Talk:Robert Lowell

Recitation

I was watching the DVD of 'Sylvia' (Sylvia Plath) and was interested in a scene that takes place in her and Ted Hughes' cottage in Devon. They invite Assia Wevill and the poet David Wevill down for the weekend and at one point listen to a latest recording of Robert Lowell reciting one of his poems. Ivankinsman 13:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Biographical info flagged

A few statements in the "life" section need verification or at least clarification.

The assertion that Lowell was "gay" is bound to confuse anyone who has read Lowell's extensive meditations, in verse and prose, on his romantic life; at the very least, it would come as a shock to his three wives and children. If a reliable source were cited here, it would turn Lowell scholarship in a radically new direction, so don't hesitate, please.

The description of relatives Amy Lowell and James Russell Lowell as "gang members" may likewise strike readers as a bit gauche. Please explain. The very mention of them should be qualified by the fact that they were very distantly related.

Also, the spelling of "notourious" has been corrected, although how appropriate the word is here is still debatable. Again, a little unpacking is necessary. Treeemont 14:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)treeemont

In main article, it is stated - but hidden erroneously within a hyperlink, where it is not visible - that Lowell had sexual relations with another male patient (sic) at the Federal Correctional Institution, Danbury. I've moved this unreferenced (and possibly upsetting) statement from there to this talk page, as per Wikipedia recommendations. Any confirmation of this "affair" will be gladly received and will result in it beng referenced - visibly, this time - in the main article.Frankieparley 08:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think article deserves at least B status. Article covers Lowell's writing career very thoroughly. Bio is more spotty but still reasonably comprehensive.Jpcohen (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Vague, illogical, POV sentence corrected

Under the section titled "1970s to the present," the following sentence is obscure, doesn't make any sense, and employs weasel words to make a POV assertion about Day to Day: "It was Lowell's only volume to contain nothing but free verse, and for fans of Lowell's work who were disappointed by the uneven 'sonnets' that Lowell had been re-writing and re-packaging in volume after volume since 1967, Day by Day marked a return to form." A book containing nothing but free verse isn't, literally, a return to any particular prosodic form, so the sentence, which perhaps grapples with too many ideas, seems illogical in that sense. If one responds in the sense that Lowell's "return to form" implies some kind of return to a less "disappointing" style, that is incredibly POV. At best, the sentence is vague enough to be corrected for no other reason than it is unclear gibberish, which seems due to the writer's need to insert that parenthetical aside. One is entitled to her opinion on that matter, but a Wikipedia article may not be the best place for it, in light of wiki's guidelines on NPOV, anonymous authorities, and the like. See WP:YESPOV. I've taken the liberty to correct these errors. 24.20.11.231 (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Day by Day

Judging by the positive and mixed criticisms his last published book "Day by Day' got (by reading this article) shouldn't it have its own page? --Matt723star (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 14:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to do the review. Jpcohen (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

