Talk:The Bronze Horseman (poem)

Untitled

Bibliography for future edits: Briggs, A.D.P. A comparative study of Pushkin's The bronze horseman, Nekrasov's Red-nosed frost, and Blok's The twelve : the wild world. Lewiston [N.Y.] : Edwin Mellen Press, 1990. Print. Erlich, Victor. Comparative Literature 9.3 (1957): 256–258. Web Jakobson, Roman, and John Burbank. Pushkin and His Sculptural Myth. Hague, Mouton, 1975.: n.p., n.d. Print. Kahn, Andrew. Pushkin's The Bronze Horseman. London: Bristol Classical, 1998. Print. Newman, John Kevin. “Pushkin's "bronze Horseman" and the Epic Tradition”.Comparative Literature Studies 9.2 (1972): 173–195. Web. Reid, Robert, and Joe Andrew. Two Hundred Years of Pushkin. Alexander Pushkin: Myth and Monument. N.p.: n.p., 2003. Print. Riasanovsky, Nicholas V. The Image of Peter the Great in Russian History and Thought. New York: Oxford UP, 1985. Print. Rosenshield, Gary. Pushkin and the Genres of Madness: The Masterpieces of 1833. Madison, WI: U of Wisconsin, 2003. Print. Weinstock, Jeffrey Andrew. "The Bronze Horseman." The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters. N.p.: Central Michigan U, 2014. Print. Wilson, Edmund. The Triple Thinkers; Ten Essays on Literature. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1938. Print.

I have flagged this article for re-assessment after carrying out a major update and expansion. Zorba the Geek (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mich215, Jshin039, Ellenkim1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Respect for the Statue

Is the generally accepted reading of the poem? I read a translation from the 40's today, and all aspects of this article appear to be correct except for part concerning Yvgeny's reverence/respect for the statue. Maybe I glossed over the poem, but it seemed to me that the force chased him, and soon thereafter he died. Thomasmallen 21:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. This has been fixed. Zorba the Geek (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet another influence

was most likely Washington Irving's The Legend of Sleepy Hollow - see this here article. --Janneman (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that every single literary analyst's own theory about a famous poem needs to be represented in the article. Not saying that it necessarily doesn't merit inclusion either. -Oreo Priest ^talk 16:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Bronze Horseman (poem)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will be reviewing this article shortly. Otto4711 (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose is interesting and accessible, clearly written to allow for an understanding of the subject. Personally I actively loathe the construction "due to" instead of "because of" and encourage you to change it throughout, but I certainly would not fail the article because of it. The text skips back and forth between "Saint Petersburg" and "Petersburg" and it should be uniform throughout. Very minor thing, I would remove the words "of the poem" from the "Outline" header as redundant. I would also suggest renaming the section currently titled "Sources" to "Bibliography", just because you have a section within the article called "Sources and inspiration".

   Several MoS issues. 1) The lead is far too short and superficial. Per WP:LEAD the lead should serve as a concise overview of the article. The current lead doesn't touch or barely touches on inspiration, publication, analysis or impact. Generally citations are not required in the lead so I would move the existing ones to the appropriate locations in the body. 2) The references within the text should be uniform. My preference is that books be referenced within the text simply as <ref>Smith, p. 17</ref>. If the work is being collected in another book, then <ref>Smith, quoted in Jones, p. 75</ref>. There is no need for the title to be included in the in-text reference if it's in this style. Another option is Harvard citations, but as long as they're uniform whatever style you prefer is fine. 3) All of the entries in the "Sources" section need to be reformatted so they match. See for example Bride of Frankenstein#References. 4) Miscellaneous: While I personally don't care that much, WP:DASH states that n-dashes should be used instead of hyphens. Space needed between the dash and "or" in Analysis paragraph three. Spaces needed between p. and page number in some references.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Article includes notes and references sections. Some statements require citation. The founding of the city in the "Outline" section. The sculpting date and Pushkin's fascination and earlier PtG works in the "Sources" section. I would remove the word "unusual" when describing the formal structural blend as possibly OR/POV. The statue's coming to be known as "The Bronze Horseman" in the "Influence" section (which you can do by relocating current reference 2). Did the statue have a name before "The Bronze Horseman"? Include it and cite it.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   While the article maintains its focus, it needs expansion in some areas. The censorship faced by Pushkin prior to publication should be expanded upon. Who censored him and why? Did Pushkin protest or appeal the censorship? What changed between 1834 and 1837 that allowed for full publication? What sort of "adjustments" were required? The "Influence" section is very choppy and list-y. I would take the quote that you currently have in reference one and incorporate it into that section as part of the process of fleshing it out.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article is neutral and covers multiple analyses of the work.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Article is stable and free of edit warring.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The one image is appropriately tagged as public domain. The image has a caption but the wording is slightly awkward. I would suggest "Alexandre Benois's 1904 illustration of the poem" with no terminal period as the caption is not a complete sentence. If there is a PD image of the statue now known as the Bronze Horseman I believe the article would benefit from its inclusion but that is certainly not a requirement.

