Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ode on a Grecian Urn/archive1

Ode on a Grecian Urn

Nominator(s):user:Ottava_Rima (talk) Mrathel (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Ode on a Grecian Urn/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it both meets the FAC criteria and has received a significant amount of attention from several editors who had added great content. I am willing to make the necessary changes to help the article pass and would love any comments on how it can be changed or made better. Mrathel (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Quickly fixing some uncaught vandalism and some other damages that happened to the page. Will have this fixed by tomorrow. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I will be updating the Structure and the Critical response sections today. I have just finished updating Background and Themes. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy22:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Decline
  1. 1c:
     1. fn35 OR: Unpublished manuscript in the possession of Dr James Bettley & final paragraph unverifiable.
     2. fn25, 26, 29
     3. Melani and Brooks are SELF.
     4. High Quality sources not used: FUTON bias; lack of chapters in edited collections, lack of journal articles.
     5. fn34 is SELF ^ Rick Rylance. “The New Criticism”. pp.73-74 (rtf link)
  2. 2c:
     1. fn33 out of style, no other fullcites in notes
     2. Notes lack internal punctuation and do not match bibliography
     3. Lack of provenance information (Location, Publisher, Year)
     4. Links are cookied, not DOI or universal links, can't verify internet sources.
     5. References section is a stylistic mess, ie, spacing and punctuation, "Bush, Douglas. "Introduction" in John Keats: Selected Poems and Leters. Ed. Doublas Bush.Cambridge:Harvard UP. 1959." Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The speedy close and some other problems will be ignored. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll allow the article's references to speak for themselves regarding the article's blatant FUTON:

1. SELF: Brooks, Cleanth. ’The Well Wrought Urn’. [1]
2. GoogleBooks: Carr, J. W. Myns. “The Artistic Spirit in Modern Poetry”; ed. Oswald Crawfurd, Francis Hueffer, Charles Kegan Paul. Vol. 5, p. 160.[2]. Accessed 11-25-08
3. Clickspam link and Copyvio of http://www.heldref.org/pubs/exp/about.html 's rights: Gumpert, Matthew. "Keats's 'To Haydon, With a Sonnet on Seeing the Elgin Marbles' and 'Seeing the Elgin Marbles'". Explicator Sept 22,1999." http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-59037686.html
4. SELF: Melani, Lilia. "Ode on a Grecian Urn: Classification of Poem".[4] http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/cs6/urn.html
5. SELF/rtf link: Rick Rylance. “The New Criticism”. pp.73-74 http://www.ua.es/personal/jalvarez/Word/Adiciones%20de%202005/The%20New%20Criticism.rtf
6. Via an online reprint, not the original: Sheley, Erin. "Re-Imagining Olympus: Keats and the Mythology of Individual Consciousness". Harvard University. Reprinted on Romanticism on the NetNo. 45 Nov. 2007. [5]. Accessed Dec. 6, 2008.
7. interscience.wiley.com (provides a Session Cookie Error for me): Sikka, Sonia. "On The Truth of Beauty: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Keats". [6]
8. Dead JSTOR link "We're Sorry. JSTOR could not retrieve the requested item because the link does not resolve to any existing content." Swanson, Arthur. "Form and Content in Keat's 'Ode on a Grecian Urn'". College English, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Jan., 1962), pp. 302-305 [7]

8/12 references Fifelfoo (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that by stating something is on JSTOR, you are contradicting your claims above that there were no articles used? I also find it troubling that you refuse to actually look at the bulk of references, which are not anything you have stated above. And saying that Cleanth Brooks is a "self published" source is absurd. Cleanth Brook's The Well Wrought Urn is one of the most famous New Criticism critical books. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

