I've spent a few months writing polishing this article on this well-known and beloved 1913 poem by Joyce Kilmer--a sentimental favourite of the general public but the bane of critics and scholars. I assert it meets the FA criteria, and look to do the last-stage polishing through suggestions here. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Comments by Sasata. I think the article needs some polish of prose and MoS to meet the FA criteria. Here's some things I noticed from a quick read of the text. I haven't discussed the references here, but these will also need some work (more later). Sasata (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
the second sentence has three citations; is this necessary? Are the facts within not cited later in the article text?
Reply While I doubt there will be a challenge, I thought it necessary. Per WP:LEADCITE: The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. I do not believe this to be an actionable comment. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why this sentence is cited, and not then, for example, the final sentence of the second paragraph. Sasata (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
And I continue to think it's not actionable.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
"and the University of Notre Dame, and the town of" can that first "and" be removed?
"The poem was written in an upstairs bedroom at the family's home in Mahwah that "looked out down a hill, on our well-wooded lawn."" why two citations for this quote, will one not suffice?
Reply There's nothing wrong with two citations for one quote...in fact several of the MOS and guideline pages regarding citations use one, two, or more in their examples. Point me to a policy that says otherwise. I see in Wikipedia:Inline citation#When you must use inline citations#Citation density the following: Wikipedia requires inline citations based on the content...Some articles...will require inline citations after nearly every sentence. Some sections...may even require more than one inline citation per sentence. Others may not require any inline citations at all. At this point, I didn't think bundling the two sources into one citation was appropriate as (1) the sources support the same fact but slightly different ways of getting there, and (2) there is one instance where the two sources are not used together. I do not believe this is an actionable comment. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
So if I wanted to verify the quote, which of the two sources should I consult? Sasata (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Both, that's why both are included--to offer one quote that each source interprets/addresses with slight but not negligible differences. Sure, I could have put one or the other and walked away, but if someone is interested in obtaining more context or to compare slightly differing observations from two members of the same family, let them go to both. No offense, but that was a rather daft question.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's the first time my commentary has been called "daft"; I won't be commenting further on this FAC. Sasata (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I said "no offense"...because when my first reply above established that both sources support the same fact but slightly different ways of getting there, a follow-up question of "which source should I use to look it up" comes off as impercipient as I described.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Done. (22JUL2013) Surprisingly that odd error was Holliday's original quote. I revised the passage to read: According to Robert Holliday, Kilmer's friend and editor, "Trees" speaks "with authentic song to the simplest of hearts." Holliday added that this "exquisite title poem now so universally known made his reputation more than all the rest he had written put together" and was "made for immediate widespread popularity."--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
why is blogger Mark Forsyth's opinion/analysis notable enough to be included in a featured article?
Reply. Perhaps because he's a published and respected author with two books on linguistics/philology/etymology who writes a blog on topics regarding the English language and its usage. Perhaps because that WP:BLOGS advises: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications and policy states we're only prohibited from using blogs on biographical articles about living people. Perhaps, also, that he's a TED speaker.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Sasata (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Addressed (22JUL2013) by replacing "blogger" with the more credible sounding identifier of "journalist and author."--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
"Despite this, the popular appeal of the poem continued—much to the chagrin of critics." I think "the poem" should be changed to "Trees", as the previous sentences are discussion poetry in general, so the subject may be unclear here. Also, this end-of-paragraph sentence lacks a citation; does "critics" refer to Brooks and Warren discussed in the next paragraph (in which case just combine the two paragraphs and citation is not required), or are there other critics to which this sentence refers?
Done (22JUL2013) "the poem" changed to "Trees". As to the end-of-paragraph sentence: Not every sentence needs a citation, this sentence sums up what has already been established (and cited) in the discussion of popular appeal above it. As to which critics...critics in general, the "several critics" identified in the first sentence of the paragraph. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
"However, the more popular musical setting of Kilmer's poem" "However" not needed here, as there is no real contrast with the previous sentence
"recorded by many of the important singers" who says they're important? Select a different adjective per WP:NPOV Also, citations should come after punctuation.
