Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Duino Elegies/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 10:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC).

Duino Elegies

 * Nominator(s): ColonelHenry (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I spent a lot of time rewriting this article in January and February this year. It obtained Good Article status on 15 February and I would assert that it meets the FA criteria. I look forward to your suggestions for improvement and hope for your support.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Review by MasterOfHisDomain
Comments Support from MasterOfHisOwnDomain: Great work on a worthy subject. Rilke's elegies came up in discussions about modernism I recently had, so it's something relevant to my interests. Anyway, a few things:
 * Lede: "a savage creative storm" what is the source for this? Other direct quotations are immediately proceeded by a source.
 * Explanation: On a second look, the phrase comes from a translation (I'll call it a "bad" translation, but diplomatically I should say license was taken by the translator) of the 11FEB1922 letter to Andreas-Salome referenced in a biography, I should rephrase the statement to reflect the original text in which Rilke describes the rush of inspiration as a burst of creativity..."like a hurricane of the heart." Another decent translation says "hurricane of the spirit." I will rephrase this appropriately. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done revised to original text "a boundless storm, a hurricane of the spirit", added ref to Rilke letter 11FEB1922.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "Existential" needs a wikilink.
 * Done linked it to Existential crisis.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Duino Castle and the first elegies: "Rilke experienced a severe psychological crisis that did not improve over the next two years." would be better just to say that it lasted for two years?
 * Done revised per suggestion.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Château de Muzot and the "savage creative storm": there are two incorrectly formatted hyphens in this section.
 * Done checked hyphen issues throughout the entire article, found a few more.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Again in this section, "savage creative storm" isn't proceeded by a source.— MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done (as per above)--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Seeing no further outstanding issues, I give my support to this article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Review by DavidinNJ
Strongly support I have reviewed this article against Wikipedia's featured article criteria, and it clearly meets the standard. I have a few very minor suggestions, but the article is excellent. Here's my review of each criteria.
 * 1.a. well-writen: The writing is excellent. The article prose is similiar to that of a New York Times or Wall Street Journal book review.
 * 1.b. comprehensive: The article is quite comprehensive, covering the history, legacy, themes, and symbolism of the work.
 * 1.c. well-researched: The article has an extensive number of references from both academic and non-academic sources. The references range from contemporaries of Rainer Maria Rilke in the 1920s to present-day analyses.
 * 1.d. neutral: The article is completely unbiased.
 * 1.e. stable: There are no edit wars, and there has only been one edit in the last month.


 * 2.a. lead: The lead clearly defines what Duino Elegies is, and does a fine job summarizing the information in the article.
 * 2.b. appropriate structure: The article's structure is logical, and creates sections of an appropriate length.
 * 2.c. consistent citations: The article has 53 citations, and formatting is generally consistent. I haven't previously seen referencing where the page number is listed in the prose next to the citation number, but if Wikipedia's Manual of Style is okay with that, then I'm okay with it.  My only other comment is that some of the references do not include a period at the end.


 * 3. media: Article contains a number of pictures with appropriate captions. All images are in the public domain.
 * 4. length: Article has appropriately 2900 words of prose which is appropriate for article on a work of this type. DavidinNJ (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Done Per 2.c. above, addressed punctuation issues in references lacking terminal periods, one note that had a period that should have been a comma.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This is in all respects an excellent article. I strongly support it being named a  feature article. DavidinNJ (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Curly Turkey

 * I think the image in the lead and its caption ("Rainer Maria Rilke (1875–1926)") are odd choices. The image is from 1900—a dozen years before Rilke even began the Elegies, and 23 years before their publication.  It would be nice to have a contemporary photo, and a caption that ties directly into the subject—say, the image in the "Symbolism and themes" section.  Baladine Klossowska isn't even mentioned in that section, which makes placing the image there pretty random, anyways.
