Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/To Autumn/archive1

Cut from FAR page

 * FYI: Ottava Rima is commenting here. NW ( Talk ) 14:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(With my comments added Amandajm (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC) )
 * Cut and paste of Ottava Riva's comments

Large amounts of cited text were removed, uncited text was added, claims about Byron that are neither in the body of the text or in any major scholarly work were added to the lead, and other misleading things were added. Here are more specific problems:


 * Comment: Large amounts of cited text were not removed. They were rearranged more logically.

1. [1] misleading attribution to add a fringe item into the lead
 * Comment: If this refers to the similarity of the poem to John Constable's rural landscapes, then it is not a "fringe item. It is significant context.

2. The statement about Byron is original research and not in the body of the text
 * Comment:The contrast with Byron is pertinent, and needs to be in the body of the text as well. Yes, it requires appropriate referencing. But noone who knows anything about Romantic poetry would consider a comparison between Byron and Keats as OR.

3. Removing a description of an image for the reason that the drawing isn't what his real hair color is, but the description is about the image and not reality. [2]
 * Comment: How childish! The hair in the image is drawn with black lines. that doesn't make it "black hair". The artist has used various tones to indicate that the hair is definitely not black.

4. He removed the third party summary of the poems and turned it into a copy and paste of the poem, which is inappropriate
 * Comment: It was a most inadequate summary.

5. ""To Autumn" is a poem of three stanzas, each of eleven lines. Like others of Keats's odes written in 1819, the structure is that of an odal hymn, having three clearly defined sections corresponding to the Classical divisions of strophe, antistrophe, and epode. [23" that is not found in the source. The source was only used to cite "Like many of Keats's 1819 odes, the structure of the poem is that of an odal hymn." which doesn't say anything about the amount of lines or how odal hymns are broken down and odal hymns do not have three sections, that is an -ode-.
 * Comment: The link to odal hymn contains the information. Yes, the three parts need referencing. One will almost certainly be located.

6. Flesch, William. Companion to British Poetry, 19th Century. Facts on File, 2009. ISBN 978-0816058969 is an unreliable source. Sparksnote is also an unreliable source.
 * Comment: The Sparknotes ref has been replaced with a much better one.

7. Keats characteristically uses monosyllabic words such as "...how to load and bless with fruit the vines that round the thatch-eaves run." The words are weighted by the emphasis of bilabial consonants (b, m, p), with lines like "...for Summer has o'er-brimm'd their clammy cells." There is also an emphasis on long vowels which control the flow of the poem, giving it a slow measured pace: "...while barred clouds bloom the soft dying day". Despite the emphasis on long vowels, there is almost an absence of hiatus where two adjacent vowels occur without a separating consonant.[28]

Those aren't examples given in the source and there are no examples of monosyllabic, making it OR. The example of the bilabials is not provided in the text, making it OR and the statement about the long vowels is wrong too. Those aren't long vowels as Keats's vowels are different from modern vowels and the expression is unique to Keats.
 * Comment
 * I am sure that the references must give some examples, but I don't have those references to hand.
 * Is it really OR to state that this is an example of monosyllabic writing: "how to load and bless with fruit the vines that round the thatch-eaves run." ?
 * The bilabial consonants need to be stated, otherwise your reader has to page-hop to find out what a bi-labial consonant actually is. Why was this not stated, and no example given from the refernced text? "for Summer has o'er-brimm'd their clammy cells." has four such consonants in a single line.
 * "the statement about the long vowels is wrong too. Those aren't long vowels as Keats's vowels are different from modern vowels and the expression is unique to Keats."  This statement by Ottava Rima is ridiculous and shows a lack of understanding as to what constitutes a "long vowel". Again, why was no example given from the referenced source?

8. There is not "almost an absence" but a 100% absence of hiatus, he changed it from saying that, thus making it not reflective of the source. Bate p. 183 - "hiatus is non-existent"
 * Comment: Check the poem. The poem uses "O'er", "whoever" and "winnowing". You could eliminate "O'er" and "...owing" as diphthongs, but that still leaves you with "who/ever", two clearly defined vowels with no consonant between them.

9. "Like the other odes, "To Autumn" is written in iambic pentameter with five stressed syllables to a line, each usually preceded by an unstressed syllable.[27" That is wrong, 13% of the poem is spondee, making it not qualified to be iambic pentameter. The percentage of spondee cited by Bate was removed and that above was added in its place, and it is cited to sparksnotes. Bate doesn't once say it was iambic and he literally wrote the book on the meter of Keats's.
 * Comment: I am going to agree here that more information about the use of spondee needs to be included, and the reference to Bate's observation put back.
 * However, regardless of whether you have found a reference to iambic pentameter in Bate or not, the poem is in iambic pentameter, and those spondees are introduced as variations on the basic rhythm. Moreover, 13% is arguable. Some of the spondees are very aparent, and others are very much "in the reading". Stating a percentage, rather than quoting examples from the poem itself is not really a good way to describe what is happening to the rhythm within the poem. A mathematical percentage is not a very useful tool in analysing and understading poetry.  What are the examples that Bate uses?

