Talk:When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd

Merging
Don't merge. There are enough settings of this work that it makes no sense to merge the article on Hindemith's version into this one. Samer (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't merge. I have added an entry for the First Symphony of K.A. Hartmann which also includes Whitman's text (in translation). It also predates Hindemith's setting.--Stevouk (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Revisions FEB/MAR2014
I have been planning an expansion of this article for some time, and working on it for the last 2-3 months in my sandbox. I added a few of those drafted sections moments ago. Planning to add sections on the poem's narrative, style, structure, critical reception, legacy and its influence on literature and culture (but not fucking trivia) and an analysis of the symbolism and themes within the next few weeks. Standby.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Moving more material over from my sandbox today. Some of it mostly developed needing minor additions or tweaks that I'll do in the article space going forward. I envision that I'm about 65-70% toward where I hope to see this article before seeking GA and eventually FA recognition for it. I aim to add more to the "narrative" section over the next few days, and the remainder of my work in sandbox will be on symbolism/themes, critical reception, and a brief paragraph about it's influence/Nachleben that should be in place in the next two to three weeks. Any questions or comments feel free to contact me. More to come. Thanks to anyone interested for your patience.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

ColonelHenry: I took a look at the article and made a few small copyedits. I also left some hidden comments, which you should feel free to remove at will. I noticed that the title isn't italicized in a few cases; I'm not sure if that was done intentionally in reference to a smaller portion of the poem, while the italics are meant to represent the title, or something else. There are also two disambiguation links which will need to be fixed before any sort of GA or FA candidacy. The link to George Bartlett needs to be either removed or clarified with some sort of unique identifier, because neither George Bartlett mentioned on the DAB page is the one in the article. The Hebrew poetry DAB could refer to a few things.-RHM22 (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

References and bibliography questions
Many thanks to the editors who have expanded and polished this article so impressively.

Two quick questions regarding references:


 * The sfn link to Shucard's text about Eliot is broken, because of a difference in years (the bibliography says 1985, the sfn says 1998). I tried to figure out which year was correct by referring to WorldCat, only to discover that the cited Routledge edition doesn't seem to exist. Is the reference to the 1998 edition published by Garland, or the 2011 revision published by Routledge?


 * There is no reference pointing to the Olmstead book about Roger Sessions; it's only in the Bibliography. Should it be removed?

Best of luck as this article moves through the GA process!--Lemuellio (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Publications
I confess that the field of literature is new to me, - I am ready to learn. Coming from music: when a piece is published I don't need a secondary source for that fact. A set of Haydn string quartets is published, fact, without anybody else saying so. Is this different in literature? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I tagged this so as to remember what needs to be done when I get back to it. If you'd prefer to remove the tags, that's fine because now it exists in history and I can work from an old version if necessary. The amount of time it takes to find a source online and to match to the text is considerable and I didn't know when I'd be back so decided to mark the places that need work. Additionally it marks the issues here, despite its promotion to GA and despite the GA criteria that say a GA is "Verifiable with no original research".
 * The issue here is one of laying out the publication history faithfully. Sometimes a piece of literature is published and not re-published, tinkered with, etc., and that's the end of story. But the story here is more complicated. The poem was written while Whitman had a collection of poems being printed; he wrote a couple of other poems to go with this one and had them printed as a "sequel" to Drum-Taps. Eventually he took most of his poetry and reissued under the title Leaves of Grass and republished/reprinted repeatedly with some tinkering along the way. The publication history section on that article uses good sources and shows how it should be done. If a person had a copy of the 1867 edition at hand, then, yes, the publication date, publisher, table-of-contents, and number of pages will verify that information; but that would be the most that can be gleaned from that publication. Whether it has grammatical errors, etc., would require comparisons to other editions, which then would be OR.
 * It would be easy for me to take three or four books from my shelfs, find this poem in them, and then I could come to the conclusion that a., it's in the anthologies I own; b., state that therefore it's anthologized; and c., add citations for the books where I've found it . But that would be problematic. It's better to find a literary scholar to say it's commonly anthologized (if that's true, then it wouldn't be hard to find). The issue regarding anthologization is important because it goes to notability - if it makes it into an anthology (these typically are the literature texts used in schools and universities in the US) it indicates the piece of literature continues to be taught and studied – so it's best to get that type of statement from an authority.
 * Let's take these one at at time.
 * This statement is sourced to the 1867 edition (I didn't look to see if it's the fourth, and there are differences) and also to the intro from a recent edition. I didn't have time to look, (and frankly when you search g-books frequently for the same topic the pages tend to go invisible), but if that second cite there to the intro tells us what we need, then the first citation won't be necessary and the tag can be removed.
 * This sentence is cited to the 1891-92 edition, which is a primary source and according to WP:Primary we can't evaluate or interpret a primary source, but this sentence does exactly that by telling us in WP's voice what Whitman thought. Those kinds of statements require secondary sourcing.
 * This sentence is cited to four poetry anthologies, and goes to what I wrote above regarding anthologies.
 * Sorry – this is a lot of information to a seemingly simple question, but writing about literature isn't easy. I hope this helps. Victoria (tk) 14:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It helps, and thank you for taking the time to explain, appreciated. I understand that it is a difference if we just need a title, or possible thoughts of Whitman are concerned, - for which the dead poet might be the only true reference. - I will watch, but am mostly busy elsewhere, as you know. It seems a notable work which deserves best possible coverage. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * and after five years, I have attempted to resolve all of the tags in the article. You may want to check that I didn't mess anything up here. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 02:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi just to let you know that I've seen this but won't be able to get to it for a while. I do have it on my mental list, though. If I forget leave a message on my talk page where I'll not forget to see it. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 00:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)