 * Explanation: I understand your concern regarding the younger picture, but it seems when it comes to how the reading public, the book cover artists, and other writers depict Rilke, the c.1900 photograph is far more ubiquitous as the the image/appearance of Rilke that most people recognize and associate with his work, the older (late 40s) Rilke is rarely thought of. In fact, on the editions of the Elegies with a photo of Rilke on the cover, they're all of a younger Rilke (must be a push for a younger, more intensely vital poet to be writing mystically-charged poetry about "lovers").  Comparatively, on Wikipedia the first image we see the older stately Eliot whose illness delayed his completition of Four Quartets and not the 20something who wrote "Prufrock" "The Waste-Land" and "Hollow Men," and the first image we see Neruda as a fat older man and not the sleek 20something who wrote the erotically charged, youthful Veinte poemas de amor y una canción desesperada. We see the elderly frazzled Einstein and not the young man who filed patents in between thinking about the speed of light. There is one contemporary photo from c.1923, and it is further down in the article. When Rilke started the Elegies in 1912, he likely wasn't as old as he was in 1923 when depression and shortly after leukemia took their toll.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done moving photo of BK up, adding an image of islamic angel from commons. (20MAR2013)--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done wrote longer caption for first image.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Per the Displayed image size guideline, forced image sizes should be avoided. It appears every image on the page has been forced to dispaly at a different size than the default.  This overrides image display size for users who have set a different size in their preferences; also, it may not be optimal for smaller screens (e.g. on people's phones).  Unless you have a really good reason, it's best to drop the image size option.
 * Done removed image parameters, added "upright" for two (20MAR2013)--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Suggest replacing the two dashes in "...where Rilke began writing the Duino Elegies in 1912--recounting that..." with an emdash: emdash, &amp;mdash; and work.
 * Done -- replaced with — (20MAR2013)--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You use rp for references pages on some inline cites, but not others. Is there a reason why?  (I don't think it'll affect whether this passes or not, but personally I find lines like "...including the opening passage of the tenth elegy.[4]:p.225[10]:p.10" to be an absolute eyesore).———  Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Explanation: I use for the function described at Template:Rp, to wit: "when...referring to specific pages within a source which is cited many times in the same article." The only repeated reference where I don't use it is for footnote 5 and 6 where I'm not citing pages but citing lines of poetry.  I have thought about sourcing these at I.6 or I:6, II:1, II.1, but I don't see this format being used in academic sources on the subject. The template advises not to use pp. in the template, so I doubt I should use "l." or "ll." for line/lines. Other inline sites that do not use the rp template are single-use footnotes and not applicable to the purpose intended by the rp template.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you ever seen sfn? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply: I am not a fan of shortened footnotes--they strike me as being in turns lazy and inconvenient. Even though the Chicago format I'm used to prescribes them for subsequent citations (I tend to use "op.cit." and "loc.cit." more in on-paper writing), I find the rp achieves the efficacy I prefer...namely that footnotes be as full and informative as possible and quickly accessible without having to go elsewhere (i.e. like scrolling to another section, or flipping the back of the book). Thus I prefer the style I'm using, and I don't see any MOS issues with that.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There aren't any MoS issues, and I wasn't suggesting there were. All I was saying is that it's not pretty.  ("Lazy" is a strange criticism, though—I don't see what's lazy about it)  Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've considered the alternatives. I just think that a full cite in a and then later  is more informative and accessible than shortened footnote. Lazy is a strange word, but generally I find that if one person does something the lazy way (in anything) it ends up causing more work for someone else (i.e. here having to scrolling up and down between sections)...more than it's often worth...that's how I feel when I see shrotened footnotes. When you can put your mouse on a footnote and have a full cite, and if used frequently have the page number right there, I find it far more effective and accessible than seeing "Harrison, 2006, 27" and having to interrupt my reading to scroll down to figure out the rest only to repeat it a few more times as I continue my reading.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not my intention to try to convince you of my own preferences if you've considered the alternatives, but I do want to point out where you've misunderstood why some of us use shortened footnotes. To be clear: laziness is not a part of it.
