Talk:Estadio Chile (poem)/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 16:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  • I look forward to reviewing this article in the next 2-3 days. Le deseo todo lo mejor.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Perhaps the poem itself should have a greater prominence in the article? The current box-on-the-side inclusion of it is difficult to notice. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you suggest? I kept it on the side to keep its use minimal (considering its copyright), but wanted to add the intro/outro as pertains to the article's text. Open to suggestions czar  17:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

@MarshalN20: - While I appreciate your suggestion, this is my review (I signed up for it), not yours. If I need an external second opinion, I'll ask for it. But I didn't ask for one, and I don't see any need to ask for one. So, please desist in intervening in this review. Thanks.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

MarsalN20, although told you cannot participate by ColonelHenry, he is not correct in doing so. The template clearly states:
"Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer."
I was also told by the Colonel, against policy and community spirit, to get lost from his review. -(AfadsBad (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

Comments: Why I failed this article[edit]

I assert that this article does not meet the requirements of Criteria 3 regarding the breadth of coverage. I am failing this article in this GA1 review because I do not see these criteria 3 issues being resolved quickly. The shortcomings of this article are so stark that they will require much research and preparation of the article before another GA review is warranted. To wit:

  • The article discusses the political history of the poem, briefly and supported mostly by one source (fn.1 the introduction to the poem in Tapscott's anthology).
  • When it is described critically, the article does not explore the essential thrusts of the critical analysis, and offers unexplored one-line plaudits.
    • For example, one sentence declares that one critic "cited the poem as an example of poesía de la conciencia outside of the avant-garde tradition" -- how is it an example? define poesía de la conciencia -- especially adding a translation (poem of conscience?) since this is after all the English Wikipedia. What is this style? Define avant-garde tradition--the term "avant garde" means different things at different times and from the vantage point of different cultural/language/national/literary traditions.
  • The article lacks any discussion of several substantive aspects of the poem, including: scansion, style, symbolism (there is are key implied symbols present in this poem that aren't discussed), more details of its publication history, it's critical reception, it's public reception,
  • I think the critical discussion is overly simplistic...one sentence cites that the poem reflects "Jara's own unbroken spirit before his death"...which doesn't correspond with the poem which discusses the end of his song and "how hard it is to sing."

As for the other GA criteria that haven't been met:

  • Criteria 1a: Reprinting the poem here (i.e. the English translation from Tapscott's anthology), circa 1996 runs afoul of copyright laws in Chile, the United States, the UK, and most of the world. Also, little mistakes like sang a "manifesto" composed his the second night there (remove the "the")
  • Criteria 1b: The lede does not adequately summarize the article. It is far too brief, and only addresses two points (1) that it's a common name of a poem written by Jara before he died, and (2) how Jara died. This lede, like the article, needs significantly more information that will require time to prepare.
  • Criteria 4: I detect an anti-coup POV latent within the article. Given that the poem is written by a purported victim of the coup makes this hard to avoid, but at the same time, more balance is needed.
  • Criteria 6b: The picture caption is redundant, and too long per WP:CAPTION

Given that I feel these shortcomings won't be rectified anytime soon, that it will require some time to prepare, and because these issues are substantial, I am failing this article at this time. Feel free to address my comments as you prepare and expand the article, and bring it back for another review in the future.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks, ColonelHenry. I have a few questions. (1a) Are you saying that I should remove the snippet of the poem that is currently on the page? (1b) I'll expand the lead. (4) Can you point out any areas that can be improved re: POV? I thought I kept it neutral and emotionless considering Jara was brutually killed. (6b) I don't see where WP:CAPTION would imply my caption is too long. Are you suggesting that I remove everything but the identification? (0) I can milk every last source if you want, but I used everything substantive worth including. The poem's far from the lliad, but enough to pass the GNG. Would you still fail the article if there are no reliable sources that supply what you're requesting? I'm able to fix anything I can ever possibly fix in the next week if you'll allow me that. czar  20:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I've already closed out this review as failed, so you'd have to start a new nomination when you improve the article. POV is a tough balancing act, especially when you start bantering words like "brutally" as a description. Adverbs like that tend to be weighted, and weighted language makes it POV...even by indirect implication. If I were you, I'd start looking for other sources. Your source for the political history is a preface in Tapscott's anthology, try some academic history books. Try some newspaper sources. Sure you can milk your current sources, but as for the critical and academic analysis of the poem, try JSTOR, or other journal sites, look for mentions at Google Books, e-mail the publisher or Tapscott and ask if they'll direct you to some reviews. Tapscott teaches at MIT, his information is here: http://lit.mit.edu/people/stapscott.php. You should be prepared in your article to discuss diction and rhythm, tonal colouring, symbolism, and a bunch of stuff that goes into scanning the poem. The issue of it being too painful for the poem's narrator to sing, singing in the face of suffering and brutality...it's a familiar image in Spanish and Latin American poetry, especially in the 20th century (compare to allusions in Lorca's works), and a lot of scholars trace it to the Philomela myth (I wrote the GA on that)...see Borges for comparing the poet to a nightingale (the mythical symbol associated with Philomela). This requires far more research than I think you or I could do in a few days. Sure, I have a week-old 13kB article at FAC right now so anything can be possible, but I did a lot of the research for many days before hand. As for the copyvio issues, the poem (putatively 1973) is still copyrighted in its original text and the English translation is copyrighted (putatively 1996). I am afraid you'll have to remove it unless you can establish some fair use exception, take a look here: Wikipedia:Copyright assistance, Wikipedia:Non-free content and I'd encourage you to seek assistance from one of Wikipedia's copyright experts Wikipedia talk:Copyrights, or at the help desk Wikipedia:Help desk. I've written a few poetry articles over the years, one is an FA Duino Elegies, a GA Trees (poem), and I've reviewed others Tornada (Occitan literary term) (which I helped expand and improve during the GA process). When I look at a GA I have to ask first whether there "is enough meat on the bone" and with your Estadio Chile article there's so much more about this poem that could be discussed. If because of copyright violation issues you have to remove that English translation, try translating your own or getting a Spanish-proficient editor to translate it (but provide the source text somewhere...i.e. discuss it on the talk page for the article). If you choose that idea, I do translation work though Spanish isn't my strongest, so when you're ready, I could take a crack at it or find someone who could do it better. Hopefully that puts you in the right direction. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I understand and appreciate that you feel more analysis could and should be done on the poem, but if the current scholarship doesn't include those stylistic analyses, I would hope an article wouldn't fail on breadth for want of its existence. I'll try Tapscott. Everything else appears manageable, if issues at all. Thanks for the input czar  22:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The question ultimately might fall to one of notability...if the poem isn't notable on its own (i.e. lack of significant coverage in reliable sources) it might need to be merged back into the biographical article on Jara where it can be better incorporated. This article at present is mostly a combination of biographical information on Jara particularly the political circumstances of his death. There's very little on the actual poem. That is this article's biggest shortcoming. It would be comparable to planning to write an article on the State of Michigan and only discussing fishing on the Great Lakes.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)