Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Song for Simeon/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC).

A Song for Simeon

 * Nominator(s): ColonelHenry (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is about a 1928 poem by modernist poet T.S. Eliot. I started this article and brought it through DYK and GA, and after some additional edits to polish the article, I nominate it here. Thanks in advance for taking the time to review. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Image review by Nikkimaria
Image review
 * File:T_S_Eliot_1928_A_Song_of_Simeon_No_16_Ariel_Poems_Faber.jpg: why is this a non-free image? See Threshold_of_originality - this should be PD-ineligible or similar
 * Done - Replaced with PD-ineligible and new description template.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I think in the permission line you meant does not qualify for protection? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done - added the very important "not" thanks for catching that.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * File:Thomas_Stearns_Eliot_by_Lady_Ottoline_Morrell_(1934).jpg needs US PD tag. Same with File:Sretenie.jpg, File:Pur_19_avari.jpg
 * Done - File:Sretenie.jpg added PD-art-100 tag; File:Pur_19_avari.jpg added PD-art-100 tag --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Question - RE: File:Thomas_Stearns_Eliot_by_Lady_Ottoline_Morrell_(1934).jpg - Since Morrell died in 1938, and it has been more than 70 years since her demise, and I can't find any registration of copyright or publication of the photo in the US (Quick but intensive search of about 100 tomes on GoogleBooks for Eliot books I don't have, and quickly looking through the photo/illustration credits in the many volumes on Eliot that I have on my shelves didn't give any indication of publication). What would be the appropriate PD tag for a 70-years after the death what I think is an unpublished work? Would that be appropriate?--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not unpublished, as it's on a website. Was it displayed or exhibited at any point prior to digitization, do we know? Depending on that answer and the date of digitization, Commons:Template:PD-US-unpublished might apply. However, I suspect if it hasn't been published in the US we'll find it's actually still copyrighted there per Non-U.S._copyrights and so can't be included at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The description on the National Portrait Gallery (UK) website says "Purchased with help from the Friends of the National Libraries and the Dame Helen Gardner Bequest, 2003" so the scanning and probable date of publication would be 2003 or later (anticipating it took time to catalogue and scan over 1600 photos from that collection).--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Addressed replaced with File:Thomas_Stearns_Eliot_1920_snapshot_by_Lady_Ottoline_Morrell.jpg, a public domain image from 1920. Is that satisfactory?--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Launcelot_Andrews_(1555-1626),_English_School_circa_1660.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Done Changed image with File:Lancelot Andrewes by Simon de Passe 1618.jpg. Researching the 1660 portrait will take some time and there are alternative free, certain provenance images.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * are my changes acceptable?--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton
Support: Leaning to support As always with Eliot, interesting and disconcerting. My points are chiefly minor prose quibbles, although one or two concerns emerge towards the end:
 * The citation following "The Right Reverend Thomas Banks Strong, Bishop of Oxford" is somewhat over-complex ([4]:pp.18[6]:pp.20,212,223). Does Eliot's baptism need this much verification? Also, in general I am not sure of the benefit for including the page refs in the inline citation; I can see the point, but it does make reading the text rather disjointed.
 * Reply - that's the problem when the sentence draws together facts from 4 different pages--and I have fallen into the habit of sourcing and citing under the "better safe than sorry" mentality. I don't see a problem with it other than aesthetics. As for readability, despite what the essays say, I haven't seen an interested reader stop reading because of a citation. As for the method, I'm not partial to the other citation methods--we chiefly have three different ways of doing citations, each has their drawbacks, none are absolutely perfect. I use the full reference citation with the rp template because it's worked the best for me--better and easier than the short footnote and other styles. --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, each to his own – it's not a style I particularly like, but that's no reason to change it if you think it best serves its purpose. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Writing and publication, 3rd para: I got a bit muddled – the pamphlets were to be sent to the firm's clients and business acquaintances as Christmas greetings, yet the "release" dates for the poems seem to bear no relation to Christmas. What does "release" actually mean in this context?
 * Reply - I actually do not know the answer that question. I don't know if anyone ever asked that question before or answered it. Will check, standby. might take a few days to get an answer back. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know the answer here, but it's not a sticking point, so don't spend too much time in search of an answer! Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Addressed - The dates were the dates the pamphlets were printed. They were distributed at Christmas. I changed the text to reflect their production, since "release" implied available for sale and distribution.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In the "Gospel narrative" section the quotation: "for the last years of a grandfather whose faith his grandson has at last taken up for himself" is attributed to "some scholars" and is cited to two sources. Is a more precise attribution possible?
 * Done I went the other way in revision...removing the phrase about scholars, because one of the sources is actually an Anglican cleric who is often called to comment on religious poetry, not a literary scholar in the formal sense.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In the bullet-pointed list of biblical allusions, the words "That the..." in the fourth item are superfluous, and the fifth item is not formatted as part of the list (i.e. it does not run on from "...including:")
