Wikipedia:Peer review/Danny Deever/archive1

Danny Deever
I'm quite pleased with this one - it's a decent solid article on a reasonably famous work - but I'm rather aware that I'm the only real author, and my writing style is never the best. The main problem I have is that it deals with a poem, and a relatively short one; the ballad form means you want to follow the text reasonably closely to explain it, and thus it's tempting to just quote everything. I've tried to avoid quoting unless necessary, to keep the length down, but I'd appreciate comments on whether or not this could be done better.

The critical reaction seems a bit short; does this section need to be expanded? (I haven't dug up anything bad about this work specifically, as opposed to "Kipling sux", or I'd quote it; section's overwhelmingly positive as a result) No image, but I don't think one would add much. Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 03:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The article looks good; perhaps a bit short for a FA, but it covers the topic in sufficient detail. About the only thing I wondered about was R. Kipling's motivation in writing the poem. Did he have a specific concern he was trying to address, or was it just intended as art? Thanks. &mdash; RJH 18:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Lycett didn't mention anything specific, as I recall. Checking Carrington, it seems the Observer was very much a literary magazine - it was only about six months old at the time - and Kipling was one of the first discoveries, alongside men like Yeats and Barrie. No specific motive for the poems is given - at the time, his big political thing was the Parnell Commission. They seem to have been solely done for art, or for pleasure - he had a fondness for "the men who work", the engineers and soldiers and administrators, but hadn't (AIUI) started writing verse to glorify them at this point. Shimgray | talk | 19:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)