Partially Done (22JUL2013), rephrased the sentence to address WP:NPOV issue and WP:PEACOCK. As for citations: citations do not need to come after the punctuation when the cite supports the fact it as attached to and not the sentence as a whole. Per WP:CITEFOOT: The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text–source integrity and WP:INTEGRITY: The point of an inline citation is to allow readers and other editors to check that the material is sourced; that point is lost if the citation is not clearly placed and Editors should exercise caution when rearranging or inserting material to ensure that text–source relationships are maintained. My only obligation is to exercise "editorial judgment" in weighing the need for text-source integrity and not rendering the sentence "aesthetically unappealing" (which is a subjective and unactionable complaint).--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I simply meant that the citation number should come after the commas, not before (e.g. " Nelson Eddy," to " Nelson Eddy,". Sasata (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Done - I had misunderstood your comment as a suggestion to move the citations to the end of the sentence. I did not notice that I screwed up the order of statement-comma-citation when I put in the citations the other day--I'm usually more careful.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Reply: (01AUG13) apparently Dugan's poem isn't memorable if the first google hit is this FAC.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
In Fisher's 1957 article "Another hack at 'Trees'" (JSTOR372709), the author suggests that the poem resembles Ninette Lowater's 1898 poem "Nature's Miracle"
Reply: (01AUG13) I can't seem to open this article despite wanting to explore this further. The only google hit on Lowater's poem is this FAC--very telling. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
In Garlitz's 1962 "Uprooting "Trees"" (JSTOR373072), the author discusses the popularity of the poem among her undergraduate students
Used: Incorporated some material from this article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
another potential source: Fleeces's (1951) "Further notes on a "bad" poem" (JSTOR371696)
Reply: Upon reading this article, I think Fleece's counter to Brooks and Warren is addressed by other discussion in the article and this additional source would be repetitive.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Reply: I will review these sources and see if they have anything I can use for the article. Thank you for bringing them to my attention. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Zagalejo: I don't intend to do a full review, but I happened to be looking at this article, and noticed that the following sentence in the lead doesn't make grammatical sense: "Kilmer's work is often disparaged by critics and ignored by scholars as being too simple, overly sentimental, and suggested that his style was far too traditional, even archaic." It's OK until you get to "and suggested". Zagalejo^^^ 05:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Done (22JUL2013) Rephrased the statement, split it into two sentences. --ColonelHenry (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Support The article's content is extensive, and the quality of the writing is equivalent to that of a major magazine or newspaper. Furthermore, there are plenty of pictures and text boxes, the article's structure is logical, and the referencing is quite comprehensive. I saw a few minor issues that may need to be fixed.
(a) In the lead, I suggest changing "included in Kilmer's collection Trees and Other Poems published the following year" to "included in Kilmer's collection Trees and Other Poems, which was published the following year."
(b) In the first paragraph of the "Scansion and analysis" section, "Catalectic" should be lowercase.
(c) Split the second paragraph of the "Scansion and analysis" section into 2 paragraphs. Depending a reader's computer formatting, the paragraph may be too long and difficult to read.
