Jump to content

Talk:Opened Ground: Poems 1966–1996/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 13:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I can look at this one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead/General

[edit]
  • There's some inconsistency about whether to use italics or double-quotes for poem titles: the system from MOS:MINORWORKS is to use italics for long poems (like the Iliad) and double-quotes for short ones (like "Digging"). Without wishing to check the length of every poem, is that system in use here?
I believe it is. Heaney liked titling his collections with the same title of a poem in the same collection. North, for example, is both the title of the collection and a poem in the same collection. Very confusing!
The collection contains around 200 poems. If you want, I can either include them in the article or make a list subpage containing each poem?
Ah, that is a very long list. Might not be completely ridiculous to include a third of it in each sub-chapter; it would be nice to have it in the article, but certainly above and beyond the call of duty for a GA nomination. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of the (collapsed) table User:1TWO3Writer/Experiments/Sandbox? It's not complete yet and I'm fine doing all poems, it will just take a while to do (also ignore the stuff after the line). 123Writer talk 20:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent idea (you'll have noticed that the formatting has gone a bit sideways for the uncollected poems, but I'm sure that's not too tricky to fix). Is it worth grouping those rows into the periods used in the article? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. 123Writer talk 23:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest uncollapsing the table be default: on my display, the collapsed version awkwardly hides away on the left of the screen, and the table isn't too big when uncollapsed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. 123Writer talk 13:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Body

[edit]
  • Most of the "Contents" section is in fact criticism or reception. I'd suggest a split between what's in the collection and what's been said about the collection. Looking at other poetry GAs and FAs, they generally include some critical commentary on how the poems themselves "work" in this area, but then reserve judgements that cross between poems for a "critical reception" section further down.
I separated phases and contents. The info in phases does not directly pertain to the collection itself, rather it is about the poems as they originally appeared in their own collections, meaning its not reception to the book.
Yes, there's a line to walk here with the criticism: some critical comment is good to tell us what the poems are and how they work, but remember that this is an article about Opened Ground, not (e.g. Death of a Naturalist), and so criticism of the earlier collections will usually belong in their articles rather than here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So should I remove the phases bit entirely? As the book is a collection of collections, outside of using references talking about each individual collection generally, there isn't much about the phases of the book beyond some of the reviews in Reception. 123Writer talk 23:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the basic concept now works well, now that the article's divided as it is. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sort-of see what's going on with the division of the poetry into phases, but it isn't really clear yet. Suggest using subheadings with the names (and dates) of the phases, and perhaps including a bullet-pointed list of the poems in each phase before launching into discussion. This could be helped by a brief preamble that explains who proposed this division and on what grounds.
Partially done. The inclusion of the poems will occur if you want them included in the page or in a subpage (with hatnotes under each phase subheading).
  • We could really do with a "Background" section, which would help shift the discussion of Death of a Naturalist and Door into the Dark into a more natural (sorry) place.
There is not really much background I could find other than the author's note. Do you want me to write a brief biography of Heaney with a hatnote to his bio page? (Details could be: birth, what got him into poetry, publishing DN, Nobel Prize?)
Yes: a brief account of who Heaney was and what happened in his life and career up and around 1998 would be useful. I always like to take a look at good articles in the same subject area when I'm writing: Ode on Indolence jumps into Keats' life circa the time he wrote the poem; O Captain! My Captain! gives a brief but fuller summary of Whitman's life experiences at the time that the poem was written. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want more detail or is this fine? 123Writer talk 23:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty good. I'd suggest giving a little more detail on what the Troubles were (per WP:POPE and MOS:NOFORCELINK), and on how they influenced Heaney's poetry. There's a point in the lead about how Heaney's work evolved as he became more popular; could that be included here, as Opened Ground is surely a data point along that trendline? UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done? Is that all? 123Writer talk 18:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with all the changes so far. I'd like to take another, more detailed run at the review now that the overall structure is looking a bit better, and then do the necessaries on images, CLOP, TSI and so on. I'll try to get that done in the next couple of days. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@1TWO3Writer: it's been a little while; are you likely to have a chance to look at the new batch of comments? UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a few mistakes of spelling and grammar I noticed (should it be talking about being from a Catholic minority in Northern Ireland)? In particular, when discussing scholarship and criticism in a historical sense (so whenever it's used with a date), use the past tense: "Smith describes Heaney as a genius", but "in 1994, Smith called Heaney a genius".
Done.
  • Don't use people's titles (e.g. Professor Smith) with their names, per MOS:PEOPLETITLES.
Removed.
  • A lot of the critical quotations are tricky to parse out of context. What exactly is a "linguistic exhumation", and how can a standpoint be both speculative and objective?
Clarified exhumation. I have no idea honestly what standpoint she meant as that is all she writes. I'll look around for another source.
  • I'm not sure about the division between "General" and "Literary" reception: are you trying to separate the mass media from the scholarly reception? If so, I'm not sure these are the right titles: I'll have a think and see if I can suggest a better set.
User:UndercoverClassicist Did you think of one yet? 123Writer talk 23:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we could cut the "General" subheading - and give the publications of at least most of the reviews in that section. (it's at least as important that the reader knows the review is from the NYT as that they know it's written by Kakutani). "Literary" could then become "Scholarly assessments" or similar? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. 123Writer talk 17:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • although what she believes they will teach is left unclear in her review: did Cobb write that she'd left this unclear? If not, we need another source.
I think deleting the whole paragraph would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater so I removed that sentence.
  • critics have observed distinct phases being visible in the work, with unique themes and styles as Heaney evolved into an international figure.: this needs to be cited, and ideally those critics named.
Attributed.