Capping first half of this review for page readability

I still haven't had time for a detailed review (that's coming), but I wanted to add two preliminary comments. First, for an article of this length, the lead should probably be more like three paragraphs than one. The lead would ideally summarize major points of his biography and writing as well as his awards; it would be helpful to add a phrase or sentence explaining what confessional poetry is. Is devoting a whole section to "Ancestry" and including a genealogy chart necessary here? I note that the sources here look minor--it seems like this is getting a tremendous amount of weight in the article that doesn't seem necessary. My own recommendation would be to delete this and simply summarize it in a sentence or two--it's not like he's in line for the English throne and his full family tree is the main claim to notability. If it needs to be kept, perhaps it can be integrated more smoothly into the "Family History" section; it seems redundant to have two sections for this. Let me know what you think... -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Those sound to me like very sensible recommendations. Jpcohen (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Since those will both require a bit of rewriting (or at least deleting), I'll hold off on going over the rest for now. Just leave a note here when you've had a chance to address those and I'll continue. And thanks again for your work on this important figure. I'm far from a Lowell expert, but I used to teach "For the Union Dead" to a few classes a year... one of my favorites. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC) I've implemented some of your suggestions. So you taught Lowell at one point! That's great! Jpcohen (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Yeah, though unfortunately I never got the students to connect with that one very well. Every once in a while I'd get a good term paper back on it but it never registered with the mass. I liked it enough that I kept indulging myself, though. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Okay, on with the comments. Thanks for your work on the above concerns. The quotation " He is "widely considered one of the most important American poets of the postwar era." needs a specific page number as well as the general source. Done.Jpcohen (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC) This isn't quite a GA criterion, but the citations here are messy and inconsistent. I've fixed the bare links, but some of these could still use a bit more context/information to remain verifiable if the URL is moved. I removed some of the external links that seemed to me to veer into a collection of misc. coverage (for example, a review of a book of Lowell's letters). If you feel any of these are a unique and important resource, though, please feel free to revert me. For that matter, please feel free to revert any edits I make here. Not all of them are strictly necessary for GA. "back to the Mayflower"-- it's probably a good idea to add an explanatory footnote here for non-US readers who might not know this ship by name. Alternatively, "Mayflower" could be replaced with "first group of Puritan settlers" or some such. I am not familiar with who to add explanatory footnote. Please advise. Also, I did include a link for the word Mayflower. Is that link insufficient? Jpcohen (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Sorry, I mixed up the link I tried to provide here--fixed now. In any case, you're right that I'm probably being overzealous here. I like to see context added for ease of non-US readers where possible (e.g., writing "US President Woodrow Wilson" instead of "Woodrow Wilson"), but there's probably no way to smoothly insert this here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC) "Lowell would later reference the nickname in his poem "Caligula," " -- as a minor bit of interpretation (explaining a reference), this needs a citation. Done. Jpcohen (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC) The quotation that begins "I had a huge blank verse epic on the First Crusade ..." needs a page number. Don't have that resource on me to provide a page number. Jpcohen (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Unfortunately, GA requirements do require page numbers for quotations, statistics, interpretation/opinions, etc. for verifiability reasons when they're from a longer source. Would you be able to get it, maybe through internet search (Google Books or Amazon) if not finding the book in person? On the other hand, if you feel like these are going to take too long, I can always close the review so you can address these in a more gradual way, and you can renominate in the future without harming your chances. It's up to you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC) I'll try to track it down through the library. It could take some time, though. Jpcohen (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Is this it here? [1] You could probably just cite from that. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Oh, good find! Thanks! Jpcohen (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Np. Google Books is a lifesaver for stuff like this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC) "Fortunately for Tate and his wife, " -- small (if humorous bit) of editorializing that should be cut per MOS:OPED Done. Jpcohen (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Is "Dialog International" a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking? It seems better to source this to a news or academic source if possible. It's also in his published Letters. I'll add that source instead. Jpcohen (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC) "Numerous poets, critics and scholars, including Kathleen Spivack, James Atlas, Helen Vendler, and Dudley Young have written essays about Lowell's teaching style and/or about his influence over their lives. In 2012, Spivack also published a book, With Robert Lowell and His Circle (2012), about her experience studying with Lowell at Boston University in 1959." -- noting that some other authors later memorialized him in writing seems a bit trivial. I think that the worth of mentioning these authors is that, in addition to his writing style, Lowell's teaching style also influenced a number of students. Spivack's book is just the most recent example of a former student publishing a book about this incredible influence he had. Perhaps I could remove reference to Spivack's book? Jpcohen (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Hmm. Is it possible to find a secondary source summarizing or characterizing that influence that could be inserted instead--for example, do any of his biographies discuss it, or the Contemporary Literary Criticism article, or his obituaries? I hate to just say in the article "primary sources on this topic exist", especially if it's not covered in secondary sources about him. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Lowell's teaching style is described in the Ian Hamilton biography (with a sizable quote from Helen Vendler, describing his teaching style), but there is no discussion of Lowell's influence over his students. That's pretty much limited to primary sources from articles, the book Robert Lowell: Interviews and Memoirs, and books by his former students (from what I gather). Lowell's influence on others is not really discussed in any of the biographical info that I have read. Jpcohen (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Is it possible to find a secondary source discussing Lowell's influence on Plath, rather than relying on a primary source (an interview mention)? I added a secondary source reference. Not sure if that's what you were suggesting, but I think that Plath stating the influence outright is probably more compelling than replacing her quote with a non-specific secondhand account (though this secondhand account also makes mention of Anne Sexton). That's a fair point--I do like the quotation. I think the more general issue that concerns me, that I didn't explain very well here, is how much of the article relies on primary and contemporary sources--snippets from interviews and letters, quotations from friends, contemporary reviews, etc. All that has a place, obviously, but I think part of the reason this feels disjointed at times is that it doesn't make much use of the sort of secondary sources that summarize a life and pull all these documents together--obituaries, encyclopedia entries, biographies, etc. (Save for the "Contemporary Literary Criticism" article, the article seems very light on academic critical responses and interpretation, too--but I haven't done a close read of all the "writing" section yet, so let me get back to you on that point.) To skip ahead a bit to give a fresh example, there's the sentence "In his acceptance speech for the National Book Award, Lowell famously divided American poetry into two camps: the "cooked" and the "raw."", where the citation is only to the primary source of the speech itself--not to a critic or commentator discussing this speech as famous or important, which would help give encyclopedic context. The paragraph on varied reactions to Lowell's sonnets, on the other hand, seems like a good model, giving a broader perspective on the work, offering both contemporary reactions and later critical responses. Does that make sense? -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Sure. It is discussed in Iam Hamilton's Lowell bio. I'll add that source as well. Jpcohen (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC) "In that book, Mailer wrote, " -- needs page number "[Lowell spoke] in his fine stammering voice which gave the impression that life rushed at him in a series of hurdles and some he succeeded in jumping and some he did not." He also wrote that "all flaws considered, Lowell was still a fine, good, and honorable man."" -- does this really belong under influence? And is Mailer's view even significant? Done. Jpcohen (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC) "In 1964, Lowell stated," -- so this section is both influences on Lowell as well as his influence on others? I'm a little confused by the structure. It doesn't appear to be chronological or topical, but rather a lot of scattered factoids and quotes. Attempted to fix this. Jpcohen (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC) " Although the article gave a general overview of modern American poetry (mentioning Lowell's contemporaries like John Berryman and Elizabeth Bishop), Lowell's life, career, and place in the American literary canon remained the article's focus." -- I'm not sure that this sentence is needed. "Later, the press would characterize their marriage as "restless and emotionally harrowing."" -- is it really the press generally doing this or just Lehmann-Haupt? Addressed. Jpcohen (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC) " Lowell also became the stepfather to Blackwood's young daughter, Ivana, for whom he would write the sonnet "Ivana," published in his book The Dolphin." -- should probably have a citation as borderline interpretation Done. Jpcohen (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC) " and thereby influenced one another's work" -- needs page number for this interpretation Done. Jpcohen (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC) " Bishop's influence over Lowell can be seen at work in at least two of Lowell's poems" -- this appears to be sourced to primary sources only (though perhaps this is covered in introductory material or footnotes?). Either way, though, it needs a page number. Done. Jpcohen (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC) " Saskia Hamilton notes, "Lithium treatment relieved him " -- needs page number Done. Jpcohen (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC) " the subject of that mental illness led to some of his most important poetry" -- a critical judgement that requires a citation Done. Jpcohen (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC) I'd suggest combining the "imprisonment" section into early life; it seems unnecessarily choppy to have a one paragraph section, and it's early enough (pre-career) to reasonably be included there. Done. Jpcohen (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC) It seems like the "influence" section would fit better under Writing than Life, since almost all of it is from his poetry. This seems like a good breaking point for now. Looking ahead a bit, it looks like the lack of page numbers continues to be an issue in later citations; anything that requires a citation under the GA criteria (quotations, evaluations, interpretative material) will also require a page number. Thanks again for your work on this one! I hope you don't find this longish list too discouraging; many of these will be quick fixes, I think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC) BTW, my editing time may be limited till Monday or Tuesday. My daughter's having a minor surgery tomorrow; nothing serious, but I'm planning to pamper the heck out of her. So take your time with all the above. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Okay. Thank you for the heads-up. And I wish your daughter well with her surgery today. Jpcohen (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks! All went well--Mrs. and Little Miss are now napping while I grab a few hours with coffee & laptop -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Two more small points: During the late 1960s, Lowell was active in the civil rights movement and opposed the US involvement in Vietnam. His participation in the October 1967 peace march in Washington, DC and his subsequent arrest were described in the early sections of Norman Mailer's The Armies of the Night.[30]" -- it's still a bit unclear as written how this fits under "Influence". Mailer's book may do as a source here in a pinch, but it's more of a first-hand account of those few days; is it possible to consult other sources about Lowell that discuss his role in the anti-war and civil rights movement more broadly? Was he considered a significant influence on them? Tried to address this. Jpcohen (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Publication names like New York Times, and titles of books, need to be italicized in the references section. NY Times is also abbreviated once or twice and should be written out. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks again for all your work on this one, and please keep letting me know your thoughts on these; none of these recommendations are written in stone. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC) I think that I've addressed the majority of the above concerns. I also plan on consulting Paul Mariani's biography on Lowell (since it's an excellent one--probably the best that I've read) to beef up some of the weaker sections of the article. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! Jpcohen (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Great! I can see at a glance that the organization and flow has improved a lot. Since this has undergone some rewriting and re-organization, what I'd like to do is take another 1-3 days off work on this one so I can come back to it with fresh eyes. I'll then start again from the top, but I don't want you to think you're just running in place here--it looks like most or all these concerns have been addressed, so this should be getting close. Thanks for your efforts & your patience. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Second round

