more what is meant here?
 * Someone with the sources - is it closer to asexuality? Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds right, but I don't have this particular source to hand. Also, the source doesn't seem to have a corresponding entry in the bibliography, unless it is a typo for the Johnston book (I'll check this). Kafka Liz (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * From the original (verifying Awadewit's expectations) - "For the purely psychological agenda of the poems, the reason that Lucy is dead, and curiously sexless for a lover, is obcious: she must be killed off and presented as never having been a sexual temptation in the first place, despite her highly sensual identification with the natural world." Ottava Rima (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This has now been reworded. Awadewit (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Ricardiana (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * His love operates on the unconscious level and is left to connect to Lucy through natural images Oh, Geoffrey Hartman and your evocative prose! ~ What is meant by "connect to" here? Again, a very broad term - can we be more specific?
 * Changed to " His love operates on the unconscious level and he can only connect to Lucy through natural images" Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is better, but still a bit unclear. How about "His love operates on the subconscious level, and he relates to Lucy more as a spirit of nature than as a human being."? Kafka Liz (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that sounds much clearer. Ricardiana (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Similarly, the twentieth-century critic Spencer Hall believed the poet represents a "fragile kind of humanism". The introduction of a critic's name with "similarly" leads me to expect that some other critic has been named earlier in the paragraph, but that's not the case. Could you add something at the beginning along the lines of "Critics agree" or "Critics such as Geoffrey Hartman"?
 * This has been rectified by removing the word "similarly". I think the original idea was that Hall's ideas were similar to the ideas presented in the paragraph, but it is probably unnecessary to say that. Awadewit (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Awadewit! I see - yes, I think it is probably unnecessary, unless you think otherwise. Ricardiana (talk) 05:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is fine as is. Awadewit (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All right, then. Ricardiana (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Strange fits of passion have I known"

 * and is based around a fantasy of Lucy's death "Based around" sounds casual to me. Is there a more precise verb that describes what the poem is doing here?
 * I'd go for 'built upon' as it is the starting point. Not very elegant, but? Ceoil (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to "revolves around". "Centres on" might work too, if "revolves" is too casual. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't think of anything markedly better. I do like "revolves." Ricardiana (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As lyrical ballad, "Strange fits..." differs from the traditional form Makes it sound as if there's only one traditional form. Do you mean traditional ballad form?
 * Ballad added. Ceoil (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"She dwelt among the untrodden ways"

 * where Lucy lived in the opening quatrain Dangling modifier, I believe ~ sounds like an interesting place to live, though!
 * I've been there, and its ok only. Anyhow, fixed. Ceoil (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Her femininity is described in girlish terms, which has drawn criticism from those who see the female icon, in the words of literary scholar John Woolford, "represented in Lucy by condemning her to death while denying her the actual or symbolic fulfillment of maternity Ordinarily, I'm a big fan of long sentences. However, this one winds quickly through a number of clauses. Can it be broken up or re-phrased?
 * Broken up, but its still a little stiff. Ceoil (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Still working on this. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A copy of "She dwelt..." was found This makes me very curious. When - by whom? I realize it's not really germane, but to keep readers from being tantalized / distracted, could you move this out of the Divine Passive, or perhaps add a quick footnote?
 * Ottava? Ceoil (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Printed in Ernest de Selincourt's Early Letters of William and Dorothy Wordsworth (1935). By deleting two stanzas, and making a few verbal changes, Wordsworth achieved the terse published form of his great dirge." from A-4 of Abrams's work. Header says "Version in a Letter to Coleridge, December 1798 or January 1799". Ottava Rima (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Rewrote to match the source more properly - "An early draft of "She dwelt..." contained two stanzas which had been omitted from the first edition." Ottava Rima (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"I travelled among unknown men"

 * knowing the basis for the character of Lucy is not necessary to appreciating the poem and understanding its sentiment Sounds POV. Can you add a citation?
 * "Moorman, 423" is the citation that verifies this. I can provide a quote of the source if you want. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see the citation for the paragraph, but I think that it should be given for this particular sentence as well. Ricardiana (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Earlier critics assumed she represented a youthful love of Wordsworth's who had died, however modern scholars believe the character is likely a hybrid or largely fictitious comma splice; also, given earlier revisions, this may be unnecessary.
 * I agree - removed. Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Grouping as a series

