Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Lucy poems/archive2

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:00, 3 August 2009 [1].

The Lucy poems

Nominator(s): Kafka Liz, Ottava Rima, Ceoil, Awadewit

Nominating on behalf of Kafka Liz, who is off wiki for a while. We nomed this article a few months back but it went down in flames for a number of reasons. It has recieved a few detailed reviews since then and benefited from several combs by all involved. Thanks to Ricardiana and Fowler&fowler especially for so much insight, time and effort. Other than that, looking forward to engaging with other editor's suggestions and comments. Ceoil (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

content moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ealdgyth. Ceoil (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know which River Dove it is, or is this one of the ambiguous place names in the poems? Awadewit (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know, better off not linking it. We shouldn't be intentionally linking to disambiguation pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that we don't know, it is that it is a deliberate ambiguity in the poem. Note the sentence in the article: "Similarly, no insight can be gained from determining the exact geographical location of the "springs of Dove"; in his youth, Wordsworth had visited springs of that name in Derbyshire, Patterdale and Yorkshire." Knowing this, what do you think we should do? Awadewit (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The explanatory footnote is good, in my eyes. If you wish, you might unlink the amiguous link in prose, and link each specific River Dove mention to their respective article. See what I mean here. Of course, that raises its own issues. It's totally up to you. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the disamb link and added in two of the river links to the footnote. The Westmorland Dove river does not have a page, or one that I could find. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good compromise. Thanks for the quick thinking! Dabomb87 (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was an interesting post on the sub-article talk a while back[2], worth pondering. I might ping Wetman on this. Ceoil (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment:~~ I'm ~~very close to~~ supporting this. It's well written and exhaustively researched. I have a few nitpicky items which I've posted on the article's talk page, because they don't seem important enough to oppose the FAC over.

There is, however, one exception: The tenses shift regularly, from "Wordsworth characterised..." to "Wordsworth complains...". (There are numerous other examples as well, involving critics and others.) I feel strongly that the tenses should be standardised before I can vote to support. Scartol • Tok 13:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything on this list has been resolved, the tense issue among them. Awadewit (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Sorry for the delay in my response! Scartol • Tok 22:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I am very close to supporting; I have a question - why doesn't A slumber did my spirit seal have it's own article yet? It is one of only 5 Lucy poems, the others all have short researched articles that are linked and are helpful to the readers understanding of the set....Modernist (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support fine job all...Modernist (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a stub. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava is helpfully expanding the stub as we write. Awadewit (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support this piece of beautifully crafted prose with just one comment:

"The expiration of the lease in Alfoxton soon provided an opportunity for the two friends to live even closer." The previous para talks of the two living within walking distance of each other; accordingly, we do not know who lived at Alfoxton (which has not previously been mentioned). Also, I expected Alfoxton to be a town or village and was surprised to discover it was a building. Suggest this read "The expiration of the Wordsworth's lease of Alfoxton House soon provided an opportunity for the two friends to live even closer." hamiltonstone (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "The expiration of Wordsworth's [[Alfoxton House]] lease soon provided an opportunity for the two friends to live together." to clarify. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support—very nicely written. Tony (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I've trimmed the length of the first caption, but it still winds and wraps awful bad. Can the pic be a little larger? Or can some of the information be relocated into the main text? Same for the other captions: tiny pics and one-to-three-word lines. Bad look. See the Palmer pic. I recommend possible combinations of three measures, as hinted at above: trim, relocate, enlarge. Why, for example, do we need "Wordworth's" in the Palmer caption? I'm trimming it now, but more needs to be done. Tony (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PPS I presume that in the title, lower-case "p" is appropriate. You don't immediately learn whether the title for the collection is Wordsworth's. My trimming of the Palmer caption neglected to insert "The". Should it be there? Tony (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits. I've trimmed the lead caption, and inserted a 'The' in the text for the Palmer image. Ceoil (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explanatory note - "The Lucy poems" or "The Lucy Poems" is used by scholars when referring to the grouping. "Lucy poem" is a more casual reference to poetry about the Lucy themes. Rather subtle and the latter is mostly used in comparisons with other works. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've shortened some of the captions even further. Awadewit (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
- File:Benjamin Robert Haydon 002.jpg - National Portrait Gallery image. I assume these are still fine to use; I haven't looked into the legal threat business for a while.
  - They are fine, yes. Awadewit (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Samuel Palmer Girl Standing.jpg - Categorize please?
  - Added to category and gallery. Awadewit (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Margaret Oliphant Wilson Oliphant.jpg - Under FfD at the moment, but looks like it will be kept. If someone could close that discussion and move the image to commons and do everything there, that would be good.
  - Deletion discussion initiated under an attempt to delete images from the NPG. All votes are for keep. Awadewit (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Dorothy Wordsworth 2.jpg - Categorize please?
  - Done. Awadewit (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:SamuelTaylorColeridge.jpg - The image at the NPG has slightly different tones. Which do you think would be more suited for use?
  - I'm not sure which scan is closer to the original. Has anyone seen the original painting? Awadewit (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Coleridge was not feverish nor was he purple. The first image is closer to the depiction of Coleridge in multiple books. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - To be clear, do you mean copies of the painting in books (as, of course, the painter could have chosen to represent Coleridge any way he wanted)? Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I mean reproductions of the portrait. They are slightly more brown than red, but they are closer to the Wiki coloration than the NPG. NPG images have also had some other problems, especially with shadowing and the rest. A rather curious situation that one would think would be corrected. Someone like Durova might be able to elaborate on that point, as she is big on restoration of images. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Lyrical Ballads.jpg - Categorize please?
  - Done. Awadewit (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:William Wordsworth at 28 by William Shuter2.jpg - Looks good
NW (Talk) 23:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Images look good, except for Margret Oliphant. I don't think that the issue with that image is sufficient to merit blocking promotion. NW (Talk) 00:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would like to keep the pic of Oliphant, but I dont feel strongly about it. Thanks for the review NW. Ceoil (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No problem. And in my opinion, you should be able to keep the Oliphant image; those FfDs should all eventually close as keep. NW (Talk) 18:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS#Ellipses: some ellipses are spaced, others not. Is that intentional? ("Strange fits ..." and "A slumber...") SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a fix to this, I would suggest that all of the short titles be provided without ellipses. Many of the poems are known by the short titles, so it wouldn't be a problem to have them used after the first instance (with full titles in the subheadings, of course). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I'm on a really old computer though this weekend, and ctl F is not working for me. Can get to it about 15 hours, after my beauty sleep and a short drive. Ceoil (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I trust y'all can fix this minor issue later (don't have a brawl!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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