7. Overall: On hold - the article needs a good bit of work to get it up to GA standards. I will place the article on hold for seven days to allow for improvements. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about the review. Otto4711 (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC) No improvements made to article so this fails GA. Please feel free to renominate once the above mentioned problems have been addressed. Otto4711 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail:

The lion statues

The article on Saint Isaac's Square until today stated (unreferenced) that the lions in the poem refer to the white marble Medici lions at the Lobanov-Rostovsky Residence, however not surrounded by water. However, there are (Medici) lion statues also at the Dvortsovaya pier, which are in fact close to water, but in bronze... Clarification, anyone? Thanks, /Urbourbo (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

which contains a poem entitled "To My Muscovite Friends"

The description of the city and of the monument is "before" the poem. Xx236 (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Acording to Alfred Gall [1] both poets describe Russian autocracy - Mickiewicz criticise it and Pushkin approves.Xx236 (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

1) Are ALL of the sources used in the article reliable? Identify any unreliable sources and explain why you consider them unreliable. The Bronze Horseman ed. T.E.Little (Bradda Books, 1974) The Bronze Horseman, ed. Michael Basker (Bristol Classical Press, 2000) Pushkin's 'Bronze Horseman': Critical Studies in Russian Literature, Andrew Kahn (Bristol Classical Press, 1998)

Aleksandr Pushkin: A Critical Study'", A.D.P. Briggs (Barnes and Noble, 1982)

The Cambridge Companion to Pushkin, ed. Andrew Kahn (Cambridge University Press, 2006) Pushkin: A Biography, T.J. Binyon (Harper Collins, 2002) Petrone, Karen (2000). Life Has Become More Joyous, Comrades: Celebrations in the Time of Stalin. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-33768-2. Debreczany, Paul (1993). ""Zhitie Aleksandra Boldinskogo": Pushkin's Elevation to Sainthood in Soviet Culture". In Lahusen, Thomas & Kuperman, Gene. Late Soviet Culture: From Perestroika to Novostroika. Duke University Press. ISBN 0-8223-1324-3. The current article on the Bronze horseman features these list of sources. While all the sources on this list are reliable they don’t represent a comprehensive list of all the works referenced in the article and bring up some questions. Why is it that the original author used two different editions of the poem? There doesn’t seem to be a valid reason to do so. It would seem, to me, that it would be more appropriate to use a single translation of the poem to reference throughout the article. There are also books and other works referenced in the article that are included in the reference section, but aren’t properly cited in the source section. These include: Schenker, Alexander M. (2003) The Bronze Horseman: Falconet's Monument to Peter the Great. New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 300. Banjeree, Maria. (1978) "Pushkin's 'The Bronze Horseman': An Agonistic Vision". Modern Languages Studies, 8, no. 2, Spring. p. 42. Rancour-Laferriere, Daniel. "The Couvade of Peter the Great: A Psychoanalytic Aspect of The Bronze Horseman", Pushkin Today, ed. D. Bethea. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, pp. 73–85.

Wachtel, Michael. (2006) "Pushkin's long poems and the epic impulse". In The Cambridge 

