Wikipedia:Peer review/The Ballad of the White Horse/archive2

The Ballad of the White Horse

This is the second time this article has been reviewed. I removed the original research that was discussed in the first review, and sourced alternative analysis of the ballad. Although I still have significant grammatical editing to do, content-wise do you all think this article meets the FAC?

Thanks, APAULCH 01:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Peer review/The Ballad of the White Horse/archive1[reply]

Review by Midnightdreary

I'm purposefully reviewing this without looking at the previous peer review so if I'm repeating some of what was said there, that's why! I'm also not familiar with the poem so I'm giving this a complete set of fresh eyes. :)

First mention of the poem should be in italics. According to Manual of Style on titles, long epic poems should be italicized (not in quotes). You do it right later on, but the first mention is possibly the most important spot to get it right. Generally, the intro can be expanded anyway. It should stand alone as its own sort of mini-article for people with low attention spans. See WP:LEDE. I'm curious about this odd line, "usually considered an epic poem." Is there debate? Should the article discuss it? Also, are the exploits of King Alfred 100% accurate or fictitious? The word "fictionalized" or even "idealized" or "romanticized" can give whole new meaning to "exploits." A quick line about the author (i.e. "English") might also help, as would Wikilinking directly to his article rather than a redirect. An image of the original publication or an early illustration for the poem would be fantastic here too but I'm not sure how likely that would be.

Your "Summary" section should probably come first. I would consider (though I don't feel strongly) to divide the Summary section not into subsections but just into bold headings (the difference is in text size and also how it affects the Table of Contents; as it is, the TOC is really long and hard to navigate, but that just might be my problem, not yours). I'd also consider swapping the

I would suggest the "Analysis" section come next. I would make a similar recommendation about subsections vs. bold headings here. Whatever you choose, make sure the two sections match! This section is the one that needs the most work. First, it should be your most referenced section or it violates the original research policy. Quoting the poem here is also very problematic and, really, very little analysis is actually offered. You have a couple options, I think. First, you can really expand ~~the crap out of~~ the analysis on each part, just as you currently have it set up. This would mean lots of sources, and lots of equal weight given to each section. Option two would be to collapse it all together into one overall analysis of the entire work all at once rather than in sections. This might be an easier way to go until you know the analysis is strong enough to stand in its many parts. As it is, I'm having trouble figuring out the different between Analysis and Summary sections.

As for the full text of the poem itself, just rely on Wikisource. There actually is a way to link each of the summary mini-sections to their corresponding original text in Wikisource if you want to have direct links for each section (rather than just one hard to find box amidst piles of text in the article).

I'd then add the "Technical Features" section after this, though I'd change the name. It currently sounds like a vacuum cleaner or something! :) Maybe "Poetic structure"? Either way, remember to only capitalize the first word of section headings unless it's a proper noun. You should definitely expand this section, though. This might be the place to add discussion about its "epic poem" status, if such a debate exists. Look at a recently-approved good article on a poem, "The Raven" (shameless plug), for some possibilities.

"Influence on other works" could be renamed to "Critical response and impact" (based on the suggestion of the behemoth Wikiproject Novels; WP:Poetry doesn't seem to have recommendations for structure of articles). This would definitely be expanded to include (sourced) quotes about the poem's historical value, contemporary and more modern responses, and definitely other works inspired by the poem. It's a good start there, but it could be much bigger.

I hope this was helpful. Best of luck on this article! --Midnightdreary 13:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response by APAULCH 22:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. It may take me a while to put all your reccomendations into effect. Here's a question:

I paraphrased almost an entire single article for the analysis, and referenced it in the heading (as well as noting that it was paraphrased). Why exactly are the qoutations problematic? I included the same passages that were present in the original document. I know the analysis isn't that extensive and not very concise or clear, but that's what was present in the original. I was only able to find a single relevant document in the Thomson Gale Literature resource database (from our public library) so I didn't have to much leeway. Should I check other sources to find more documents? Should I incoporate those documents into the existing structure or include it as a separate section?

Thanks, APAULCH 22:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... consider this: If you're entirely analysis comes from only one source, it's hardly a well-rounded view. I think part of the policy on NPOV would suggest that's pushing a single bias rather than showing a broader view. I also think the heavy quotations of the verse make the section incredibly long but lacking in substance. Don't you? Also, think of it this way... if another editor comes along and adds some additional sourced information spliced into the middle of your sourced material,it gets hard to figure out what source applies to what analysis. Well, consider it anyway. I wonder if anyone else out there in Peer Review Land would like to offer an opinion... --Midnightdreary 23:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your sources for the article are online, could you please link them? -Malkinann 09:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't post a link because it was in a limited-access database. I think you should be able to find the article in most databases or maybe from the journal Thought.

Do you think I should change it from a book-by-book analysis to a topic-by-topic analysis? That would make it easier to include other sources (if I can find more-the book is not well known). There is a little analysis in the book itself (as well as reviews of it when it was first published, which I may be able to use). I also have a homeschool study guide for it, which has a few excellent interpretations but I don't know if it was really "published" or just printed off someone's personal computer for sale.

I agree that the quotations make it long and cumbersome, but I also think they help illustrate some of the points made. However, this probably isn't necessary. Are there any guidlines or additional opinions?

Thanks, APAULCH 21:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have a DOI, ISSN or ISBN? As it is, googling for thought academic journal gives me 18,100,000 hits. I'd also recommend that you take the citation from out of the section title - it looks like the source is referencing your section title, which isn't the case.-Malkinann 22:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think arranging the analysis thematically is a pretty good idea. It'd probably be easier to read and might make it look a slightly less daunting size. It might be worth seeing if anyone has written a critical biography of this author; that would be one additionally source to start to balance the one that's already used heavily. --Midnightdreary 01:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any numerical ID. The volume info is Thought Vol. LXVI, No. 261, June 1991, pp. 161-78 APAULCH 21:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]