Okay, I'm setting this off with a new section header and capping the previous comments, which I think are largely addressed. Anything that isn't I'll relist below.

• The lead could still use a bit of work to capture major aspects of Lowell's life. His antiwar activism seems worth a mention, as does his depression. I would suggest summarizing the quotation about his influences rather than writing it out; the lead should be as pithy as possible. ("He named his most important influences as Allen Tate, Elizabeth Bishop, and William Carlos Williams.")
• Footnote 11 (Cal nickname) still needs page number.
• "Lowell's letter to the president was his first major political act of protest, but it would not be his last." -- needs citation that this was his first major protest
• Do the sources refer to Lowell as a "conscientious objector" during WWII? If he went to federal prison, he doesn't seem to have been a "conscientious objector" in the specific legal sense of having registered with the military his opposition to all war. I wonder if "war resister" might be a better term here.
• Sorry to harp on this Plath quotation again, but it seems to be overselling the quotation to call it "candid about the profound influence" Plath said Lowell had on her poetry. She calls Lowell a breakthrough, and says it's exciting and interesting, but that's not quite the same as saying that it's changing her own writing style. I'm fine with letting Plath speak for herself as you argued above, but I think then she needs to truly speak for herself, rather than the article resummarizing her words; if we're going to do that kind of summary anyway, I think it's better to turn to one of the 100s of secondary sources on this.
• "Bishop's influence over Lowell can be seen at work in at least two of Lowell's poems: "The Scream" (inspired by Bishop's short story "In the Village") and "Skunk Hour" (inspired by Bishop's poem "The Armadillo")" -- these interpretations still need page numbers to the critic making it. The citations directing readers to Lowell's complete works as a whole are essentially useless and should be removed (unless those volumes explicitly make these connections, in which case you should add page numbers).
• " Lowell openly acknowledged Jarrell's influence over his writing and frequently sought out Jarrell's input regarding his poems before he published them." -- still needs citation from secondary source. (On a much fussier point, I'm not sure the word "openly" is relevant before "acknowledged"; most acknowledgements are open, so this could be presumed.)
• "His first three volumes were notably influenced" -- remove "notably" per MOS:OPED; seems a bit gratuitous here anyway
• "On the heels of " -- rewrite per [[WP:IDIOM}]] -- "following", maybe?
• "in the influential anthology Mid-Century American Poets as one of the key literary figures of his generation" -- this probably needs two citations; the first from a secondary source noting the influence of the anthology, the second from the anthology itself describing Lowell as "one of the key literary figures of his generation"
• Ideally, to establish that a book like The Mills of the Kavanaughs got a "mixed response", it would be better to find a secondary source summarizing that response, rather than citing two contemporary reviews; those reviews alone don't give a good sense of the field as a whole. Does Hamilton address this, obituaries, or any other biographical material you've looked at?
• "Lowell hit a creative roadblock and took a long break from publishing" -- this doesn't necessarily need a footnote, so the lack of pagination isn't an issue here, but the book title should at least be italicized.
• "This commentary by Lowell was made in reference to the popularity of Allen Ginsberg and the Beat Generation poets and was a signal from Lowell that he was trying to incorporate some of their "raw" energy into his own poetry" -- this, in contrast, does need a page number, as it's interpretation.
• "Because many of the poems documented details from Lowell's family life and personal problems, one critic, M.L. Rosenthal, labeled these poems "confessional."" -- quotation needs citation and page number
• " It marked both a big turning point in Lowell's career, and a turning point for American poetry in general." -- this huge claim clearly needs citation; the scholar who states it should probably be mentioned in the text as well.
