Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/To Autumn/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 18:57, 18 August 2009 [1].

---

To Autumn

Nominator(s):Ottava Rima, Kathyrncelestewright, Mrathel (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/To Autumn/archive1

• Featured article review/To Autumn/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it gives an thorough discussion of the subject and meets all of the criteria for FAC, or can do so with a minimal amount of editing. The work on the article has been a collaboration of several editors who have been able to add quality information with excellent sources and a good understanding of the text. Mrathel (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Before anyone else points it out, we will need to add Wikipedia:Alternative text for images to our images. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that the alt text is done; thanks. I suggest somewhat-briefer alt text entries for images of manuscripts; the current descriptions are a bit long and contain details such as color that are not all that important here. Eubulides (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I am delighted to find this wonderful poem at FAC. However, from a reading (so far) of the lead and Background sections, I believe a fair amount of work may still be necessary, as the writing is quite wayward at times.

• Lead
  • "Winchester, England..." "England" is redundant - as he walked to London, it couldn't have been one of the American versions.
  • Suggestion: a paragraph break after "an autumnal evening" would in my view improve the presentation
  • Second para, first line: a comma is necessary after "eleven lines", since the subsequent "each" refers to stanzas, not lines.
• Background
  • Starting sentences with "Additionally" usually does nothing for prose. In this case I suggest the word should be dropped.
  • Second paragraph needs significant attention; it does not at present follow very well from the first, and is rather confusing. It is not clear whether the poem referred to in the first line is To Autumn. And, having in the previous paragraph said that Keats was devoting all his time to writing poetry, we are now told: "Keats spent very little time writing poetry as a consequence of his troubled life at this time". It is not clear what "at this time" refers to; the chronology needs clarification. Also, having been told of "a multitude of personal problems" we are only told of one, regarding his brother. A brief indication of other problems would be helpful.
  • Fourth paragraph: again, it is not clear whether the poem not sent to Reynolds is To Autumn; it could easily be "the great poem" referred to in the previous sentence. Also, the swift repetition of the words "the poem" is awkward prose.
  • This long and somewhat convoluted sentence needs attention: "Although the publishers Taylor and Hessey were afraid of publishing Keats's volume with the possibility of bad reviews that plagued Keats's 1818 edition of Endymion, they were willing to publish the collection after they were allowed to remove any potentially controversial works." My suggestion: "Although the publishers Taylor and Hessey feared the kind of bad reviews that had plagued Keats's 1818 edition of Endymion, they were willing to publish the collection after the removal of any potentially controversial poems."

I will be back later with comments on the remaining sections. Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

1. I am unsure of what the MoS states on cities. Most of the FACs I've seen specify the country after a city in order for clarity (so people don't have to hunt down the information on other pages). Does anyone passing by know? It doesn't matter either way to me. Ottava Rima (talk)

Countries are added when there is scope for misunderstanding. There is no possible confusion here; the "England" merely looks intrusive. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to agree with that. Changed. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

2. I am afraid that it would make the paragraphs too small and the page is too small to justify more than two paragraphs per MoS WP:LEAD statements. I would hate to have someone want it changed back per the MoS and be stuck between two competing opposes. Ottava Rima (talk)

I'd hardly oppose on this! I just thought that the declarative statement might have more force on its own, but you may well be right. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

3. The phrase is "eleven lines each" and not "eleven lines". To have the "each" read as you read it would require "with" to be placed before it. I changed it to "eleven lines each that describe" to clarify this. Without the "each" connected to "eleven lines", then it would be uncertain if the poem is 33 lines or 11 lines in length. Ottava Rima (talk)

The line as previously written was ambiguous. I think it still is, slightly. All ambiguity would be removed if the sentence began "The poem has three stanzas, each of eleven lines, that describe..." Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Very nice problem solving skills. I like the reword. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

4. "Additionally" is a descriptive added in a parenthetical manner to rhetorically state that there is a secondary idea following the preceding comment but is not essential to understanding the preceding comment. It can be removed, but it would lose the rhetorical linking affect. Ottava Rima (talk)

My (very mild) objection was based on aesthetic, not grammatical grounds. I will leave this to you. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I will leave it to Mrathel. :) He is the primary on this (I'm the primary on the other half of the 1819 odes). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