(d) Likewise, split the second paragraph of the "Critical reception and popular appeal" section. DavidinNJ (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Done. (22JUL2013) Addressed comments enumerated as a, b, c, and d (above) in one edit:  Thank you for your support.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The statement that he was "dismissed by scholars as being too simple, overly sentimental", is cited to this; which does not support that statement. I note that the same source link is used in the Joyce Kilmer article, which I passed as GA last year, so it may be that the webpage has changed since last year. Could you track down the original source? In the meantime, these links may be useful: text of "Scepticisms, notes on contemporary poetry", Poetry magazine review of Trees, Harriet Moore on Kilmer, tribute by Marsden Hartley. Given that while Trees is simplistic, and has been criticised, does it really come down to an easy split of popular but critically dismissed? Some of the contemporary critical views I just linked, seem to appreciate the direct simplicity. Are there modern critics who don't dismiss it? SilkTork✔Tea time 09:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I've added a bit about the contemporary reception of the poem to the "Critical reception and popular appeal" section. Revert or amend as appropriate. When doing so I noticed that the section starts with a quote regarding Kilmer being influenced by religion and nature. Does that statement belong in the critical reception section? Might the " Inspiration for the poem" section be more appropriate? SilkTork✔Tea time 10:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The "dismissed by scholars as being too simple, overly sentimental" quote was in an earlier version of the Poetry Foundation bio...this source must have changed in the last month or two, because there previously was a much longer, more informative biography at Poetry. It will be addressed. --ColonelHenry (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
On second pass, I think the source for that sentiment in the old Poetry Foundation bio was from Aiken's Scepticisms, which was already cited for this article. I added to this citation. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Reply I appreciate your additions regarding critical reception/popular appeal. The religion and nature quote was moved 01AUG13 to another section when I reorganized the structure of the article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for the sources you pointed me to, In addition to the Aiken work which I had used before, I was able to incorporate several things from them into the article. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
1b & c - I feel that the article covers the main points that a reader may wish to have. I would certainly pass this for broad coverage on a GAN, and given the scope of the topic - a single, fairly simple, poem - I feel the information given is fairly comprehensive. I don't think there's a lot of scholarly research on this poem, so there's unlikely to be a major scholarly study that the article has overlooked. I have done my own research on the poem and found the information in the article to be satisfactory. I would like more positive critical commentary in order to balance out the negative, but if it's not there, then so be it. SilkTork✔Tea time 18:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
2b - It has an appropriate structure. I'm not entirely certain about the names for each section heading (Mahwah: February 1913?), but that's a minor quibble, not something that should hold up a FAC. SilkTork✔Tea time 09:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
2c - It has an appropriate citation section with consistent use of footnotes. I see that cites are mixed in with explanatory footnotes. This is acceptable, though consideration could be given to having a footnotes section - either as a distinct section called Notes, or as a subsection of the References section. SilkTork✔Tea time 09:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
1a - The article is written in a manner that does convey the required information fairly clearly, though some passages do require careful reading - such as the first paragraph of Scansion and analysis. For GA I would ask for a little more clarity in places. The requirements for the writing in FA is somewhat stricter than GA, and asks for the prose to be "engaging" and "professional", which I'm not sure this is. The prose does not always flow. It tends to present the information factually - with information sometimes presented fairly tersely. I don't think this is a major issue as the nature of what is "engaging" can be subjective, though a couple of runs through to copy-edit for flow would be of benefit, regardless of what happens in this FAC. Sometimes it helps to get fresh eyes on an article to assist with copy-editing. SilkTork✔Tea time 18:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
1d - The article covers the good and the bad aspects of the poem. It appears though to focus on the popular appeal and critical disdain, and also seeks to explain this by the change in fashion in poetry. There is a sense that there is a viewpoint being presented, and I'm not yet convinced that this is an accurate and independent summary of the poem's reception both historical and current. SilkTork✔Tea time 18:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
3 - The image of The Joyce Kilmer Tree in New York in the Critical reception section is divorced from the article as there is no mention of the tree in the article. The caption is too long per WP:Caption. Other images and captions are OK. SilkTork✔Tea time 10:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Can you confirm that the poem is not under copyright. Sometimes copyright is renewed. SilkTork✔Tea time 10:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
4 - The length seems appropriate. Though I will quibble that there's rather more material on adaptations and parodies than on critical commentary, but if that is the nature of how the poem is perceived, then so be it, but it does seem to slant the article a little to appearing to be dismissive. I am unsure if I'm being a little over concerned about the appearance of WP:Undue - though I do get the impression that the article is framed just a little bit on the dismissive side of neutral. SilkTork✔Tea time 11:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