The original version did no have these problems or paragraphs of uncited text. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Copied here with inserted comments by Amandajm (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Further Comment
 * I had a discussion with Ipatrol about the reverting of this page. Ipatrol left me this message.
 * Ottava rima was banned this year in a complicated incident with several users. As she could not edit she pointed out a revision that included several vandalistic artifacts, including replacing various links with cunnilingus.--Ipatrol (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have searched the history of the article and nowhere can I find the word "cunnilingus" inserted to replace links.
 * If Ottava rima did this, then it was hardly in "good faith".


 * The bottom line is that the article ought not be an FA just at the minute. It was quite inadequate at the time it was made front page. It still requires more work, and now requires proper referencing to some of the added material. I support its demotion.
 * Amandajm (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A few Comments of my own...

Amandajm, I sympathize with your efforts, but please do not misrepresent what I wrote. I did not agree with you "that the article, in its FA state as absolutely b-awful and shouldn't be an FA, let alone on the front page". My actual words on your talk page were: "Nowhere is it written that once an article is labeled a Featured Article, its contents must be considered as carved in stone and beyond needing any improvement. While the editors, primarily Ottava Rima and to a lesser extent Kathyrncelestewright and maybe a few others, included much that is valuable, it is as clear to me as it is to you that some serious problems were allowed to remain after its having been promoted to Featured status. (And it is no slur on their contributions to assert the need for further improvements; one can always benefit from a second or third pair of eyes.)"

I'm not sure I know what to think about whether this should be demoted or not. If this doesn't deserve FA status, then probably many other FAs don't either. But I do feel that, as I said, some serious issues remained after the FA promotion (what I first noticed are awkwardness and lack of clarity in some of the writing), and they should be dealt with.