 * Checking references is something a small minority of readers will ever do, and of that small minority, only a small minority will do so with any regularity. For the vast majority of readers, having inline cites at all only gets in the way of reading the article, and the more crammed together the worse.  This is my reason for avoiding  (as it's tangential to what most readers are looking for), and also my reason for using bundled footnotes—in my own articles, I've occasionally had five or more cites to a single line, which would be massively disruptive if it looked like: "An undisputed but unbelievable fact.[17]:225[21]:101[57]:28–31[58]:126[101]:298–301"—especially if it were in teh middle of a paragraph.
 * The shorter the citation in the text, the easier it is to navigate when editing. Having mutliple groups of tags multiple times in a single paragraph can be daunting and time-consuming to an editor who just wants to correct a typo.
 * I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I'm not trying to convince you to change your preferred citation style. I just want you to understand that your beliefs are off the mark with regards to why some of the rest of us use shortened footnotes.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely understand where you're coming from, and it is good to remind each other of the alternatives from time to time. I would assert there isn't a citation overkill in this article that seriously interrupts flow or poses a disruption (not like the example you posted above). By way of assurance, it is something I do and will consider when I encounter such a dilemma in an article I'm working on. Reflecting on it, I think I've only used three inline cites on a fact on a rare occasion, and often two...but never five or six or more, where bundling would indubitably be appropriate. Here, I don't see it as a pressing concern. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I only pointed out things that jumped out at me with my above comments; I din't actually read the article very closely. All I knew about the Duino Elegies was that they were used in Gravity's Rainbow. I've been asked to return to it, so here's what I've found:


 * The prose has an awful lot of inline quotes (especially of what people have said of the work) that I think would be better rephrased. For the most part, I don't see any reason for not rephrasing most of the quotes, and think the prose would flow better and be more concise without them.

Lead


 * "conscripted military service": can military service be conscripted?
 * Done - rephrased. --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "he described as 'boundless storm, a hurricane of the spirit'": are we missing an article?
 * Done "a" inserted.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I find following the translations inline with the original to interrupt the flow; it's also a bit too much for the lead, which is meant as a bird's-eye view of the whole article. These detials are best left to the article body or in footnotes.
 * Comment - I disagree. First, the phrase "I find" is a subjective judgment. Second, the translated lines are the most well known statements from the poems, and I believe is salient to state them in the lede. Such a format is rather familiar as it is readily found in academic monographs and encyclopaedia articles. The use of inline translations is limited to a few examples throughout the entire article, and thus such minimal usage cannot be characterised as inherently being an interruption.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My comment here was limited to its use in the lead, not in the body. The lead is meant to give a short summary of the article as a whole.  "I find" the pairing of the lines with their translations in that context disproportionate and unnecessary.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And I continue to disagree. Two lines with their original text in the lead from my subjective point of view (contrary to yours) isn't disruptive, unnecessary or disproportionate. I would assert that to sever them from the lead would be the equivalent of chopping out "it was the best of times, it was the worst of times" from an introduction to Tale of Two Cities. I do not see a need, per anything I understand of MOS and other guidelines, as to why this subjective suggestion is mandated.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm astounded at the degree of your reaction, and don't see the relation between your explanation and my concern. I see no need for two long German lines interrupting the lead.  They do nothing to orient the reader to the subject; they are technical details best dealt with in the body.
 * "[T]his subjective suggestion" was never "mandated"; it was my good-faith feedback in an attempt to improve the article. If my good-faith feedback is going to be characterized as anything other than good-faith feedback, then I'll withdraw my feedback.  I rarely take part in these reviews, and this kind of reaction is doing nothing to motivate me to increase my participation.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because it is offered as a suggestion does not mean I have to agree with it or be obliged to revise the article in accordance with it. I disagree with it and characterize the suggestion as subjective (i.e. your personal sense of aesthetics and flow--and both are inherently subjective). If it were an objective suggestion linked to a rule or guideline of which I am in violation, I'd be obliged to revise. But on subjective matters there is no reason why I cannot reserve the right to disagree and state my disagreement.  If my disagreement hurts your feelings, I apologize, but I still disagree.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Rilke is one of the more popular, best-selling poets in the United States": if he's one of the best-selling, then I think it's redundant to add "more popular".