Companion to Puskhin, ed. Andrew Kahn. Cambridge: CUP. pp. 83–84. While I find all the sources the original author used to be reliable the number of sources seems inadequate for the length of the piece and the depth of analysis that should come with it. To improve on the article one should expound on the research. I do think that the author chose an interesting list of sources and see them as a great starting point. In conclusion, more research and ensuring the citations are accurate would greatly improve the quality of the Wikipedia article. 2) Is the topic sufficiently covered? What specific gaps do you find in the coverage? While the issue of autocratic power versus the “little man” is mentioned many times throughout the article, it is always in the context of the moral of the poem pointing towards no mention of Evgenii’s own powers. For example, the article admits that “Evgenii challenges the symbol of Tsarist authority, but is destroyed by its terrible, merciless power,” a phrase that in no way suggests that the statue felt at all threatened by the power of Evgenii. When observing that “critics differ as to whether Pushkin ultimately sides with Evgenii - the little man - or Peter and historical necessity,” the only credit given to Evgenii is that his “death seems to suggest that historical progress always comes at an ethical price,” which says nothing of the fact that Evgenii posed a threat to the statue while he was alive. In our group’s future edits, we plan on adding more information in support of Evgenii’s character, including the fact that he was willing to rouse the statue while the forces of nature weren’t. We also found the article lacking in terms of its analysis of the Neva - there were few themes drawn to nature in the article with the minor allusion to its “ambiguous power.” 3) Is the topic objectively (fairly) covered according to the Wikipedia standards? Be specific in identifying passages where, in your view, objectivity is not sustained.

   In the current Bronze Horseman article, the poem is treated very fairly including many different interpretations of the work. For example, in the Sources and Inspiration section, the author acknowledges that “Pushkin’s poem can be read in part as a retort to Mickiewicz, although most critics agree that its concerns are much broader than answering a political enemy.” As stated in the Evaluating Wikipedia Pages Brochure, “coverage should be neutral” and “different views should be covered with appropriate balance,” and here the article does a good job of including a less accepted interpretation while still indicating the current consensus regarding the poem’s interpretation. The current article also does a good job admitting the ambiguous nature of the poem that is “both captivating and frustrating,” thereby avoiding the mistake of assuming a standpoint and creating a persuasive paper, characteristics of a poorly written Wikipedia article. 

4) Is the article well organized/structured? The article is well organized within its subtitles, but the article does not have much breadth in analysis, and will have to have more subtitles added. For instance, there is very little literary analysis. The article only shows a general analysis and a Soviet interpretation. The article should go more in depth, and the article structure could be changed to have a larger analysis section that includes headings such as “Major Themes,” “Symbolism,” and “Character Analysis.” Additionally, there is little context and background, so a “Background” category should be included in the beginning of the article to create more organization. Within that heading, there can be subheadings such as “Sources and inspiration,” which is a section that already exists in the article. 5) Did you find any grammatical or stylistic problems?

   There are no obvious grammatical or stylistic problems in the article. 

6) Are the accompanying images, if any, relevant to the article’s content?

   There is a single photo, which shows Evgenii running away from the Bronze Horseman that has come to life, exactly as Pushkin’s poem describes. This is the artist Alexander Benois’ interpretation of the story. This is a relevant picture. However, we suggest including a few more pictures. For instance, a picture of the actual building and the two lion statues that the poem references could provide a better visual for the reader and show where the Evgenii was found after the flood. Additionally, a map of Petersburg, or an image of the city that can show the river Neva, and the location of the city could be more helpful in providing context as to why Petersburg was vulnerable to flooding. Accompanying images can help in the reader’s understanding of the poem, and while the single photo that is currently on the page, is relevant to the article, it can be helpful to have multiple supporting images.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mich215 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 

Bibliography

Bibliography

Briggs, A.D.P. A comparative study of Pushkin's The bronze horseman, Nekrasov's Red-nosed frost, and Blok's The twelve : the wild world. Lewiston [N.Y.] : Edwin Mellen Press, 1990. Print.

Erlich, Victor. Comparative Literature 9.3 (1957): 256–258. Web...

Jakobson, Roman, and John Burbank. Pushkin and His Sculptural Myth. Hague, Mouton, 1975.: n.p., n.d. Print.

Kahn, Andrew. Pushkin's The Bronze Horseman. London: Bristol Classical, 1998. Print.

Newman, John Kevin. “Pushkin's "bronze Horseman" and the Epic Tradition”.Comparative Literature Studies 9.2 (1972): 173–195. Web...

Riasanovsky, Nicholas V. The Image of Peter the Great in Russian History and Thought. New York: Oxford UP, 1985. Print.

Reid, Robert, and Joe Andrew. Two Hundred Years of Pushkin. Alexander Pushkin: Myth and Monument. N.p.: n.p., 2003. Print.

Rosenshield, Gary. Pushkin and the Genres of Madness: The Masterpieces of 1833. Madison, WI: U of Wisconsin, 2003. Print.

Weinstock, Jeffrey Andrew. "The Bronze Horseman." The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters. N.p.: Central Michigan U, 2014. Print

Wilson, Edmund. The Triple Thinkers; Ten Essays on Literature. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1938. Print — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mich215 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)