Probably the most important thing is that clearly both you, Amandajm, and (as if speaking from another, parallel universe) Ottava Rima are passionate about poetry and this poem specifically. There has been a major gap in the coverage of literature in the English Wikipedia (there especially seems to be a dearth of good and featured articles on literary works that matter), and I admire Ottava's efforts when he was an editor here to fill in that gap. Much remains to be done, including polishing some of the articles now in place. Amandajm, you saw some patchwork that needs to be done to this particular article, and you set about making the changes you thought necessary. Some of your changes, as you see, may need changing themselves. But that is the nature of Wikipedia. I applaud your effort, and I will try to help to the extent I mentioned above. --Alan W (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment, the reasons why I bought into the article were:
 * There was a summary of the poem in the introduction which had been there ever since it was a stub and had never been properly editted. It referred to the "tastes, sights and sounds" of Autumn and was erroneous.
 * The poem is an iconic example of Personification. The word wasn't mentioned in the text. This was a serious omission. No article, in fact even the humblest 4th form essay, could possibly get a pass mark that omitted to mention this, let alone a front page article of an encyclopedia.
 * The other important word that has been omitted is "metaphor".
 * The poem is a much cited example of iambic pentameter. Ottava argued against this, saying that it contained (some mathmatical percentage of) spondees, and referenced a study. Yes, it has spondees, an indeterminate percentage (because it's in the reading). What Ottava does not appear to comprehend is that a variance of rhythm is only apparant when a standard rhythm is already set. In other words, Ottava has quoted from sources without understanding the implications of what the author has said, and in doing so, has somehow missed the essential information- that the poem is written in iambic pentameter.  This fact was altogether missing.
 * The poem needs to be put in context. The cultural context of the poem is English Romantic poetry and Romantic landscape painting which was an artform of growing popularity in England, practiced most famously by John Constable, Thomas Gainsborough and John Sell Cotman.
 * There was introduced by me, in relation to the notion of "colonialism", (mentioned and referenced elswhere in the article), a contrast made between Keat's "English landscape" and Byron's and Shelley's poetry focussing on the beauties of the Classical or European landscape.
 * 'The work is often interpreted as an allegory of death. It is also interpreted in different ways as Keats's response to the Peterloo Massacre which took place in the same year. It may be seen as the poet's response to the many English poems, such as Byron's Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, written in praise of the natural beauties of other countries, or as a direct contrast to Shelley's Ode to the West Wind, published the previous year. It has also been cited as an expression of colonialist sentiment.
 * Someone editted out the specifics, (it was indeed unreferenced but could almost certainly could be backed with a reference) and left this bald and meaningless intro to a sentence:
 * Different in tone from other poetry appearing about the same time, such as Byron's or Shelley's, the work has been interpreted as an allegory of death; as Keats's response to the Peterloo Massacre, which took place in the same year; and as an expression of colonialist sentiment.
 * I have to question how being an allegory of death separates the poem from Byron's and Shelley's. This is a non sequitur.
 * I have removed the Byron and Shelley bit.
 * Now, does that leave us with no reference at all to Keat's two greatest contemporaries, (not to mention the somewhat older Wordsworth)? I think it does. Somewhere within this article (if it is to fulfill its purposes) such a comparison ought to be made.
 * Amandajm (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Response
 * Delist, as suggested by User:Jj98 20:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem at all with having it delisted. I think that it needs some sourcing, by someone who has a bit more time than I do, and access to a literary rather than an art Library. Ottava had many arguments with the examples that I inserted for long vowels, plosive consonants and so on. The examples were all very obvious ones, but if there is an argument that including examples (ie. illustrations) straight out of a primary source constitutes OR, then someone needs to find the book that is cited and quote the examples directly from it. In response to the Ottava's complaints, I requested that this should be done. It wasn't
 * Restore to an earlier version. Kevin Rutherford 21:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This would be inappropriate. There were a great number of problems with the article.
 * I don't know how it became an FA, but it was perhaps made one by editors who checked carefully to see if information was properly referenced and found that it was.
 * What the editors who made it a FA didn't check was:
 * Whether all the essential information was there.
 * Whether the infomation that was there was accurate ie. the inaccurate statement in the intro about "taste" (unreferenced).
 * Whether the information was appropriately ordered.
 * Whether the reader could actually comprehend, from what was written, the formal elements of the poem.
 * Restoring the poem, just for the sake of getting it back to the FA status that it should never have received in the first place would be highly inappropriate. Piecemeal slotting in of bits and pieces will not make for a good article.
 * Keep as is. as suggested by Alan W
 * My response is as for Delist.
 * The article is very much better than it was, when it was made a front page article.
 * I feel that the article needs more work.
 * There is now a statement in the intro that says that the poem has parallels in rural landscape and that Keats referred to it as being like a painting. Er? It is about the rural landscape, not "parallel" to it! This is the sort of nonsensical statement, like the one about Byron and Shelley, which occurs when an editor decides that another editor has made a comment that is "OR" and tidies up the comment, to an extent that it becomes incomprehensible, inappropriate or just plain silly!
 * How did this happen? I wrote in that it had parallels in the rural landscapes of John Constable. This was referenced. But the sentence was cut down to "rural landscape" which doesn't mean painting-  what it means is land.
 * As long as problems like this remain in the intro, then it is not an FA article. The mention of Constable needs to be returned, and a section on "Context" needs to be introduced in the body of the text.
 * Amandajm (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Restore to earlier version - there are more problems now then before. I'm appalled by the rampant destruction of a FA. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * These are totally unsupported assertions. What justification do you have for claiming that "there are more problems than before"? "Rampant destruction"? How so? That's a pretty extreme accusation. Can you give us specific diffs to back up what you say? Amandajm and I don't agree on every point, but at least I respect her taking the trouble to back up her criticism of the article. --Alan W (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the added original research? Removal of the plot summary? The concerns here? I don't think much of her criticism was valid, and !voting to delist a (what was) fully-verifiable FA after "improving" it is nonsensical. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ottava Rima is understandably miffed that some of his work was changed. But he is hardly an objective observer, especially as he is a banned user. Most if not all of the "added original research" has been removed after further discussion and reconsideration. I took pains to do some of that myself. And you are still not giving any reasons why you don't think much of Amandajm's criticism is valid. Can you argue against any of it based on any of your own knowledge of Keats or poetry&mdash;or your own reading of those very sources that you rightly claim are important? I think she makes some good points, even though I don't agree with all she says. Also, just because she !voted for delisting that doesn't justify reacting against that by reverting everything, lock, stock, and barrel. I and some others, not only Amandajm, took the trouble to fix some unclear sentences and other rough spots. It wouldn't be fair to us to throw all that away. We are really trying to make this an even better article than it was before, and my own !vote as expressed earlier is to keep its FA status, not delist.


 * Maybe Kevin Rutherford has the fairest idea: "Three, we restore the article, but if there is some information added that actually has sources, we could just merge it to an earlier version." That, at least, would not ride roughshod over the work of others. I know there is one change I took a lot of trouble to make that is properly sourced, using, as it happens, a source that Ottava Rima first used.