 * Done "more popular" removed. --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "along with thirteenth-century Sufi mystic Rumi (1207–1273), and 20th century Lebanese-American poet Khalil Gibran (1883–1931)": ditto, too detailed for the purpose of the lead.
 * Done removed informatino about Rumi and Gibran, ended sentence at "United States."--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was necessary to remove the poets themselves, but their nationalities and birth–death dates was overkill.
 * Done - Restored Rumi and Gibran without the nationalities/dates.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Duino Castle and the first elegies


 * "be incorporated in later elegies": not "incoporated into"?
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "conscripted into Austro-Hungarian army": link only "conscripted" to Conscription, no the whole phrase. Also, missing an article.
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "and would render him": -> "that rendered him".
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Château de Muzot and the creative hurricane


 * "focus toward": -> "focus on", "turn toward", or something.
 * Comment: I do not see anything wrong with that BritEng idiom except that I seem to have forgotten the "s" for "towards" --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * a thirteenth-century manor that lacked gas and electricity located near Veyras": we need a comma or something; I assume the electricity didn't need to be near Veyras
 * Done comma after electricity. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "boundless storm": same missing article? Also, it's repeated later in the same paragraph.
 * Done corrected both --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "focus toward completing": -> "focus on"; maybe this is fine in whatever dialect of English you speak, but it sounds unidiomatic to me.
 * Comment: same situation as above.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In a Google search, I find "focus toward" used overwhelming in situations where "focus" is a noun, not a verb. Is this really Brtish usage?  Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * focus on isn't precise. focus towards is in British usage and is more precise than focus on in contexts where there is work to be done. While you are correct in seeing it in the contexts of focus as a noun, it is very much used in other parts of speech (including phrasal verbs). One focuses on watching a movie, one can focus on his career, however one focuses towards completing a novel or a pilgrimage as the verb phrase implies a forward distance (i.e. periphrastic, gerundive, participal verb phrases) that isn't properly served by on. It is not unidiomatic, and this is another subjective suggestion.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "of the same birth.": move the period outside the quote.
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Writing ... Rilke wrote": Wredundant.
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Publication and reception


 * "impotent gossip.": Move comma out of quote.
 * Clarify I do not see the comma to which you are referring. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant "period". Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Translation into English


 * "Vita Sackville-West and Edward Sackville-West" -> "Vita and Edward Sackville-West"
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Grateful Dead" lyricist: why the quotes?
 * Done the quotes were supposed to be the two-apostrophe italic coding. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, it's incorrect. Band names are not italicized.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. - italics removed. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "by...by...by": we can drop a few of these.
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Influence


 * This section comes across as extremely anglo-heavy. Was Rilke's influence and popularity in the US so extremely more so than in Europe?  I'm not familiar with the subject, but if it's so, I think an explanation would be in order; otherwise, we have comprehensiveness issues; the fact that it opens with its status in the US seems extremely odd to me.
 * Comment: Rilke is probably among the top-five German language poets, but in the last few years, his popularity has exploded in the US simply because Hollywood likes quoting him to sound erudite when talking about love, angels, and all manner of things mystical. I don't know how he fares in Russia, or Africa, or China to comment on it. Most of Rilke's current sales (averaging 200,000 copies a year) are in the English and German-speaking world, largely resting on the Elegies, and Letters to a Young Poet, however, as much as I wish I could mention that, there are no reliable sources to justifiably incorporate that statistic into the article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note - I chose to move the section on translations into the "influence" section because I think it provides a more apposite/cogent introduction, especially with your concern over the section starting with "in the US."--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The Auden bit takes up half the space of the section. Is it really that significant?
 * Comment: What exactly is your complaint? Auden is considered by critics and scholars as being Rilke's English disciple and directly references details of Rilke's biography and writing in this particular poem (and indirectly in many others). I would venture to say that's rather significant.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Significant enough to gobble up 50% of the "Influence" section? If so, that needs an explanation.