 * literary critics who first presented the five poems as a unified set called the "Lucy poems". The grouping was first suggested Repetition of first - any way to re-word?
 * It is two different "firsts". The first one is general (literary critics) and the second one is specific (Thomas Powell). So far, I haven't come up with a way to rewrite that isn't tortured. Awadewit (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed the second "first" to "originally," which preserves both the sense and the syntax while removing the close repetition. Ricardiana (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * an arrangement that would seem to indicate a connection between the poems could be simply "arrangement that indicates" - I think the rest is implied
 * Done. Awadewit (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation

 * The poems describe a variety of different relationships "variety of relationships"
 * Done. Awadewit (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * the poem takes an abrupt shift "shifts abruptly" (or vice-versa)
 * Done. Awadewit (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * the connection she has with nature "her connection with nature"
 * Done. Awadewit (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * and could the reader's ability to imagine how she might have been Is "could" the right word here?
 * In all of the copyediting we've been doing, this sentence has been mangled. What was it supposed to say originally? Awadewit (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I removed the clause completely - it is explained within the quote following in the next sentence. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * he is sheltered from such trauma by sleep and is sees her as a wider part of nature,[83] and deludes himself into believing that she will not die. More multipled "and"s
 * Done. Awadewit (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is likely that Wordsworth used Could be "WW likely used"
 * Done. Awadewit (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Identity of Lucy

 * Moorman quotation is long enough to be blocked; I find that helps readability
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * wonders why such a figure would be dead Would be helpful to general readers, I think, to be reminded of Hutchinson's relationship to WW
 * Done. Described her as "love interest" in order to avoid the complicated nature. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hartman holds the same view; to him Lucy is seen "entirely from within the poet, so that this modality may be the poet's own", but then argues Needs a subject before "argues"
 * Done. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Kenneth Johnston concluded - Scholar John Mahoney concluded should be present tense
 * Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When compared to the other female characters in Wordsworth's poems, as literary critic Anne Mellor points out, it is revealed that they Wordy; also, the subject being compared is Lucy, I assume, and if so the sentence should go more like "When compared to other female characters ... Lucy". Also, as important as it is to include feminist perspectives, I don't recall Mellor mentioning the Lucy poems specifically; if she doesn't, I think will qualify as OR.
 * Reworded, not very skillfully though. Ceoil (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm - good idea, but now there's subject/verb disagreement. Ricardiana (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reworded so everything outside and inside the quote agrees - "Lucy and Wordsworth's other female characters do not 'exist as independent self-conscious human beings with minds as capable of the poet's' and are 'rarely allowed to speak for themselves.'" Ottava Rima (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * From the source - "as in the cases of Lucy, Margaret, and Martha Ray" (page 19). Not original research. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! Ricardiana (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the character of Lucy has consequence only as a muse for the narrator. If Lucy is Dorothy, then the poems would focus on how Wordsworth lost the inspiration that he found in her I think this part assumes some background knowledge that's currently only glanced at in the article.
 * Removed - Johnston's argument comes up in the previous paragraph so this bit is redundant. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Ricardiana (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Critical assessment

 * merely marked an "X" besides Is this a Briticism? "Beside" sounds right to me, but maybe this is like "toward" and "towards"
 * The claim for Blake has come up a few times brfore as not being strong enough to include. I've removed it for now. Ceoil (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wordsworth's friend Thomas Powell wrote that "A slumber did my spirit seal", Is there another way to introduce the quotation? The comma is not grammatical, although I see it's there b/c a colon isn't really suitable.
 * Done. Comma was unnecessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Many of the Victorian critics "Many V critics"
 * Done. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * a "deep but subdued and "silent fervour" incorrect quotation marks within quotation marks
 * Done. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * the poem as "incomparable twelve lines. Perhaps "as an"?
 * Done. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Inconsistent use of verb tense throughout to refer to critics
 * Unified all of the tenses in that section to past. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Other later critics de-emphasise Either comma between "other" and "later" or could just say "later"
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Literary influence

 * The parodies were intended, in part, to ridicule the simplification of textual complexities and deliberate ambiguities in poetry, and on the way "on the way" implies that the sentence earlier read something like "intended as a satire (on the way)". "Intended ... on the way" or "intended to ridicule ... on the way" don't sound right.
 * I split the sentence at "ambiguities in poetry" and restarted the next clause to make it clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "A Bard whom there were none to praise / And very few to read" Is this a comment on Hartley, or the name of one of his parodies?
 * I believe it is a first line title of the parody (technically covering two lines). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I found the original, corrected the date, added both titles, and expanded to include the first four lines which mock Wordsworth. I believe it is clear now. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 2: factually accurate and verifiable

