Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ode on a Grecian Urn/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 Karanacs 19:38, 16 December 2009.

Ode on a Grecian Urn

 * Nominator(s):user:Ottava Rima (talk) Mrathel (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it both meets the FAC criteria and has received a significant amount of attention from several editors who had added great content. I am willing to make the necessary changes to help the article pass and would love any comments on how it can be changed or made better. Mrathel (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Restart. Old nom.  Sources, dabs, images have all been cleared (see talk). Karanacs (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * In article but not refs: Bloom 1995.
 * Perhaps the Beauty/Truth debate section might include excerpts from Keats' letter here. &bull; Ling.Nut 02:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know how Bloom got changed to 95 instead of 93, and I worry about adding parts from the letter because very few of the critics bother to refer to it in their opinions. Many of them are New Critics that look down on authorial intention. Also, there is also no proof that the truth and beauty statement connect to the letter. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I was gonna suggest 1) making sure that's the whole darn letter. Find the whole thing &mdash; salutations, date etc and all. 2) Copying it into Wikisource, if it isn't already there, and 3) adding a link to Wikisource in a note. Now, there would be two ways to do the link, though you might fear WP:OR for the first: First approach would be to say something like "Keats discussed beauty and truth in a letter blah blah" and link it. The virtue of this is that it could be done at the beginning of the article's section, giving it (in my opinion) the appropriate degree of prominence. However, you might have WP:OR fears... I wouldn't fear WP:OR, but it is possible to see it that way. The second approach would be to link it to the statement that mentions Adam and Eve. This refers to the letter. In fact, I saw a quote somewhere that specifically stated that the critics were referring to that letter (I think Vendler stated that the other critic was referring to the letter...). Anyhow, your thoughts are solicited...&bull; Ling.Nut 04:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Lets say we include the letter - what will it tell us? It is two passing lines on an Urn and doesn't reveal why he chose the urn, what the images of the urn represent, etc. It just says that he had a view point using the same words in a letter. He had multiple letters each mentioning both the terms "truth" and "beauty", each with different versions of what he meant. Furthermore, many of his poems bring up similar uses. Your source even shows that there is no ground breaking claim to say "this is what Urn means". I searched for the term "urn" and the closest I could find it was 10 pages away. The letter you mentioned was from 1817, 2 years before. People develop and change -a lot- in two years, especially Keats who changed dramatically following Hyperion. The claim of "Annus Mirabilis" for 1819 was used to denote that Keats was radically different in 1819 than in his previous years. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Support' Comment (leaning support). Ucucha 21:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC) I reviewed the article before this was restarted and gave it another look now, as it has seen some revisions. I am inclined to support, but have a few comments that need to be cleared first: Ucucha 21:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The urn's description as a bride invokes a possibility of consummation is connected to its inability to exist on her own but must operate with an audience." - this sentence doesn't make sense, and I'm not sure what sense to make of it.
 * The article uses spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes at different places in the article, which I don't believe in agreement with the current MOS (although Ottava argued at WT:MOS that this should be changed in the MOS).
 * Why do we need both an external link to the text and a link to Wikisource for the text?
