Talk:When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 11:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I am so sorry for the delay in reviewing this as I've been very busy lately both on and outside Wikipedia. I should have this to you by tomorrow at the latest JAG  UAR   11:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * no problem, no rush --GA

Initial comments

 * The first paragraph of the lead is very short and could do with expanding (or merging, seeing as the second paragraph is quite long and could do with some re-shuffling) in accordance to WP:LEAD
 * It could but there is also the idea to give the key facts in the first para, like a summary, and more detailed aspects visibly separated. Example: I am in the process of expanding BWV 88 (hint, hint). There will be more lead then but possibly in an additional para. --GA
 * I agree with Jaguar, the opening sentence hangs awkwardly. Our guidance is generally to avoid single sentence paragraphs as they inhibit reading flow. See MOS:LAYOUT. There is also an expectation that the introductory paragraph should establish the context, which appears to be done quite well in the first two sentences of the second paragraph, so it would be appropriate to bring them together. See WP:MOSBEGIN.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Other than that, I could spot no other issues with the lead as it is well written and summarises the article
 * "Whitman intended to write a distinctly American epic and developed a free verse style inspired by the cadences of the King James Bible" - did he intend to write an American epic poem? I didn't understand this part as how could it be American if it was to be inspired by the King James Bible which is English?
 * Well, the English Bible is again only a translation so not really English. Language finesse is not my strongest point. In German we have a noun "Epos" (a poem in epic form) which may be "epic" or not. --GA
 * I think the confusion is that the sentence appears to be attempting to carry two different meanings: 1) he intended to write a distinctly American epic, and 2) he developed a free verse style inspired by the cadences of the King James Bible. If there is an intention to say that he wanted the distinctly American epic poem to be based on a free verse style inspired by the cadences of the King James Bible, that would need a more detailed and clearer explanation.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * From a quick bit of background reading, it appears that Whitman wanted to create a new style of American literature, and using free verse was a part of that, as it seemed more fitting to his subject matter. The King James Bible is generally acknowledged to be an influence on free verse, and Whitman was an early exponent of free verse, so it's related, though it could probably do with better phrasing or explaining.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Some biographies indicate that Whitman journeyed to Washington" - sounds a bit old, how about ?
 * I think it sounds old intentionally but will be understood. --GA


 * "The poem's subtitle indicates it was written on 19 April 1865" - this date should be in m-d-y format, if it wants to retain US dates
 * good catch, fixed --GA


 * "However, according to Loving, the poem’s original greatness" - is this "greatness" as in meaning the poem was well received from critics?
 * My reading: the poem is great from the start, without emphasis on the symbolic motifs. --GA


 * "Burroughs would publish an essay in May 1865" - this is in a different tense? Would you prefer Burroughs published an essay in May 1865
 * tried --GA


 * "John Peter began to question whether Eliot's poem were an elegy" - was an elegy?
 * matter of styling the subjunctive, - a bit old but understandable, I think. --GA

Comments
Very selective spot checking shows the following: Anyway, these are only selective spot-checks, but I was very busy today and found these on the first look, moving from section to section. My recommendation is that someone go through the article sentence by sentence and check the sourcing for each sentence. Anything that doesn't match should be deleted. Then it will require pulling new sources and rewriting. Finding good sources won't be difficult - the difficulty is reading everything and deciding what should be in and what not. Victoria (tk) 23:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Writing history and background - "In the late 1850s and early 1860s, Whitman established his reputation as a poet with the release of Leaves of Grass. Whitman intended to write a distinctly American epic and developed a free verse style inspired by the cadences of the King James Bible.[2][3]" FN 2 is a website w/out page numbers and only provides the poem's text without a critical interpretation, and so it can't be the source for this info; FN 3 is an e-book without page numbers (the cite does have a page number) and I can't find this info via the search function in the book (though it could well exist; I just couldn't locate it)
 * Publication history - The second paragraph isn't quite accurate and needs some revision; the first sentence of the second para is cited to FN 35 - but that source does not have the cited material on either page 149 or in note #7 for that chapter as cited
 * Style and techniques - First paragraph, last sentence, (FN 43), can't locate the info in source cited; third para, last sentence (FN 57), "According to Warren, Whitman "uses anaphora, the repetition of a word or phrase at the beginning of lines; epistrophe, the repetition of the same words or phrase at the end of lines, and symploce (the combined use of anaphora and epistrophe), the repetition of both initial and terminal words.[57] >> can't verify in source
 * Legacy the T.S. Eliot section needs some reworking. A check of the sources showed some issues but I didn't capture because I was pressed for time.
 * Primary sources - Whitman can't be used as interpretation. I found some examples of biographical info or interpretive information cited to Whitman's work, see i.,e FN 11. I haven't checked this, so it might be okay, but generally all the citations to primary sources have to be checked.
 * Avoid large page ranges, see for instance FN 30. I have access to that book and can't think what's in the sentence there that requires four citations and seven pages from the source.