5. "It is not clear whether the poem referred to in the first line is To Autumn." - I've changed it to 1819 as the problems affected him throughout the whole year. I have also removed "at this time", as the use of 1819 clarifies the timing. I altered "personal problems" to "financial problems", as the personal problems would not require him to need money. Keats's love life is not discussed, nor does it have the same impact as Keats's need to earn money had, so it would not be important to get into (and thus "financial" is appropriate instead of "personal"). Ottava Rima (talk)

Clear now. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

6. Clarified the poem as "To Autumn".

7. Changed per suggestion. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Continuing: More review comments:-

• Structure
  • "the poem unites poetic process and temporal stasis" Well put, but will general readers understand this rather scholarly phrasing?
  • Another of those rather clumsy sentences that needs refashioning: "The poem does partially originate in his earlier works as the language is related to many of the phrases found within Keats's previous poems, including Endymion, Sleep and Poetry, and Calidore." My suggestion: "The poem partially originates in Keats's earlier works, with its language related to many phrases found within poems such as Endymion, Sleep and Poetry, and Calidore."
  • Second paragraph: it's the language accessibility issue again. Will this language engage the general reader? Should there be quite so much reliance on links to explain specialist terms? I am not suggesting a complete dumbing-down, but I had a similar problem recently with The Bartered Bride, when trying to explain the metres of Czech verse, and was told to simplify. For consideration.

This is not an easy problem for me to address. I do understand that the average reader will have a problem with this paragraph, but the only answer I see is to give a broader explanation of each of the terms to help the reader along. I think that the information found here is necessary to understanding the structure of the poem, but I am not sure how much should be sacrificed to meet the demands of the average reader. Mrathel (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• • "In terms of revision, the language was tightened between the manuscript version and the published version of "To Autumn". Basically this sentence is saying that in terms of revision, the poem was revised. May I suggest simplify to: "The language of "To Autumn" was tightened between the manuscript and the published version".
  • Awkward: "Many of the lines were deleted and completely redone within the second stanza,..." Suggest: "Many of the lines within the second stanza were completely rewritten,..." (and I have doubts about the need for "completely")
  • "Minor changes involve..." Tense? Perhaps "involved"

• Poem: "barréd" not "barred"?

I do not have the Bate text on hand to be able to verify if the grave accent is necessary here. Mrathel (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Themes
  • First sentence reads slightly heavy-footed. How about: "To Autumn" is thematically connected to many of Keats's 1819 odes."?
  • Second sentence: Suggest preface with "For example", place comma after "process of life", and specify "this poem". Thus, with other slight tweaks: "For example, his "Ode to Melancholy" introduces acceptance of the process of life, and this concept is reestablished within "To Autumn".
  • The comma after "Ode to Psyche" is wrong, as what follows is an independent statement. Could be rephrased: "..."Ode to Psyche", in describing an artist that is able to bring about creation." But it is unclear who or what this "artist" is. This needs to be clarified, since much of the rest of this paragraph relates to this "artist".
  • "The poem as a whole creates an image of death and a finality within the imagination that is welcomed." Suggest: "The poem as a whole creates within the imagination an image of death and a finality that is welcomed."
  • "...the poem was an escape from the violence of the incident." What incident?
  • "Although Jerome began..." Good to be on matey terms with the critics, but I think this should be McGann.

A few comments this evening, then I'm done. Brianboulton (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree in most of these cases that the language, while often elegant, should probably be brought down to a lower level. I will get to work making the necessary changes this afternoon. Mrathel (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note - the Bate text has the accent. The original poem has the accent, as it was used for syllable reading. It is not important for comprehension. Some editors drop it from later publications. You can remove it and it wont hurt my feelings. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I made some more changes here (that includes Mrathels also). All of the above should now be addressed. I changed a little about the artist and I hope it now reads clearly. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Final comments

• Themes (continued)
  • Third paragraph: sorry, can't follow the line here. McGann argues that the poem was an escape from the violence of the Peterloo Massacre and the political climate of 1819. Other critics "focused more on the political qualities of the poem", and one of them apparently endorses the Peterloo connection, Yet, "Later, Paul Fry further refuted McGann's stance..." What previous refutation has there been? And who has actually suggested that the poem is "an evasion of social violence" (not a readily understandable term)? The trouble with most literary critics, I find, is that they tend to write in a highly elitist style (the Fry quote is a good example); it is usually preferable to paraphrase them than to quote them at length, verbatim.
  • On the same issue, I have absolutely no idea what the Bewell quote means.
• Critical reception: This section reads like modern critical appraisal rather than "critical reception". With the exception of the Swinburne comment, late 19th century, all the quotes date between 1963 and 2008, around 150+ years after the poem's publication. Was there no critical comment before Swinburne's? How was the poem received on publication – surely Byron et al had something to say?
• Nitpick: books in the reference list need ISBNs.

