Talk:American proletarian poetry movement

Discussion

Alright! So, I added some stuff (Critical Reception, that Philip Levine bit) and I know I still gotta work on it. Sorry about my lack. I don't know why, but it's harder than it seems. Maybe it is just me, or the obscurity of the subject...but I'm curious: what did you guys search in JSTOR, etc.? Perhaps I'm not researching 'correctly'.

Anyway -- I like we got up here so far. Definitely need citations, though!!

I looked at the Life in the Iron Mills page and it's pretty good -- they're using citations all over the place and have a lot of info, making for a rich page.

Go team! Giusti18 (talk) 04:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey team members! I definitely agree about the lack of citations, I will comb through what we have so far and add in-line references where needed. We have plenty of evidence, just need to put it all together!

Life in the Iron Mills as well as the Blood on the Forge articles are great examples for us at the moment. The Themes section for Blood on the Forge is fantastic and well-cited. I reviewed the What Work Is article, and they also have an engaging "Themes" section as well. We should certainly try to do something similar this article to better describe the aesthetics and function behind proletarian poetry. Aerdil (talk) 07:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yo. Yeah, I'll get on the citations, but most of them are external media sources, not JSTOR. Looking at the other pages, something like "themes" would be great for proletariat stuffs. It's surprising how many "academic-level" articles haven't really been written about this subject, or they're all quite abstract, leaving much to the imagination (at least, the ones I've found, hence the music focus on that first burst of content) considering the impact of the genre on modern life. Rahorvath (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

In some ways your class topic is a little more difficult than the novel or author topics chosen by other students in your class. Bravo for taking on a complex topic. You will need references that back up the basic definition of proletarian poetry. You will also need references to show that individual authors or works mentioned in the article are described as being part of proletarian poetry (or as part of its legacy). The novel topics others are working on are a little easier to define since it's obvious that each chapter or character is part of the novel.

Because the boundaries of your topic might be less clear it could be very tempting to create your own definitions or analysis. You'll have to be extra careful not to stray into what Wikipedia calls original research by sticking to what the sources say. Cloveapple (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Resources

Some good things to take a quick look at: Cary Nelson's Repression and Recovery, Walter Kalaidjian's American Culture Between the Wars, and the Oxford Press American Poetry site (fantastic resource for all things American poetry). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profhanley (talk • contribs) 15:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Review

Article review for 11/3 assignment: I really like how you guys incorporate the contemporary versions of proletarian poetry into your page. Keep it going! Grahamhacia (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Good Article Status

Alright, so, I guess I'll put up the article for good article nomination status? Rahorvath (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose so. Even though there's more work to do, I'm thinking that because the nominations list is long, we can work on this more in the next week. Thanks for adding to this too, dude. Giusti18 (talk) 07:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I figure we'll get dinged on something or other, but also figure might want to get in under the deadline haha, oh journalism training, how you never fail... Rahorvath (talk) 07:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You're hella right. And also -- working on this either tonight, like right now, or early in the morning, most likely both. I apologize again for my utter lack of work. Usually not like this...senioritis is in the air...shoulda gotten those journalism skills! Thanks again. Giusti18 (talk) 07:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Problems that need to be addressed for GA

• Some of the footnotes are plain web addresses with no hint of what the content is. Add titles and other information
• There's lots of stuff that looks like personal opinion with no references to back it up. It might be true. It might be a good analysis. It might be what you deeply believe. But you need sources and you need the article to have a neutral encyclopedia-like tone. Some random examples:
  • who specificly do you mean by "controlling powers"?? What specific people are you saying thought Guthrie was radical?
  • What does "who had done everything right in life" mean? Can you back it up? "right" according to who?
  • "The realization of the imbalances of U.S. capitalism"
  • "Many artists" which artists?? Can you back it up?
  • Where's the support for Springsteen songs expressing "the herculean effort it would take to make a change to benefit the proletarian cause."?

Cloveapple (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Cloveapple. Getting on my part now. Giusti18 (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Need to add!

Hey guys -- cleaned up some of the citation issues. Also, we should add a "Major Works" section, "Impact", etc.; stuff that directly discusses the poetry. Can't do it alone! Giusti18 (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

Not ready for GA prime time, in my opinion. Background section should probably talk about the Communist Party a bit, or at least mention its role. Major works - - pasting in Dirge won't do - - you definitely need to mention the 1935 Proletarian Lit. in the U.S. anthology as well as some other influential volumes/books - - e.g. Rukeyser's U.S.1 etc. Definitely need to beef up the Critical Reception section - - prole lit in the 30s became a flashpoint of literary controversy in re art/politics, party/culture etc. The Legacy section just won't fly - - though it's interesting - - it's opinion and not "fact." Since the article is about poetry - - better to find legacy in U.S. poetry and radical poetry. Again, look at the Encyclopedia of the American Left for good, short stuff on prole lit and various authors. And the U. of I. site is an excellent resource for info on poets and prole. movement. Profhanley (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Proletarian poetry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 20:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Reads fine to this ESL.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   1) Dabtool identified one link that needs to be disambiguated: [1] 2) WP:LEAD requires that the intro provides a summary of the article and does not contain any new information. Current lead fails on both counts, as I see numerous claims in the lead that are not present in the article (aesthetically disparate, African-American slave work songs, Mike Gold); at the same time the lead does not mention issues that form major section (major works, reception, legacy, etc.). 3) Section headings need to be decapitalized (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters); also - why is the word Communist capitalized? 4) Improper bolding used at least once (Kenneth Fearing's "Dirge"), see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Boldface 5) External links should not normally be used in the body of an article (see Wikipedia:ELINK#Important_points_to_remember #2) 6) Per WP:BTW, more blue links are needed. The article mentions topics that should be blue or red linked, for example, in the first body para, William Carlos Williams, Upton Sinclair, and Jack London are not linked. Please note those represent examples, not a comprehensive list of what should be linked. 7) WP:WEASEL terms detected ("Some saw...").