2a - The lead does not summarise the main sections of the article, such as the Parodies section. And while it sometimes does have information from a section, it does not always have sufficient balance - such as that the poem did receive some critical appreciation when first published. SilkTork✔Tea time 18:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Who is making this comment: "Luthor ridicules the poem for being so simple that "the average Cocker Spaniel" loves it"? The statement is sourced to the filmscript which doesn't say that. Luthor's comment could refer to dogs liking trees because they pee against them (indeed, I would personally see that as a more likely interpretation). SilkTork✔Tea time 10:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Looking through again, certain comments are sticking out for me which have the suggestion of editorial opinion: "American writer Guy Davenport suggests quite a different inspiration for Kilmer's poem" (who is setting up Davenport's suggestion in opposition to Kemper's? - and why? - what is wrong with just neutrally providing the information: "Guy Davenport wrote that Kilmer had been reading Margaret McMillan's book...."); "It appears that Davenport must have loosely and erroneously paraphrased the sentiments expressed by McMillan" (appears to whom?); "Because of Kilmer's close identification with Roman Catholicism...." (the sources do not say "because of" which implies a particularly religious genesis for the poem; rather, the sources appear to be saying that a student at Notre Dame was a friend of Kilmer, and asserted that the tree was the inspiration - but not that it was due to any religious belief of Kilmer's); "the popular appeal of "Trees" continues—much to the chagrin of critics" (is there evidence for this - that critics are annoyed by the popularity of the poem? And even if they are, do we really need to have it stated here?); "the entire corpus of Kilmer's work was produced between 1909 and 1918 when Romanticism and sentimental lyric poetry fell out of favor and Modernism took root" (is there a source to support this observation, or is it an editorial observation?). SilkTork✔Tea time 11:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I've finished my review. I can't support at the moment as I have a number of concern. The lead needs a bit of work to reflect the contents of the article; the prose needs a bit of tightening to make the reading flow more smoothly; the viewpoint could be moved more toward the neutral; some statements need to be more closely cited to sources, or rephrased to appear less like editorial opinion; and information regarding the Joyce Kilmer Tree image needs placing in the article, and the caption reduced, or the image removed from the article. When that has been done, please ping me to look again at the article. Good luck with the rest of the FAC! SilkTork✔Tea time 11:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose (because of excessive detail and disorganised structure)
There're lots of irrelevant details that should be cut. It seems that whenever the text talks about X related to "Trees", it then goes on in unnecessary detail about X. Examples:
The exact location of Kilmer's house.
Disagree - how is it irrelevant when the genesis of the poem involves him writing from an upstairs room in that house? It would be like writing about The Waste-Land without discussing Eliot's living arrangements at the time (residing across from a pub) despite that those living arrangements found their way into the poem (the pub conversation in the "A Game of Chess" section).--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
"which had begun publishing the year before in Chicago, Illinois"—irrelevant unless you have info that "Trees" boosted the popularity and publication of this fledgling journal.
Disagree. -- I think it's a relevant detail considering it's one of the few premier poetry journals in the world, a one-hundred year old magazine. I should probably expand that thought to mention that Kilmer was published at the same time Poetry published Eliot and Pound's early work to add some contemporary context.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The arbitrary "(1915–1968)"s. I'd say you can have it once in Writing for the poet, but there's no need for it for so many people, because it looks ungainly and disrupt the flow of the text (why I removed them from the lead).
Reply. I think concerns of aesthetics (i.e. "looks ungainly and disrupt the flow") are inherently subjective and often unactionable ("ungainly" to you might be considered "gainly" to another editor) and there will always be people unsatisfied on both sides. I'll take a look, but I generally eschew responding to such a subjective claim.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Done. Removed dates for Merton, Rasbach and van der Vliet. Kept the two for members of Kilmer's family in the writing section.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Two paragraphs and pull-out text just for its use in Superman.
Disagree. Another editor who commented on the article liked the Superman content and the pull-out text (as do I), so this is another inherently subjective content issue that I would assert is unactionable. You can't be all things to all people. I don't like Dickens' Martin Chuzzlewit, but my dislike doesn't mean it shouldn't be available on the bookshelf to an interested party. To each his own.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I actually think "average cocker spaniel" is a great line, and maybe even a fitting way to end the article. The problem is that you dilute its impact with tons of details about the movie (none of it about "Trees")—full names of actors, characters and locations; disputes during production, whose original vision was what. Besides there's also the repetition that an Elder read the lines. Here's all you need IMO; I'd even consider relegating the Brando and Donner stuff in my edit to a note and ending with "average cocker spaniel".—indopug (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I actually really really liked your edit to the superman paragraph--I'm thinking the only reason it was reverted was because of how it jarred the references with the quotebox. I'm thinking of finding a way to move the boxes around, because I prefer your edit to that section. Agreed 100%...average cocker spaniel would be a great ending to the article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Done (03AUG13) incorporated your testedit.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
And so on (the list above is not exhaustive). Other concerns:
The lead doesn't say what the poem is about. After introducing it, the lead immediately jumps to saying how popular it is. The first para should be expanded to describe the poem and analyse it a bit too.
