Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Poetry

Poetry

 * Article is no longer a featured article

This article was nominated for FARC in February, and was kept, though with significant doubts not addressed. The topic is extremely broad, and this article gets at it from a rather confused perspective--it is neither about the history of poetry nor about the theory of poetry nor about the form of poetry but rather attempts to cover all three in miniature. As a result, predictably, it is weighted considerably toward the present and toward Anglo-American poetry--there are four individual poets cited, all of them Anglo-American poets after 1800. There are major factual problems: the article confuses poetry with verse, for example (it is not true that plays contain poetry; they are not poetry by definition, but they can contain verse). Of the five requirements listed at What is a featured article, section 2, it fails three: it is not comprehensive, factually accurate, or neutral. I really think we need to think hard about this one, even though it's been here a long time. If the article is rewritten with references, I would of course be happy to reconsider. Chick Bowen 21:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 *  Keep. I'd prefer to see these issues raised on the article's talk page an an effort made to edit the article accordingly before it comes up for a FARC. It appears that several editors are heavily editing the article right now and I don't see why these issues can't also be addressed.--Alabamaboy 14:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Definitely remove. Absolutely no references &mdash; horrendous enough for an article on such a broad subject! The article is also surprisingly short &mdash; while I'm no poet, I have trouble believing that there's more that can be said about Mozilla Firefox or the King James Version of the Bible or even Hey Jude (all three are featured articles) than about poetry. Yes, it seems this article is not even close to being comprehensive. Remove it &mdash; it's an embarassment to FAC. Even Good articles wouldn't accept it. Johnleemk | Talk 08:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. So short I can't believe it is comprehensive. 11k of text. Bias towards western modern poetry seems a problem. More than half the article is just a list of see also's--those should be moved off to list of poetry terms or something to that effect. There actually was a reference, but an editor removed it under the mistaken impression that the reference had to be mentioned in the text to be valid. But only one is not sufficent in my view considering more research could allow this to be properly comprehensive. What is there is well written, but based on the quality of The Cantos, I know Filiocht can do much better than what is here. All important aspects of poetry should be summarized and this just doesn't do it. - Taxman Talk 15:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove embarssingly short. Here is comprehensive........................................................................................................................................................................here is the article. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 23:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove per nom. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove It is clearly not comprehensive. Some of the things missing: discussion of the different schools, styles and regional types; no reference to major poets like Heinrich Heine, Charles Baudelaire, Victor Hugo; no reference to major works like the Coran, the Nibelungen; etc... Vb 131.220.68.177 16:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I think there are two choices with an article with this name.  Either it has to give a comprehensive history of poetry as you suggest, which would be huge and would require weeks of work by many editors, or it would be rewritten entirely in terms of genre theory, using almost none of what's here.  Either way, it doesn't seem likely to happen any time soon.  Alabamaboy was annoyed that I didn't try to work on it before I nominated it, but to be honest I didn't know where to begin.  Chick Bowen 00:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove for the reasons stated above. CG 21:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Remove for reasons stated above. I appreciated the article's brevity on first reading, but since then, I believe the introduction has gotten longer and more confused.  The section on rhyme also needs work. Evan Donovan 22:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)