Talk:The Man He Killed

Plans
We plan on starting out the introduction with background information about the author and the context of the poem, so analyzing how the author came to write the poem and how his life and background influenced the poem. Additionally we show the entire text of the poem and describe the structure and style of the poem. We won't go into the history because there isn't as much information, so we will mainly focus on the critical information of the poem. Marwahaljilani (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC) We should look into the background of the poem and talk a little more explaining about Thomas Hardy and the Boer War. After that, we can start analyzing each stanza and describe what is happening in each line, more in depth. We could also talk about the rhyme scheme and find whatever existing themes in the poem. Then talk about how the themes of the poem correlated to the events going on during the time of the author's life and the war. So there would probably be like four or five parts/sections to our page. Bethsjung (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

We added the rest of our references and made sure to cite all the explanations in the critical interpretations part. We also elaborated on the authors background and the context of the poem. We tried to include more details and backed them up with sources. Thank you everyone for the feedback Marwahaljilani (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review
You guys have a great page, but you still need more references to make it a legitimate page. I think what you have so far is awesome, there is a lot of information. So far, so good! GordonCass (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I like the details used in your introductory paragraph, the only thing I wold suggest is maybe title your intro paragrpah. Other then that it looks well done! Jalenm4 (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the earlier statement that the article should a lot more references to make it credible. A good source my group found was actually to find some old books in the library about the author, you can maybe find a line or two someone has written interpreting a poem; just a way to make it less personal! You should probably also reference where you got your dates from. Good luck and good job! (Walkerna (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC))

Good job so far. Yes, more references are definitely needed, and I suggest you find more resources to link to your Analysis section, because I think that's where it's going to count the most. Need to make sure you are pulling information from credible, published critical analyses of the text and referencing those in the lines. Raeonaire (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The analysis included for this page is wonderful and pointed, but I would also advise weaving in more references to avoid any appearance of bias. You may be able to find some good peer-reviewed journals that offer similar analysis/interpretation that you can include both in the opening as well as the interpretation section. My only other suggestion would be perhaps finding a simple illustration as an addition to the page that will provide more aesthetic appeal and break up any excessive white space on the page. brittanysch (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that this article feels very incomplete, because there is only one source, and that is the text of the poem itself. There shouldn't be a critical interpretation without sources, because we aren't supposed to interpret it ourselves. Your intro touches lightly on a lot of things that could stand alone in their own sections (with sources please!)- Rawror54 (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC))

I think you have a really great start to your article. I really like the interpretations given and it's a really interesting poem. At this point, I think the article could really start to look at closer specifics (if you can find them). It's giving a lot of broad overview of these themes that come up in the poem and I think it would enhance the article to break down some of those themes. Kelnera (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a great article! Though I think you could add some critical reviews about the poem in order to give a different POV for the readers to think about. I think there needs to be some citations in the intro because otherwise it just looks like it is the article's writers analysis of the poem. Lastly, try to find some published articles about the structure, that will give more understanding and meaning to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalenaLC (talk • contribs) 23:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review
This is a great article for everything that you have put into it! There is so much detail that is put into it, however, that i think there should be a few more sections placed throughout the descriptions. In the introduction, there is already quite a bit of analysis, which should refrain until after the poem itself is presented to be given. The analysis and the breakdown of the poem's grammar, syntax, and other devices should also be separated as to give each subject a good amount of focus instead of lumping it all together. The history of the poem was great! I really enjoyed being able to dictate each meaning and originating story into the poem's creation. If those issue were fixed, i think that it would be able to flow a lot smoother without such intimidating paragraphs marring the page, but Great overall article. Brewerh1 — Preceding undated comment added 07:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

English
Explain the ironic situation in the poem developed Hardy’s lyric. 185.206.202.107 (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)