Bibliography and referencing

[edit]
  • Check the date on the Perkins citation; it's different in body and bibliography.
Fixed.
  • What's the system as to which sources are cited through SFN and in the bibliography, and which are only cited in the text?
Sorry, I don't know what you mean.
Some sources (like Hart 1989) are cited to short footnotes, and then appear in full in the bibliography. Others, like Pratt 1999, are cited to "long" footnotes, but don't appear in the bibliography. The GA standards don't really care what sort of referencing system is employed, but they would like for there to be a system. Some authors cite different types of sources (e.g. printed vs. web) differently, but I can't immediately work out if that's been done here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change all to Sfn other than primary sources, which keep cs1 due to sfn not having the quote option. 123Writer talk 19:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the quote option, do you mean the option to include a quote? If so, use harvnb (the same as SFN but in text rather than creating a footnote): something like {{tq|{{refn|{{harvnb|Smith|1990|p=10}}: "these really are very good poems".}}, which gives a footnote reading Smith 1990, p. 10: "these really are very good poems". UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip. Done. 123Writer talk 20:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use redlinks in this section, only in body text.
Removed.
  • While there's no rule as to bibliography order, it's overwhelmingly the scholarly norm to go in alphabetical order of author-surname, then by year.
Rearranged.

Second-run comments

[edit]
  • During his time studying in Queen's University Belfast, he began writing poetry under the pseudonym "Incertus": can we give dates (or a specific date) here? Might also be worth pointing out that Incertus is Latin for "Unsure" and has been interpreted (e.g. here) as "Unsure of himself".
  • As Heaney grew more popular, his style changed,: we never actually said or showed that Heaney became popular; only that he won the Nobel. Those two don't necessarily go together.
  • notably turning more abstract and literary as opposed to his rustic poetic beginnings.: I'm not sure this is quite a defensible antithesis: in particular, I'm not sure exactly what rustic means (in a verifiable sense) in this context. One option might be to expand this out; another, perhaps an "also" rather than an "instead", might be to put more weight on who said this.
  • The Troubles were an ethno-nationalist conflict which started during the late 1960s: I think it's important that the Troubles were largely divided between Protestants and Catholics, that Protestants are a majority in the North, and that Heaney was a Catholic living there.
  • Is it worth pointing out that 1966 is also significant as the year Heaney took an academic post at Queen's, and that he left Oxford in 1994? We've left a biographical blank between 1972 and 1995, but there are other events in Heaney's life which help to explain the periodisation of this book, particularly the end date.
  • I'd clarify that Sweeney Astray and The Cure at Troy are translations, and what they're translations of. Doing so will probably make it worthwhile to split the book concludes with the 1995 lecture Heaney gave when he accepted his Nobel Prize in Literature titled Crediting Poetry. into its own sentence.
  • On which: we've got an awkward periphrasis here: I assume this was his Nobel lecture? The phrasing implies that he gave the lecture as some sort of oddity or coincidence, when it's part of the deal when you get a Nobel in Literature (Bob Dylan nearly lost his for not giving one).
  • Note e: I'd clarify "the book" to Opened Ground, as we've got two books under discussion here.
  • If we're going to link Francis Ledwidge, we should do the same for other notable and obscure items (e.g. Chekhov, Sakhalin, Delphi, possibly Sweeney Agonistes if I'm right in picking up the Eliot allusion). However, I think the MOS discourages linking anything within a title of a work except the work itself, so another option would be to drop the hyperlink. I'd have no quarrel either way.
  • Is Excerpt in the various titles part of the title, or simply denoting that the collection includes only part of the poem? If the latter, would decapitalise.
  • Due to the book spanning Heaney's career up until its release, critics such as Jonathan Allison and Michiko Kakutani have observed distinct phases being visible in the work: this is a non sequitur: these two haven't distinguished phases because ("due to") the work spans Heaney's career. I'd uncouple the sentences a bit.
  • Death of a Naturalist is described by Helen Vendler in 1996: was described. On which: can we briefly introduce Helen Vendler and what makes her worth listening to on this subject? This holds for the critics mentioned later as well.
  • learning about his adolescent sexuality, being a Catholic minority in Northern Ireland, and his journey of becoming a poet.: a bit of a run-on: was he learning about all three of these things? The last one in particular seems like it needs to be more split off.
  • R.F. Foster: there's two ways to do initials: either no periods and no spaces (RF Foster) or both periods and spaces (R. F. Foster.
  • Wintering Out removed some focus from the autobiographical and moved it to the "inward exploration of Irish English": this probably should be attributed in some way (WP:NONFREE), and I think it could also do with a bit more explanation of precisely what Vendler means.
  • Note f: no full stop after a sentence fragment (but do we really need to footnote where each poem came from, after a table which does that for all of them?)