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "...not one of Eliot's significant poems" – a hint of editorial judgement here; maybe modify ("not considered by scholars to be"?)
 * Done added "scholars and critics" to the suggested text --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "more well-known" is ugly: perhaps "better-known"?
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Conversion": in the fourth line, you need to be clear that by "the poem" you are talking about "A Song for Simeon" again, as you have just mentioned several other poems.
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not entirely clear how the sentence: "However, in these poems, Eliot continues the progression of his themes of alienation in a changing world, and fuses with this the tenets of his newfound faith." is relevant to this article, unless it is implied that "A Song for Simeon" is part of that progression which, if his is the case, needs to be clearer.
 * Done - It is part of the progression...I clarified it by saying However, in "A Song for Simeon" and these poems, Eliot continues... --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Could we know who Joseph Maddrey is?
 * Reply - would just "writer" be o.k? ...He's not a scholar in the conventional PhD/Ivory Tower sense--he's a freelance writer and documentary producer from LA. Aside from his well-reviewed book on Eliot, he authored a few books offering near-scholarly analysis on American horror films, comics, graphic novels, etc.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "writer" would be fine. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done - "writer" added at first instance.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "But as he awaits and asks for his death Simeon's understanding, he sees the consequences of the turning of faith to this new child and his mission." Something wrong with the syntax here.
 * Done - revised to "But as he awaits the death for which he asks, Simeon sees..." --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Should "principall" hve a (sic)?
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I got lost in the long sentence that begins "Eliot uses the image..." There should be a second mdash after "Ash Wednesday", and the sentence itself would benefit from being subdivided at some point.
 * This issue not addressed yet. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * - this one got lost in the shuffle, but it is now done - emdash added, I split it into two sentences with a minor clarification.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "In Eliot, Simeon..." → "In Eliot's depiction...", maybe
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "lifetime" is one word
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Julius accuses Eliot of animating "the topoi of the Jew acknowledging his obsolescence." I rather doubt that many of your readers will understand what Julius is driving at here. Can the point be paraphrased into comprehensible form?
 * Done - I rearranged the paragraph to better illuminate Julius' Topoi argument and added a link to an appropriate article that I wish were more informative...I added a clause explaining it that might need to be polished a bit--it's not an easy literary definition to encapsulate.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm distinctly uneasy at the concept of anti-Semitism as "a creative force showing rare imaginative power and empowering his art", and the final sentence, quoting Ricks, is both disturbing and confusing. "Wit and commentary" seems an odd expression. Is it unavoidable that the article should end on a note which seems to imply that anti-Semitism is OK if done with wit and brilliance?
 * Reply I don't know if it's "unavoidable" but it is definitely a sticky wicket and one that I battled with expressing...perhaps if you knew how I approached this, it would be easier to figure out the best way to resolve the uncertainty over the passage. My intentions with this section are based on this (1) Anti-Semitism is a tough label, and saying someone is anti-Semitic is a very charged accusation. I'd rather not paint anyone with so broad a brush when the anti-Semitism is largely harmless or nuanced. (2) Eliot's mentions of Jews and Jewish themes in his poetry is a very nuanced "other", and I'd want to avoid accusing him of being an anti-Semite....as Eliot calls the accusation a "terrible slander", I agree. (3) We'll never know why Eliot thought the way he did or how he thought or what he was getting at in his Jewish references and in many of his references in his poem, many of them are vague, many personal, and when asked he tended to avoid explaining--so it's hard to judge it after the fact (what we do know is that Eliot suffered when others criticized him for the anti-Semitic references, and (4) some of these critics (including his harshest) saw some merit and creative genius in Eliot's seemingly anti-Semitic passages however incongruent the criticism and praise are in this context. I wouldn't want to make such an implication--that it would be okay with wit and brilliance--but I thought it would be better to end on a lighter note and try to at least mitigate the harsh critique of Julius. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you've achieved a "lighter note", but your rationale is persuasive. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking generally good. Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources review: All sources appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability. I have voiced a slight concern, above, about the formatting of some citations and the disruption to readability. A couple more small points:
 * Ref 9: paging not clear (36:330–37)
 * Done I assume you mean the 37 should be 337, which I corrected. Just to edify, the "36:" indicates that it is "Volume 36, page 330-337."--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed ref 10 which gives "186–93". Either paging style is correct, but one consistent style is required within an article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ref 43: requires a page ref.
 * Done - it's now fn.42 - but I added p.72.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your comments and suggestions, . Just to let you know, I'm planning to be away for most of today and early tomorrow on account of the holiday, so I will get a chance to attend to them most likely tomorrow (02JAN14) at the earliest, but definitely before the weekend. Happy New Year!--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

