Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Cantos/archive1


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

The article was removed by User:Marskell 11:34, 26 August 2008.

Review commentary

 * ''Notified the nominator and main contributor User talk:Filiocht, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books‎ and Wikipedia talk:Version 0.5‎.

1(c) Needs more in-line citations for quotations and opinions. Also some of the sections seem a little lengthy. Pictures seem small which shouldn't take as long to sort out as the inlines which will take quite a lot of work. Tom (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment in-line citations are an issue fair enough, but luckly some strong online sources have been left in the "References" section. I deforced the picture sizes (about 4 seconds work), but is "some of the sections seem a little lengthy" really any reason to remove a featured article. Do you mean the article is too lenghty to get through, or it strays off topic in areas, or it needs to be broken in sub-sections. Ceoil 19:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * had put 'lengthy' point as an additional thought but you're right that it is not a reason for removing so have struck and thanks for sorting images. Tom (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment About a year ago I raised some concerns I had with The Cantos on its talk page (and I almost nominated it here then). I, like the nominator, thought that, to reach current FAC standards, the article should have better inline citations and structural issues. As I noted in my criticisms then, the very flat structure of the article makes it difficult to navigate and daunting to approach; there is little concentrated discussion of the work as a whole; also, some of the subsections are way too large. Please see the extended discussion that has already taken place under the heading "Sorely lacking". -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The wisest Wikipedians will fix the mising images to this version and then preserve it for posterity. This is my one and only comment on this ludicrous nomination. Giano (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rmr, I would'nt go as far as 'lacking' but you do have a point. My openion is that its a fine article that needs a small amount of though and work (structural issues can often be fixed using ctr/c ctr/v!), and inlines. Some of the prose reads as essayish - The most striking feature of the text, to a casual browser, is the inclusion of Chinese characters as well as quotations in European languages other than English, but again a ce can fix that with a few days effort. I'd be hopeful for this one; lots of sources, and well, it was written by Filiocht, so its quality is a given, IMO. (  Ceoil  sláinte 21:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know how else to say this, so I will be completely blunt: this article is probably one of the best that Wikipedia has to offer, and an article of this scope should be approached, first and foremost, on the basis of content, and not form.   That questions over this article should be raised over inline citations is akin to discussing Abraham Lincoln's presidency in terms of his acne.  Nandesuka (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think this article is necessarily doomed; but for it to remain an FA, people need to fix the problems, not ignore them. Calling this nomination "ludicrous" or this article "one of the best", does not in any way address the serious concerns brought forth, that in its current state, The Cantos is illegibly structured and not verifiable. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Its very early days yet though, mrfstar; and its just the way of FAR that words like thoes get tossed around. Rather than get bogged down on these things, maybe just focus on actionable issues. (  Ceoil  sláinte 02:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Move to FARC Way too much original research. The language style seems more like a critic at a news paper giving his opinion, dropping a few names, and lacking any in-depth critical approach. I'm surprised it hasn't been given the "essay" tag, since it reads like a freshman term paper. Grammar errors and run on sentences are through the roof. This needs to be removed, since it would require more than a month of work to bring it up to par. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, with the amount of critical review and interpretation, there should be at least 40 sources for references. Those given do not represent an adequate portion of critical theory, let alone the main stream theory behind the Cantos. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see the WP:FAR instructions; the review period is at least two weeks; moving to FARC is not an option one day into the review. The purpose of the review is to identify issues and discuss improvements.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nandesuka on this; it is a damn fine article, with or without inlines, and other issues can be fixed without too much effort, and IMO the addition or not of footnotes is just a small detail. The "concerns" about inlines are formalism concern only as its not doubted that anything in the article is untrue. Structural problems can be resolved, and the language style Ottava mentions just needs a few hours copyediting to rectify. I'm going to commit to this, but I'd hope that the argument here is more constructive than principaled. (  Ceoil  sláinte 01:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine article? The sentence structure is horridly sloppy and reads like a report. There is nothing academic in the actual page, let alone something useful. Cliffnotes has a better summary than the page. I wouldn't want any of my stdents to use it as a critical resource. The whole page needs to be deleted and started from scratch. There is nothing worth salvaging. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Added - excessive amounts of red links. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A thats a little harsh, Ottava! Deleted? Ppfff, come on man. You have to admit at least it has nice pictures ;) Ceoil 11:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What happened with the Samuel Johnson page is it required a lot more work later to purge all the inconsistencies and strange things left in. Language like "The most striking feature of the text, to a casual browser" is strange on multiple levels, with the abrupt pausing/asides, with the dramatic claims to knowledge, and the lack of really telling anything explanatory about the piece. Then the next line follows with, "Recourse to scholarly commentaries is almost inevitable for a close reader", which is obvious that any close reader would use scholarly commentary (unless they didn't care). However, it doesn't actually say why they would need it. Thats another problem that I forgot to mention - the paragraphs tend to operate on a logical progression that leaves out a lot, as if they assume a certain audience that comes in with that piece of information. It is almost a "wink wink, nudge nudge" in words. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Work is underway Rima, or at least will be soon. So you dont have to judge it at this stage; wait until it gets to FAR/C. Now is the time for offering constructive suggestions only, or editing directly as you did earlier. (  Ceoil  sláinte 15:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought this was the FAR? Wasn't it moved up to the top because it moved on? Or perhaps I am just confused. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your confused ;0 First stage (FAR) comments, bitching and cat fighting; second satge (FAR/C) voting, moaning and groaning. (  Ceoil  sláinte 16:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought I was clear when I said I doubt that it could be completely recoverable without deleting a large amount of text and starting over. :) Remember, if it does fix everything, then it wont be the same page as it was before, or even close. Plus it will take a long time. Either way, the page it was wont exist, so, it will be removed one way or the other. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ottava, please note that declarations of "Remove" and "Keep" are not made in this section. FAR aims to assist in the improvement/updating of FAs, and if at all possible should be a positive process. I find your angle negative and combative, especially given the expertise of at least one of its main contributors, who made a comment further up. I note that your strong assertions come without supporting detail. At this stage, they can't be taken seriously. I'm sorry to speak firmly, but I think you're misconstruing the aims and the tone of this process. Please provide specific examples and details if you intend to persist in your critiqueing. Not happy. Tony   (talk)  16:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ottava: "a long time": you got that right. So what, its worth it. Ceoil 17:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony1, the policy of Wikipedia requires consensus, which means that all opinions must be heard. I am saying that this needs to be moved to the next phase. That is clearly stated in the clause I quoted on Sandy's page. If you do not like it, please remove the clause from the FAR guidelines. Furthermore, "expertise" means nothing. No one owns the page. This is Wikipedia. The language is incredibly poor. As Wikipedia states, everything will be heavily criticized and edited, and if you cannot handle it, do not submit. This process is to remove articles that do not meet FA standard. It is clear that this article does not, and probably can not. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the process is not "to remove articles that do not meet FA standard", and this page is carefully designed with the intent that articles aren't defeatured as long as editors are willing to work on them. At minimum, FAR lasts a month, some last as long as three.  Settle in and identify actual, actionable, concrete issues that need to be changed; vague comments about it being an awful article will only be ignored. Articles move to FARC if no one is working on them and no improvement is seen after two or three weeks.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Either show where it says I am not allowed to express my concerns that it must proceed to the process, or strike your comment as being patently absurd. No where does it say that I have to wait two weeks to say such. You are clearly wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Ottava is being remarkably specific about his concerns with The Cantos. Certainly he is being more specific in his criticisms than other editors are in their praise. There is no need to jump on him for mentioning "FARC" a bit too early. He's not denying anyone the chance to fix all of the issues he has mentioned. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Woah Ottiva; The next phase will happen after time, and after the people working on the page are happy to offer it for judjement. I hope you will be one of these people, because we need all hands on deck on this one. (  Ceoil  sláinte 17:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I still don't think this can be accomplished. Each individual Canto set is notable on its own, and to cover the required breadth of material would justify many splits from the pages. This would require sections to be summarized and broken down. Then there needs to be indepth analysis of the critical themes and interpretations. Then there also needs to be an extensive background section added to explain what happened during the publishing. There are hundreds of references that would be needed to be added. From what I can see, just adding in 10 references and making it work takes about 5 days for one person. There needs to also be a community consensus on a lot of other additions and changes, which I doubt can happen during this time. The Cantos are large and have a lot of critical theory behind them. You could almost justify having a WikiProject devoted just to Ezra Pound because of them. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)#
