User:JustBort/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1
"Because I Liked You Better" is a significant poem in the career of A. E. Housman. This poem is referenced to in his Wikipedia article for its importance relating to his relationship to Moses Jackson in More Poems. However, this poem does not possess its own page on Wikipedia. Many people in academia also use the poem in this context (see sources below). This deserves its own Wikipedia article because the information regarding this poem is not appropriate in the context of A. E. Housman's main Wikipedia page.
 * Article title
 * "Because I Liked You Better" by A. E. Housman
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * 
 * A. E. Housman: A Reassessment ed. Alan W Holden & J Roy Birch London:, MacMillan, 2000.
 * Summers, Claude J. ed., The Gay and Lesbian Literary Heritage (New York Henry Holt and Co., 1995)
 * Efrati, C. The road of danger, guilt, and shame: the lonely way of A. E. Housman (Associated University Presse, 2002) ISBN 0-8386-3906-2

comments - np
This poem is interesting in itself and in its apparent connection to Housman’s biography, and as we discussed, there is some justification for a separate article about it. However, I’m not sure why you consider a discussion in the main Wikipedia Housman article inappropriate. Do you mean that main article is not the place for a detailed discussion of individual poems?

The first article you cite (Victorian Web) quotes and comments on “Because I liked you better,” but it does not provide footnotes to any particular works in the Bibliography. For this reason, and because of the casual and unscholarly style, the article itself is probably not a reliable source, though you can make use of it with caution and you can consult the listed references. The second source, the introduction to A. E. Housman: A Reassessment, is more reliable. I didn't notice a specific reference to "Because I liked you better" in the introduction (I skimmed it; I could be wrong), but there may be useful material in the articles. Efrati, whose book you list, devotes several interesting pages to “Because I liked you better.”  Among other things, she discusses variant readings of the last stanza, citing Archie Burnett’s edition of Housman’s poems. I have both Efrati and Burnett checked out of the library, and I’ll return them or give them to you to check out yourself if you want to investigate this topic further.

Option 2
The article's content is sometimes relevant to the topic and many details are not. The page features three translations of the same poem, for no particular reason. On top of this, the poem listed is not chosen for any particular reason as well, does not connect to the article, and does not have any citation. The article is also particularly biased in its writings. By using words like "sometimes" and "best", the article comes off as very opinionated and unsourced. No claims in this article matchup to citations, which is the largest downfall of this article. As for whether or not citations in the page are reliable, there are no citations to begin with. This article does not cover a Wikipedia equality gap. Some editors have talked about the correctness of certain dates but not much of anything else. This article is rated as a level-5 vital and start-class article, as the significance of Innokenty Annensky is quite high, and the article has much to improve upon. Tucker, Janet G, Critical Survey of Poetry, Second Revised Edition; September 2002, p1-5
 * Article title
 * Innokenty Annensky
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources

Innokenty Annensky ; translated by R.H. Morrison, The cypress chest

Catriona, Kelly, Innokenty Annensky and the classical ideal, 1986

comments - np
“Innokenty Annensky” needs significant work. You point out several problems with the article and you note the importance of the topic. However, the very factors that justify choosing this topic are also reasons to be cautious about choosing it. Annensky is a major poet, and the article in its current state is so inadequate that the project is probably more difficult than it would be if you were starting from scratch or from a stub.

You cite good sources for further investigation, and others are available. It might be possible to improve the article, but given the task I’m not sure how far you would be able to go in the limited time of our course.

Option 3
Most of the information stays relevant of the topic. However, I felt like a lot of the content strayed away from the topic of Cherubina de Gabriak a bit when the duel that took place was a little too detailed. The article stays relatively neutral but sometimes uses words like "apparently" which indicate that the topic being discussed may not have reputable confirmation. Like Option 2 for articles, this page also has a significant number of missing footnotes and sources. This take away from the credibility of the Wikipedia article tremendously because it is hard to reason whether or not the information is 100% factual. The lead to this page is also extremely brief and does not introduce anything relevant to the following sections. There is no real linking between sections which makes the article less readable and more fragmented. This article may be relevant to Wikipedia's equity gaps as the poet is a woman who is not well-represented on the website. The talk pages quite bare, with few conversations about minor topics. The article was featured in a 2005 did you know on Wikipedia. It is a low-importance and start class article. I would also like to see some of her poems in the article because she was so well known as a poet. Landa, Marianna, The Slavic and East European Journal Vol. 57, No. 1 (SPRING 2013), pp. 49-66 (18 pages)
 * Article title
 * Cherubina de Gabriak
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources

Forrester, Sibelan, The Poet as Pretender: Poetic Legitimacy in Tsvetaeva, Slavic and East European Journal, 0037-6752,, Vol. 52, Issue 1

Voloshin, Maximilian; translated by Cigale Alex, The Cherubina Affair, or Max and Lev Have a Duel

comments - np
You point out some of the numerous flaws of the article, which cites only a single source and footnotes it only a few times. It’s not clear whether the bulk of the information is derived from the same source or from elsewhere. The poet’s history would need to be researched and the article would need to be substantially rewritten. It appears that the third source you cite, Voloshin’s essay, is a translation of the single source cited in the article, so you would be able to determine whether the information in the article comes entirely from that source. You also list two somewhat recent scholarly studies, each of which cites further sources that could be consulted. A quick look at the reference sections of those articles does not turn up any translations of de Gabriak’s poetry. You would need to investigate whether translations are available (beyond what is quoted in the Voloshin essay).