- I think I've resolved most of the concerns that you've raised and a few others I'd like your feedback on before I tie up the loose ends. One (regarding the publication and Christmas) I'm still checking into. Sorry for taking a few days, it's been a busy week.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have checked through, and subject to the few brief comments I've left, I'm happy with your responses. I have upgraded to full support, as I don't think the outstanding matters are of any great significance. On the whole the article is an excellent critique of this poem, and well worth its FA star. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cwmhiraeth

 * Generally looking good. A few points on the prose:


 * "Eliot's Ariel poems and "Ash Wednesday" all explore this new experience of conversion, and toward the progress of the soul. Scofield writes that Eliot's depiction of Simeon presents "a figure to whom revelation has been granted but to whom it has come too late for this life." But as he awaits and asks for his death Simeon's understanding, he sees the consequences of the turning of faith to this new child and his mission. Simeon wants nothing of this "time of sorrow", adding that the fate of persecution for the consequences of faith is not for him." - The structure of the first, third and fourth sentences of this paragraph seem a bit off to me.
 * Done - all four sentences have been revised.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Virgil, in the Divine Comedy, leads Dante through Hell (Inferno) and Purgatory (Purgatorio), but cannot guide him into Paradise—as a symbol of non-Christian philosophy and humanities, can help him no further in his approach to God." Another off sentence.
 * Done - Revised and reshaped into two sentences.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "... stating declaratively" - Tautology? What about just "declaring"?
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Julius' view is considered extreme by many critics, and is tempered by his own argument that Eliot's anti-Semitism does not detract from his poetry and assessment that his anti-Semitism is a creative force showing rare imaginative power and empowering his art."" Another off sentence with a single set of inverted commas at the end. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done - I revised it by splitting it into two sentences. Hope that clarifies the matter.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It now seems to haver a stray "by" in it and it still has an unwanted set of inverted commas after the word "art". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done and reply - - I removed the stray "by" -- not sure about what you mean by inverted commas because I don't seem to see it (or I may have removed it while serving Curly Turkey's comments below at the same time you made the 18:22 edit).--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

- Many thanks for reviewing the article and for your comments. I apologize that it took a few days longer than expected to attend to them, but the four comments above have been addressed and are ready for your review. If you see anything else that needs to be fixed or addressed, do let me know.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My concerns have now been addressed and I am happy to Support this candidacy on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Curly Turkey
I read poetry here and there, but would not claim expertise. Some of my feedback is just my preferences or general suggestions—feel free to disagree with anything—I'll only rebut if I feel it's important.

General

 * Alt text for images would be nice, but apparently not required for FAC.
 * Done - alt texts added. Hope I did it right. I usually forget to do this and never really learned about alt text.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Is it "Faber & Faber" or "Faber and Faber"? You use both.
 * Done - I went toward converting them all to "and" since that's what our article is named and I hear that ampersands aren't readily understood in certain countries.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There are a number of quotations with punctuation inside the quotes, where I think by the logic of the sentences they should be outside: even if there is a period at the end of the quote and it happens to be the end of the sentence, often the period logically should fall outside the quote. Compare these sentences: (a) He said, "I'll be there right away." (b) He said that he would "be there right away".
 * Standby - I'll have to take some time to do a close re-reading of the article to do this. I will get this done.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hopefully done - - Since Americans generally aren't accustomed to logical quotation style and I find it aesthetically unnatural and baffling given that habit, I'm not sure at all if what I did to address this was correct. Please review.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You use .  A hard number of columns results in a lot of whitespace on large monitors, and forces a column offscreen on small screens (such as on smartphones).  If you used "|colwidth=??em" with an approriate width, browsers could choose an appropriate number of columns instead.
 * Done - I went with 33em. Is that acceptable?--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. I wouldn't split hairs over the actual width chosen unless it was causing actual problems. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead

 * "written in 1928 ... Published in September 1928": if it was written and published in 1928, I don't think both need to be in the lead.
 * Done removed. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "that Eliot contributed for a series of thirty-eight pamphlets by several authors collectively titled Ariel poems and released by British publishing house Faber and Gwyer (later, Faber and Faber).": this is awful wordy and detailed for the lead—how about: "that Eliot contributed to the Ariel poems series published by Faber and Gwyer"?
 * Done -- I revised it as "that Eliot contributed to the Ariel poems series of 38 pamphlets by several authors published by Faber and Gwyer." The 38 pamphlets and several authors I think is salient to mention--as the next sentence mentions A Song for Simeon was 16th.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not that I would withhold support over a detail like this—obviously the information should be in the article—but it does seem trivial to me at the lead level, and doesn't seem to contribute to helping the reader get their bearings before diving into the meat of the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply: True, but I don't want the line to imply that Eliot wrote the entire series and I think it's important to mention (a) there were 38 in the seriesand (b) written by different authors...since the lack of that detail doesn't give me enough meat to know eliot didn't write all of them or what did being part of the series mean.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "was accompanied by illustrations drawn by": illustrations are normally presumed to be drawn by someone, and "accompanied" could imply the illustrations were somehow separate, as in a two-volume set, the second of which was of illustrations. How about just "illustrated by"?
 * Done - I simplified it to "and included an illustration by" since "illustrated by" implies to me that they're a functional part of the story, like a children's book, here is was little more than an accompanying image to fill a blank page.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "American-born avant garde artist": personally I'd leave these details out of the lead unless you find them particularly pertinent.
 * Done - I removed "American-born" - I think avant garde is appropriate.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * When "A Song for Simeon" refers to the volume rather than the poem it should be in italics.
 * Reply - Is a one-poem pamphlet considered a volume? I don't think the italicization of book titles applies to this situation.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The italicization of the titles of printed objects applies to magazines, comic books, and newsletters. Sometimes newsletters are a single sheet of paper. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply: Well, if I read WP:NCBOOKS correctly, every instance of the name of the poem should be italicized like a book. Yet of the articles of well-known poems I looked at to compare--most of which were published as pamphlets--only 1 of 30 used italics. Lot of work ahead of me then once I can decide which way is up.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It does say that, doesn't it? Googling around, quite a number of sites draw a distinction between "long poems" (italicized, e.g. Paradise Lost), and shorter ones, which are put in quotes.  It might be worth bringing up on the MoS talk page to have it either changed or clarified. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply - I started a conversation at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. One editor indicated that NCBOOKS is in conflict with MOS:QUOTEMARKS. It seems the major style guides--MLA, Chicago, APA, and AP--all say poem titles in quotations, and having gone through several dozen poem articles almost none comply with the MOS on this one, and looking through the reliable sources on this and other poem articles, none of them italicize. So, pending the MOS discussion's outcome, I propose we leave the status quo unchanged for the interim. If the MOS discussion makes a change to NCBOOKS because of this, it will likely endorse the status quo. If the discussion advises to italicise, I'll come back and fix this article (and many others) to comply. Is that ok with you?--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My experience is the same (quotes for poems), but that's still tangential to the point of whether the title of the printed object, should be in italics. I wasn't suggesting the poem should be italicized or not throughout—I was only saying that the title of the pamphlet most likely should (regardless of whether the poem itself is or not). Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not Done - Well, the article is going to look odd if half the mentions are in quotations, the other half in italics...consistency should rule out. Further I'm not going to italicise the name of a two-page, one-poem pamphlet when (1) none of the sources cited in the article italicises, (2) no style guide including our MOS indicates it, and (3) comparable articles that were also short one-poem pamphlets on Wikipedia do not italicise. Quotations seem to be enough, and no MOS page says directly that a one-poem pamphlet (essentially just one short poem) should be. It seems the short poem rules apply and are those generally in practice, and the fact that it was first published as a two-page pamphlet is largely irrelevant (since later publications, read by most people who've come across the poem, are two pages of a "poem" in a long book). q.v. MOS:QUOTEMARKS and MOS:ITALICS. The consensus that seems to have arisen from my question posited elsewhere (above) is that NCBOOKS is a weak guideline and often inconsistent with MOS, that it is not the MOS and that NCBOOKS needs to be changed. If pamphlets are to be italicised, nothing says so. The one-page newsletter analogue does not apply, IMHO. Since it's a short poem, many places including the MOS say quotations. So, I'll consider this unactionable lacking a direct MOS statement to the contrary. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * - what are your thoughts on this issue?--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "in both editions of Eliot's collected poems in 1936 and 1963.": I might reword this "in both the 1936 and 1963.editions of Eliot's collected poems", though I'm not sure this belongs in the lead at all (especially since the refs are the books themselves—what makes this point so important?  Do secondary sources draw attention to it?)
 * Done and Reply I revised it as suggested. It is important because the collected poems is where they really reached the wider audience, really became part of the Eliot oeuvre, whereas the pamphlets only went to the publisher's circle of clients and friends.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "on a decidedly religious character": I'd drop "decidedly"
 * Reply - I used the word "decidedly" because Eliot's poetry and life prior to 1927 was decidedly areligious and his poetry post-conversion was deliberately Anglo-Catholic in perspective and seeking a faith-based answer to the deep questions it addressed, and the definition "without question, means to a great extent and in a way that is very obvious" is apt given the stark divide between the pre- and post-1927 worldview and nature of his poetry.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If "in a way that is very obvious" is the given definition, then we have a problem—substituting the word "obviously", for example, would be unacceptable. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply: "decidedly" I think is more precise and appropriate--especially since after conversion he wrote poems titled "Journey of the Magi", "Song for Simeon" and "Ash Wednesday"--all of which were obviously and deliberately religious. They didn't just happen to be religious by accident or luck. There was a deliberate, decisive decision on Eliot's part to write religious poetry. I don't see the problem with using a precise adjective to describe a decidedly precise, obvious, & deliberate action. To not indicate this would reduce clarity (i.e. along the vein as omitting information about the Ariel poems series could lead someone to believe Eliot wrote them all)--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Writing and publication