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   At least once, another Wikipedia article is used as a self-reference. Three references are bare urls without any formatting. Most journal references are missing urls, those should be added (in book cases, Google Books is optional but helpful).

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Citation density is not satisfactory. For example, in the "Background" section, second part of the first para is unreferenced. First sentence in "Critical reception" section has a ref in the middle, suggesting that the second half is unreferenced. I'd strongly recommend the improvement of citation density to each sentence.

   C. No original research:

   I have some doubts here, particularly with regards to the examples in the legacy. Who is saying they are related? It seems to me like somebody found some examples of art that touches upon economic inequality, and is making original research arguments on Wikipedia that they are related to the proletarian poetry. This is most visibile in the claim about Dropkick Murphys which simply links to their web press release (primary source). We need proper secondary source that tie the work of others to this topic, we cannot go and claim that such and such is related simply because we think they are.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   "Major works" section suggests multiple works will be discussed, but only one is. "Critical reception" section is stub-lenght and needs significant expansion. See for example Juliusz_Slowacki#Work and Legacy sections for what I'd expect to see as relatively comprehensive length for such sections.

   B. Focused:

   Seems relatively on topic.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Not a single source reviewing this genra positivly, only a short negative criticism suggests bias.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Seems fine.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Check.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   A good and free image has been added. There is room for another one like this, but it is not requried.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: }

   On hold awaiting responses. Please let me know if anything is not clear; please consider pinging me on my talk page to ensure I am notified ASAP. If something is addressed, please make a clear note of that both here and in the edit summary. If I am not notified of any changes on my talk page, I may not revisit this page before a week or so, when I will assess the progress made based on the comments here, and if no rationale have been presented for extra time, I'll pass or fail the article based on its state at that time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the assessment! I will be working to address all of these concerns in the next day or two. Aerdil (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That's good to hear. I'll revisit in in a few days, feel free to ask any questions in the meantime. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note that if there are no further comments here, I'll rereview and pass/fail this article within a week of my previous comment. Please note, in particular, that this article will be failed if even one of the things I mentioned above is not fixed, so I strongly encourage you to ask questions if anything is not clear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Still working on a few things, I should hopefully have time to update the page some more tonight to get it much closer to GA-quality. With regard to the Legacy section, however, would you suggest moving it to the talk page for now? I agree with your assessment about original research, but don't want to tread on the other editor's toes. I do intend to expand that section with some mention of the genre's repression due to the McCarthy era and only relative recent resurgence/attention in literary analysis. Aerdil (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Moving content to talk rather than outright deletion is always preferable, so that's a good idea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, I just cleaned up the legacy section with more objective wording, took out some stuff, and added a lot more sourcing regarding quotes and general statements to back things up. I think it looks a lot better. Let me know. Sorry I got to this so late, didn't realize I had to watch this part of the talk page separately. Rahorvath (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It does look better. However, there's still a key problem. You need sources that connect the genre of "proletarian poetry" to the stuff in the legacy section. So even if you have references to show that "The populist proletariat movement of the 1930s has had a lasting effect on artists and voices to this day" that might not be the same thing as showing that the poetry has a legacy. I'll ask the reviewer to stop by and say what they think. Cloveapple (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed a major issue. For just one example, the article claims that Rage Against The Machine is somehow connected to this issue, yet the ref used ([2]) mentions neither poetry, nor proletariat. The WP:OR red flag in that section is still quite visible (pun intended). I am also a bit disappointed that the editors added a number of bare URLs; I've fixed that. "Poetry Foundation" references are still incomplete, missing author and date. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Status?

What is the status of this review? If it is completed, but the reviewer is waiting for improvements, please place it on hold. AstroCog (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I did: "#:Pass or Fail: {{GAList/check|hold}}}" I will hold it for about three more days, at which point I will fail it if there are no responses from the editors. For the record, I'd prefer to see the article improved, but this review is approaching a month mark slowly... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, I have to fail it. Issues remain unaddressed, and communication from editors (students) involved was very sparse, including no comments for the last week. As I said earlier, this means I have to fail the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Only American proletarian poetry

This article is only about "American proletarian poetry". Therefore, I suggest that it should be so renamed. Rwood128 (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Or should it be expanded to include other countries? Rwood128 (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Defining a proletarian writer

Proletarian literature is defined, in the Wikipedia article, as "literature created by working-class writers mainly for the class-conscious proletariat". Several of the writers mentioned in this article do not fit that definition, even though they may well write about working class life. Kenneth Fearing, for example, was the son of a successful Chicago attorney, Even Langston Hughes appears to have had a fairly wealthy father, studied engineering, and worked as a young man, "as a personal assistant to historian Carter G. Woodson". To take one more example, William Carlos Williams came from a well-to-do background and studied medicine. Rwood128 (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

One solution would be to rename this article American left-wing political poetry. Rwood128 (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)