 * Please don't forget: every Featured Article's talk page includes the notice: "if you can update or improve [the article], please do so." Some of us have made good-faith edits to do just that. So I think it is the responsibility of all who are passing judgment on this article to be fair not only to the original editors, but to those who have made later good-faith edits. The "plot summary" involved only a few sentences interpreting the poem. Maybe those sentences should be restored. But the properly sourced edits that were made later should be allowed to remain as well. Isn't our goal on Wikipedia to try to make these articles as good as they can be? --Alan W (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima was banned for his behavior only. His content contributions were more than exemplary, and if I remember right, he's writing an entire dissertation on Keats, for crying out loud. As such, I trust his judgment far more than anyone else on this topic. If you want to add sourced content after a revert to the FAC version, be my guest. To entirely rewrite the article – deleting large swathes of it in the process – without even discussing the desired changes on the talk page is rather rude. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Where did you see that Ottava Rima is writing a dissertation on Keats? Even if he is or was, that is irrelevant here. How do you know that I (or Amandajm, for that matter) also didn't write dissertations or even highly rated books on Keats? But that too would be totally irrelevant. See WP:Authority: "Proposals either to verify editor credentials or to reject their validity altogether have both been rejected. In the absence of an official policy, editors are free to accept, reject, invoke, or verify any credentials as they see fit, but there is no official requirement for any other editors to treat credentials in the same manner." So, you can say what you believe about this matter, but I certainly have no obligation to accept it. As I see it, we are all trying to make the best articles possible. Period. Whatever Ottava put in that was properly sourced and clearly written and appropriate by the standards applying to Wikipedia articles, especially Featured Articles, fine, I have no objections to letting that stand. As I said, I have worked with Ottava myself, and despite our disagreeing about some things, I respect a lot of what he has done. But I also think that if you or anyone else revert later edits by others that also conform to these standards, that is unjustified. If I see any of that, I certainly will restore my edits. And if you disagree with that, then, as you say yourself, we can discuss it on the article's talk page. --Alan W (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't patronize me. I've read WP:Authority, and your quote has no bearing on this; I am accepting that he is writing a dissertation regardless of whether or not you believe it. A wholesale rewrite was not justified and in my opinion made the article worse overall – I'm not disputing every edit made, just the general pattern and the end result. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I could justifiably think you are patronizing me, as if you're saying, "Don't argue with me, I'm speaking by a higher authority you can't understand or have no respect for." (Also, I am not claiming any certainty that he didn't write the dissertation; I'm just saying that that has no weight in this dispute, as far as I am concerned.) But let's put that aside now. It's really not relevant to what I'm trying to get across, which maybe I haven't yet conveyed. And that is that because of one editor's style of editing and the edits she made (and right now I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with those; I've already expressed my opinions on them elsewhere, and she is capable of defending herself, anyway), you claim the right to revert a whole article, thereby throwing out what other editors have done in good faith. That is really the main thing that bothers me about your stance on this. It started when a simple fix of a broken link was thrown out for the same reason (I'm not saying you did that, but that was when I started to feel unfairly treated in this business). One editor is a major contributor to an FA; another editor comes along and makes a bunch of edits you think are wrong&mdash;so everyone else has to suffer? If you are concerned about unsourced material and other things removed, then you should revert only those things you can point to as specifically wrong, with a proper note on the talk page, instead of throwing out everything else that was added, some of which has been properly sourced or is otherwise completely justified. How often do I have to go back in and reclarify a sentence (with the proper source of course) or refix a broken link? Of course this is assuming that you would be doing the reverting. If someone else, then what I am saying applies equally to that editor. --Alan W (talk) 06:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Will you all please start using the FAR page correctly? Most of this belongs on talk, not on FAR.  Which person opining to keep this article, co-nominated by an ItsLassieTime sock, has checked all of the sources for copyvio and plagirism?  Arguing over the prose and which version to keep without checking sources is somewhat pointless.  Doing it via proxy even more so.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 09:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Analysing the changes
It's claimed here that there have been deletions. The article is actually a little longer than it was. It contains almost all the original material.

Changes were made where material was:
 * Erroneous (perhaps only one sentence)
 * Badly expressed
 * Confusing
 * Not well thought through
 * Lacked continuity ie. jumped from form to theme to context withing a single paragraph.
 * Clearly challengeable such as analysing percentages of times a form occurred.

A major change was the rearranging of sections. There was also some rearrangement of material within sections. Some parts of the original were shifted to paragraphs in why that had stronger application. Let me emphasise that very little of the original was lost, but some of it was rewritten.