  • I'd move the comment about Allison and Kakutani up before the table, and cite the "phases" column to them.
  • Heaney in North uses archaic vocabulary such as "obols" and "pampooties" in a "linguistic exhumation", Jay Parini wrote in 1980, meaning to draw parallels between the exhumation of bog people (which feature heavily in North) with the language used in the poetry: could do with some work on phrasing. obols isn't archaic 'vocabulary' as such; it's the concept of obols (ancient Greek coins) that's ancient. Did Parini mean to draw parallels or did Heaney?
  • Station Island had been stylistically compared to Dante's Commedia: compared with, especially in (Northern) Irish English. Surely the Joyce and Virgil connections need some mention here, given the significance of both to Heaney?
  • And The Haw Lantern, described as more international, was more open in its stylistic influences, with a tension between poetry and dialect "characterised at times by a confidence in its own mode.": another critical quotation whose fundamental meaning is a little unclear. I'd strongly suggest not starting this sentence with and: it's norm-breaking if not rule-breaking in encyclopaedic writing, and more suited to the tone of poetry or artistic writing.
  • 48 poem sequence: hyphenate: forty-eight-poem or 48-poem.
  • with the 48 poem sequence "Squarings" being a series of "quick, elusive glimpses" of his political issues and The Spirit Level being an analogy of the Trojan War applied to the Troubles: makes for a long sentence: consider splitting this one off.
  • of his political issues: this sounds like it needs a rethink. Of political issues which Heaney considered important?
  • R.F. Foster: generally, after first mention, we refer to scholars, critics etc simply by their surname (Foster).
  • but thought it was appropriate for the lecture talked about Heaney's time as an educator: for reads oddly; as or because would be better, I think. We should make sure that we've covered this time as an educator in the biographical section.
  • comparing the flow state one enters when using a tool, a recurring theme in his poetry, to Heaney stating his best work comes from such a state: I'm not sure this quite means what it's supposed to: were the two compared things really a flow state and Heaney stating his best work...?
  • Kakutani described his earlier work as a "tactile, sensuous apprehension of rural life" with a mortality salience present throughout, citing the fungal growths on the berries in "Blackberry-Picking: can we quote the relevant lines in a box?
  • These gave way to the more politically involved North, which involved the Troubles in their narratives: the subject is North (singular), so its narratives: otherwise, the more politically involved poems of North, which...
  • In Kakutani's opinion, The Haw Lantern and Seeing Things were not Heaney's best work as she believed them to be overly abstract or predictable: not sure this is as precisely phrased as it can be. Were both abstract or predictable, or were both abstract and predictable, or was one abstract and the other predictable?
  • quoting Heaney's poem "Poet's Chair", even later in "The Golden Bough" to illustrate the "sphere of shifting angles and fixed love" present within the poem: I think the punctuation has gone wrong here; as a result, the meaning is tricky to decipher.
  • William Pratt in his review for World Literature Today: we've dated other reviews, why not this one?
  • in-contrast with: no hyphen. In contrast to is overwhelmingly more usual.
  • whom he attributed as more of a lyrical poet, noting the rarer appearance of the Irish Civil War in Yeats versus the Troubles in Heaney: I'm not sure this antithesis quite works; plenty of lyrical poets are also war poets, and vice-versa.
  • man's inhumanity to man could do with a wikilink.
  • Pratt notes the hopeful tone in some of Heaney's poems and his transition into becoming an international poet through his translation work, but believed the best of Heaney's work is when it was "intensely Irish", and concluded saying there are more forgettable than memorable poems in the book: we've slipped into the present tense here. Which poems did Pratt think were hopeful?
  • described the title Opened Ground as "pithy: comma off: the title, opened ground, as...
  • the collection as a gesture towards Ireland itself: is this a quote? If so, mark as such; if not, I'm really not sure what this means.
  • leafing through a ... album of photographs: a[n] ... album.
  • a metaphor for writing according to her: according to itself, really! Seems like undue doubt given that just about everyone who has read the poem thinks the same; Entwistle hardly came up with this in 2000.
  • The clever moments in later collections only "sharpens" the achievements of his older poems: not sure I'm happy with "clever" as a descriptor in Wikipedia's voice. Plural subject so plural verb: sharpen.
  • ironic, self-reference: lose the comma.
  • We spend a lot of time on Entwhistle: about 215 words out of about 1800, or over 10% of the article. Is this really WP:DUEWEIGHT: is her article, for example, widely cited in the literature on Heaney?
  • Returning to the lead: Reception, from both from general audiences and critics, has been generally positive. Praise is given to Heaney's technical writing abilities, especially in his early period, and linguistic depth. Criticism is mostly levied at the later poems, with reviewers citing Heaney's popularity influencing his poetry into becoming overly abstract to appease a wider audience. Having just re-read the section on scholarly reception, this doesn't strike me as a good summary of what we've written later about the response to the poem.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Opened_Ground:_Poems_1966–1996/GA1&oldid=1181324346"