 * "In 1925 ... and "The Waste Land" (1922).": Generally, one-sentence paragraphs are frowned upon, though long ones are sometimes excepted. I'd merge this with the next paragraph.
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "The Right Reverend Thomas Banks Strong": I'm not religious and can't be bothered to look this up, but should "The" be capitalized? Also, I can't find the guideline, but I thought we were supposed to avoid using prenomials ("Doctor", "Sir", etc).
 * Done and reply -- lowercased "The" per WP:THE other uses. I think the prenominal prohibition is in article names, but if either you or I find the MOS provision, I'll remove it. I think it would be rather harmless to leave it in until we find out for sure.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:HONORIFIC and WP:NCCL seem to apply. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done - Removed per WP:HONORIFIC, NCCL seems to apply only to article titles.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "a classicist in literature, a royalist in politics, and an Anglo-Catholic in religion.": is this not a quote?
 * Reply -- It would be a quote if we were to mention Eliot's complete expression and context (which was described specifically the point of view he brought to his new collection of essays). When it's mentioned like this to place it in quotes would be misleading and effectively misquote the sentiment. The editors who contribute to the Eliot articles have typically agreed to leave out quotations in this limited context/syntax rather than to misquote.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The original quote is: "The general point of view [of the essays] may be described as classicist in literature, royalist in politics, and anglo-catholic [sic] in religion." The above, I'm fairly certain, would qualify as close paraphrasing—the difference appears to be in the use or not of the indefinite article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply: The usage in this article is permissible per the policy since it (a) is attributed to both Eliot and his book, and (b) cited with three different sources at the end of the sentence, per WP:PARAPHRASE Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text...together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm ... I guess it conforms to the MoS, so I'll have to let it go, but I can't say I like it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "would inform and influence": or "informed and influenced"?
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "with some critics asserting that the Christian themes": I always have trouble understanding the issue, but you may want to see WP:PLUSING
 * Reply (1) Not sure this applies since the "asserting" is the gerundive (verbal adjective) not a noun-derived adjective, and (2) Not sure what Tony1's grammatical hangup is since the essay seems more a complaint asserting his preferred idiom that functionally seeks to correct something that isn't wrong.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "with some critics": since it's one critic being quoted, is it really "some" who hold this opinion?
 * Addressed He's definitely not alone, added another view, of George Orwell. There are many others, but these two are among the prominent voices.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is not so much whether "some" ciritics hold the opinion as whether "some" critics held the opinion in the concrete form of the quote. The specific quote needs attribution (not just citiation). Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done and Reply: I think the best way of approaching this is to split the sentences--with minor revisions. I think the way I revised it should be sufficient.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is good. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "while others recognised it": ditto
 * Addressed ditto. Stead devoted half a book to it.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "one of the partners in Faber & Gwyer,": I think this is superfluous, since we know he's a Faber and were just told he was Eliot's employer
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "would release": did the series release itslef?
 * Done - revised.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "from 1927 through 1931": were the poets "from 1927 through 1931"?
 * Done - revised passage.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "this pamphlet, the sixteenth in the series on": comma after "series"?
 * Done - comma added.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Faber & Gwyer, Ltd., printed "A Song for Simeon"": at this point I'd drop the "Ltd"
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "8½" × 5½" Demy": not all readers (especially international ones) will be familiar with the quote symbols used for "inch"—I'd spell it out (and a conversion couldn't hurt)
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Demy Octavo": "Demy" and not "Demi"? If so, is there something that could be linked to?
 * Done It is "Demy". Linked it to "Paper size" --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "(8vo)": again, is there something that could be linked to?
 * Reply - since 8vo would link to the same place as Octavo, wouldn't that be overlinking? Example: if I write "earned a Master of Arts (M.A.) degree" I wouldn't link up "M.A."--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "pamphlet "in blue paper wraps with title in black ink"": Is there some reason this is quoted and not paraphrased? If so, shouldn't quotes be attributed in-text?
 * Done removed quotations as superfluous. it was a fact of bibliographic information from the sources cited. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "accompanied by Kauffer's colour image,": "accompanied by a colour image by Kefauver"?
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "text was "Walbaum" created": looking at pages on fonts (e.g. Times New Roman), I don't think fonts are normally put in quotes.  Also, I'd put a comma after "Walbaum".
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Interpretation and analysis

