Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Poetry

Poetry
Self-nom. This one's been faced, featured, farced, and farced again; subject to cds, recordings and improvement drives; classed as "B" and reclassed as "A"; popped on a portal; peer reviewed; rewritten and refactored. It's a different article now than it was a month ago, and it's time to see what's wrong with it and get it fixed up right. Thanks for your input. Sam 22:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Support as nom. Sam 22:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

''' Object. ''' The referencing is too thin for a topic this broad and deep. Only two references and eleven footnotes, which is insufficient. RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 00:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been working on adding footnotes, but have not heavily footnoted the sections where there are considerable main articles or see also articles that provide the best source of additional detail and support. For example, the systems of scansion article will provide a compare and contrast overview of all the major systems of scansion with footnotes to each different system; the parent article's footnotes cannot do the same degree of justice.  Nonethelees, I'll stick in the scansion discussion a note to both a classic and a more recent and relatively broad work.  I will add a number of references from my own library and from some of the main articles, but others should certainly add their own references, particularly to broaden the perspective. Again, though, I don't think this is the right place to develop a bibliography covering the ins and outs of Classical Chinese Verse, even though the subject is referenced in several places in the article. Sam 01:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support. This has come alongway- I'm vastly impressed. My only quibble is that the rhyme, alliteration, and assonance section should have at least a cursory overview of those topics, instead of links to other articles. RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 23:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If those don't get tweaked by others before then, I'll tweak those over the weekend to address those points, as I'll be tied up on the morrow. As always, every bit of input helps. Sam 23:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, I am working on something on rhyme, alliteration and assonance offline, but it's likely going to mean a minor refactoring of the following section. I'll likely be bringing it online in the next day.Sam 14:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. My changes in response to this suggestion are now on-line; I'd appreciate any further feedback you may have. Sam 20:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Object per RyanGerbil. Also, in the Common poetic forms section - these subsections are too short, they either need merging together or expanding. — Wackymacs 06:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Common poetic forms" section lists examples of forms, each with a main article that gives detail and history. Thus, it is quite easy to expand them based on their main articles but will have a real impact on length without adding information that could not be achieved with a click.  It is also easy to separate them as bulletted indents rather than as separate section headings, but, obviously, combining ghazal and sonnet doesn't work and won't be helpful. I'd appreciate additional input from you and/or others before choosing an option. (Footnotes and references continue to be added). Thanks, Sam 10:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd left a note on your talkpage that further changes were made to address these issues on the 16th; more consolidation and expansion has been done since then. I'd appreciate any further comment you may have. Sam 01:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. Many important things seem missing, such as a mention of the famous Xanadu poem by Samuel Taylor Coleridge! — Wackymacs 08:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Many, many important things are missing, as they must be in a summary style article. I really don't want to attempt to reflect every important poem, and think that would be contrary to summary style.  Likewise, we'll never add every important poet and keep it within size restrictions.  So the attempt has been made to use individual poems and poets to illustrate issues, trying to use examples from a wide range of cultures, language, and time periods.  Coleridge is an important figure, and I wouldn't mind at all using something from him to illustrate a point.  The one that comes most to mind is the albatros in the Rime of the Ancient Mariner, which is a textbook example of symbolism that almost everyone taught in English language schools will get. (done - Sam 22:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)) Any thoughts? For Kubla Khan (the proper name of the Xanadu poem), my gut is that it's most notable as an illustration of Romanticism and of the incorporate of global themes emergering in the era of colonialism; I'd probably be tempted to use it as the latter, since Keats is more interesting as a discussion of Romanticism and my second choice there would be Goethe, part of the core German Romantic tradition, not Coleridge. Will using the Rime satisfy this objection, do you think I should use Kubla Khan instead, or are there other things you see that should be addressed?  Sam 14:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Since it's a short section, perhaps "History and context of poetry" could come after "Nature of poetry?" The two could perhaps be merged into a "History and nature," or the former made a subsection of the latter. Also, per WP:MOSHEAD, the article's title shouldn't be repeated in the section headings unless necessary.--Monocrat 17:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)--done Sam 23:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to leave them apart for two reasons: first, I like the article beginning and ending on non-technical subjects, because it makes the point that poetry is not just rhyme and meter, and, second, the History of Poetry daughter article is a candidate for major expansion, and ultimately should be a full fledged article of equal size to the parent. I'd like to leave the current section so it can be developed as that article develops (but, that's the next project). I've fixed the heading; let me know your thoughts and whether you agree or disagree on the thinking.  Thanks for the input. Sam 18:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * On closer review, I must oppose this nomination for the reasons below. First, a minor note: I understand your thinking on the history section, but I have to disagree. Separating complimentary content like that seems like it requires one skip other material (an annoyance) or causes one to give up reading the article altogether (defeating the purpose of the article). done -- Sam 00:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC) Other major issues:
