Wikipedia:Featured article review/Modernist poetry in English/archive1

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

The article was removed by User:Marskell 15:00, 25 October 2008 [1].

Modernist poetry in English[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: Bishonen, WP England and WP Poetry. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A 2004, this article would not even meet B-class standards today for a simple reason: there are no inline citations! I also detect some POV/OR, and the prose is dense with unexplained literary terms. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: I have made the appropriate notifications, but for some reason the transcluded page is not showing that. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment Certainly has no inline refs, but well-written. You'll have to be specific alleging POV/OR - unless you've read all the many refs you may not be in a position to "detect" the latter. Literary terms seem perfectly well-linked & prose very good (ok, brilliant). Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be well-written, but the fact is, the article currently fails 2c—it does not have inline citations. If that is fixed, it should be easy to figure out which text is OR and which is attributable to reliable sources. Even though literary terms are linked, they should be explained briefly whenever possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have you found anything in the article that is surprising, controversial, disputed or not derived from the given sources? Neither 2c, 1c nor WP:V unequivocally require inline citations. All quotes that I can see are attributed, as required. I'm not an expert in the subject area, perhaps you could guide me to the exceptional claims or contentious statements about living people (per this page, linked from 1c) in the article that are currently missing inline citations? henrik•talk 21:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This phrase explains it: "Inline citations are mandated by Wikipedia's featured article criteria" (from Wikipedia:Citing sources). More specifically, quotes, statistics, opinions require inline cites. In general, according to the standards for FAs these days, most facts that aren't common knowlege should have an inline cite. Here are examples from the text:
  - "Wallace Stevens' essential modernist poem, Of Modern Poetry sounds as if the verbs are left out." Without an inline citation, this could well be considered OR.
  - "Consequently, modernism in English remained in the role of an avant garde movement, depending on little presses and magazines and a small but dedicated readership." Ditto, according to whom was the readership "dedicated"?
  - "This construction of an exclusive meaning is essential to modernism."
  - As an aside, as I comb through the text in more detail, the more I see the need for the prose to be sifted through. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I took a quick look at the article as it existed in December 2004 and found that some of the doubtful content I had noted was added since then. There is practically nothing on the discussion page, suggesting that no one has really attended to this article since then. As it stands, I would agree that it is no better that B-class. I used to have some expertise with the subject (having considered it as a Ph.D. research area) and I found the the content and emphasis rather surprising. My work was done in the 70s and maybe the general assessment of modern poetry has changed since then. Still, I wonder about OR. --Halcatalyst (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, can you be more specific? Johnbod (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Bishonen is on a Wikibreak until about October 5th. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fact and editorial: Bishonen didn't write the damn page. See the FAC? Regarding your "nomination", name the point of view problems. Name the original research concerns. The people who created articles like these, once upon a time, got tired of defending them against editors who nominate them out of nowhere for fun, and whose last 500 edits consist of removing date links from articles with a script. Do you have any real argument as to why this is not among "Wikipedia's best work"? Where is the humility if you've no familiarity with the subject? Articles like this aren't easily come by, and by nominating this one, you're ensuring they'll be even harder to come by. Ex-user Whiskeydog (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa there, keep your cool. Yes, I have spent some effort trying to reverse the spread of date linking on WP, but I have done other things too. Please assume good faith; I don't nominate articles for FAR "for fun", this is only my first (and hopefully last). You're absolutely right in saying that I have no knowledge in the topic, so please don't criticize me for not knowing that "T. S. Eliot's "The Waste Land" is a foundational text of modernism", or that "Much of early modernist poetry took the form of short, compact lyrics." Now, you say that this article is one of Wikipedia's best works; when this article was promoted it probably was. However, the standards for featured articles have tightened since, and now mandate the use of inline citations. I will definitely agree that the article is comprehensive and well-written, and for the most part follows style guides is laid out correctly. However, we need the article to meet all the criteria to be FA, not most. Now, if anyone thinks that I have nominated this article just to get a rise out of editors or for fun, please say so and I will immediately end this review. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, just because I nominated this article for FAR doesn't mean that it's guaranteed to be demoted. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One image problem Image:Hdpoet.jpg: the source of this image appears to have been taken down, and the domain name lapsed. There is no evidence that the image is public domain. It appears to have been scanned from a book, as the lines of text are visible through the image, but there is no detail on publication date (which is highly likely to be after 1923, since H.D. did not become famous until after then) or on the photographer's date of death. DrKiernan (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. per criteria concern, comments by Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), and Halcatalyst (talk · contribs), and unaddressed image issue identified by DrKiernan (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Little effort has been made to address issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing doing here. Primary authors haven't edited in almost four years and thus I take Halcatalyst's comment as critical. Marskell (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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