• "But for better or worse, this label stuck and led to Lowell being grouped together with other influential confessional poets like Lowell's former students W. D. Snodgrass, Sylvia Plath, and Anne Sexton." -- should probably be cited
• " including Rilke, Montale, Baudelaire, Pasternak, and Rimbaud," -- give full names on first mention
• " However, critical response to Imitations was mixed and sometimes hostile" -- as a summary of opinion, probably needs citation. What does Hamilton, obits, etc. say about this?
• London Times Book Review needs italicization as a print publication
• ""do what [his] authors might have done if they were writing their poems now and in America."" -- needs page number as a quotation
• "which invoked Allen Tate's "Ode to the Confederate Dead."" -- as interpretation, needs citation
• " in writing the poems in this volume, Lowell built upon the looser, more personal style of writing that he'd established in the final section of Life Studies. However, none of the poems in For the Union Dead explicitly addressed the taboo subject of Lowell's mental illness (like some of the poems in Life Studies did) and were, therefore, not notably "confessional". The subject matter in For the Union Dead was also much broader than it was in Life Studies. For instance, Lowell wrote about a number of world historical figures in poems like "Caligula," "Jonathan Edwards in Western Massachusetts," and "Lady Raleigh's Lament."" -- long paragraph of interpretation without citation
• "Adrienne Rich was not as diplomatic as Bishop. Instead of sending Lowell a private letter on the matter, she publically criticized Lowell and his books The Dolphin and To Lizzie and Harriet in a review that appeared in the American Poetry Review and that effectively ended the two poets' long-standing friendship" -- the first part of this is mildly intrepretative and should get a page number
• The "Epilogue" quotation needs a page number. Also, I'm concerned that including a full third of a poem may raise copyright issues, particularly as the article doesn't proceed to analyze it in detail.
• Is there a secondary source calling "Epilogue" the collection's best known poem? This needs to be added.
• The article seems to heavily emphasize Vendler's POV re: Day by Day. These paragraphs state that the book was widely criticized, yet the commentary here is disproportionately positive, with no quotations from its detractors. I don't think Vendler's response to this book merits such weight.
• The last paragraph of the article feels like it's trying to sell me a copy of Lowell's collected poems; the language could be made more neutral. The sourcing is unclear-- can you more clearly indicate which source says the volumes got "overwhelmingly positive reviews", and which says "their publication has since led to a renewed interest in Lowell's writing"? I skimmed over the three long articles indicated and didn't immediately see these. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Closing review

Upon some reflection, I think I'm going to close this review for now without listing, but without prejudice to future renomination. There's a tremendous amount of good material here, and I think this article has made some good progress already in the time this review's been open. However, the main (and related) issues I still see here are a lack of sourcing and a lack of secondary sourcing, as detailed above. Some of the interpretations and summaries seem to me to border on original research, and many quotations still need sourcing as well. Biographies, obituaries, overviews, analyses, and specialized encyclopedia articles are readily available on Lowell, and I'd suggest the article make more use of them; it often feels that this article is trying to construct an overview independently from Lowell's letters, interviews, and contemporary book reviews, rather than relying on scholarly summary. On a smaller note, I also think some NPOV issues arise in the article's final paragraphs.

I hope you'll read this list of suggestions as encouragement rather than discouragement, though; I wouldn't have spent this much time on the review if I didn't admire the great work you've done here already. I hope you keep developing it, and feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Thanks again for all your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert Lowell/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 13:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Beginning first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This otherwise excellent article is badly let down by the referencing.