 * That is an exaggeration. It is 170 words out of 428 in the section (39%), and 55 of those 170 words are a quotation directly related to the Elegies--so minus the essential quote it's roughly 26%. I provided the explanation above--Auden is considered to be Rilke's "English disciple." To omit this information would be akin to having an article on Plato and not mentioning Aristotle.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * On aside, I'm currently reading a German book on Gadamer to add some information Rilke's influence there. I will look into adding some on Pynchon too in the next day or so.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done (13APR13) I expanded the Influence section to add discussion of the influence on Pynchon and Gadamer. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I still haven't looked at the whole thing; I may do that later. ——— Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Brianboulton

 * Aside from the issue of citation styles, discussed above, there are uncited statements which appear both in the "Duino Castle and the first elegies" and the "Château de Muzot" sections. In the latter case the entire (short) first paragraph is unreferenced. FAC criterion 1c requires that these statements be cited to a source.
 * Done Citations added. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Legacy" section: A few thoughts.
 * The subject of this article is a collection of poems; do poems leave a "legacy"? Maybe "influence" would be a more apposite section title?
 * Reply: This might be a "six of one, half dozen of another" issue...I chose Legacy over Influence for subjective reasons--that I preferred the more comprehensive connotations associated with the word "Legacy" and found "Influence" to be rather tawdry/insufficient/not as comprehensive. I emphasize subjective. Let me check a thesaurus for alternatives; in the meantime do you have other apposite (great word) suggestions in addition to "influence" that I can weigh vs. "legacy"? As an anecdote: There's an old story about William F. Buckley using the word "irenic" in an interview. Upon being asked what it meant, and why he didn't just say "peaceful", Buckley responded to the effect "I preferred having an extra syllable." --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If "legacy" is to be used, there should be some specific cultural bequest indicated. To say that Rilke became popular and that other writers were influenced by the poems does not define a legacy. As to an alternative word, I imagine my thesaurus is the same as yours, so we're probably looking at the same range of substitutes. The best I can find is probably "significance". Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done I went with "Influence" as per your suggestion.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The section looks thin. The first paragraph seems to be more about Rilke's influence generally than that of the Duino Elegies
 * Done. Section expanded. See below.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The implications of the first sentence are somewhat surprising; are Rilke, Rumi and Gibran really among the most popular and best-selling poets in the US? Is there a particular reason for bringing the other two into the example?
 * Reply: I was surprised too. The three of them typically are best sellers...and it's so long after their deaths. Gibran has been popular for several decades since his writings early in early 20th c. and repeated quoting in the 20th c., Rilke was popular in the 40s due to Spender's translation, but in recent years there has been a rush of translations since it has become too easy for Hollywood and mainstream publishers to invoke profundity by quoting him on matters of love or transcendental experiences--many major presses released at least one volume translation of Rilke each year for the last several years. Comparatively, in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, the leading poets in terms of booksales were Frost and Eliot, in the later 60s, Lowell gained an edge. Both Rilke and Gibran saw marked interests during the years of the 60s and 70s and continue with the hippie generation entering academia over the last 40 years. Rumi has largely received interest in the last 10-15 years because of the musical (but not accurate) translations and ensorcelling reading performances of Coleman Barks, and as a domino effect, their penetration into film/tv/musical artists.  Right now Rumi is number one--consistently beating "major" American poets (most people don't know who the current major poets are anymore). The implications are legion in publishing: (a) are Americans seeking wisdom from foreign sources (seemingly exotic) and why, (b) why not American voices? (c) Market forces vs. content: It might be because these foreign sources actually say something that has an emotional effect while most American poetry now is too academic, abstract, and there's so much of it no one really lasts in the market. There are questions to be asked, and the answers and their implications are astonishing.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The attention devoted to the Rilke reference in the Auden poem seems somewhat disproportionate in such a short section. Would it be possible to illustrate the influence of the poems on at least one more of the listed writers? Also, some indication of the manner in which the two named philosophers were influenced by the work would be useful, as part of a general process of expanding this section. Brianboulton (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done (13APR13) I expanded the Influence section to add discussion of the influence on Pynchon and Gadamer, and earlier this week incorporated the one paragraph "translation" section as the first paragraph of the Influence section where I thought it more apposite/cogent. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Image check by GermanJoe
Some more information and tweaks are needed, unfortunately one some of the older photos has rather thin information about its origins (Done, issues addressed)
 * File:Rainer_Maria_Rilke,_1900.jpg - PD-70 doesn't work, when the author is unknown and the photo was taken in a time, when the photographer could have lived until 1943. Do you have any more information about its possible source and original publication? Also would need US-tag, when the first issue can be sorted out.