""We're Sorry. JSTOR could not retrieve the requested item because the link does not resolve to any existing content."". Until this diff Cleanth was cited as http://www.mrbauld.com/keatsurn.html. I'm quite happy to check back, and re-evaluate if the references are properly cited during the FAC process. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, you are confusing -courtesy links- with references. Furthermore, you stated above things that were inappropriate. Please look through FAC and see various reviews and how they respond. There is no "speedy decline". Ottava Rima (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This diff was the nominated article state. Do you see provenance data for Cleanth Brooks? A year? A publisher? The only material I see in the location where provenance data should be is a link to an external website. There is a level of insult in proposing an article in this state,Fifelfoo (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC) and the nominations procedure at WP:FAC urges The Cleanth Brooks citation was introduced in November 2008 and has not been modified to meet basic citation expectations until after being nominated at FAC. I'll look forward to checking back in on this article in a week when I hope I can change my opinion, but the nominator is asking for a considerable level of work, without having done basic things, like observe the publisher and year of what I have had explained to me is a piece of seminal criticism. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I apologise for BITING, and for allowing my dismay at the quality of the article's sourcing as nominated to let me feel justified in assuming bad faith. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This page is not about harping on the past but about discussing what is needed. It currently has its publication detail so there is no point in discussing it further. By the way, why are you reviewing brand new pages while there are dozens that desperately need reviews and have sat there for weeks? Ottava Rima (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Because I did Brunel and a celebrity on FAR this morning, am still jubilant about the extensive footnoting issues resolved in Inner German Border, feel little competence with celebrity / pop culture FAs, have monitored the current FAC list from the SMS Derfflinger upwards, and already noted in passing that the Author's Farce looks like it should. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"a level of insult in proposing an article in this state"? Fifelfoo, I have never come across you in my short days on WP, but I assure you that there was no insult and would like for you to apologize for not assuming good faith. I felt that this article, with a bit of tweaking, would be an excellent candidate for FA, and I asked Ottava to help me with the process, as he has put in so much of the information contained in the article. When I added the information from the Brooks work, I had only the text on hand and thought it would be a nice gesture to give a link to an online text that stated some of the same ideas, though through the median of a secondary source. I do now realize that this was a mistake,but nothing quoted in the text can not be found in the original source.Mrathel (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, it's possible to critique the work of FAC nominees without insulting it. "a level of insult in proposing an article in this state" was, IMO, impolite at the very least. Geraldk (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. When starting to read this article I couldn't help wanting to know what the Grecian urn actually looks like. Keats's drawing is a cool lead image, but it'd be useful grounding to also have a photo in the body of the article. I suggest working File:Vase de Sosibios 01.JPG into the article somehow, as the best photo of the urn that we have in Commons. It might also help to add File:Maenad Sosibios vase Louvre Ma442.jpg and/or File:Vase de Sosibios 02.JPG as details. A portrait of Keats would also be apropos, as the article is a bit low on illustrations. Eubulides (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It would defeat the purpose of the urn, since the urn is completely imaginary. I will find a suitable image for Keats tomorrow when I have a chance. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts were the same when I originally sought an image of the urn and ended up adding Keats's drawing. Since the urn is imaginary, I conceded the point to Ottava at the time and felt that the rendering by the poet was sufficient, but I am open to suggestion on the issue.Mrathel (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

An image of Keats would be great.

• Comments -
• Current ref 36 is just a formatted link with no publisher listed or note that it's an .rtf file. It is a journal article or what?
• UP, U. P. or University Press in the references? I strongly prefer spelling it completely out for our non-scholars among the readers.
• Please don't just use a bare numbered link for the external links in the references, format the titles of the articles with the link.
• What makes http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/cs6/urn.html a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I will make the fix to the Rylance ref; I should have done so a long time ago. It is actually out of The Encyclopedia of Literature and Criticism.
• I am inclined to use UP out of habit, but I can understand if University Press would appeal to more readers
• Will rework links to incorporate text
• Absolutely nothing. I can't believe it has stayed in the article this long.:) Let me find something to replace it and I should have it gone by the end of the day Mrathel (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Minor update to the alt text - could you say the words "By John Keats" are hand-written by Keats himself?
• "Beauty is truth, truth beauty," -that is all/ Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know" - forgive my ignorance but there seems to be an odd number of "'s here. Is that deliberate?
• To Autumn is mentioned in the lead but never thereafter; isn't it unusual to discuss things in the lead without expansion in the main text?
• "Romantic Poetry . " remove space before .
• Does Poetry need capitalisation here?
• "lines 1-2" et seq, I believe you should be using an en-dash to separate the line numbers.
• "the urn" or "the Urn", be consistent.
• "expresses[15]" punctuation missing?
• "tongue.(lines 28-30) " space after .
• Who is "Claud"?
• "In earlier poems, he relied on depictions of natural music, and works such as "Ode to a Nightingale" appeal auditory sensations while ignoring the visual" it may be me, I've re-read this sentence a couple of times, doesn't seem quite right...
• Should "two fold" be hyphenated?
• You link paradox on its fifth use, not its first.
• "Another paradox rises " arises?
• "analyzed " shouldn't we be using BritEng for this article?
• "sung." vs "Truth". - I'm never sure but consistency in full stop placement is needed.
• Notes 13, 21, 35 need an en-dash.
• Melani's url shouldn't be a bare link like that.
• Rylance's ref needs an en-dash.
• Retrieved or Accessed?
• Dates in refs should be consistent, either ISO or human-readable, but not a combination.
• As above, U. P. or UP?

