Wikipedia:Peer review/Sestina/archive1

Sestina

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to take it to WP:FAC, but do not have much of an idea of where to progress from the current GA status. Particularly, I would like to know whether the article is comprehensive and understandable (since some of the contents are quite complex to both explain and understand).

Thanks, MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Is there any reason in the lead sentence that "sestina" is in italics when the article itself isn't?

I've noticed this before; I think it's the way that because it's a foreign-language word, the first instance of it has to be italicised - don't know if there is a policy on this ...

Three paras seems a little lengthy for a lead per WP:LEAD.

I thought ledes should be appropriate to the length of the article: first paragraph for form, second for effect, third for background. What would you advise?

"39 line" -> "39-line"

Done.

You link Catalan but not Occitan in the opening sentence. Odd.

~~Hmm. I will try to work out how to link Occitan; it is inconsistent I agree.~~

"The unique structure of the sestina " unique?

~~It is a unique structure because of the pattern of repetition. Should this be explained or ...?~~ Removed, probably unnecessary to the point being made. Not happy about this para anyway, so I will re-write soon.

"Graphical representation of the algorithm for ordering the end-words in a sestina." no need for a period.

Done.

File:Sestina Diagram.png just seems to be hanging with no explanation or anything.

I considered a caption to be unnecessary because the adjacent text explains the image; will try to work out a compromise.

Please check the table meets MOS:DTT for screen readers, with row and col scopes.
No over-capitalisation in the table please.

Do you mean of the individual letters (A, B, C) or the other table elements? I thought the letters would be more clear in upper- than lower-case.

" 2-5, 4-3, 6-1" check WP:DASH.

Awful at MoS stuff like this, but I'm going to gradually go through this and change accordingly. Except glaringly obvious oversights ...

Ditto for "pp. 7-8" etc.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I will try to resolve them in due course. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This is an interesting article on an intriguing form of verse. A few specific points:

I think the present structure is amiss; the "Background" section should be the first, not the last section. In that way the reader gets some understanding of the history and concept, before encountering the specifics.

Done.

You need to explain what "Occitan" is, as in "the Occitan followers of Daniel". Not all readers will be aware that it is a language, and they shouldn't have to use a link to find out.

Re-worded the entire section, with a sentence on Occitan language.

It would be good to have in this section, if possible, some indication of the symbolism behind this particularly rigid form of verse construction. Are any of the sources helpful here?

Forgive me, but I'm not quite sure what you mean by "symbolism" here, could you clarify? The troubadours were all about constructing elaborate forms and out-doing each other, so I believe any symbolism has only been applied retrospectively to what people have done with the form.

According to what I have read, the first sestina in English of the modern era was published in 1879 by Edmund Gosse. Here it is

This has been brought up by another user, but I appreciate the link.

You might also mention that the sestina was made fashionable in 17th century Germany, by Martin Opitz among others. I can't remember where I picked this info up, though. I'll try and source it.

Thank you, that would be helpful. I will try to give a brief oversight of the sestina as it appears in Germany, but I'm conscious that the section could become unwieldly if I try to be too broad.

Although most of the language in the article is accessible, some is difficult (maybe impenetrable) for the general reader. I would particularly draw your attention to wording such as "The pattern of the second stanza can be seen as combining both a triadic and a dyadic component" - there may be an easier way of expressing this.

I've attempted to clarify the points and simplify some language. It appears much clearer now, to me.

A couple of minor points: Ref 12 lacks a year (also check the page number); ref 24 refers to "Davison" whereas the bibliography lists "Davidson".

Done.

I hope these points will help you to improve the article. Brianboulton (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments, thank you. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While Brianboulton plainly knows more about FAs than I, I can't agree to his suggestion about bringing the historical section forward (which, by the way, let's just call "History"!). A really significant part of the history of the sestina is how poets have subtly altered its form over centuries. As I argued on the talk page, I think these alterations will best be understood after the "standard" structure (which MOHOD and I have tentatively identified as "that used by Petrarch") is clearly described. Phil wink (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a manageable change if we can re-figure History so as to identify the standard form there, then elaborate upon it in the Form. If the current layout of History then Form is per guidelines, I suppose it should be adhered to. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I've encountered another problem, so Phil may be doubly correct. The first encounter with the sestina, as detailed in History, is as a double sestina; although certain characteristics might be assumed, the casual reader is going to have no idea what the double sestina is until they reach halfway through Form ... I believe it may have to be Form > Effect > History. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]