 * Headings:
 * Delete the "(including examples)" from "Rhyming schemes;" (doneSam)
 * After scanning the article (haHA!), I'm unclear as to the differences between prosody, meter, and rhythm, especially as used in the headings: the lead of the section says the first refers to the second two (seemingly), separate concepts, but the rest of the section treats them interchaneably. In any case, wouldn't "Common metrical patterns" be better than "Common rhythmic patters?" ( partially done; need to add a good example to Prosody intro; probably still need a pass-through on rhythm/meter usage Sam)
 * if you keep separate "History" separate, rename "Nature of poetry" to "Nature of the art," or some such to keep within WP:MOSHEAD; (done ? Sam)
 * Numerous paragraphs in "Basic elements" are short, two- or three-sentence affairs, which I try to avoid whenever possible; ( combined many done- Sam)
 * Missing citations need to be plugged up;(doneSam)
 * The epic is missing as a common form, and Horace is implied to be Greek. Granted, epic isn't practiced anymore, but it's important enough to warrant inclusion, especially since it is mentioned twelve or thirteen times in the article. And while Horace did write some in Greek, Latin was his main and native medium. (Horace fixed; see below on Epic. And epic certainly is practiced still, every now and then, and particularly by translators. Sam)
 * Why the choice of tanka over haiku? I'm not partisan either way, just curious. (see belowSam)
 * Some terms are over-wikilinked or wikilinked in quick succession, like epic and Persian and Arabic poetry; (cleaned up Sam)
 * Worse, wikilinks often seem poorly handled: "Japanese waka poetry" refers not to waka but to Japanese poetry. Moreover, I'm not fond of seeing the tanka heading and then a reference wikilink to waka (poetry)--it seems jarring. Remove the parenthetic disambiguation from wikilinks like Parallelism (rhetoric). Cut a few repetitive wikilinks and pipe the others better. See WP:MOS-L and Help:Contents/Links. (cleaned up)
 * There are some wording issues, but those probably won't keep me opposing it. I'll try to find some later. This is a great article, and I hope to support its candidacy soon.--Monocrat 19:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed commentary; some of these issues are ones that are hard to see if you've been drafting for a while.
 * I can go on for some length about differences between Prosody, Meter and Rhythm, but will save it for the article; there's lots of good stuff written on that and we can make it clearer (and, yes, Common Metrical Forms is better). There is a sentence distinguishing meter and rhythm, but it may well belong at the beginning of Prosody, a place you've identified. Epic isn't there because it is really a genre rather than a form; that is, the form of Gilgamesh and the Illiad have little in common as far as their form, it is their length and subject matter that distinguish them.  The forms chosen were chosen primarily based on the quality of what I saw on wikipedia to summarize; there is an element of randomness, and I'm happy to be second-guessed on any of it.   Again, thanks.  IMHO, the detailed commentary is the whole reason for this process. Sam 20:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the changes I see so far. I'll defer on the epic as a form. You might get more mileage out of haiku than tanka, mentioning the former's origins, major poets, its depenency on the season, it's popularity, and perhaps its political uses (Emperor Hirohito's use of a New Year's haiku to subtly protest the occupation). The more I think about it, the stronger I feel that "History and context" should be moved up: the whole article up to that point tells us what poetry is, but not what it does or what it is for. I really think that section should go first, not last. Since the lead should be capable of standing on its own (WP:LEAD), I think you should put a bit of history and context into it and a few prominent poets. Speaking of which, one or two names for Arab, Persian and Indian poets wouldn't hurt.--Monocrat 21:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Works in progress; believe it or not, I have a little chart of everyone named in here and had noted that Arabic and Indian names are needed (the Shahnameh and Ferdowsi get mentioned). I'll take nominations; you may see the appearance of some pre-Islamic paeans to camels soon...But, as to the big question, while working on it, I'm becoming more and more convinced that the discussion of poetics and history should be distinct, and am wondering if the discussion of poetics in chronological form is causing some of the trouble. It's the difference between philosophy and history.  But it may make sense to put the discussions next to each other.  It also may be that the "contexts" belongs with the "poetics". The problem with sticking names in the lead is it makes biases too obvious - why Homer but not the Gilgamesh poet or the Vedas, each of which is arguably just as influential?  