Talk:What Work Is

Outline proposal

Ok Folks, we definitely need to get to work. The book is short, so everyone should read it all the way through. We shouls put out some basic literary concepts for the book as well as a small definition of what the poem is. the topics i suggest, or rather the divisions of headings, are as follows:

• Style
• Concepts
• Imagery
• Context
• Reception
• Summary

if there are any more that you think could be added, please suggest. if there are any of those you think should be taken away please note. Try to pull from the text as much as possible. It also might be prudent to check JSTOR, Project Muse, LiON, and the like for other materials pertaining to this work as well. Lets get this done. Sign up, or at least state, what part of the book you would like to work on. Thank you.JHSlavin (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jason for getting us started. There are 5 people signed up for this group, so that means one section per person and one extra. I will take the Imagery section, if no one objects. -Liz IQuilici —Preceding undated comment added 19:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC).

That sounds like a well-organized start and would lead to a thorough evaluation. It's a good suggestion to draw on JSTOR et al (anything constituting a personal interpretation will not be fit for wikipedia). If you have any specific questions, let me know on my talk page! L.tak (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the format i outlined wont work. We cannot do any original work, which means that we have to find everything we need through the above listed resources. We should definitely change the outline. I started work on concepts but i am not even sure if that title fits the work i did. I think all of us, doing small edits and working in tandem, can really make this page work. Also we have to make sure we are not doing information about Levine himself, he already has a page, but the collection What Work Is . Shoot me a message if you want. JHSlavin (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This will be a great external link for us to use: Rumiano, Jeffrey Edmond, "They Know "What Work Is": Working Class Individuals in the Poetry of Philip Levine" (2007). English Dissertations. Paper 24. http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/english_diss/24 Courtnee11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC).

Hah, well that would have saved me time had i looked at the discussion page first. I found the Rumiano article and then used it. Shoulda checked here first! Thank you for the tip Courtnee! Hopefully we can widdle down this 200 page dissertation yes?. Please let me know if there are any formating issues that need to be fixed JHSlavin (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads up. If you are having trouble finding articles on LiOn and such. LExus Nexus ( available through the library) is pretty good for finding small things. It pretty much looks like we are only going to be able to find bits and pieces of what we need to make this whole.JHSlavin (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I was wondering, how much information would be needed to justify an "Influences" section? I know that some of Levine's general influences included Whitman, etc, but I found a critic's (decently meaty) offhand suggestion that Levine's exposure to (Spanish poet) Federico Garcia Lorca's "Poet in New York" influenced the new sensibility behind "What Work Is" (the collection). The article is primarily about Levine's autobiography, but the first five short paragraphs seem to indirectly talk about the collection. I also thought about possibly putting my findings under "Themes" or "Critical Reception," but am still not exactly sure which section of those two would be more appropriate. Here's the link: The Riot That Found Its Threnody. I'm especially interested in the fifth paragraph, ("Never in poetry written in English...") with a few other details from the preceding paragraphs. Let me know whether or not anyone thinks this is pertinent. Thanks! Aissale89 (talk)

Hey guys, I've added a lot of info to the Critical Reception, Background and Style pages (I wasn't logged in for parts of it, so that mystery editor is me)... so it's pretty filled out now. I think we should just concentrate on the Analysis section and figure out exactly how in depth we want to go for that. Also, if anyone can find any relevent pictures that **aren't** copy-righted that would be really helpful. Wikipedia has ridiculously strict guidelines for photos. Courtnee11 (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Courtnee, you rock. This page is looking pretty good. I added a little to the backgroud climate of 1991. If anyone wants to add anything pertinent please do. Its a hard search though since most of what comes up when you google things about 1991 is wikipedia pages. I added a little blurb at the beginning of Analysis that pretty much covers what is going on in Rumiano's dissertation. lets get crackin but i personally think we are looking decent here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.173.103 (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Also i removed stub status, don't think this is a stub anymore.

Does someone want to tackle the analysis section? Right now we only have those three poems and it's rather vague as to why we chose to highlight those. If someone can add more to that section that would be fantastic. Also, I will go ahead and nominate our article for "good article status" now. Courtnee11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC). update: Not sure why our article has appeared in the Misc. part of Good Article Status page. I put the subtopic as "Literature" so hopefully the bot will figure it out... if you guys know how to fix it please do. In the meantime I will keep editing. Courtnee11 (talk) 03:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

Still lots of work to do here. Time is running out. Profhanley (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Format/Models

Comrades - - before you settle on a format for the page, be sure to check out articles on similar topics - - e.g. poetry collections. Here are a few: The Botanic Garden, Eureka: A Prose Poem, Tamerlane and Other Poems, Midas (Shelley), Leaves of Grass. Taking a look at our model article for novels might also be helpful. Profhanley (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello all: I've been browsing for more articles similar to ours, but most specifically ones that are FA-Featured Article Status, i.e. exactly what we should be shooting for, so here are a few more examples of format that I think will really benefit us. I think I'll do some rearranging this afternoon!:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonder_Stories and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemming%27s_Cartulary

Most importantly, I think we need to move the "contents" section to the end. Courtnee11 (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Note on Wikipedia house style (Manual of Style)

Even though the book uses italics for the titles of the poems, on Wikipedia we use quotation marks. Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Viriditas! The help is much appriciated. How did you add the table of contents by the way? JHSlavin (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

When an article or talk page has more than three headings, the wiki software magic automaticly makes a table of contents show up. Cloveapple (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Analysis section

Good to see the article is growing! Just a few comments on the analysis section, which was just added.