 * Good Christ, could you please be more optimistic. If complex articles such as WB Yeats, Shakespeare or Mary Shelly can reach FA, well, why not this. (  Ceoil  sláinte 18:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know it can get to FA. However, it would be completely new and take a lot of time. There would be a lot of splits, which would require significant consensus. Can this process handle such a thing? Thats my only concern. I would suggest that the league of copy editors be brought in at least once its done. Also, can someone take the "posterity" edition and place it on a subpage and then possibly link it to the milestone so there is some idea what it was before. Everyone knows that the page will end up being vastly different, but the original was an FA, and there probably should be some linkage back to that FA edition so people can see what was originally made an FA. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The "posterity" editions are listed in articlehistory. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The discssion between Ottava and myself has been taken to our talks, as there is no pont in publicly airing openions such as above. Its going to be a long project though, most likely ;) (   Ceoil  sláinte 02:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments: I've never commented on an FAR before, so forgive me if I suck at this. :) The lack of inline citations has already been mentioned, but I'm also concerned with the article's lack of comprehensiveness.  Most of it deals with the individual cantos, but nothing is said about the project's genesis, inspiration, or even Pound himself.  I would suggest implementing a "Background" section, or something similar, to describe in detail information that is somewhat addressed in the first section of the lead; otherwise, the article does not adhere to WP:LEAD.  I'm not a fan of Pound, but although I have studied him somewhat, I was mostly confused by the article.  It has promise but, wow, is it confusing.  I could possibly provide some reference help, but I currently have two projects (one at FAC and one at GAN) of my own to handle.  Let me know.  María ( habla  con migo ) 15:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I agree with María, and to some extent also with Ottava R.  I'm not particularly bothered with the lack of citations per se.  Or rather, there should be citations only in so far as there should be a more comprehensive account of the work and its importance.  Instead, we have a canto-by-canto account or even summary of the poem within which more general musings are occasionally interleaved.  For instance, the article states that "Much critical discussion of the poem has focused on the relationship between, on the one hand, the economic thesis on usura, Pound's anti-Semitism, his adulation of Confucian ideals of government and his attitude towards fascism, and, on the other, passages of lyrical poetry and the historical scene-setting that he performed with his 'ideographic' technique."  Yet it has nothing further to say about this (apparently) voluminous critical discussion.  Or, later, the article states that "The Cantos has been influential in the development of English-language long poems" but gives almost no reason for this influence except, perhaps, that it is long.  In short, if anything there is not enough original research here.  I'm rather surprised at those who are so committed to defending the article, as though it were some kind of masterpiece.  No: it's a more or less close reading (and really not even that, in that there's very little account of form or language) that misses the wood for the trees.  In this sense, it's quite precisely unencyclopedic.
 * In short, the article needs restructuring. I'd be tempted to suggest that that canto-by-canto account of the poem be hived off into a separate article.  Certainly, what there is on context and the writing process (for instance, the first paragraph of the section "I–XVI" and the first three paragraphs of the section "LXXIV–LXXXIV (The Pisan Cantos)") should be reorganized and not simply subsumed into the reading of the poem.  But really, there's a lot to be done on this article.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: What an article! I believe that, when it was promoted, it was probably one of the project's best. But it has almost no citations! Personally, I wouldn't touch the basic structure (per Giano on this), although this does not mean that certain deficiencies, such as the lack of an overall critical approach (per Ottava Rima on this), shouldn't be worked. And I'd really like to help with the citations, but I have no sources. And for such an in-depth material, I do not think that google-booking is enough. Sourcing is a big problem, even for such a great article.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Image problems:
 * Image:EzraPound 1913.jpg is a photograph by Alvin Langdon Coburn (1882–1966), and so the copyright tag "Author died over 70 years ago" was clearly incorrect. Copyright is claimed by the National Portrait Gallery.
 * Image:Malatesta.jpg image is fine, but there is a file on commons with the same name (different person).
 * Image:Gondola.arp.750pix.jpg claimed to be CC from flickr, but at the original source page it says (c) All rights reserved.
 * Image:Confucius 02.png is up for deletion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Confucius 02.png for dubious licensing.
 * Image:AubreyBeardsley.png is a photograph by Frederick Evans (1853–1943), and so the copyright tag "Author died over 70 years ago" was incorrect.
 * Image:Coke.JPG and Image:TJeff.jpe ideally should have more information about who they're by and when they were made. DrKiernan (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), comprehensiveness (1b), and images (3).
 * and writing/structure (1a, 2b). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist. There's no real work being done on this article, and doesn't look as though anyone's about to take it up. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist with Deepest Sympathy. Pity; I'm very dissapointed that a Filiocht FA has to go.  Ceoil  sláinte 08:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove. Per Ceoil.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.