 * File:Castello_di_Duino_0904.jpg - OK (caption see below).
 * File:Maison_rilke.jpg - OK (English translation of the image description would be useful).
 * Done: added an English translation of the French description given to the file by the user who uploaded it.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Rilke_and_Klossowska_at_Chateau_Muzot_1923.jpg - OK (see below). I was able to trace that image back to an archive of the Swiss National Library, where it is stored for usage under a "Reproduktionsbewilligung" (whatever that means, no idea). Is any more information about this image and its possible source and publication available? If it was never published, it's PD-70 in the US and has the same problem as the first image. (caption see below).
 * Reproduktionsbewilligung = "Permission to Reproduce/for Reproduction." Do you have a link, so I can translate anything there for more information? I will check Swiss law and practices later today regarding this question.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The link to the Swiss archive is [], if you want to look it up. GermanJoe (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The archive dates the photo from 1922 which would make it PD in the US, if I'm not mistaken (please advise), and the usability is listed as "Uneingeschränkt" (trans. unrestricted).--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The date of publication is usually relevant, not the date of creation. After some more reading, the photo is likely part of a donation to the Swiss archive in 1951 (see this link with some interesting info and a lot of additional Rilke-related material ). Swiss copyright is rather weak for photographs, most photographs without original artistic content are not seen as copyrighted - Commons even has a template for this case, "PD-switzerland-photo". ==> I'll try to expand the image details a bit, but this one should be OK. GermanJoe (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Persian_angel_1555.jpg - OK (tweaked tag). (English translation of the image description would be useful).
 * All it says is Anonymous, Buhara, British Museum. Buhara is actually Bukhara in Uzbekistan.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Family_of_Saltimbanques.JPG - OK (not suitable for Commons, but tagged as such).
 * Captions - This is probably a matter of editorial preference, but MOS:CAPTION asks for succinct and brief captions. All captions are a bit detailed, but the second and fourth image caption could definately be trimmed; the second half after "-recounting" and "The two pursued ..." could easily be integrated into the regular article text.
 * WP:CAPTION does not say "brief", it says a caption can consist of a few words of description, or several sentences, that they should be succinct and informative and qualifies that succinctness is not the same as brevity. I feel the interpretation of "succinct" is unfortunately subjective. I will see about revising them, but I do not feel they violate WP:CAPTION.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. I shortened some of the captions and believe them to be in line with the goals/guidelines of WP:CAPTION.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The main issues are the first and fourth image of unclear origins, and some of the captions. GermanJoe (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have updated the Swiss image with as much information as possible, please double-check (should be OK now).
 * Remaining image problems are a few summary translations (optional) and the first image with unclear origins (needs fixing and/or more info).