Intro Here are the changes:


 * Paragraph 2
 * The poem has three stanzas, each of eleven lines, that describe the tastes, sights, and sounds of autumn. Much of the third stanza, however, is dedicated to diction, symbolism, and literary devices with negative connotations, as it describes the end of the day and the end of autumn. "To Autumn" includes an emphasis on images of motion, growth, and maturation. 
 * NOTE: "tastes" is incorrect. The FA version had a reference to the "tactile sense" further down the article which contradicted this. The "tactile" has remained and the "taste" which was left over from the original stub has gone.
 * The second sentences here refers to "diction symbolism and literary devises" as if they occurred in the third stanza only. "Negative connotations" is not a good description. Later on in the article the editor had referred to Death as being "welcome". That remains, while this conradictory sentences was written out.
 * New Version:
 * The poem has three eleven-line stanzas which describe a progression through the season, from the late maturation of the crops to the harvest and to the last days of autumn when winter is nearing. The imagery is richly achieved through the personification of Autumn, and the description of its bounty, its sights and sounds. It has parallels in rural landscape, [1] with Keats himself describing the fields of stubble that he saw on his walk as being like that in a painting.[2]
 * NOTE: 1. "rural landscape" should read "the works of rural landscape painters".
 * 2. There is a brief but much more satisfactory description of what the poem is about.
 * 3. Personification. This is the major poetic tool used in this poem. "To Autumn" is the iconic example. It had been omitted from the FA entirely!!!


 * Paragraph 3
 * FA version: The work can be interpreted as a discussion of death, an expression of colonialist sentiment, or as a political response to the Peterloo Massacre.
 * New version: The work has been interpreted as an allegory of death, as Keats's response to the Peterloo Massacre, which took place in the same year; and as an expression of colonialist sentiment.


 * NOTE: All ideas still present
 * 1. "discussion" has become "allegory"
 * 2. The "Colonialist sentiment" theory has the least currency as has been put last.
 * 3. The relationship to the Peterloo massacre is interpretted in a "non-political" as well as "political" way.

Background
 * No significant changes.

Structure
 * Moved further down the page, after the Theme.

Poem
 * The thematic divisions that were between the stanzas have been put into the Theme section and expanded.

Theme
 * Paragraph 1
 * An all-new paragraph which summarises the theme.
 * Autumn" describes, in its three stanzas, three different aspects of the season, its fruitfulness, its labour and its ultimate decline. Through the stanzas there is a progression from early autumn to mid autumn and then to the heralding of winter. Parallel to this, the poem depicts the day turning from morning to afternoon and into dusk. These progressions are joined with a shift from the tactile sense to that of sight and then of sound, creating a three part symmetry which is missing in Keats's other odes.[11]


 * Stanza 1
 * FA version: The first stanza of the poem describes natural processes, unlike the following which deal more with sensual observations, as it presents a harvest in its final stages. [15] The Stanza provides a union of maturation and growth, two oppositional forces within the work, and this union instills an idea within nature that the season will not end:[16]
 * Editted version: Throughout the poem, Autumn is personified as one who conspires, who ripens fruit, who harvests and makes music. The first stanza of the poem represents Autumn as involved with the promotion of natural processes, growth and ultimate maturation, two forces in opposition in nature, but together creating the impression that the season will not end.[12] In this stanza the fruits are still ripening and the buds still opening in the warm weather. The tactile sense spoken of by Sperry is suggested by the imagery of growth and gentle motion: swelling, bending and plumping.[11]
 * NOTE: 1. the line in the FA version about "unlike the following which deal more with sensual observations" is out of place in describing the first Stanza. It would be more useful in describing the second stanze ie The second stanza of the poem deals with sensual observations unlike the first which describes natural processes. The information contained is identical, but it is pointless to compare something that the reader has not yet read and expect comprehension. That is not good style, regardless of how accurate the fact may be.
 * 2. The significant point about "opposing forces" and ref is retained.
 * 3. *Most importantly*, the Personification of Autumn is introduced into the discussion of theme and this continues into the subsequent descriptions of the stanzas.


