Wikipedia:Peer review/Trees (poem)/archive1

Trees (poem)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… This article failed at FAC a few months ago, mostly because of the useless "not engaging prose" comment (which I can't do anything with without specific instances to revise) and because one editor read too deeply into the article and thought it gave negatively undue weight to criticism and parodies of the poem (I don't see it...but we read what we want to read). I'd like to bring it back for FAC in the next few months. Thanks, ColonelHenry (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have no particular issue with the substance of the article. My comments arise from a thorough reading, and are mainly concerned with prose, punctuation and presentation matters.
 * Lead


 * "that August" is a bit abrupt; consider "in August of that year" followed by a comma
 * "Kilmer's work is often disparaged by critics and dismissed by scholars as being too simple and overly sentimental, and that his style was far too traditional and even archaic". The second part of the sentence is not grammatically conjoined to the first. I suggest: "...and his style is considered far too traditional and even archaic".
 * I am assuming that Eddy, Merrill and Robeson sang their own versions of the song rather than as a trio, and it may be as well to clarify this, e.g. "performed at various times by..."
 * Lead citations: I question the need for these, since all this information is cited in the main text. The direct quotations in the lead could easily be replaced by brief paraphrases, particularly the quotes from Kenton Kilmer which are given in full early in the article and are cited there.
 * Whatever you do about the quotes, I would avoid the editorial comment "Ironically".
 * Mahwah: February 1913


 * Maybe "Background" would be a more appropriate title?
 * "on the southwest corner of the intersection of Airmount Road and Armour Road" – perhaps overdetailing?
 * The blockquote should be more specifically attributed to Kenton
 * "alluded to by Kilmer's son" – unnecessary wording: there is only one notebook under discussion.
 * General point: descriptions such as "journalist and Kilmer researcher Alex Michelini" are somewhat clumsy and difficult to read. This format can work when the description is one or two words, but becomes awkward otherwise. One alternative format would be "Alex Michelini, a journalist and Kilner researcher". (Note later: "Rutgers-Newark English professor and poet Rachel Hadas..." - sounds like several people.
 * Kilmer's inspiration


 * Perhaps just "Inspiration"?
 * The somewhat magisterial statement that forms the basis of the brief first paragraph needs to be attributed as well as cited. Is it possible to combine this with the second paragraph?
 * "Both Kilmer's widow, Aline, and his son, Kenton, refuted these claims..." – you need to clarify that "these claims" refers to those of the "several communities" mentioned earlier in the paragraph. This is not completely clear at present.
 * The continuation of the sentence, "and by Kenton in his memoir" is not grammatically consistent with the earlier part
 * Scansion and analysis


 * To avoid repetition the first two sentences could be merged: "'Trees' is a poem of twelve lines, all but one of which has the full eight syllables of strict iambic tetrameter".
 * I'm not sure about "Despite its..." at the start of the second paragraph. "Personification" and "anthropomorphic imagery" are not specifically associated with complex rhyming and metrical schemes. Alternative: "Deceptively simple in rhyme and meter, Trees is notable for..." etc
 * Is it possible to give Winchell a more informative description than "scholar"?
 * Incidentally, I wonder about Winchell's "anatomically deformed" comment. I can't see what he based this on.
 * Publication


 * The word "publishing" in the first line looks unnecessary, given that it occurs again later in the same sentence – which incidentally is rather too long, and could do with a split somewhere.
 * I'm not sure that "successful" is the right word to describe a poem. I imagine you mean that it was well received by critics and public; if that is the case, perhaps you should say so (as I see you do in the next paragraph - some rearrangement of content, perhaps)?
 * In the second paragraph, "staked" is definitely the wrong word. "staking your reputation" means risking it. I think "based" is the right term here.
 * "...ranks the first two lines of "Trees" as 26th out of 50 lines in an assessment of the "most quoted lines of poetry". Too much repetition of "lines": delete nthe middle one.
 * Popular appeal


 * "Kilmer was said to have "rediscovered simplicity" – who said it?
 * "it appealed to both her students' "romantic attitude towards nature" and their appreciation of life" – "her students" needs to be "their", otherwise then syntax is wrong. In any event the sentence is rather too long as it stands, and could beneficially be split.
 * Are the words "considering this sentiment" necessary? I can't see what they add. And again, the sentence which they front seems to go on and on.
 * Two cases of "According to..." in the same paragraph.
 * Critical reception


 * "both" in the first line is redundant. It makes it sound as though Kilner only had two contemporaries, and the phrase makes perfect sense without it.
 * "and suggested that his style..." → "and have suggested that his style ..."
 * Aiken characterized Kilmer as ... "pale-mouthed clingers to the artificial and archaic." The plural "clingers" doesn't work. Perhaps insert "among the"?
 * "Kilmer is considered among the last of the Romantic era poets..." By whom?
 * "a style often criticized today..." Too vague. "Today" is meaningless in an encyclopedia article, and we need some indication of the source of these criticisms.
 * "In the years after Kilmer's death..." Correct me if I've overlooked it, but I don't think Kilmer's dates have been given in the article, so it's unclear when "the years after Kilmer's death" are.
 * "grew with it" → "changed with it"
 * You need a comma after "Understanding Poetry"
 * Winchell doesn't need repeat of description and full name.
 * Refuted claims regarding inspiration


 * I am confused by the second paragraph, which says that "the claim involved a large white oak on the Cook College campus (now the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences), at Rutgers University." It doesn't say who made this claim, though from what you say it wasn't the university, with which Kilmer does not appear to have been connected. Nor is any basis for the claim indicated. Thus it is not clear why  acorns are being planted from this tree all over America, it seems.
 * In the Davenport quote there is a pair of square brackets surrounding a comma. Are they meant to be there? If so, what is their function?
 * "It appears that..." is not encyclopedic usage. This opinion needs to attributed to a reliable source, if it is to remain. The same applies to "likely was derived in some way"
 * Musical adaptations


 * "This setting had been performed and recorded frequently in twentieth century, including (list of names)". Needs "by artists" inserted before "including"
 * I think "Rasbach's setting" rather than "Rasbach's song", and was performed on" rather than "appeared" – and this is another example of a super-length sentence.
 * The second paragraph is, in my view, unhelful to the article as a whole. Do we need this level of detail, who said what in what kind of voice etc, in an article which is essentially about a serious poem? Since you have a section devoted to parody, you are in danger of overweighting the article with lampoon and burlesque. In my view this paragraph should either be dispensed with altogether, or if not, reduced to a short sentence within the parody section.
 * Parodies


 * The presentation is ruined by having two quote boxes which squeeze the text, the latter trailing on to create an ugly white space. One quote box is I think enough.
 * Whether you retain one or both, the provenance of thse quotes should be given in the box, rather than  just a citation number, in the manner of a caption to an image, so that the reader immediately has the context.
 * Delete the redundant "alike" from the first line, and the "with" a few words later.
 * "Further, ..." I can't see why what follows is "further".
 * The third and fourth paragraphs seem to form a continuum and could be combined.
 * In the final paragraph we again have the problem of over-detailing of trivia, to which I alluded earlier in the review (the gratuitous "as well as its 2006 director's cut" seemed a particularly unnecessary point of detail)

I have not looked at the references. I hope that thes ecomments will prove useful to you. If you have any questions,or wish me to look again at aspects of the article, please ping my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)