 * "characterized by deliberately Biblical language interwoven with actual phrases from the Gospels.": quotes need to be attributed
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "traditional "Gospel Canticle" of Night Prayer": "Night Prayer" is capitalized—is there something that can be linked to?
 * Reply - Night Prayer leads to a disambiguation page where there was only one relevant article, the Roman Catholic office of Compline which is already linked in the same paragraph. I've since added Anglican Evening Prayer which is also in the same paragraph.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ""A Song for Simeon" is seen by some scholars as a tacit tribute by Eliot to his grandfather, "for the last years of a grandfather whose faith his grandson has at last taken up for himself."": again, is it really "some"? and we need an attribution
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Conversion

 * "the pre-conversion poem": sounds almost like a poem about "pre-conversion"
 * Done - revised/clarified.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "that the imagery "A Song for Simeon"—including the": "the imagery in" or "the imagery of"?
 * Done - "of" added. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "image of the feather to statement by": "a statement"?
 * Done - revised sentence. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Ariel poems and "Ash Wednesday" all explore": drop "all"
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "But as he awaits and asks for his death Simeon's understanding": I can't make sense of this sentence
 * Done - That was fixed in serving earlier comments.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Simeon wants nothing of this "time of sorrow",": "time of sorrow" is a quote from where? Eliot's poem?
 * Addressed - Line 14 of the poem. Cited.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

 * "Eliot denied the claim in his lifetime": "in his lifetime" can be taken for granted
 * Done removed it. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ""the topoi of the Jew": what's a "topoi"? We're not supposed to link from within quotes, but can this be expanded or paraphrased to make it clear?
 * Done - I addressed this in the process of serving the comments above. I linked it to Literary topos and did so despite that we're not supposed to generally since this is an exceptional case. Hopefully how I rearranged the section provides a better explanation. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "rare imaginative power and empowering his art."": There is an endquote here—where does the quote begin?
 * Reply I should probably remove the quotation mark since this is a synopsis of Julius' thesis. "rare imaginative power" is the only part verbatim from the source (p.28) --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Johnbod

 * Comment No links to the image captions, some of which really need them (but all suitable links should be added). Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * -- do you mean linking terms in captions? like you did here--?--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done I added a few (I very rarely link a term in a caption). Most of the other terms in captions are already linked in the article body near the image, so I'd rather avoid an WP:OVERLINK issue.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Note -- Henry, you have a few duplicate links (I presume you have access to the checker, ping me if not); I won't hold up promotion but pls review and see if you really need them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to use the checker or where to find it (I've never used it before, usually did it manually). Many thanks for the promotion.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Dup link script here (it displays the second and subsequent links, and treats the lead and the main body separately). Another useful one is the Harv error script here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.