 * Stanza 2
 * FA Version: The second stanza reverses the images of the first stanza and describes the process of harvesting. Autumn, a harvester, is not actually harvesting but exists in a stasis. Only near the end of the stanza is there movement:[16]
 * Editted version: The second stanza presents the personification of Autumn as the harvester, to be seen by the viewer in various guises performing labouring tasks essential to the provision of food for the coming year. There is a lack of definitive action, all motion being gentle. Autumn is not depicted as actually harvesting but as seated, resting or watching.[12] In lines 14–15 Autumn is described metaphorically as an exhausted labourer. Near the end of the stanza, the steadiness of the gleaner in lines 19–20 again emphasises a motionlessness within the poem.[13] The progression through the day is revealed in actions that are all suggestive of the drowsiness of afternoon: the harvested grain is being winnowed, the harvester is asleep or returning home, the last drops issue from the cider press.[11]
 * NOTE: 1. I have not the faintest clue what the FA edtior meant by "The second stanza reverses the images of the first stanza". It isn't explained!
 * 2. The editted version picks up the themes of "Personification", the "advance of the season", the "advance of the day into afternoon", as well as including and further expounding the "stasis and motion" mentioned in the FA version.


 * Stanza 3
 * FA Version: Within the final moments of the poem, there is an introduction of the harvest and Autumn is manifested in the role of a harvester. The end approaches within the final moments of the song and death is slowly approaching alongside of the end of the year. However, Autumn is replaced by an image of life in general, and the songs of autumn becomes a song about life in general:[17]
 * Editted version: The last stanza contrasts Autumn's sounds with those of Spring. The sounds that are presented are not only those of Autumn but essentially the gentle sounds of the evening. Gnats wail and lambs bleat in the dusk. As night approaches within the final moments of the song, death is slowly approaching alongside of the end of the year. The full-grown lambs, like the grapes, gourds and hazel nuts will be harvested for the winter. The twittering swallows gather for departure, leaving the fields bare. The whistling red-breast and the chirping cricket are the common sounds of winter. In this stanza the songs of autumn becomes a song about life in general.[14] The references to Spring, the growing lambs and the migrating swallows remind the reader that the seasons are a cycle.
 * NOTE: 1. "Within the final moments of the poem, there is an introduction of the harvest and Autumn is manifested in the role of a harvester". This is plainly erroneous.  The harvest and manifestation of Autumn as Harvester are not "within the final moments of the poem".  They are the whole theme of the second stanza! The only indication of harvest in this stanza is the "stubble fields".  I am, frankly, amazed, that anyone who knows anything about this poem or who has read it critically could be fighting to maintain such an inaccurate statement as this!
 * 2. The wording "approaching alongside of" is very clumsy.
 * 3. The meaningful point in the FA version (as against the incorrect one) has been retained- "In this stanza the songs of autumn becomes a song about life in general.[14]".

All very interesting, but belongs on talk-- have you personally verified any of the sources? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 09:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Will just stick the rest here, if you don't mind, then cut and paste the lot to the talk page. and delete this, if you consider it in appropriate. It seemed like the right place . Amandajm (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Paragraph 2
 * FA Version: The three stanzas of "To Autumn" are able to suggest both a movement from summer to early winter and also day turning into dusk. This progression is joined with a shift from the sensation of touch to sight and then to sound, creating a three part symmetry which is missing in Keats's other odes.[21] Although there is process and the suggestion of motion within the poem, there is a lack of action. Within the second stanza, autumn is described through metaphor as an exhausted labourer in lines 14–15. Near the end of the stanza, the steadiness of the gleaner in lines 19–20 emphasizes a motionlessness within the poem. The individuals are burdened or merely watch the events surrounding them. The poem as a whole creates within the imagination an image of death and a finality that is welcomed.


 * NOTE: This paragraph contains valuable referenced information. None of it has been lost
 * 1. All the material in this paragraph has been incorporated into a) a comparison of this with the other odes b) the introduction of the article c) the three paragraphs which describe the three stanzas.


 * Paragraphs 1,3,4
 * FA Version: All retained but placed after the description of the three stanzas.

Structure This section has been enlarged, and reoganised and has had examples drawn from the text added to it, illustrative of the forms and figures of speech described.


 * Pargraph 1
 * FA Version: Like many of Keats's 1819 odes, the structure of the poem is that of an odal hymn.[9]
 * Editted version: "To Autumn" is a poem of three stanzas, each of eleven lines. Like others of Keats's odes written in 1819, the structure is that of an odal hymn, having three clearly defined sections corresponding to the Classical divisions of strophe, antistrophe, and epode. [23] The stanzas differ from those of the other odes through use of eleven lines rather than ten, and have a couplet placed before the concluding line of each stanza.[24]
 * NOTE: The editted version in the section Structure begins by stating exactly what the structure of the poem is.