Done: (01AUG13) - Added one sentence to the first paragraph discussing technical scansion issues and the images employed in the poem.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
"Joyce Kilmer's reputation as a poet is staked largely on the widespread popularity of this one poem."—has nothing to do with the Writing of the poem.
Done (01AUG13) relocated sentence.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
"^ Note that there is also an Airmont Road in Mahwah, the Kilmer's lived in Airmount, not Airmont."—unnecessary. The purpose of this article isn't to give crystal clear directions to Kilmer's house.
Disagree You fail to acknowledge that the purpose of this article does discuss the poem--part of which facts ancillary to the writing and history of that poem--and for the purposes of accuracy I felt it was necessary and relevant to include this content. You seem deadest upon ignoring and discarding the specific facts regarding the genesis of this poem--particularly the facts surrounding how/when/where Kilmer wrote the poem in Mahwah. Considering the competing (and refuted) claims as to how Kilmer was inspired or where he wrote it, I would venture to assert that some specificity regarding these historical and verifiable facts would be essential in that discussion. I cannot conceive why you suggest that such a removal is necessary or prudent. Comparatively, would you insist upon removing the address from this sentence in Theodore Roosevelt: Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. was born on October 27, 1858, in a four-story brownstone at 28 East 20th Street, in the modern-day Gramercy section of New York City. and other similar articles? Personally, I think the location of Kilmer's writing this poem is more essential and significantly less extraneous than the address in the Roosevelt article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
You were right before that the specifics of where the poem was written belongs here. But my complaint here isn't about that, it is: what is the need to list similar-sounding places/names, just to say "don't confuse this with that"? How does it help anybody?—indopug (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not much of a poetry expert, but can all twelve lines be in "strict iambic tetrameter" when one is truncated?
Reply - Short answer, yes. The long answer would require pages, but the truncated line is a frequently used technique in all metrical verse to announce changes in tone, content, or for a conclusion. Such a technique has been used in western poetry since antiquity. It is not a requirement for a poet using a strict iambic tetrameter meter to have 8-syllables in every line--similarly it is not a requirement for a poet to announce a conclusion using a catalectic line. I discuss the catalectic line and its purpose vis-à-vis iambic tetrameter adequately within the article.
Does the Rachel Hadas citation have to be so long? You just need the link, the time at which it was said, the publication and the date.
Done (01AUG13) -- There is no consistent citation format for radio segments, so I venture to say (IMHO) some explanation is necessary beyond the bare minimum you prefer.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
MoS: please review WP:LQ. The period has to go outside the quotes in most instances. Eg: "Trees."
Reply: There is currently an ongoing RFC about this MOS provision. I would prefer not addressing a conversion to either Logical Quotation (which is largely a BritEng thing) and American Style until after that RFC decides whether to amend the MOS accordingly.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
MoS: several things that need to be italicised, aren't: Harper's Magazine, Our Gang etc.
Done with question (01AUG13)-- Harpers and Our Gang italicised. What "etc." are you referring to as I cannot find other things that I unwittingly neglected to italicise?--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
all in the family, muppet show...
WP:SEEALSO: the section doesn't need to exist as the links have already been used in the article.
Done (01AUG13) - this section came before those links were incorporated into the article. section removed.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
After the first mention in the lead and in the body, "Mahwah, New Jersey" can become just Mahwah.
Done (01AUG13) - I believe I addressed all of them after the first mention in the body. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Kilmer's poetry was influenced by his "His strong religious faith and dedication to the natural beauty of the world."—what does this have to do with "Critical reception and popular appeal"?