 * Thank you for looking. I have little time until next week. Every help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Additional comments

 * " conceits of the pastoral elegy" in the lead. "Conceits" as used here would need explaining for the general reader, as it is not normal usage - it is a literary term. In the section dealing with this matter, this phrase is used: "The poem uses many of the literary techniques associated with the pastoral elegy", which is more appropriate for the lead. I suggest swapping the sentences, and then explaining briefly for the general reader the meaning in this context of "conceits".  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea, copied the more generally understood version to the lead, don't think we need the other at all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "it reflects a maturing of Whitman's poetic vision from a drama of identity and romantic exuberance that has been tempered by his emotional experience of the American Civil War". I am unclear what is being said here.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My (limited) understanding is that the experience of the war changed his style. Improved wording appreciated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I like the detailed and informative Style and techniques section; though how much of that is directly about the topic, compared to being about Whitman's style in general? It would seem more fitting and appropriate if it were in the parent article, Walt Whitman, to which readers of articles about individual Whitman poems could be directed per WP:Summary style. Particularly so as such a useful and detailed discussion of his style and technique is not apparent in that article.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems a good idea, - would you do it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * :-) I would, but I rarely have the time for detailed Wikipedia work these days. I have a long list of "to do"s, but instead generally just do minor bits and pieces. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do a mere cut and paste, so it would require additional research and fact checking I don't have time for. :-(  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The Influence on Eliot's The Waste Land section is interesting, though I wonder how much of that properly belongs to a discussion of The Waste Land rather than here, especially as some of it is speculatory and against mainstream thought, and the focus is more on The Waste Land than on When Lilacs.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On the whole I like this article. Informative and detailed. Nice work.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

On hold
This is a very well written article and is also well researched. I admit I found it difficult to bring up any issues as I'm not well versed in this subject any more! Honestly I would have promoted this if the first paragraph of the lead appeared a little longer, but that could easily be fixed. The rest of the issues I found were minor! JAG UAR   19:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reading a lot, and well!! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please keep on hold, see concerns on my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read it, no worries, I'll keep this on hold until everyone's happy with the source checking. The prose itself is fine, and I thought it was comprehensive but it's been a while since I studied poems at college so I'm no longer well versed in the subject... JAG  UAR   21:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It has been over three weeks since the last edit on this article, and a similar duration for the current hold. If progress isn't made soon, this should probably be closed; the article can always be renominated at a later date. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This GAN has always been in the back of my mind., how is everything going? I'm more than happy to leave this on hold if you're still able to address Victoria's concerns? JAG  UAR   16:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not able to deal with Victoria's concerns who doesn't trust the author while I do. I am working on my own next GA, to be nominated tomorrow, and two are open, - let it go for now or say it's good enough, it's not up for FA and won't be, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I did not say anything about the author. I began to read the article and found problems; problems which persist that no one has addressed. I disagree that the problems are irrelevant at the GA level. We should be representing sources fairly and I believe I had to add a few citation needed tags. Nonetheless what's done is done, but let's not personalize it. It's best to judge the edits and the article and how well they reflect the sources cited. Victoria (tk) 17:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Close - promoted
After reading through this article again I can confirm it complies per the GA criteria. The other comments made by Victoria may be requirements for a future FAC, but the GA criteria is a little less demanding. Overall it is well written, well researched and comprehensive - in my opinion those qualities make an article great. Well done Gerda on all the work! JAG UAR   17:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Jaguar, by my count there were two "citation needed" templates active in the article when you promoted it. Surely these should have been addressed before the promotion was finalized? (There are now three more, for a total of five.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * True, there were more tags added after I promoted it. I thought the article met the GA criteria but I'm no expert on the subject - other editors have decided to pry into the article for more issues only hours after I passed the GAN. It was my fault for not spotting the two citation needed tags in the article, but I think I'll let the others decide if this needs a reassessment... JAG  UAR   15:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See article talk, some were meant as a note to self, my understanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)