• The type of info might fit, but is inherently subjective in nature. It's therefore necessary to state more clearly that this is the interpretation the source (According to xxx, the ...) and it would be very helpful to find more sources on the interpretations presented. Furthermore, it might be good to think about which poems an analysis will be given (longest? main poems according to xxx? first of each section? )
• The use of "we" etc (in the poem, we see) is discouraged on wikipedia (as not encyclopedic). Passive voice (or any other solution; you all are much better versed in syntax than I am) is more suitable (despite that Microsoft Word's grammar checker doesn's seem to like it ;-))
• On a more technical note, the ref is to a dissertation abstracts database, but I guess the information is in the dissertation rather than the abstract itself. If so, I suggest to change the reference to that effect... L.tak (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your notes! As for the URL to the abstract for the reference it is the stable URL. I believe the URL given when the abstract will be accessed may not actually lead to the dissertation at future attempts, although I may be wrong on that point i dont know. I'll edit it today! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHSlavin (talk • contribs) 22:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Review Thusfar

The article is in great shape at the moment! The sections already written are well-cited and in depth. A few improvements could be made, however, by expanding slightly the paragraph on the compilation's critical reception. Finding a few more reviews from a range of critics would certainly let us know what the general reception is/was. Also, a section describing the aesthetic style of his work, including Levine's influences (at least for this selection of work), would perhaps be informative and pertinent to the article. Great work so far! Aerdil (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Feedback

Like how you have expanded your page from it's meager beginnings. Really only one suggestion: A lot of Levine's poetry has a landscape of the Rust Belt during a great period of growth. Detroit and Flint...we know what has happended there in recent history, and in the poem "Innocence" they are building a new highway "all the way to the empires of Ohio." Not sure what is out there for resource material, but this may be an area worth investigating to give the pg. a little more depth. Nice job.MattHeitland (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The page is looking really good so far. I find it hard to find in-depth, cohesive information about collections of poetry, so I was presently surprised. One suggestion for improvement would be to expand the "Themes" section. It feels a bit sparse. What exactly are the "working class elements" that Levine is using? In this regard, a note about the language could be useful. I find Levine's diction to be very colloquial or everyday, rather than lofty or intellectual. Is this a political/social choice on the part of Levine? And if so, what exactly does it signify? That's just an idea of how to expand the section. Looks great so far. Zoesharpe (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The page looks good. I think the page could expand if a background section is added. Things to mention could be: Economic situation during the time the poems were written. Some info about the poet that might be significant to some of the poems. Erikar345 (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I found your analysis section very interesting and illuminating. My one question: will you guys be analyzing more of the poems/sections from the collection, or will it remain a kind of selective analysis? RMarchetti (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I also thought the analysis section of this page was very well done, my one concern is the style section. While 'free verse' does accurately describe the organization of Levine's poems, this section definitely has room for some elaboration. Maybe in the way that Levine uses free verse, or even just a short definition of the 'free verse' style of writing. Mikayla Moore —Preceding undated comment added 22:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC).

copied from amazon.com

“This collection amounts to a hymn of praise for all the workers of America. These proletarian heroes, with names like Lonnie, Loo, Sweet Pea, and Packy, work the furnaces, forges, slag heaps, assembly lines, and loading docks at places with unglamorous names like Brass Craft or Feinberg and Breslin’s First-Rate Plumbing and Plating. Only Studs Terkel’s Working approaches the pathos and beauty of this book. But Levine’s characters are also significant for their inner lives, not merely their jobs. They are unusually artistic, living ‘at the borders of dreams.’ One reads The Tempest ‘slowly to himself’; another ponders a diagonal chalk line drawn by his teacher to suggest a triangle, the roof of a barn, or the mysterious separation of ‘the dark from the dark.’ What Work Is ranks as a major work by a major poet . . . very accessible and utterly American in tone and language.”[1] Reactor factor (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

copied from the New York Times

Mr. Levine’s poems aren’t lachrymose; they don’t present blue-collar caricatures. Yet he speaks for people who are rarely given a voice in our poetry, and his poems feel, crucially, populated.[2] Reactor factor (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Many links are behind pay walls or need a subscription so can't be checked. Probably much more is copied word for word. Reactor factor (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing for GA Status