• References 1 and 12 both refer to the Hamilton book without giving page numbers
• Ref 28 – no page number
• Ref 32 – ditto, but that's probably all right in this case
• Ref 39 – no page number
• Ref 45 – no page number
• Ref 46 – no page number
• Ref 47 – no page number
• Ref 49 – no page number
• Ref 50 – no page number
• Ref 60 – no page number
• Ref 61 – no page number
• Ref 62 – no page number
• Ref 63 – no page number
• Ref 71 – no page number
• Ref 72 – no page number
• Ref 74 – no page number
• Ref 82 – no page numbers for any of the three citations
• Ref 86 – no page number
• Ref 89 – no page number
• Ref 90 – no page number
• Ref 97 – no page number
• Where you do give page numbers you are inconsistent about whether they are preceded by "p." or given as plain numbers, as, for example, at refs 32 and 52 respectively
• You are inconsistent about whether undated online sources are "Accessed" or "Retrieved" or neither.
• You refer to "The New York Times" and "NY Times" – which is it?
• You sometimes give the place of publication (e.g. ref 81) and sometimes don't (e.g. ref 80)
• For online references you sometimes give bibliographical details (e.g. ref 91) and sometimes fail to (e.g. ref 94)
• Some cited authors are shown as First Name, Second Name (e.g. ref 93) and others as Second Name, First Name (e.g. ref 98).

I'll put the review on hold for a week. If you address these matters I'll resume thereafter. – Tim riley (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Riley: Thank you for your feedback on the Robert Lowell article. Today I have added pages numbers for references that you listed which refer to direct quotations in the article (please let me know if I missed any). I appreciate that feedback. However, I have not added page numbers for those sources that do not refer to direct quotations since I don't believe they are required in a Wikipedia article.

Regarding the lack of consistency among the format of references, I acknowledge that it exists. However, because Wikipedia articles are collaborative efforts and not the work of one individual, I think it's to be expected that the formatting of references are going to inevitably differ somewhat here and there, and although I have done quite a bit of work on this article over the years, I don't think I'm prepared (and I honestly don't have the time) to go through the entire article to make all the references fit one consistent format (as would be expected with a scholarly article). But I don't think that level of consistency is a requirement of the Wikipedia criteria list for "Good Articles." Please correct me if I'm wrong. As an experienced Wikipedia editor, I'm sure you're probably more familiar with these criteria than I am, but I am hoping to find out if this article meets those specific standards (Wikipedia:Good article criteria). I hope it does, but if it doesn't, that's okay, too. Thank you again for taking the time and effort to review this article. Best, Jpcohen (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Seeking second opinion

Please see the above. The GA criteria are fairly broad, and I am in some doubt if I am justified in making the poor references a reason to fail the candidacy. Grateful for another view. Tim riley (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a brief second opinion...if an idea you're expressing in an article is a synthesis of ideas supported by a source, and that argument is discussed in that source, you should direct the reader to the page numbers where that source argues what you're arguing--whether it's one page number, a range of pages, or a chapter. This goes right to the heart of GA Criteria #2. This is the proper course of action even if it isn't a direct quotation--per policy on text-source integrity and WP:INTEXT, WP:CITEHOW (part of MOS/WP:CITE). Universities expel students for less under "academic integrity" rules. If the argument you've summarized here is the subject of the entire book, you can put "passim" in lieu of page numbers. As for issues of consistency among citations, that's required by the MOS, and the policies on inline citations (again, criteria 2) aim toward consistent formatting. There's no excuse for fn.50 having "Farrar, Straus, & Giroux" and fn.100 having "FS&G", or abbreviating New York as NY (compare fn. 50 with fn. 52) or there not being a consistent use of punctuation. While it's not as stringent as FAC, a GA candidate should have a clean, consistent format for citations, per WP:CITE and its related articles to pass Criteria 2. These are just some general comments during my lunch break, I will take a closer look later today at the specific mentions above, but that's my two cents. On another note, claiming that "I honestly don't have the time" to make citations consistent is an excuse is a poor excuse. We all have better things to do and don't have the time...nature of the beast in this life. Laziness doesn't make GAs. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point, and I think that you are right when it comes to standards for academic papers which must adhere to a strict and consistent formatting for all references. But I don't believe that the same standards apply to Wikipedia articles. As an example, you can look at an equivalent article, like the one on the poet W.H. Auden. This article has been judged a "Good article" by Wikipedia standards. Yet, there are many references in the article from books/articles that do not include page numbers.

