Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walt Whitman/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 not promoted 19:02, 9 April 2008.
We thought we'd give this a shot - after a few months of fighting through vandalism, we think this article is fairly well improved to (hopefully) FA quality. Admitted possible weakness include lack of depth in legacy, confusing sexuality question (inherent to the subject?), and possibly a need for better prose. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't really offer you a complete review, but I will point out now while you are still online that you will get pounded about the totally unreferenced lead. A number of statements there need referencing. The ones that jump out at me include the quote in the first paragraph, his sexuality being controversial, and his funeral becoming a public spectacle. SorryGuy Talk 02:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch - I've added a few. Let me know if you think any others should be covered. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Before doing that, the lead is supposed to summarize the entire article. You've got a full paragraph on one small aspect of the entire article, with the rest overlooked. Before sourcing the lead, I'd suggest rewriting it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind being more specific? The lead was written specifically to summarize the whole article (though, admittedly, the article has changed somewhat since then). --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This statement "Born on Long Island in 1819", is redundant, or maybe the date. It is already stated right after the name. About the referencing issues of the lead, I think it is fine to ignore them as long as its factual and fully sourced below. --Efe (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, and taken care of. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This statement "Born on Long Island in 1819", is redundant, or maybe the date. It is already stated right after the name. About the referencing issues of the lead, I think it is fine to ignore them as long as its factual and fully sourced below. --Efe (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind being more specific? The lead was written specifically to summarize the whole article (though, admittedly, the article has changed somewhat since then). --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Before doing that, the lead is supposed to summarize the entire article. You've got a full paragraph on one small aspect of the entire article, with the rest overlooked. Before sourcing the lead, I'd suggest rewriting it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch - I've added a few. Let me know if you think any others should be covered. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Really picky, but the Haas ref (current ref 81) has a page abbreviation, and you aren't using them elsewhere. Same for the Pound ref (current ref 129) and the McKenna (current ref 117) and the last ref Nuzum (current ref 132)
- All other links checked out fine with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I expect nothing less than picky! I'll try to take care of these now. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't have the Intimate Matters book, I think I can locate it on my shelves. Maybe. Hopefully you have it, now that I think about it.... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have access to it; one of the editors who collaborated on this article added it, presumably implying the entirety of the book served as a reference. Hopefully he'll respond here. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Doubtful that they meant the entire book, it covers a very wide time frame. Let me dig. Nope, it must still be in a box. Sorry. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have access to it; one of the editors who collaborated on this article added it, presumably implying the entirety of the book served as a reference. Hopefully he'll respond here. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't have the Intimate Matters book, I think I can locate it on my shelves. Maybe. Hopefully you have it, now that I think about it.... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I expect nothing less than picky! I'll try to take care of these now. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
CommentsFirst quick questions:
- Why is there no section on Walt Whitman's poetry (except for that buried within his life), but there is an entire section on his "Lifestyle and beliefs"? As Whitman is known primarily as a poet, this seems like a major omission.
- I'm concerned that the article was written using only five books. This is Walt Whitman - one of America's greatest and most written-about poets. Have you checked out Emily Dickinson? That is a recent FA on another famous nineteenth-century American poet. Awadewit (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hear ya. Though the article's main references come from five books there are several other sources scattered throughout. If I can get my hands on another book or two I'll get them represented too. I also see your point about the poetry but it seems to me his poetry (excuse me, his one poem, considering that's ultimately all he is known for, more or less :) ) is discussed throughout his bio, in his poetic theory section, and under legacy. If we can expand on it, we'll do our best. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is not that the article needs more biographies (of course, that would be nice). The issue is that the article has no substantial references to literary criticism on Whitman. Also, it doesn't matter that Whitman is popularly known for Leaves of Grass - he did write other things, as mentioned in the article. These texts need to be discussed. (I'm currently working on Mary Shelley - she is popularly known for Frankenstein, but wrote much more. This can be discovered by reading the literary criticism.) Much more importantly, his poetry needs to be discussed as poetry - the style of it, its themes, etc. These points are only glancingly touched on in the article (and the same information is repeated in several places - not expanded upon). To research these topics, I suggest you begin with The Cambridge Companion to Walt Whitman, which also has a "List of Suggested Readings" in the back. That should guide you to more books on Whitman's writings. Unfortunately, I am going to have to oppose this article as it stands because it is not comprehensive. An author biography that lacks a sustained discussion of that author's works cannot be considered comprehensive. Awadewit (talk) 04:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What I meant in saying that Whitman is known for one poem is that all of Whitman's poetry is Leaves of Grass - all his poetry is really that one, long, book-length poem (usually without separate titles or headings). The "other stuff" he wrote was his journalism (which is covered in the bio part). I see your point, though so, if nothing else, I'll try to incorporate some info from the Leaves of Grass article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is not that the article needs more biographies (of course, that would be nice). The issue is that the article has no substantial references to literary criticism on Whitman. Also, it doesn't matter that Whitman is popularly known for Leaves of Grass - he did write other things, as mentioned in the article. These texts need to be discussed. (I'm currently working on Mary Shelley - she is popularly known for Frankenstein, but wrote much more. This can be discovered by reading the literary criticism.) Much more importantly, his poetry needs to be discussed as poetry - the style of it, its themes, etc. These points are only glancingly touched on in the article (and the same information is repeated in several places - not expanded upon). To research these topics, I suggest you begin with The Cambridge Companion to Walt Whitman, which also has a "List of Suggested Readings" in the back. That should guide you to more books on Whitman's writings. Unfortunately, I am going to have to oppose this article as it stands because it is not comprehensive. An author biography that lacks a sustained discussion of that author's works cannot be considered comprehensive. Awadewit (talk) 04:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural issue—This is the second current nomination by the same user. I think it's inadmissable, and should be withdrawn (by the nominator or the Director) until the earlier nomination is resolved. Tony (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm okay with having more than one nomination that I'm watching. See Talk:Walt Whitman and you'll also notice that, soon enough, there will be up to three other editors taking part in this nomination. So, it's not a self-nom but a group-nom. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: I'm going to have to agree with Awadewit on this one; the article simply isn't comprehensive enough. So much emphasis is put upon Whitman's life and eccentricities, but I do not see any lit crit. The "legacy" section attempts to do what such a section would do, but without it fleshed out, a fantastic quote such as "You cannot really understand America without Walt Whitman, without Leaves of Grass... He has expressed that civilization, 'up to date,' as he would say, and no student of the philosophy of history can do without him" makes little sense. Whitman is considered one of America's Top Five poets, so it seems a disservice, really, to not discuss his trailblazing style and/or common critical resentment of his major work. It's touched upon in the "Leaves of Grass" section, but most of it is "in-universe", as it were. There's not even a sample of this work. In short, I don't think the article is ready yet. More research needs to be done outside of five biographies; there are 231 books with Whitman as the subject in my library, so there's not a shortage of material. :) I trust that this article can do much better, but for now I must reluctantly oppose. María (habla conmigo) 12:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I see the point here. It's funny, a certain other article I put up for FA was heavily criticized for not focusing on biography enough and talking too much about literary stuff. Ah well. Will do what I can. Hopefully the other Whitman editors will be able to help there too. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now sorry. I so want to see this one as an FA, but sadly, it's not ready yet. The big problem is that the reader will have to look elsewhere to discover why his poetry was among the greatest of Whitman's and all time. The article is not comphrehensive. To add to my disapointment, there are numerous examples of sloppy prose. In the Lead- "His work was also very controversial in its time", why the "also". Later, "After a stroke towards the end of his life, he moved to Camden, New Jersey while his health further declined", should be "where his health". Further one, "The oldest was named Jesse and another boy died unnamed after six months", is not clear. Presumably the boy was six months old when he died. There is more, "He left the job in 1859, though it is unclear if he was fired or left on his own", of his own free will? Later again, "to serve as his housekeeper in exchange for free rent" is sloppy. There are many more examples. Walt Whitman deserves better. The article needs a thorough clean-up, (copy edit) and a substantial new section on his poetry. GrahamColmTalk 17:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing out those errors; we'll continue working on the prose. I'm glad the article is getting serious attention anyway. Before we got to it, it was a pile of original research and the victim of lots (and I mean lots) of heavy vandalism. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I know, I'll chip in where I can, but I can't help with any critical analysis. GrahamColmTalk 18:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing out those errors; we'll continue working on the prose. I'm glad the article is getting serious attention anyway. Before we got to it, it was a pile of original research and the victim of lots (and I mean lots) of heavy vandalism. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.