Because of the outright short-cutting made by some of the students on this page it seems many of the refrences will have to be checked for complete copies. Also a way needs to be found around the copy written texts. i believe the rumiano text is copy written and, if so, should all material taken from it be removed? Much of the article is taken from it, and removing it may cause the article to become a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHSlavin (talk • contribs) 23:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Most of the editing is done. So much was taken word for word from the resources it is very... daunting. The only section that needs work left is critical reception. Most of it is probably word for word. I have been summarizing and restating facts brought up by the article and then deleting the plagiarized text. Also deleted any text that had the reference from Alfred Corn of the Washington Post Sunday 1991. It was behind a lexis nexus pay wall and couldn't be verified. It's likely the fault of how research is done in colleges. Colleges give all these resources to students that professors also have access too, and so its acceptable, but not for Wikipedia. I have e-mailed the professor who did the project to inform him of the mistakes we made so that he can better warn his students should he attempt the project again. Cheers JHSlavin (talk)

I also emailed your professor with suggestions in case he decides to do this assignment again. Just to let you know, it is ok to use articles found in Lexis Nexus database as sources on Wikipedia. Those can be a little harder to verify, but they can be verified. (For that matter books that aren't online and other offline sources are ok too.) The volunteer who happened to check the article for copyright violations didn't have access so he or she couldn't check that reference. Cloveapple (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Cloveapple, good to hear from you again. I will probably use that reference then and restore some of the text it provided. Question, the Daniel Guillory quote only leads to itself about What Work Is. Perhaps the quote was said by him in the Journal about the book but i cant find the title, does this reference need to be taken out then?JHSlavin (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If nobody can figure out exactly where it came from, then yes we'd have to remove that reference. There ought to be a decent chance of finding it though if Library Journal is included in any of the big journal databases. Cloveapple (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I haven't been able to find the full text yet, but the book review was published in Library Journal on May 1, 1991. It's in at least one GALE database and I'd expect you also have access to Library Journal through your school. Cloveapple (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I found the full article for the Guillory and fixed the reference. The Wilson quarterly reference does not have an author because one couldn't be found. not on the article itself nor in its headings under the journal. The Bureau is simple just a statistical refrence tool supported by the Department of Labor. All the plagiarism is out. Would you mind giving the article a look over to see if there is anything i missed before i try and re nominate?JHSlavin (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. I don't know that I'll catch everything though; I'm far from a GA expert. I'd also suggest asking Piotrus if he or she thinks re-nominating is the next step. Cloveapple (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There's some stuff that doesn't have references.

Background: The unemployent and recession are nailed down to references, but then the article makes the leap of connecting this background to the poems. I'm not saying this connection is wrong, just that it has to be backed up by a reference. Surely one or two of the reviewers made this connection? Just searching for "Levine" plus "unenployment" in some databases might turn something up.

Analysis: "Much of the work done on Levine's Poetry is Marxist literary criticism." probably needs a reference unless Rumiano says this. Even then it seems odd that Rumiano is the only person mentioned who approaches the writing from this view. I'm a also little unsure about "Due to the collection having a good number of poems, only a few have been analyzed thoroughly." Has anybody actually said this? It reads like an opinion. Cloveapple (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Good to know. I will take care of those parts and go over the prose again. Thank you for going over it again! i really want this to get a GA status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHSlavin (talk • contribs) 04:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 21:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Will ask for a second opinion if there is activity here, as I am an ESL I don't feel confident reviewing prose.

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

   1) Failure of WP:LEAD. Lead (intro) should summarize the article and should not contain new information - failure on both counts. 2) Much more serious is the failure of WP:COPYVIO/WP:PLAGIARISM. It was even noted on talk of the article (sections above the review), yet nothing was done to address the issue. Both instances reported by Reactor factor are confirmed.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Seems fine.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Seems mostly fine, but few references need tweaking. Guillory needs title, date. Bureau needs title, date. Wilson Quarterly needs author. Also, last para of the Background is missing a reference.

   C. No original research:

   Seems fine.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Seems fine.

   B. Focused:

   Seems fine.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Seems fine.

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:

   Seems fine.

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

   Cover is all we can reasonably expect, and it is present.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Fix the lead, rewrite plagiarized fragments, and I'll ask for prose second opinion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   No response for over a week, which does not surprise me much given this was an educational assignment and the class has likely ended. It would be nice to hear anything from the instructor or the ambassador. In the holiday spirit, and taking into account possibly crazy RL, I'll wait for few more days. If no reply is pending by the time this reaches a 2-week mark, this will be an auto fail. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

   No sign of life, past two week mark. Fail mark for everybody concerned for wasting GA reviewer's (mine...) time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Piotrus, I ran into this more or less by accident. I'm sorry that your time was wasted--but maybe it wasn't all wasted: I certainly appreciate your good efforts here and who knows, something may yet come out of this. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)