As far as your laziness comment, I'm going to pretend you didn't say that (since it's pretty inappropriate to judge the work ethic of your fellow editors, particularly ones who volunteer a good deal of their time to try to improve these articles). Jpcohen (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No offense, but as someone who writes aiming for GA and FA status articles, I recognize that it takes a lot of work...and a lot of tedious detail work. An editor who aims towards GA or FA puts in a lot of work...it sorta sucks and is a bad reflection when they respond to a suggestion in keeping with the criteria and MOS with an answer like "I don't have the time." Frankly, whether your offended or not, someone always should be judged negatively when they want something like GA status for their work but don't want to put in the detail work because of a piss-poor excuse like "I don't have the time." So saying "I volunteer a lot to do this"....so do we all. GA status is like getting a sticker for good work...however, if the work doesn't meet the level, you don't get the sticker. As for Auden, I'll take a look at that article and if it's bad I'll put it up for a GA review and perhaps bring it back down to B-Class. However, we're comparing your article to the criteria--that alone is the consideration. I could care less with how it fares compared to another article....as a GA review is only as good as its reviewer, likewise, an article without the effort should not be a GA. An article that has flaws might need to be reassessed. Chasing GA status is a commitment...something you make the time for. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a poor reflection on you, attacking other editors because you judge them to be "lazy." Spare me the lecture on hard work, Henry. I'm not lazy or “making excuses” as you put it. And I didn't nominate this article for GA status in order to get a sticker for my good work. I’m not five years old. And this is not my article. I take no ownership of it. I nominated the article because I think it meets the criteria as outlined by Wikipedia. If Mr. Riley deems it unworthy of GA status, that's his decision. But I responded to his suggestions based upon my own reading of the Wikipedia GA criteria, and I was frank with him that I would not be able to provide all the revisions that he suggested within 7 days. I also didn’t believe they were necessary for the review in question. You obviously disagree with that interpretation. But we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable. Attacking my character and/or my work ethic is totally out of line. Name-calling doesn’t impress me, and I doubt it impresses anyone else. Honestly, it just makes you look like a bully. And how you judge me personally is irrelevant to the question that Mr. Riley posed. Jpcohen (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not the one who said "I don't have the time" as if that made you special, and trying to dismiss the expected effort wanting a sticker like a petulant first-grader. The reviewer asked for a second opinion...you disagreed with his assessment regarding citations...a criteria 2 issue. I provided a second opinion agreeing with his assessment and pointing to the criteria and its supporting guidelines/policies. You disagree with me. Hmm...it's easy to see the problem isn't me, or the reviewer, and definitely not the clearly-stated guidelines/policies. But then again, you "don't have the time" for this. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I definitely don't have time to waste on this absurd communication with you. Jpcohen (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Typical. You didn't ask for the second opinion, so technically you're the strange interloper on this conversation. Like a two-year old who doesn't take correction but keeps screaming "Mommy, I want my cookie" while the grown-ups discuss an issue.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you're trying to be witty here but really you're just being rude. Jpcohen (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, the Good Article Criteria #2 which you cite states that a "good" article "provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines." I believe this article currently meets that requirement. Jpcohen (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Let me take two examples: (I) fn.39 which is complained about for no page number above supports "In an essay published in 1985, the poet Stanley Kunitz wrote that Life Studies was "perhaps the most influential book of modern verse since T. S. Eliot's The Waste Land." -- while this is an empty plaudit with no interpretative merit and less substance than a promotional blurb on the back cover, what was Kunitz's basis for it?...and this is purportedly a direct quotation, published opinion. How is it not controversial? Perhaps I, as a literary scholar, disagree with Lowell and believe O'Hara's Meditations in an Emergency was more influential, or Stevens' Auroras of Autumn or Williams Paterson, Book I...it's an arguable judgment, needing citation and further explanation. (II) fn. 71 has no page number, yet is a direct quotation and published opinion...Lowell's editor and friend Frank Bidart notes in his afterword to Lowell's Collected Poems, "Lowell is widely, perhaps indelibly associated with the term 'confessional,'" though Bidart questions the accuracy of this label." There are some scholars who doubt whether there truly was a distinct 1950s/1960s confessional poetry (while I disagree they make good arguments). It's a controversial statement, scholars on both sides of the camp would argue. Now if you're saying the article meets that criteria 2 guideline, you are sorely mistaken...especially if these two examples are any indicator of the rest of the footnoting problem listed above. While your reviewer might mention things he finds lacking, he's being incredibly lenient compared to how I would review this article. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• Also, fn 60, 61, 62, 63 are problematic beyond mere page numbers merely because its usage is simply to support that Lowell received "wide acclaim" without any other substance given...this is like trying to sell foam as a sauce...this is an empty and meaningless interpretation (i.e. a load of air) without actually citing something from these sources as to their level and content of their purported "acclaim." Jarrell's writing (fn. 60) is largely a fluff piece with no scholarly weight...the kind of review that poets write for fellow poets...in this case, a friend writes for a friend.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I’ll respond briefly to your first issue: the Kunitz quote. I don’t have the resource to cite a page number so I added a citation for another source: a Poetry Foundation bio online. The editors of the Poetry Foundation found the quote important enough to include in their bio on Lowell. Your criticism of the significance of the quote is really just your personal point of view. You might think it’s insignificant, but the editors at Poetry (and I) disagree. But that’s why I added the online Poetry Foundation bio as a source. You could easily remove the original source if the lack of a page number bothers you that much.