 * I removed the duplicate link. I also reworked the sentence. The only em dashes that are unspaced are found in the quotes, and there are many, many different uses in those quotes (some being antiquated with two examples in some of the first quote by critics). Sometimes they represent a type of quotation, sometimes a colon, etc. There are only two uses of dashes outside of quoted text or pagination, and they are the same type of dash. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and thanks for the changes; I am switching to support now. The "External links" section is a bit pointless now; what about putting the two boxes under "Bibliography"? Ucucha 21:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * People tend to get a little strange when that happens. I don't know where the current MoS debate has settled on the matter at the moment. I am sure Sandy would know. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: I supported this before the restart, after a fairly long negotiation involving numerous points which were all resolved. Since then other reviewers have raised other issues, the article has changed to accommodate them, new typos have crept in... No doubt further issues can and will be raised by editors, ad infinitum, but I believe that, subject to the odd clarification, the article fulfils the FA criteria. There is nothing to prevent discussion continuing over its content; promotion doen't equate to set in stone. Brianboulton (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support But Brian should fix those typos he spotted. ;-) &bull; Ling.Nut 11:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. My point, however, was a more general one: articles that are a long time on FAC get changed again and again, and as a result typos tend to creep in, even when sections have been thoroughly copyedited. The only queryable instance I can find now is a reference to 'Cold Pastrol' in the "Later responses" section, but it's within a quote – maybe H.W. Garrod was a lousy speller? This should either be corrected, or a {sic} added if it's what he wrote. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, no he wasn't. I fixed the line. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

*(reluctantly) Oppose. I continue to find the prose somewhat opaque. Here are some examples. Ottava i think dealt with my concerns with the lead, "background" and "structure". I won't revisit those sections. Here are some concerns regarding "Themes": I dunno - maybe some of the other editors here are English majors to whom all this makes perfect sense, but I continue to struggle with Ottava and others' valiant attempts to render comprehensible the critics' discussion of this important poem. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC) :1a. "what is "natural music"? The sounds of nature?" - There is no other possibility beyond music that is natural. "Natural" does mean of nature, and it is an adjective. No instruments. No artifice. It appears in many forms - Aeolian harps, the sound of the wind, birds, or the rest. "To Autumn" describes all of nature as music.
 * First para: what is "natural music"? The sounds of nature? Inherent musicality of text? And does one "depict" sounds (other than in a musical score), or should one "describe" them?
 * First para: "The poet also used the image of an urn in "Ode on Indolence", depicting one with the figures Love, Ambition and Poesy. Of these three, Love and Poesy are discussed again within a focus on representational art,..." Does the "again" here mean "in "Ode on a Grecian Urn"? i think that should be spelt out.
 * Same sentence: i don't think the expression "discussed again within a focus" is right. "Discussed in the context of", or even perhaps more radical surgery to something like "Of these three, Love and Poesy are, in "Ode on a Grecian Urn", portrayed as artistic representations painted upon an Urn"? (Or something like that)
 * First para "how the urn, as a human artistic construct, is capable of relating to the idea of "Truth". " An urn is a piece of fired clay. It cannot "relate" to anything.
 * First para: "a human observer that draws out these images" - should not "that" be "who", if it is a human?
 * Second para "This allows the urn to participate with humanity" - I cannot fathom the expression "participate with humanity". Participate in what with humanity?
 * Second para "the symbol of the urn enables the narrator to ask questions, and the silence of the urn reinforces the imagination's ability to operate". Two things. First, I don't see why the urn as a symbol "enables" the narrator to ask questions. Second, the expression "reinforces the imagination's ability to operate" feels very clumsy - not the sparkling prose one might look for, though i confess to being sufficiently unsure of the intention here that i cannot offer a constructive alternative, sorry.
 * Second para: "meditates on the possibility that the role of art is not to describe specifics but universal characters, which falls under the term "Truth"" - I don't see the connection between the first part of this sentence and the expression "which falls under the term "Truth"". I am neither certain what it is that "falls under" this term, nor do I think that "term" is the right word here. There seems to be an excessive shorthand that has become too cryptic for the reader.
 * Second para: "Since the urn would depict an idealised scene in which the three figures are immortalised, the narrator is implying that art represents the feelings of the audience." This reads as a complete non-sequitur to me. Why on earth does an immortalised / idealised scene "imply that art represents the feelings of the audience"??
 * Second para: "Similarly, the response in the second section is not compatible with the response to the first". Whose response to what section of what? This begins to be answered in the next para, so things seem a little out of order here.