Should Du Fu be chosen over Goethe (who is not mentioned at all right now)? Even Shakespeare is a footnote when the full expanse of poetry is considered in three paragraphs. Sam 21:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, started playing with it and just refactored these whole two sections. Any reactions? Sam 21:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it on first reading, but perhaps you should add what Eastern civilizations thought of poetry. In lieu of that difficult task, you might want to tweak your wording to reflect that these are western interpretations. (Eg: "The classical and early modern world" -> "Classical and early modern Western interpretations" or some such.) Regarding names: I know it's tough, and I had thought about biases when writing the above, but I think it's important nevertheless. In addition to Eastern authors, Homer and Shakespeare seem defensible choices for the English Wikipedia, but perhaps Pindar and Spencer would be acceptable as influential but less well known authors. Heck, maybe just use a spreadsheet to randomize your list of poets and pick the top five. :)--Monocrat 22:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not capable of describing Eastern poetics or the history of Eastern poetry well enough, so I chose door #2; it would be great for others to add more on Eastern poetics. I do know enough about Arabic to increase the coverage there, and have been doing so. Look on the Poet page, where names are used in the lead - it's not good. There are names sprinkled through the article, and I think it's best to use them to demonstrate points.  I will see if there is a point or two that can be demonstrated in the lead, but don't want a list.  Still thinking about Haiku v. Tanka; I'm not sure there is a reason to change, though if someone who knows both forms better wants to take a crack, that would be good. Signing off now. Sam 23:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think part of the problem with Poets is that it implicitly raises English poetry above the West and the "world." Despite appearances, I'm not married to the point, so I'll not push it more. The article needs a copy-edit for style and flow, and I think a few paragraphs could still be merged. (Perhaps this weekend I'll lend a hand in that department.) Once those citations are taken care of, and a few more added (do all literate civilizations really have poetry?), I think it will be feature-worthy. It's almost there. --Monocrat 01:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That is one of many problems with Poets. I found a way to get a few names in, and I think it works, since it fits well with the discussion below.  I've done a pass through on links and paragraphs, and some copy-edit while I was at it.  The all literate civilizations line is one I've left in there from what was there before; I have no good reason to doubt it, but can't provide a ready cite.  My friends with expertise in reading development have told me that poetry is strong in oral traditions, so most pre-literate societies use more rhythm and rhyme in their daily speach than we do, which would explain why so much early literature is poetic.  In archeology, I've been told that most of what shows up as the first written words, even laws carved in stone, is poetic. So, I've left it to date.  I'd love to see support, though. I don't think I'm going to replace Tanka with Haiku - I think the Haiku material is more obviously unfinished and less link worthy, but feel free to either add or change, as it's not a point I feel that strongly about.  I'm about to disappear for a day or two, but will be looking at this again over the weekend.  I'm hoping the article will start to gather steam and support. By the way, thanks for the input. I think it has helped.Sam 21:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Summary: I think the above has all been addressed, though of course more attention is always a good thing, but still have the following as items to address: (a) more on prosody/meter/rhythm distinctions; (b) a bit more footnoting around the linguistics discussion (not my area, so any help here from a reader is appreciated); (c) more on Indian poetry and poets in particular and non-European poetry and poets in general. But, this is at 50K overall, and we should probably be cutting as we add. Sam 23:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm very happy with how you worked the poets into the lead. I personally believe that all literate and many pre-literate societies have poetry--though there comes a point where I imagine it's difficult to distinguish poetry from oral music--but it seems like too sweeping a claim to have without source. I won't remove it, though. Overall I think the prose is compelling (though a copyedit is still in order), and it strikes me as suitably neutral and comprehensive for such a broad topic. I'm a little worried about the necessity of some of the details. I hope to have more suggestions for you when you get back.--Monocrat 02:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've done some copyediting, and I hope I haven't ruined everything. Mostly, I sought to remove some finer detail in th "Common poetic forms" sections, and to clean up the wikilinks. Some remaining issues: "Prosody" still seems a little repetitive. It might help to remove the lists of metrical patterns and lengths. (They might be at home in meter, which lacks a succinct presentation of those terms.) Perhaps a little too much attention is given to the skaldic forms, and the end of the first paragraph of "Stanzas..." seems a little confused.--Monocrat 17:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I agree on stanzas; it is interesting, but many critics have trouble talking about stanzas and lines and their role in poetry.  I haven't found a satisfactory discussion on either, so it's worth continuing to try to create something. I want to indicate somehow that the lists of metrical patterns and lengths is not exhaustive, but to include enough of the material so a reader understands the fundamentals. I'll think about these issues. Sam 17:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Understood. I think that the issue about metrical feet could be solved more or less by converting those lists into prose. Simply cutting them wouldn't be too bad, either, since you list several of the most notable ones along with major works. That would also free up some space for more discussion elsewhere. In the meanwhile, I think the article has come along enough that I can offer strong support for its candidacy. Good work! --Monocrat 22:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I tried converting them into prose; even a cursory explanation of the "spondee" and "anapest", as well as all the other feet, will take up far more room than the list.  