I agree with you that Footnote 71 needed a page number, and I've added one.

I’ll also briefly respond to your second criticism. You are unimpressed with the sources you list. You don’t find Jarrell to be scholarly enough. Again, this is your point of view. Jarrell was one of the most respected critics of his generation. Your opinion of his critical work is irrelevant.Jpcohen (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

As for Kunitz quote, the citation guidelines advise you never to cite something you haven't read yourself, but that's not an automatic reason to excise it. How to respond to it: combine it note 5 and 39...Editors, The. "Robert Lowell". The Poetry Foundation; citing Kunitz, Stanley. Next-to-Last Things: New Poems and Essays. Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1985. Retrieved 2013-05-30. But again, it's book blurb ad copy...acclaiming something the "most influential work" is like saying "new and improved" on an kitchen appliance. Sadly half of the poets whose biographies are on the poetry foundation's website are described as the most influential of his generation and other permutations of the trite phrase.

I'm aware of Jarrell's reputation as a scholar and critic, but you have to ask yourself what he really says about Lowell's work, it's fluff. It discusses nothing about Lowell's themes or symbolism and gives a feel-good assessment that says little else than "his work makes me feel good"...."successes that vary only in scope and intensity--others are poems that almost any living poet would be pleased to have written ... [and] one or two of these poems, I think, will be read as long as men remember English"....it's a book blurb written by a notable critic whose ass Lowell kissed for years. I've seen more informative criticism on cereal boxes.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

From GA reviewer

Thank you to both contributors above. I think I have got the picture as seen from each side, and I don't think any further additions are needed here. I'll re-read everything here and in the article tomorrow and report back on Monday. Warmest regards to both of you. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Review

I am grateful to Col Henry for input, and though I disagree with many of his strictures I am confirmed in my belief that this article is, for GAN purposes, fatally flawed in its poor referencing (criterion 2b). Plainly both Messrs Cohen and Henry know a great deal more than I do about Lowell, but as a GA reviewer it has been my job to judge the article solely against the very clear GAN criteria. I remain of the view that apart from the referencing it pretty much meets them, but that is for another review. I conclude by saying on a personal level that I found the article most stimulating and was moved to get some of Lowell's works off my shelves. But alas, I cannot in conscience pass the article with the citations so inadequate. Tim riley (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the positive feedback, Mr. Riley. Best wishes! Jpcohen (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Lowell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116133359/http://cognet.mit.edu/library/books/chomsky/chomsky/4/5.html to http://cognet.mit.edu/library/books/chomsky/chomsky/4/5.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)