Talk:Ode to Psyche/GA1

GA Review

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

Hello, I will be conducting this article's GA review. It's certainly a good beginning, but it needs more work before it can be passed. Right now my main concerns are points 1 and 3a of the Good Article criteria; please see my notes below.

Lead

The lead is skimpy at best. In order to fulfill WP:LEAD, it should be expanded to include more details from the body of the article. Keats' inspiration for the ode, for example, should be noted, as well as the poem's structure. Also, how old was Keats when he wrote this?
is one of the famous odes of John Keats, an English Romantic poet. I know this to be true, but this reads as peacocky -- especially for the article's first sentence. How about simplifying it with "is an ode by English Romantic poet John Keats" or something?
It was written in 1819, a productive year that also saw the writing of many other famous works... A personal pet peeve of mine is when something inanimate, such as a year, "sees" something. Also, how many is "many"? The lead only lists two other examples, both of them odes. This can be cleaned up and clarified.
Ode to Psyche serves an important departure from Keats's early poetical subject matter, which frequently involved a flight upward into the pleasant realms of one's imagination. This should be entirely in the present tense, since poetry is, it never isn't; "involves". Also, I'm not sure if "flight upward into the..." etc. is as clear as it is just poetic in and of itself. Can this be toned down for the layman?
However, Psyche documents the poet's quest inward, which is aided by the goddess Psyche and subsequently animates the poet's imagination. Psyche is a redirect, so this should be fixed. Also, it's important to make note of what type of mythology we're dealing with (Greek) and that Psyche is a mortal turned goddess. Again, this might be mentioned easier along with Keats' inspiration for the ode.

Fixes to the lead. Actually, WP:LEAD says that articles under 20k should only have one paragraph, so I combined the two. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Keats was not a professional writer and had to live by a small income that he earned from working as surgeon for Guy's Hospital. When? Where? How old was he? This section should begin as if the lead doesn't exist. Also, should it be "a surgeon"?
Keats left the hospital and lost his source of income in order to devote himself to his poetry. The wording is off here; he left the hospital in order to devote himself to his poetry, losing his source of income.
During the time, lived with Charles Brown, a friend who collected his poetry and helped provide Keats with a means to substain himself. Several issues. During what time? "he lived with". "substain" = "sustain"? a friend who collected Keats' poetry?
Keats wrote many great poems including La belle dame sans merci and Ode to Psyche, the first of his 1819 odes. Great? Eek. That Ode to Psyche was the first written ode of 1819 is important and should be noted in the lead. Did he write any odes before it? What was his previous poetry like? This is what I expect to see in a background section.
but Keats sent the poem to his brother on 3 May 1819 with an attached a letter saying
~~In particular,~~ Keats wrote to his brother George
and read through the Cupid and Psyche myth contained in chapter 22. This seems somewhat obvious and unnecessary; perhaps restate as "which includes a retelling of the Cupid and Psyche myth in chapter 22"?
After reading the work and realizing how the myth was created at such a late time, Keats wrote to George I'm missing the backstory on the myth itself; can it be proved that it was "created at such a late time"? Keats may certainly be correct, but it seems presumptuous. Psyche is a minor goddess at best to begin with. Also, shouldn't there be a brief synopsis of the myth? Girl meets god, girl marries god, girl becomes god?
Change unspaced en dashes to unspaced em dashes.

Fixes - Poem articles don't go into extraneous detail which would describe his age and the rest. See To Autumn#Background for an example of the use of a background section. Describing his older poetry would be inappropriate, as it had little influence on the poem. If you want a summary of the individual myths, then that would be breaching OR - Keats does not really use the original myth. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there is no style guideline that exists for poetry articles, so they are capable of being entirely different from one another. I don't believe that something as simple and brief like stating Keats' dates, or even his age at the time of composition, is extraneous; this is not old, curmudgeon poet we're talking about, but a young man -- not only does a simple number or two give context, but it saves readers from clicking away from the article to know what English Lit buffs already know. That said, it's admittedly minor and I won't push for its inclusion. María (habla conmigo) 19:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are supposed to be consistent, which is part of MoS and integrated into such things such as "good topic" and "featured topic" requirements. Since this poem is part of a set, they should follow the same structure and format. I reworked the section, but anything more in depth would be stretching the limits. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. María (habla conmigo) 20:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

Ode to Psyche, Keats's 67 line ode, was the first of his major odes of 1819. This should be in the lead and in the previous section.
As such, the poem is an experiment in the ode structure that he was to then rely on for his next five odes. That there were five additional odes should also be in the lead; remove the "then".
Although Keats spent time considering the language of the poem, the choice of wording and phrasing does not equal the diction of his previous work, Hyperion, or the odes to follow. Is it meant that the wording and phrasing is not equal? Is it better, worse?
Furthermore, Keats altered the sonnet format to create a longer form that would end with a message or truth. In this poem, yes? Not Hyperion? The previous sentence, ending the way it does, makes this unclear.
However, he did not want the poem to be based simply around that message, and he incorporated dramatic elements into the poem. There are too many sentences throughout the article that begin with "however"; bad form. The cause and effect should be made clearer here; how about this: "not wanting the poem to be based solely (?) around that message, he incorporated..."
Keats incorporated narrative elements... such as?
Of these, the preface was discontinued in his next odes, and details about the setting are removed from the other odes "next odes" and "other odes" is redundant.
In particular, Keats relies on Petrarch's sonnet structure and his "pouncing rhymes" that are found within Petrarch's octave stanzas. Does the "his" refer to Keats or Petrarch? Either way, perhaps it should be "the".
It would help to explain the differences between the Shakespearean and Petrarchan sonnets; is the Petrarchan deemed "legitimate" because it predates the other?
begins with an altered Shakespearean format of ababcdcdeffeef. Rather than "format", this should be referred to as rhyme scheme, since that's what it is.