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a notice at the top (the nomination) that this page is under revision. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Was that "thanks for a review"? Not to worry, these were just suggestions and of course you can disregard any or all of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe it was a thanks for the review, at least it is from me, and I am sure Ottava meant as much. Will take all points into consideration and will work to fix.

• Is there any consensus on UP vs. University Press anyway? I have absolutely no affection for either, so I will just make it a uniform University Press at present until otherwise instructed.
• switched "Retrieved" to "Accessed" to keep consistent.
• I think "the urn" is probably a better way to go about the punctuation; the urn isn't a diety,though it contains them, but they are pagan ones which get a lowercase "g". Sometimes I hate grammar:)
• I will look at the auditory/visual statement to see if we can't clarify.
• Removed Melani source; I believe it was used in the original construction of the section but no longer seems necessary due to better sources providing the current material. Mrathel (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• The rest I will leave to Ottava, as endashes and BritEng make my head spin. Mrathel (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Is it really necessary to have two links to the full text; one in EL to Bartleby and another to Wikisource? I'd argue that the Wikisource renders makes the external link redundant. Seegoon (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments: I am concerned about several aspects of this article:-
  • The lead says this poem is one of Keats's "Five Great Odes of 1819". In the Background section it is referred to as part of a group of four, as in "All four poems display..." etc. These different statements need to be reconciled.
  • The Background section seems quite weakly written. Several of the sentences have nothing to do with the background to the writing of these verses (for example "All four poems display a unity in stanza forms and themes"). Other sentences are very difficult to figure out, such as "The precise order of composition is uncertain, but the four poems form a sequence within their structures although the actual order within the sequence is unnecessary." Unnecessary for what? Or do you mean "irrelevant"?
  • First sentence of the Structure section is not grammatical as written. There are other examples of similar carelessness in the article.
  • The commentary on the verses in the Poem seems more appropriate to a literary seminar than an encyclopedic article. This is not an argument for dumbing down, but an effort has to be made for the text to be comprehensible to a broad readership, not just literature graduates.
  • Critical reception: can someone sort out the final paragraph, the last part of which makes no sense at the moment?

I would much rather support this article than oppose it, but at the moment it is a long way short of meeting FA criteria 1(a). I understand that further work is taking place, and I hope that my points will be taken into account during this process. Brianboulton (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reading, it is truly appreciated.

• • • The "Five Greeat Odes" in 1819 include "To Autumn", which was composed later in the year than the other four. If you read the sentence in the Background section, you will see that it is talking about the poems written around May of 1819, thus saying "four".
    • I agree that the background section should be reworded in places, especially the lines on the sequence order.
    • I understand what you mean about the poem section; there is a fine line to walk here because most material that discusses a poem through close reading tends to be very technical, but on the other hand glossing over the text runs the risk of inserting original research even though the intent is to appeal to a broader audience. I'll work on it.

I believe I have addressed most of the concerns listed here; the poem analysis is still very intense in critical terms, but but is probably able to be followed by the average reader. I am having a hard time making a decision on the background section; I understand the need to focus on the specific poem, but since it was created as a series of poems that share thematic and structural unity, it is difficult to discuss its composition without mentioning its relationship to the others, which directly explains why there is not a definite composition date. I am going to ask for a careful reading by one of the other editors who worked on the article, as she is better at catching grammar mistakes and typo's than my poor ADHD-laden self. Let me know if there are any other concerns. Mrathel (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Query: Mrathel, do you feel you can handle this nom without Ottava, or would you rather it be archived and brought back later? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)