Talk:Sestina/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 21:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will attempt this, though I'm no expert in the area. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would help to have more in the lede (and elsewhere) about the history of this form of verse. I gather that it was first Italian, and then caught on elsewhere. But there is little in the article to explain.

The history of the form is given under 'Background', and the lede does summarise this. What do you think is missing currently?

Also, although you do a very good job of explaining the technical aspects, I don't understand "its simultaneous appeal to a strict order and emotional complexity." Where is an example of its "emotional complexity" compared to other forms of poetry.

That particular sentence is an attempt to summarise the rather convoluted words of Margaret Spanos. I agree, it's a bit wishy washy, I will change as soon as I figure out what to replace it with.

I think some more actual examples of Sestina would help, as few of the links in the article lead to more explanation or examples.

What do you mean by explanations or examples? To theories or associated concepts?

"The sestina remains a popular form of poetry, and many sestinas continue to be written by contemporary poets." It would help to have examples, names of contemporary poets who use it and titles of the poems.

I have some examples I could include, but I've doubted whether they would count as reliable sources (I will verify this). My anthology, regrettably, only goes up to a certain point and doesn't include a large amount of sestinas.

Included examples; might try to intergrate them better if possible. Is this okay (or at least better...)?

It may be that I'm not sophisticated enough to understand this article. My lack of "getting it" may be my fault.

The sestina is probably the most complicated verse form to understand, given its lexical repetition. I've tried to explain it as best I can, and in multiple ways, but if you have any suggestions?

I appreciate your comments very much, and presume from them that the rest of the article is okay? Thank you for choosing to do the review! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes, the article is well written, well referenced, nicely laid out and has no other problems that I see. I understand the technical part of how it is structured. What I don't understand is the emotional part, but maybe I just have to take that on faith. You don't mention American usage, although you use W. H. Auden's work as an example. I gather there is American interest? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to rework the emotional part (of just the lede or the 'Effect' section as well?). I've realised that the second part of 'Background' can be construed as talking about Britain, so I'll add a mention of America somewhere. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! I'd like to understand and relate to it. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made several changes and also responded to some of the points you've rasied (see above). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reply

I think I'm getting it; the article is nicely done. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Provides references to all sources:

B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed:

B. Remains focused:
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Good work! MathewTownsend (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for carrying out the review. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]