Done (01AUG13). It doesn't. This was a comment also from User:SilkTork above that I did not get to address over the last few days, I relocated the sentence into the new "Kilmer's inspiration" section.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Structure: not a fan of ending the article with a discussion of Superman and other parodies. Or of having such as large, unwieldy and muddled Legacy section, especially that first sub-section. There, a lot of stuff isn't even about the poem's enduring legacy (immediate popularity, the contemporary 1910s reviews, the World War I use...), lying uncomfortably alongside trees named after Kilmer and Google hits. I suggest you create a new Publication and reception for the former (moving the last para of Writing here as well). Similarly, the other two sub-sections could be (trimmed of excess detail and) broken off into a separate Adaptations and parodies section. The remaining stuff, about the poem going out of critical favour because of poetry's modernist turn and the stuff about how its popularity endures can be recast as Aftermath and legacy.
Done (01AUG13) - I've addressed your concerns and did a rather massive overhaul of the article's structure. Please take a second look and see if you like how I reorganized the sections. On your first note, if you don't like the conclusion of the article with the discussion of parodies (specifically, Superman II), how do you suggest it should end? The end, unfortunately has to be drawn somewhere, and as I've said above, this seems rather subjective and unactionable.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your copyediting work on the article on 31 July and 1 August, I appreciate the improvements.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Responded to a few things. I'll give a more thorough review over the coming week. Meanwhile, re: restructuring, check that you don't now have redundancies and repetitions. For eg: "Communities across the United States have claimed to be involved in the writing of "Trees" with several boasting that a specific tree was the inspiration for Kilmer's poem. However, despite these claims" can simply be, "Although several communities across the United States claim to have inspired 'Trees' " (or similar), now that you have a whole other section for it.—indopug (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Done (03AUG2013) rephrased passage per suggestion for "Although several communities..."--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I look forward to your upcoming review, much appreciated.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I've struck my oppose on account of the massive overhaul in structure. As I will be busy for a few weeks, I can no longer participate in this review. All the best for the nomination; I think a solid round of copyediting to cut down wordiness should help it get over the line. I recommend these exercises.—indopug (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Restructure. - "'Trees' is a lyric poem by American poet Joyce Kilmer, written in February 1913. First published in Poetry: A Magazine of Verse that August, it was included in Kilmer's 1914 collection Trees and Other Poems." 1) We don't need these cites in the lead; this material should be sourced in the article body. 2) Consider a minor restructure: "'Trees' is a work of lyric poetry by American Joyce Kilmer. Written in February 1913, it was first published in Poetry: A Magazine of Verse that August and included in Kilmer's 1914 collection Trees and Other Poems." Or similar.
Reply (re: 1). I see the reason for this suggestion, but I disagree. WP:LEADCITE doesn't forbid the presence of citations, and leaves it up to the editor(s) to decide based on balancing the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources. As I pointed to above, the presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited. I decided to provide the source.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Done (20AUG13) - Did a minor revision of sentence incorporating some of your suggestions from #2.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Restructure. - "The poem, in twelve lines of rhyming couplets of iambic tetrameter verse, depicts a feminine personification of a tree engaged in seemingly human activities: pressing its mouth to the Earth's breast, looking at God, and raising its "leafy arms" to pray." 1) Personification is redundant with "engaged in seemingly human activities". 2) A citation should follow "leafy arms", or paraphrase to "arms" without scare quotes. Consider: "The poem is set in twelve lines of rhyming couplets of iambic tetrameter verse, depicting a feminine personification of a tree pressing its mouth to the Earth's breast, looking at God, and raising its arms to pray." Or similar.
Rework. - "'Trees' is the poem for which Kilmer is most remembered and its familiarity has made it the subject of frequent parodies and references in popular culture." Consider: "Kilmer is most remembered for 'Trees', which has been the subject of frequent parodies and references in popular culture." Or similar.
Rework/combine. - "Kilmer's work is often disparaged by critics and dismissed by scholars as being too simple and overly sentimental. Both critics and scholars suggest that his style was far too traditional and even archaic." 1) These two sentenced are should be combined, and 2) There is no need for the citation. Consider: "Kilmer's work is often disparaged by critics and scholars who consider his traditional style archaic and overly sentimental." Or similar.