 * Paragraph 2
 * FA version: While the earlier 1819 odes perfected techniques and allowed for variations that appear within "To Autumn", Keats dispenses with some aspects of the previous poems (such as the narrator) and ensures that the poem deals only with concrete concepts.
 * Editted version: "To Autumn" employs poetical techniques which Keats had perfected in the five poems written in the Spring of the same year, but departs from them in some aspects, dispensing with the narrator and dealing with more concrete concepts.[25]
 * NOTE: Same ideas, reworded with "To Autumn" as the subject of the sentence, rather than "the earlier 1819 odes".


 * Paragraph 3
 * FA version: There is no dramatic movement in "To Autumn" as there is in the earlier poems, and the poem attempts to discuss the poetic process without a progression of the temporal scene, an idea that Keats termed as "stationing".[10] Some of the language of the poem resembles phrases found in earlier poems Keats had written and there are similarities between the lines of "To Autumn" and lines in poems such as Endymion, Sleep and Poetry, and Calidore.[11]
 * Editted version: There is no dramatic movement in "To Autumn" as there is in many earlier poems; the poem progresses in its focus while showing little change in the objects it is focusing on. There is, in the words of Walter Jackson Bate, "a union of process and stasis", "energy caught in repose", an effect that Keats himself termed "stationing".[26] Twice at the beginning of verses he employs the dramatic Ubi sunt device associated with a sense of melancholy, and questions the personified subject: "Where are the songs of Spring?"[27]
 * NOTE: 1. Expanded with reference.
 * 2. Discussion of "Ubi sunt" device.
 * 3. FA sentence about "Some of the language of the poem resembles phrases found in earlier poems Keats had written and there are similarities between the lines of "To Autumn" and lines in poems such as Endymion, Sleep and Poetry, and Calidore.[11]" is retained and used in a paragraph where it relates better to the context.


 * Paragraph 4.
 * FA version: Keats relies heavily on monosyllabic words and consonantal sounds – especially bilabial consonants – along with an emphasis on long vowels to control the flow of the poem. His syntax lacks hiatus and there is only a single instance medial inversion of an accent within the poem. However, he does incorporate the Augustan inversion (a reversal of an accent at the beginning of a line) approximately 4.2% of the time. Within his measure, Keats incorporates spondees in approximately 13.9% of his verses.
 * Editted version: Like the other odes, "To Autumn" is written in iambic pentameter (but greatly modified from the very beginning) with five stressed syllables to a line, each usually preceded by an unstressed syllable.[28] Keats varies this form by the employment of Augustan inversion, sometimes using a stressed syllable followed by an unstressed syllable at the beginning of a line, including the first: "Season of mists and mellow fruitfulness"; and employing spondees in which two stressed syllables are placed together at the beginnings of both the following stanzas, adding emphasis to the questions that are asked: "Who hath not seen thee...", "Where are the songs...?"
 * NOTE: 1. The editted paragraph orders the discussion of structure, defining first the Rhythm. The Rhythm is iambic pentameter, and this poem is cited in various sources as an example. It is the first thing that should be to be mentioned, after the number and length of stanzas.
 * 2. The editted version states, within the same sentence, that there are variations on this rhythm pattern, and spends the rest of the paragraph defining precisely what those variations are, and where they are significantly used in the poem. Difficult terms that a reader might otherwise have to look up are defined, with examples.
 * 3. The FA version is a list of features with some percentages thrown in for good measure. While I have no doubt the book from which they come from is interesting, if the FA editor, let alone the reader, fails to comprehend that the cited work means that there are 13.9% spondees within a poem that is otherwise composed of iambics, then the percentage is absolutely meaningless! Moreover, spondees are something that is very much in the reading; some reciters will emphasise them and others will treat all but the most obvious as iambics.
 * 4. The vowel and consonant sounds mentioned in the first sentence of the FA version are dealt with in a separate paragraph.
 * 5. The poem doesn't lack hiatus. There are at least three examples of it.


 * Paragraph 5
 * FA version: The rhyme follows a pattern of starting with a Shakespearian ABAB pattern which is followed by CDEDCCE rhyme scheme however in his second and third stanza it changes to CDECDDE. The verse differentiates itself from his previous odes through use of 11 line stanzas, instead of 10, with a couplet placed before the concluding line of each stanza.[12]
 * Editted version: The rhyme of "To Autumn" follows a pattern of starting each stanza with an ABAB pattern which is followed by rhyme scheme of CDEDCCE in the first verse and CDECDDE in the second and third stanzas.[29] In each case, there is a couplet before the final line. Some of the language of "To Autumn" resembles phrases found in earlier poems with similarities to Endymion, Sleep and Poetry, and Calidore.[30] Keats characteristically uses monosyllabic words such as "...how to load and bless with fruit the vines that round the thatch-eaves run." The words are weighted by the emphasis of bilabial consonants (b, m, p), with lines like "...for Summer has o'er-brimm'd their clammy cells." There is also an emphasis on long vowels which control the flow of the poem, giving it a slow measured pace: "...while barred clouds bloom the soft dying day". Despite the emphasis on long vowels, there is almost an absence of hiatus where two adjacent vowels occur without a separating consonant.[29]
 * NOTE: 1. This is an expansion.
 * 2.This sentence is from another FA paragraph. "In each case, there is a couplet before the final line. Some of the language of "To Autumn" resembles phrases found in earlier poems with similarities to Endymion, Sleep and Poetry, and Calidore."