 * Third para (skipping some stuff): "The relationship of the audience to the world is not to learn facts or to benefit itself..." This does not make sense. Some options that would make sense (but i don't know what was being attempted to be expressed here) are "The purpose of the audience is not to learn facts or to benefit itself..." or "The purpose of the audience's relationship with the world is not to assist them to learn facts or to benefit itself..." Whatever: a relationship does not "learn facts" or "benefit itself".
 * Third para: "The narrator contemplates in the scene where the boundaries of art lie and..." Does this mean "The narrator contemplates where in the scene the boundaries of art lie and..."?
 * Third para: "Furthermore, the narrator is drawn into the scene in a manner that allows him to visualise more than what actually exists as he enters into a cooperative state with art". Again clumsy in several respects. I suggest "Furthermore the narrator, as he enters into a cooperative state with art, is drawn into the scene in a manner that allows him to visualise more than is actually portrayed". (though i don't like the expression "cooperative state with art" either)
 * Third para: "Ancient Grecians". Are you sure?? Not Ancient Greeks?
 * Third para: "Another paradox arises when the narrator finds that immortality on the side of an urn meant to carry the ashes of the dead". Unless I am mis-reading this, the word "that" should be omitted, and perhaps "portrayed" added after "immortality".
 * Fourth para: is pretty good.
 * 1b. "And does one "depict" sounds" Poetry is a depiction. - Verb "to represent or characterize in words; describe."
 * 2 and 3. I don't agree with your suggestions. Reworked in a different manner
 * 4. "An urn is a piece of fired clay. It cannot "relate" to anything." - Ignoring that the urn is able to speak at the end - No, unconscious entities can relate to another. Verb - "to have reference (often fol. by to)." or " to have some relation (often fol. by to)."
 * 5. "should not "that" be "who", if it is a human?" "That is used to refer to animate and inanimate nouns and thus can substitute in most uses for who(m) and which:"
 * 6. "Participate in what with humanity?" Changed to "interact"
 * 7. "First, I don't see why the urn as a symbol "enables" the narrator to ask questions." Changed to - "the images on the urn provokes the narrator to ask questions"
 * 7a. "not the sparkling prose one might look for" - "imagination's ability" is a standard phrase.
 * 8. "I don't see the connection between the first part of this sentence and the expression "which falls under the term "Truth""." - "but universal characters" is part of "truth". That is how it grammatically reads. I don't think anyone could seriously doubt universality not being connected to truth. "I am neither certain what it is that "falls under" this term, nor do I think that "term" is the right word here." Term - noun "a word or group of words designating something, esp. in a particular field". "Term" is the only acceptable word to designate a "word" like that.
 * 9. "Why on earth does an immortalised / idealised scene "imply that art represents the feelings of the audience"??" - I reworked the sentence
 * 10. "Whose response to what section of what?" The section labeled poem explains it but I reworded to make it clear.
 * 11. "a relationship does not "learn facts" or "benefit itself"." I rewrote it to make that absolutely clear.
 * 12. "The narrator contemplates where in the" I reworked it in a very different manner to remove any confusion on what is implied.
 * 13. I reworked it in a different manner.
 * 14. Changed it to figures, because they aren't Greeks but images.
 * 15. Changed to "the narrator describes immortals on the side of an urn"
 * - Ottava Rima (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ottava. I still think "The second section of the poem, describing the piper and the lovers, meditates on the possibility that the role of art is not to describe specifics but universal characters, which falls under the term "Truth"" is not a model of clarity. I'm striking my oppose. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The prose is better than last time. Ottava, there's a real problem with additive connectors: it comes down to the way you conceive the flow of the sentences. I've weeded out most of the "alsos", but had to add one to get rid of the worse "Additionally". Please note this issue in future article writing. Is it written in AmEng? Looks like it. Why? Ageing, not aging, for example. Tony   (talk)  02:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, Ottava Rima has retired from editing, so he will not be answering anything directed at him; I will be working to address any further concerns on my own. Mrathel (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close.  Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the  template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Karanacs (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.