Wikipedia:Peer review/Sestina/archive1

Sestina
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to take it to WP:FAC, but do not have much of an idea of where to progress from the current GA status. Particularly, I would like to know whether the article is comprehensive and understandable (since some of the contents are quite complex to both explain and understand).

Thanks, MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments
 * Is there any reason in the lead sentence that "sestina" is in italics when the article itself isn't?
 * I've noticed this before; I think it's the way that because it's a foreign-language word, the first instance of it has to be italicised - don't know if there is a policy on this ...


 * Three paras seems a little lengthy for a lead per WP:LEAD.
 * I thought ledes should be appropriate to the length of the article: first paragraph for form, second for effect, third for background. What would you advise?


 * "39 line" -> "39-line"
 * Done.


 * You link Catalan but not Occitan in the opening sentence. Odd.
 * Hmm. I will try to work out how to link Occitan; it is inconsistent I agree.


 * "The unique structure of the sestina " unique?
 * It is a unique structure because of the pattern of repetition. Should this be explained or ...? Removed, probably unnecessary to the point being made. Not happy about this para anyway, so I will re-write soon.


 * "Graphical representation of the algorithm for ordering the end-words in a sestina." no need for a period.
 * Done.


 * File:Sestina Diagram.png just seems to be hanging with no explanation or anything.
 * I considered a caption to be unnecessary because the adjacent text explains the image; will try to work out a compromise.


 * Please check the table meets MOS:DTT for screen readers, with row and col scopes.
 * No over-capitalisation in the table please.
 * Do you mean of the individual letters (A, B, C) or the other table elements? I thought the letters would be more clear in upper- than lower-case.


 * " 2-5, 4-3, 6-1" check WP:DASH.
 * Awful at MoS stuff like this, but I'm going to gradually go through this and change accordingly. Except glaringly obvious oversights ...

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto for "pp. 7-8" etc.
 * Thank you for your comments, I will try to resolve them in due course. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is an interesting article on an intriguing form of verse. A few specific points:
 * I think the present structure is amiss; the "Background" section should be the first, not the last section. In that way the reader gets some understanding of the history and concept, before encountering the specifics.
 * Done.


 * You need to explain what "Occitan" is, as in "the Occitan followers of Daniel". Not all readers will be aware that it is a language, and they shouldn't have to use a link to find out.
 * Re-worded the entire section, with a sentence on Occitan language.


 * It would be good to have in this section, if possible, some indication of the symbolism behind this particularly rigid form of verse construction. Are any of the sources helpful here?
 * Forgive me, but I'm not quite sure what you mean by "symbolism" here, could you clarify? The troubadours were all about constructing elaborate forms and out-doing each other, so I believe any symbolism has only been applied retrospectively to what people have done with the form.


 * According to what I have read, the first sestina in English of the modern era was published in 1879 by Edmund Gosse. Here it is
 * This has been brought up by another user, but I appreciate the link.


 * You might also mention that the sestina was made fashionable in 17th century Germany, by Martin Opitz among others. I can't remember where I picked this info up, though. I'll try and source it.
 * Thank you, that would be helpful. I will try to give a brief oversight of the sestina as it appears in Germany, but I'm conscious that the section could become unwieldly if I try to be too broad.


 * Although most of the language in the article is accessible, some is difficult (maybe impenetrable) for the general reader. I would particularly draw your attention to wording such as "The pattern of the second stanza can be seen as combining both a triadic and a dyadic component" - there may be an easier way of expressing this.
 * I've attempted to clarify the points and simplify some language. It appears much clearer now, to me.


 * A couple of minor points: Ref 12 lacks a year (also check the page number); ref 24 refers to "Davison" whereas the bibliography lists "Davidson".
 * Done.

I hope these points will help you to improve the article. Brianboulton (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comments, thank you. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * While Brianboulton plainly knows more about FAs than I, I can't agree to his suggestion about bringing the historical section forward (which, by the way, let's just call "History"!). A really significant part of the history of the sestina is how poets have subtly altered its form over centuries. As I argued on the talk page, I think these alterations will best be understood after the "standard" structure (which MOHOD and I have tentatively identified as "that used by Petrarch") is clearly described. Phil wink (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a manageable change if we can re-figure History so as to identify the standard form there, then elaborate upon it in the Form. If the current layout of History then Form is per guidelines, I suppose it should be adhered to. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I've encountered another problem, so Phil may be doubly correct. The first encounter with the sestina, as detailed in History, is as a double sestina; although certain characteristics might be assumed, the casual reader is going to have no idea what the double sestina is until they reach halfway through Form ... I believe it may have to be Form > Effect > History. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)