In summary, most of my comments are relatively trivial. The question of readability is a bit more serious, and I believe that the last section needs rethinking. I look forward to supporting this nomination when these questions have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I accidentally added the Peterloo Massacre before it came up. I removed it. As for the Bewell, I don't really know how to explain it so I just summarized the point as this. As for the critical reception, were there any in particular that you had in mind? The quote from Bate at the beginning makes it certain that the view expressed was always true. I added some other scholars (2 paragraphs, mostly of those who phrase it in an interesting manner). If you have any others in mind, please point them out. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I added all of the ISBNs and OCLCs. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• • OK, the various simplifications to the article's prose have undoubtedly increased its general readability, and I think the extent of specialist language now remaining can be justified. Before I sign off, just three final points:-
    • Sorry to bring this up again, but in my most recent readthrough I noticed that paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Background section are still contradictory. In para 1 we have Keats, from spring to autumn 1819, entirely devoting himself to poetry. In paragraph 2 we have Keats distracted by money worries, with no time for poetry until apparently resuming his writing in September. The statements need to be reconciled.
    • "barrèd" in the text, "barred" in the poem itself. Whether the accent is important or not, should there be consistency?
    • Critical reception: the point I was making was – how was the poem received on its first publication? Did people immediately say "This is a great poem" (or words to that effect)? Or was its greatness only proclaimed when the later Victorian critics got at it? You have, I see, added some 19th century comment, but the earliest is Arnold's, some 45 years after publication. I would like to see what the contemporary critical reaction was.

I agree on all of your points. We need to clarify the background section, point out when the accent was removed from barred, and find a way to either rename the critical reception section or add more critics from the 19th Century. I will try to get it done today:). Mrathel (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Check now. I ignored many of the early reviews because they didn't say much. However, I just realized that some of them used other terms ("On Autumn", for instance), so I was able to find the first one. That one made the others less boring. However, I was only able to get 3 reviews by contemporaries -mentioning- the poem and the next time someone mentioned it by name was 1859. There may be others that allude to it in some other manner, but I don't have access to them. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I also reworded the beginning of the second paragraph to hopefully make it clear. It should basically say that Keats did seem to write a lot, but he was only able to devote a tiny amount of time to writing. I also standardize the spelling of "barred". Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff on the early reviews. I have made a BOLD edit in the Backgound section about Keats's writing habits in 1919 - see what you think. Brianboulton (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

With that into, I was expecting half the page to be gone. ^__^ But yeah, that works out well. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be clean... or the tool is broken. Either way. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The tool's broken. Use this. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The River Itchen link should be to the Hampshire, not the Warwickshire river. I have amended. Brianboulton (talk) 08:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Support: I've just read it again. Probably, as always, it could benefit from a few tweaks, but I'm as satisfied as I can be that the article meets the criteria. Congratulations to the editors for a fine article on a great poem. I raised a large number of issues during this review; all were handled courteously, and my suggestions were mostly adopted. The only caveat I still have concerns images; they look OK to me, but I don't know enough to say for certain that they are, so I hope an image reviewer will come along soon. Brianboulton (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from the top.

• "The poem has been universally regarded by critics as one of the most perfect short poems in the English literature." Well, if you're sure, but I'd have thought it would safer to remove the amplifications: "The poem has been regarded by critics as one of the greatest short poems in English." You might also consider this trimming at the end.
• I can't think how to substitute at least one "The poem" with a synonym, where it opens three sentences in a row. I tried "The work" for the middle one.
• There are two "including"s in a row, top of "Background". You may not like the commas I added.
• Redundant alsos; I've removed two.
• "Keats was distracted by his fiscal problems"—does "his" refer to Keats or his brother?
• "However, the poem also marks the final moment of his poetry career."—Remove "However" and "also"?

It looks good, overall; I'll return. Tony (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the fiscal problems, I think the context seems to sugguest that his brother's fiscal problems become his own, so I was a bit vague with the "his" as I felt that either way it was taken would be correct:)Mrathel (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

1. The "perfect poem" in the lead refers to the lines "Critical and scholarly praise has been unanimous in declaring "To Autumn" one of the most perfect poems in the English language", Bate's "each generation has found it one of the most nearly perfect poems in English", and some other references. (I went back and changed the line to read: '"To Autumn" has been regarded by critics as one of the most perfect short poems in the English literature' - it removes universally and "the poem").