 * captions - WP:CAPTION recommends only a few lines of caption info and to move extraneous info into the main article text. By keeping such lengthy details in the caption, you have to create some repetition in the main article text or loose valuable background information in the narrative. Anyway, maybe some other full reviewers will offer their opinion on that aspect. GermanJoe (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @GermanJoe -- I've been away for the last few days, I should be able to address your remaining concerns (and those of Brianboulton above) either today or tomorrow (25/26 MARCH). Sorry for the delays.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @GermanJoe I've been looking into this first image and I can't seem to find anything other than 18 September 1900 as its date of creation, no indication of an author, no indication of what archive it comes from, no indication of any publication before 1950 in a book, and when used by publishing companies in cover art or images in a book, and online publications of poetry magazines, etc. they all indicate the image is public domain. Is there an appopriate tag for this? I am looking to find another image that I can trace to extant paper trail leading to its determination of public domain status. Standby.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The photo was apparently printed in Horst Nalewski's "Rilke. Leben, Werk und Zeit in Texten und Bildern" ISBN 3-458-16343-3 (see amazon), published Insel Verlag, Frankfurt 1992 (in German). Maybe it contains more info about its original material, but i don't have it available (just checking via online information). GermanJoe (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I just reached out to Dr. Petra Hardt, the US rights manager at Suhrkamp-Insel (the successor to Insel Verlag) in order to find out more about the image's origins/status. Standby.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Joe, I gave Insel Verlag a week to reply to my email, i called and left a message. no reply. So, I replaced the image with one of a sketch by Leonid Pasternak that's in commons and according to the commons description, PD in Russia. Is this acceptable?--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done (unclear image replaced). Issues have been addressed. My Russian is a bit rusty (aka non-existant), so i'll AGF, that the situation is as described by the uploader. Added US-specific tag. If Dr. Hardt has more information, you can always revert to the older image later. GermanJoe (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Which Russian part in particular would you like translated? I thank you for your keen attention to this article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No translation needed, but thanks for the offer. Licenses with foreign source text (like the Russian law text) have been usually checked by several other users already, so we can assume all is in order for the common ones. On the US-side it's clearly PD-1923. GermanJoe (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod
The English is ok but far from perfect. A light going-over for idiom and tone by a top copyeditor would be desirable. I have done odd touches, but more needs doing.
 * Comment - Your earlier comment (since revised) that my writing "betrays many signs of being by a non-native speaker" was actually appreciated, strangely enough. I am very much an American, just lived overseas for several years and conversant in several languages which likely affect my AmE and the construction of my sentences/thoughts.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Lede - a total line count would be useful here. "ten elegies" could be 200 lines or 10,000. As it stands the length of the work is nowhere mentioned in the article. "After their publication and his death shortly thereafter..." 3 years is not "shortly after". "After their publication in 1923 and his death in 1926, ..." which is shorter anyway.
 * Comment -- Could you elaborate on why a line count is useful? I'm not entirely clear on your reasons for it. Perhaps it's along the lines of "quality not quantity" mentality that I haven't sought to count lines--and how would I count them: in the German original? or in the English translations (which vary)? Total lines? or the line count for each elegy? What result does that accomplish in terms of improving/interrupting flow?  What light do you think a line count would shine on the Elegies as a whole? Just a few question to weigh how I would/should approach the material. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Some indication of size is necessary, surely? Is there a problem? Doesn't the reader need to know if the work is 200 lines or 10,000? I have no idea. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not averse to it, the problem I encounter is that I don't know exactly the means by which I should approach inserting the material as the ends to be desired aren't entirely clear. If I had a better idea of what the reader would gain by a sentence citing line count vis-a-vis getting a comprehensive understanding of the Elegies, I'd have a better idea how to approach it. As the elegies are more free-verse open-ended meditations, this isn't as cut and dry as describing the form of a sonnet because in order to understand the form you need to know the constrains of the 14-line count, rhyme and meter. Also, which version should I count?  The count varies. Also, I'm a little uncertain if my going through the book counting lines would be original research or run afoul of WP:SYN. Until a few of those uncertainties are assuaged, I can't know how to tackle it best.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There must be something you can do - the number of pages the text takes up would be minimal, but look pretty lame. Surely your sources give figures. Notes can handle any complications or ambiguities. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is, I just have to think about it a bit. While it may seem an easy task and barely register more than a sentence or two, it isn't as easy as it looks...many follow-up questions, different angles, several counts (german vs. english translations, each individual elegy or work as a whole) complications, policy issues, etc. The sources I've referenced don't offer an analysis of line counts or scansion, they're more concerned with imagery and philosophical themes. No one really gives much attention to line counts or scansion in the modern era, unlike counting lines or syllables like they did in earlier works like the epics of Homer, a haiku, or in a Spencerian sonnet. Comparatively, there's no discussion of line counts at Little Gidding (a GA), and the other parts of Four Quartets (no line count, only mentions 40 pages in infobox), The Cantos (only mentions 120 sections, no mention of lines), at Babi Yar in poetry, or among most other modernist works...although there is a mention of it in the lede at The Waste Land (not a GA or FA) the reference only clarifies two counts (433 and 434) and is not sourced. I'm wary to proceed without clarity on the questions above--and the more I dig, the less vital it seems. After all, the overlooked question: what does mentioning a line count give to the average reader to help them understand the work besides a quickly-packaged factoid? --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI: Total in German original is 859 lines (i. 95, ii. 79, iii. 85, iv. 85, v. 108, vi. 45, vii. 93, viii. 75, ix. 80, x. 114). Average 86 lines each. The count was easy, now it's just how and where to incorporate it. Suggestions? --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. How about "The poems, 859 lines long in total, were dedicated to the Princess upon their publication in 1923." - or similar. Or "just over 850 lines" or something. It could be slipped in at various points in the lead, it doesn't much matter where. As to the others, The Cantos are measured in pages surely, & some figure should be given there, in case anyone thinks of reading it in an afternoon! Johnbod (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I asked the question of compliance with WP:NOR/WP:SYN at Wikipedia talk:No original research just to get another opinion on it and be sure/assuage doubts.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Added line count per your suggestion and added a note discussing the count. The first reply at WP:NOR talk page above indicated that if anyone can find it by opening the book, it is not OR.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done changed "shortly thereafter" to "three years later" --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's no good: "After their publication and his death three years later, the Duino Elegies were quickly recognized by critics and scholars as Rilke's most important work.[3][4]" - later than what? Also this reads as if the publication & death occured together, three years after...something. Just use the dates. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Would you prefer: "After their publication in 1923 and Rilke's death in 1926, the Duino Elegies were quickly recognized by critics and scholars as his most important work.[3][4]" ?--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes (their readded) Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done revised as above.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "collaborating on a translation of Dante Alighieri's La Vita Nuova" presumably into German, but better say so.
 * Comment - an assumption that I have ventured to make myself, but cannot find any support for it in the sources. The sources just mention the proposed translating work, not into what language--and Rilke wrote in several (French, German and Russian) over the course of his writing career. Likewise, an aristocrat before WWI was expected to be conversant in several languages.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "the Adriatic cliffs near the castle ground..." - no! "near the castle" is best, or "in the castle's grounds" perhaps. Grounds are plural.
 * Done revised. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "and only in 1920 was he motivated to focus towards completing his work on Duino Elegies." messy - and I think it should always be "the Duino Elegies".
 * Done article added.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "In this, however, Rilke commented that he was greatly influenced by the depiction of angels found in Islam." - in Islam, or Islamic art? I suspect the latter.
 * Comment - the former, Rilke was attracted to the Islamic angels beyond their depiction in art but of their theological/eschatological dimensions as well.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Leishman and Spender write that Rilke depicted the six as about to begin..." - their first mention needs Spender's link & some introduction - "his translators" maybe. Spender is linked twice below btw.
 * Done - (1) found another previous and unnecessary "according to Leishman and Spender" clause...removed. (2) The L&S line you reference, I rephrased and removed "Leishman and Spender write that"... to make the sentence more direct toward the fact without the qualification of the fact (which is made adequately by the footnote). (3) The first reference of Spender in the "influence" section is linked--I didn't think it appropriate to link his Spender's surname in the earlier, now gone, mentions that lacked his first name, and linking the earlier mentions is a moot point now that I revised that prefacing clause out of the sentence. (4) I delinked the second mention of Spender in the list of poets influenced.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Wasn't "Edward" Edward Sackville-West, 5th Baron Sackville? I think so. It's Alfred Poulin, maybe worth a redlink.
 * Done it is the 5th Baron. As for Poulin, I'm surprised he doesn't have an article, and I would agree worth a redlink (I had it redlinked before and vascillated on keeping it so...I will write a stub to solve that problem).--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe more later. I disagree with Curly Turkey about the in-text translations, and de-quoting most quotes. Also about de-fixing images - fixed images are very normal at FAC & "upright" causes more problems than it solves. The Freedman citation style is a bit wierd but as long as the styles can be considered consistent it's ok. "sfn" style causes all sorts of problems according to many. I would leave these things as they now are. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support meets the standard, & my points covered, though I think a final prose polish would be ideal. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.