I think the best solution for the time being is to keep the list, so the article fulfills the general goal of providing a basic poetic vocabulary to the reader, with the idea that when the poetic feet article is ultimately expanded it may be possible to use a more abbreviated format.Sam 20:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Looks like someone's been busy adding references. Themillofkeytone 18:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Anonymous_  _Anonymous  11:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support as it seems a strong enough article to feature to my eye. But we do need to find a reference to the claim that rhyme entered European poetry through Arabic verse. —Saposcat 12:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)done Sam 00:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I did not add that statement, but have seen the claim elsewhere (for example, there was a discussion along these lines in Natalie Zemon Davis' Trickster's Travels, but my memory is that she was relying on someone else's work for the claim). I've been meaning to start pulling out late late/early medeival poetry to try to see which poems start the trend; I'm guessing it will be in Spain, Italy and France. Sam 12:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I found a good discussion, though I only got to read as much of it as google books would permit. A 2003 book on Arab influences on Medieval European literature.  Surprisingly little within it on rhyme, but enough to make the statement a bit less overwhelming in terms of its claim and to support it as amended. Sam 17:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. &mdash;  Coat of Arms  ( talk )  04:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Doesn't look comprehensive to me, there is no section on poetry throughout the world (different forms in different countries, etc.). The template at the bottom is not above, it marks several sections that should exist in the article but don't.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would strongly object to creating a single section on poetry throughout the world other than English language. An effort has been made to integrate the discussion of poetry of many cultures, languages and time periods throughout the article, and you will note links in the body of the article to a wide range of Arabic, Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Persian and Russian poetry, poetic forms, or linguistic issues.  There is a separate need on Wikipedia for a comprehensive and detailed history of poetry discussion, and you'll note that the Main article for the first section is "history of poetry".  The History of Poetry article is not yet a good article, but growing it is one of the projects when this article is done.  Likewise, the daughter article on Meter is only just beginning to see enough cultural broadening to be useful. This article on Poetry in general is simply an very broad brush overview of the historical, philosophical, linguistic, and formal aspects of poetry, leaving the detail on each of these elements for daughter articles.  That is why only five poetic forms are covered (two  European, one Middle Eastern/South Asian, one Japanese, and one Chinese); there are literally dozens of prominent forms beyond these, but it would be beyond the scope of the article. In terms of things that are missing, there is a need for more discussion of Chinese and Indian poetics in particular, since the discussion now focuses on Aristotle, Averroes, Confucianism and Kant.  However, we don't yet have articles on these topics to summarize and refer to, and I, at least, am not competant to draft them myself.  It would also be useful to have more on sub-saharan poetry (right now there is one reference to sub-saharan tonal languages), but this is another place where Wikipedia resources are scarce and special knowledge is needed. If you see specific links on those templates you think should be worked in to the discussion, I'd love to work them in more. I promise you, each link on the language and culture templates has been checked and an attempt has been made to use something from every major tradition, but by integrating them into the discussion, not separating them out into separate sections.  Best, Sam 14:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A number of additional changes have been made to the sections that seemed most in need of reflecting more non-English language poetry and poetic issues; in particular, additional discussion and examples were added in the sections discussing meter and near the opening. I'd be interested in any further thoughts you have, or any reaction to the idea that we're trying to reflect a broader world view throughout the article rather than in just one section. Sam 00:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support; an amazing accomplishment. Global perspective, comprehensive yet concise, well researched. One of the best articles I've ever seen here. --Spangineer[es]  (háblame)  12:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. Amazingly well-written and comprehensive. Avoids English-language and Greco-Roman bias, well-referenced and yet not too long or too in-depth. Wonderful read, especially for such a difficult (broad) topic to write a good article on. —Cuivi é nen 04:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Awesome. Awesome to the max. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The opening sentence uses jargon. In particular, it suggests that there is a clear distinction between "notional content" and "semantic content" -- and maybe there is, but I don't think it's very relevant to the average reader interested in poetry. As per WP:LEAD, "specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction." --Alex S 15:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to see it say something like "ostensible meaning." I see your point here. While notional or semantic content is a more precise way of saying it, using the terms in the intro without explanation could put off a reader. I also think notional and semantic content are quite close, and the "or" between them is not meant to create an opposition, so that is confusing as well. Thanks Sam 16:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See what you think - I changed it to ostensible meaning, but kept the first link (which was to "meaning (linguistics)" anyways, piping it to "meaning"; I eliminated the link to semantics. I think it's better. Sam 16:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)