2. The ode and "To Autumn" are two other possibilities. I put "To Autumn" in the second instance of the second paragraph of the lead.

3. Switched the first instance of including to a colon for the list.

4. I changed it to "his and his brother's"

5. Done. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - beautiful and inspiring, just like the subject. On a minor point, On 19 September 1819, Keats walked from Winchester to London along the River Itchen. He must have been a very fit poet, Winchester is about 60 miles from London. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Spotted, Graham! (I missed this despite several readings); "to" could become "towards", but I'll let the editors decide. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I guessed he was walking towards London, but I haven't read the source. What is that old adage about the difference between English and American folks; something like 100 miles being a short distance, but 100 years being a long time to Americans? It's the opposite way round to us Brits :-) Graham Colm ^Talk 22:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I read a clause wrong - it was after a journey between the two towns that he went on his normal walk along the Itchen (College-Street to Saint Cross and then through a meadow to the river). As Keats states, the journey to the river is one mile. Anyway, I think I cleared it up with this edit. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Sources appear reliable, and the links work fine. Reference 25 could have a pp. in the middle, but it's not a big deal. Giants2008 (17–14) 03:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Images: All images have free licenses, but if you don't know the death date of the artist for File:Keats19.jpg you need another license. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Charles Armitage Brown (1787-1842) is the artist; i will fix the image to clarify and keep the license Mrathel (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, much better, I think images meet criteria now. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, but keen to support if the two specific points below can be addressed. Support This is a marvellous piece of work, but I have two quibbles.

• From the lead: "The poet was beset by personal problems at the time of the work's composition and found little time to devote to poetry, though he did manage to find time for "To Autumn". The work marks the end of his poetic career as he needed to earn money and could not devote the time or thought necessary to composition." The word "time" is used on four occasions in these two sentences, while the words "devote" and "composition" are used twice. As well as being stylistically weak, this gives the distinct impression that some of the information is redundant - both sentences tell us he did not have the time to time to devote to the composition of poetry. Can this please be re-written?
• There is one inexplicably bad para under "Themes", that begins: "There are also aspects of colonialism in the fact that other regions experienced variations on weather patterns." This sentence is a clanger, and I can't fix it because I do not know what is meant. The whole paragraph reads like nonsense to me, in contrast to the rest of this entry which is good. I read the poem through, and was none the wiser. This poem is so English in its nature, and written by an Englishman, that to try and use it to discuss colonialism by contrasting the climate portrayed by Keats with that of the tropics appears to me ridiculous - or perhaps pointless would be a better word. I did some quick research (we are talking minutes here, I confess) and it seems Bewell, the cited source for this para, launched a much-vaunted re-analysis of Romanticism in Romanticism and Colonial Disease (1999). On such foundations are academic careers built. One wonders whether his arguments are carried much too far in applying them to this single poem. I appreciate that Bewell is a reliable source, but I wonder if some judgement needs to be exercised. In any case, the paragraph as it stands is not understandable. If editors wish to persist with Bewell, there needs to be an expansion that explains his placing of English Romanticism in an international and colonial perspective. Applied to this poem alone it maes no sense. I presume Bewell's point is, rather, that the decision to write such a poem—to render idyllic the English harvest cycle and agrarian life etc etc—must, given the period of history in which it took place, be interpreted as a deliberate decision by the poet to acquiesce in the values of colonialism and the superiority of 'the English condition', if I can put it that way. Whatever: it will have to be fully laid out. As well as these problems, the references to Hunt near the paragraph's end are too terse - the lay reader (including this reader) will have no idea what is being discussed. Who is Hunt? What have "liberal political beliefs" to do with something Hunt titled "the calendar of nature"? What has any of this to do with colonialism?

Othwerwise the themes section, and the entry as a whole, is outstanding. PS: "Edingburgh Magazine" - is this is a typo? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Post colonialism tends to be an annoying aspect of criticism. By the way, I reworked the lead and the paragraph (I trimmed it and added it to the end of the political paragraph). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The solution may not be perfect, but i think it is the best in the circumstances. Thanks for your efforts. Support this going to FA. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Excellent piece of work—I have no significant concerns. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.