Critical reception
 * The FA version remains without significant change.


 * Amandajm (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Cut'npaste of comment

Will you all please start using the FAR page correctly? Most of this belongs on talk, not on FAR. Which person opining to keep this article, co-nominated by an ItsLassieTime sock, has checked all of the sources for copyvio and plagirism? Arguing over the prose and which version to keep without checking sources is somewhat pointless. Doing it via proxy even more so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Response
 * I am presuming that since the article got to FA, that there were no copyvios and that the references were sound. Editors who play a part in raising articles to FA generally question these things.
 * What I questioned, when I editted, was the great gaps in essential information, the odd construction of the article, and the apparent lack of real comprehension of the ideas that had been included.
 * I can't find anything that is obvious plagiarism within the article as it stood when it was on "main page" because all the solid ideas are referenced, as they should be.
 * None of the additional information that I have introduced is plagiarism- it mainly comprises reordering, padding out, explaining and illustrating points that had already been made, as well as removing erroneous, confusing and contradictory material.
 * Suggesting that the article should be returned to its previous state is ridiculous. I suppose that it is equally ridiculous to feel obliged to put a long summary of changes, to that effect.
 * Amandajm (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your assumptions about copyvio checks at FAC (in the past) are incorrect. At any rate, we have a massive FAR page here, apparently no oversight or control of this page (which should have some unhelpful sections moved to the talk page of this FAR), with editors arguing over which version to use and proxying for a banned user.  You should take these arguments to talk so reviewers can focus on the issues, not the squabbling.  The question is whether the article meets criteria; the question is not whether Ottava gets to maintain his preferred version while proxying from outside of Wiki.  Please focus on whether the article meets criteria.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sandy, per this note by Ottava, ItsLassieTime/Kathryn didn't add any content/sources, she only copyedited. AFAIK, Ottava had no issues with copyvio, although the sources should still be checked. Amandajm, could you please give a general response to Ottava's comments there? Although his behavior was not always exemplary, he was a great content contributor, so his thoughts should be seriously considered. Also, do you have access to the sources that he used, to double check for copyvios or plagiarism? Note that articles cannot be pre-emptively delisted in the absence of evidence of copyvio - even if the absence is only because no source check has been done. IMO, the discussions above are directly related to FA criteria issues - is there original research, has unreferenced information been added, has prose been made worse or better. Although contributors are welcomed and encouraged to take finished issues and off-topic discussion to the talk page, this FAR is no longer than many other FARs and FACs we've seen lately, so there is no need to get huffy about the length. Dana boomer (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Dana, I'm concerned about the precedent of FAR being used for one banned editor proxying to comment on another banned editor-- just a bit uncomfortable, no? I'd like to see someone check sources here.  This is out of control, and I wonder how editors here are commenting on content anyway without looking at sources?  Anyway, unwatching now due to travel and trusting you'll sort it ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ARBCOM has specifically said that users may proxy for Ottava, and I would think that linking to his comments are a minor bit of proxying. However, his statement is easily checkable by reviewing the article history - any editor may do this to see if ILT/Kathryn has added content. It's not "out of control" - until recent copyvio issues came to light it was common practice for editors to comment on content without looking at sources, and it really still is common practice, despite what you would like. Dana boomer (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok time out on that one. ARBCOM has said that users may by proxy add new content for Ottava, not that Ottava may take part in disputes by proxy.  I'm going to move most of this (the parts disputing the merits of the change, including Ottava's comments) to the talkpage of this page - if I move anything that is actually useful to the FAR process, you can move it back. Also note that I don't believe Ottava checked for copyvios - it wasn't expected at that point - although I'm sure he would have noticed if someone had directly copied a big chunk of a source he had access to.  A more recent sock of ItsLassieTime has been caught out writing articles with scissors and paste, so it is possible that Kathyrncelestewright did so also.  Hence the request for any reviewer with access to the sources to please do a quick check for copyvio, particularly of Kathyrncelestewright's contributions.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I own and have read all of one major source, Bate 1963. I don't see even a hint of copyvio with respect to that book. --Alan W (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)