 * Why no page numbers for the citations to Ober and Ober?
 * I have a feeling that it was from this version, which lacks page numbers. The website should probably be added. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I should be able to pick up the physical journal tomorrow and add the page numbers as well. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * While note 76 is to the Victorian Web, it's to an undergraduate essay. Is Edwards now a scholar - or is there some other source you could use?
 * I don't think the information is necessary and could add too much to the caption of the image. The image itself might be a little out of place, but I don't know and I already gave up my say in that area. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Ottava Rima on this point. I can find a better reference if everyone agrees we should keep it, but evocative as the painting is, I don't see a direct relationship to the subject of the article. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the offending image, as I see I am out-gunned. Ceoil (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a good image, it just had problems with formatting in the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'd type a better reply, maybe a reason to keep it, but I'm choking on my sour grapes. Damn ye all. Ceoil (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You could just find a reliable source to connect the image of the 19th century dying female. Regardless, I always thought that Ophelia or the Lady of Shalott represented better versions of feminine death. Beata seemed way too alive and more directly Christian (more Coleridge) whereas someone like the Lady of Shalott seems more "naturery". It also has a more creepy love and death connection. Regardless, there are quite a few paintings by those silly Pre-Raphaelites that deal with dying women that are up for grabs. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Silly? Wash you mouth out with soap, pesant. Ironically, I DYK'd (is that a verb) The Lady of Shalott (painting)last yr, but can find no tie in in the sources. Ceoil (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note 88 needs its own citation, a la notes 11 and 19.
 * Fixed. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * References sometimes formatted inconsistently, e.g., editor of volume sometimes given before and sometimes after title of edited volume (Brooks and Butler refs)
 * Fixed. Kafka Liz (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hamilton is listed as a reprint. Can you give the original date of publication?
 * Done. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Mellor's ISBN not hyphenated as others are (from Google Books, I presume?)
 * Actually, hyphenation of ISBNs varies from publisher to publisher, so I'm not certain these are all correct. I tend to leave them unhyphenated for simplicity's sake. I'll see what I can find out. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Entry for Ober and Ober seems to be for a journal, but lacks page numbers or volume/issue info.
 * Per my comment above. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 4: neutral

 * Wordsworth, as the lover and narrator You've just said that Lucy is not a love object. Which is it? It sounds as if there are different critical POVs here; if so, they need to be explained more, rather than agreeing with one or another at different times.
 * Changed to: Wordsworth's voice slowly disappears from the poems as they progress and is absent by the fifth poem. Ceoil (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Ricardiana (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 5: stable
Fine here; a collaborative effort. Ricardiana (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I have a theory incorporating the moon, the CIA, road tax, elephants, a dream I had, left aligned images, Tesco, and Wordsworth contolling it all; but no sources yet. Lets see. Ceoil (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, Tesco, land of the six-year-old girl's stripper pole kit. Ricardiana (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 6: illustrated, if possible, by images
All images are fine; I do have one question, though, regarding File:Samuel Palmer Girl Standing .jpg. The girl in the picture is looking off the screen, as it were; isn't there some rule that people must be looking inwards, towards the article? Ricardiana (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now left aligned. Ceoil (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Hello Ricardiana. Thank you, all good points above. Responding.... Ceoil (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ricardiana. Thank you for taking the time to comment; we'll get to work on the points you've raised. Thanks again, Kafka Liz (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ricardiana, we just keep bumping into each other! :) Thanks for reviewing the article! Awadewit (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's true, we do! The 18th and 19th centuries are a great place to hang out. Ricardiana (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, thank you, everybody, for being so nice! This is the friendliest GAN I've ever had. Please don't hesitate to tell me if I'm wrong about anything. I'm sorry this review is slow - lots of family obligations this week + dog-sitting + dissertation. But I am trying to be thorough, as you are using this for FAC prep. Let me know, too, if I miss anything that you want to have an outside eye look at (<--I know, that's a terrible sentence; but I'm too tired to think of a better one right now). Ricardiana (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh heh, well, things got heated pretty quickly at the FAC, and it got shut down before I had much of a chance to comment or work with people. It was a pretty disappointing experience. Honestly, I appreciate the time you're taking to do this, and it's a relief to get constructive criticism without feeling stomped on. :) No worries about being slow - I have things going on this week as well, and it's a huge article. I'd rather we all took our time and came up with a really fine article. Thanks again, Kafka Liz (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. Ricardiana (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've gone through the entire article now. I hope my comments are helpful. Ricardiana (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to review the article so thoroughly. Your comments are much appreciated. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I've passed the article as a GA. Nice job, everybody; good luck at FAC. Ricardiana (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ricardiana; that was a very detailed and astute review, which we were very much seeking. We were lucky for such analysis. Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)