Fixes - "That there were five additional odes..." - only 4 odes directly followed, and the lead now has a link to the 1819 odes page. "Narrative elements" means a plot or "action". The "legitimacy" argument would require too much original research to explain. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot is only kind of narrative element, of which there are several; there is also setting, character, and conflict, and a couple others that I can't remember off the top of my head. Therefore, if you mean plot or action, you should use those specific words.
If the whole legitimacy issue takes too much time to explain, then perhaps it should be nixed? Otherwise it's confusing and unconvincing. Most people are familiar with the Shakespearean sonnet, after all. María (habla conmigo) 19:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Settings and characters are components of plot. And the legitimacy issue cannot be explained because of original research. All that has to be known is that critics argue over which form -Keats- viewed as legitimate, not why Keats would view them as such. It is a notable dispute and would have to be incorporated into the body of the text. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Settings and characters can be components of plot, but the article doesn't say plot; it says "narrative elements". The proper definition of the term is more inclusive than merely plot. Again, if plot is what is intended (i.e. "Keats incorporated plot/action"), it should say "plot". It's a very, very simple fix.
This is how the article currently introduces the legitimacy issue: "However, Garrod points out that Keats was attempting to incorporate aspects of "legitimate" stanza forms". Now, to me, this reads as if the legitimacy is in the eyes of Garrod, not Keats. Perhaps it should say something along the lines of "Keats was attempting to incorporate his personal view of 'legitimate' stanza forms"? This could be reiterated in the following sentences, and may help clarify things. María (habla conmigo) 20:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blah! When I say the elements I refer to all of the components you are listing. I'll relook at the Garrod source and go over the specific wording. It is very hot and humid at the moment, so things are going a bit slow right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Florida, so you get no sympathy from me. ;) Take your time, no rush. María (habla conmigo) 21:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reworked the section on legitimacy. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poem

I'm not sure what the purpose of this section is; it's composed of only two sentences, both of which introduce snippets of the poem. Should it be a fuller synopsis of what happens in the story? Who is the speaker? How does it differ from the traditional telling of the myth?

Themes

The first paragraph seems to be more of a summary of the poem than a discussion of thematic elements. I can see how it might fit here, but it should be worded in such a way that the idea of a state between separation and union, for example, is a theme throughout the work.
The poet is able to see the action of the poem not in the dark scene that exists within Apuleius's original myth, but during daylight. Again, this seems more summary of the action, not of the themes. Also, the poet != the speaker.
In particular, the lines are reminiscent of Wordsworth's The Recluse which discuss the muse. Again, again. Is the idea of the muse a thematic element?
According to Andrew Bennett, the theme of reception plays heavily upon the poem's presentation as he states that the poem... "presentation; he states..."
'hears' it differently" [14]. Watch the punctuation here.
The last few lines are not sourced.

Fixes. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psyche

Is Psyche herself a theme? I'm not sure what to make of this subheading.
Unspaced em dash.
so radiant that Cupid himself fell in love with her, and had to fool her into becoming his bride, under the pretence of a demon. Finally, a summary! All of this should be mentioned earlier in the article.
He told the story of Psyche from the perspective of Cupid and not himself. Again, this should be earlier.
This entire paragraph is unsourced.
Part of the problem within the poem... problem? Questionable word choice.
Again, again, again; themes?

I didn't like the section so I threw it into the trash. :) I moved one useful paragraph up and rewrote. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

a turn of the century critic of Keats... Which century?
Eliot, not Elliot. Add wikilink.
any harsh criticism of Ode to Psyche -- such as? Can we have examples?
so neglected -- is/was it?
Much of this section is a series of quotes, which is okay, but not very arresting. Research pertaining to the poem's supposed neglect, and how it places among Keats' other odes, may help. Some of the quotes may also be paraphrased for easier reading.

Fixes. The "harsh criticism" is mostly imaginary - the view was to ignore Psyche when discussing the odes. The odes that received the most discussion were "Ode to a Nightingale", "Ode on a Grecian Urn", and "To Autumn". I will most likely have to do a more thorough discussion on the critical reception when I prepare it for FA level in a similar manner to how "To Autumn" expanded greatly. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Empty. Perhaps move the wikisource box elsewhere?

Done. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, the article is a good beginning, but it needs quite a bit of reworking/rewriting/research before I am able to promote it. I'll put the nomination on hold for a week's time. If you have any questions, please let me know. Best of luck, María (habla conmigo) 13:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While a few of my grammatical concerns remain, and a few new ones have cropped up, I think the article is much improved. The new summary in the "Poem" section is a great addition, and although I think more attention needs to be given to including themes (rather than plot elements or literary devices) in the section dedicated to thematic elements, that section is also better by leaps and bounds. I trust that the article will continue to improve, since apparently it's on its way to FAC in the future -- not too soon, however. It will need a couple strong copy-editors during the peer review process, but that shouldn't be too much of a hassle. So, in the hopes that it will continue to improve, I am pleased to promote this article to GA-status. If there are any questions regarding my review, don't hesitate to contact me. María (habla conmigo) 12:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]