Reply (2) the need for the citation was discussed previously...and I think it's arguable that someone could challenge such an assertion.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Rework. - "Despite this, the popular appeal of this simple poem is likely the source of its endurance. Literary critic Guy Davenport remarked that "Trees" is "the one poem known by practically everybody."" Consider: "Despite this, the popular appeal of 'Trees' has contributed to its endurance. Literary critic Guy Davenport considers it "the one poem known by practically everybody."" Or similar.
Rework. - "The poem is frequently found in anthologies and has been set to music several times—including a popular rendition by Oscar Rasbach, performed by many singers including Nelson Eddy, Robert Merrill and Paul Robeson." Consider: "'Trees' is frequently included in poetry anthologies and has been set to music several times—including a popular rendition by Oscar Rasbach, performed by singers Nelson Eddy, Robert Merrill and Paul Robeson."
Serial comma. - Is used here: " pressing its mouth to the Earth's breast, looking at God, and raising its "leafy arms" to pray", but not here: "performed by many singers including Nelson Eddy, Robert Merrill and Paul Robeson." Make consistent.
Awkward/Reword. - "Several locations and institutions connected to Kilmer's life have claimed that a specific tree located there was the inspiration for Kilmer's poem". 1) A location cannot really claim anything, and 2) "claim" is generally a word to avoid. Consider: "Writers have indicated several locations connected to Kilmer's life as a possible inspiration for the poem." Or similar, assuming accuracy is not compromised.
Reply But they are "claims". Using "indicated" seems, to me, to connote giving those claims credence...and to an extent that the subsequent "possible" doesn't mitigate. All those claims have been disproven. I think given the need to be accurate about depicting them as "claims", I should avoid rewording this.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Subordinating conjunction introducing a direct quote. - "'Trees' was written in an upstairs bedroom at the family's home in Mahwah, New Jersey that 'looked out down a hill, on our well-wooded lawn.'" Avoid using that to introduce a direct quote.
Reply And how is that better than altering the quote with the gerund, as: "...home in Mahwah, New Jersey looking 'out down a hill...", or "...home in Mahwah, New Jersey looking out 'down a hill..." or another alternative? I don't see an better alternative without altering the quote.
Excess modifier. - "declares that the poem does not apply to any one particular tree". Omit as unnecessary.
Done (20AUG13)...tautology removed. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Excess modifier/words to avoid. - "have claimed that a specific tree located there". Avoid claimed and omit specific as unnecessary.
Reply: (20AUG13) again, these are indeed "claims"...to characterize them as otherwise would possibly compromise accuracy. And the claims are often about "specific" trees. Rutgers had a "specific" tree, so did UND, and the New England town. Since they pointed to a specific tree, just saying "a tree" is too general and slightly less accurate. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
@GabeMC - Thanks for offering a few suggestions and I look forward to the "more to follow," I will address them in the next day or two (13/14 August).--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
No worries and no hurries. I'll leave you plenty of time to catch-up before adding any new comments. Cheers! GabeMc(talk|contribs) 22:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Don't let me hold you up, if you want to add additional comments and suggestions go right ahead, I actually prefer hitting it all at once if I can. It's up to you. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I would rather wait to see if my comments resonate with you before putting too much effort into the rest of the article (sometimes noms and reviewers have such different perspectives that they really should part ways). Cheers! GabeMc(talk|contribs) 23:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Delegate comment -- Given the length of time this nom has been open, and comments a week old are still awaiting resolution, I don't see much prospect of consensus to promote developing anytime soon, so I'm going to archive and ask that remaining work takes place outside FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Ian. I appreciate the opportunity. It is a shame, but I just decided last week to give up on this that's why the latest comments were unaddressed. I had one support, remedied the comments of other editors (who despite being asked twice, never came back), and then a week ago get a couple comments giving the eternally-unactionable "not engaging prose" despite this article going through a myriad of copyedits and revisions, ascribing "undue weight" where there isn't (I established "some like it, some don't, and those who don't seem to be critics...how is that undue?), and other stuff that just isn't worthy my time anymore. So, given that most of the commenters don't return, and I get the "not engaging prose" comment that I can't do anything with, another article that could have been an FA is a victim to the consensus of disinterest.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)