Talk:The Waste Land/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! I'll tackle them over the next few days and edit your original "Comments" section with any questions or replies if that's okay with you. Ligaturama (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Great to see a major work here, after a lot of editing, from a new editor too. It certainly covers "the major points": comprehensiveness is not required at GAN (GAR is something else...), but it seems to do quite a good job at what is a large and complex subject.

• Missing is a brief 'Context' section to tell the reader that Eliot was British and (in the years before publishing the poem) worked in London as a banker. A brief mention of how Emily Hale and Vivienne Haigh-Wood fit into his early life would also seem necessary.
  • Y Revision 4 This turned out to be less brief than I was expecting; I've tried to keep it as relevant to the poem as possible. I've skipped labelling him as British (or American) as it's a bit complex, especially regarding his influences and style at this point in his career. There's been a lot of discussion on it at Talk:T. S. Eliot but I'd rather swerve the whole thing.
    • Yes, rather a lot! I've formatted the image as |upright and dabbed Quinn for you. By the way you should use surnames, e.g. "Haigh-Wood" not "Vivienne" (throughout).
      • Thank you! The reason I've referred to her as Vivienne is because she actually took Eliot's surname when they married. The Wikipedia article calls her Vivienne Haigh-Wood Eliot but actually she was just Vivienne Eliot at the time (well she called herself Vivien but that's a whole other thing). So I felt calling her Haigh-Wood was incorrect, and calling her Eliot would obviously be confusing.
        • Hm, I think you'd better add a footnote using {{efn|Vivienne...}} ... == Notes == ... {{notelist}} to explain that, as otherwise it'll get lost and then challenged.
          • Y Revision 5

• Latin and Greek epigraph: I'm actually not sure that having the (very yellow) image of the epigraph adds much – it just feels like needless repetition – and it messes up the side-by-side text-and-translation format at quite a range of page widths, too.
  • Y Revision 1

• This may be unanswerable but Heart of Darkness (please wikilink) is of course on racism: is there any specific reason why Eliot would have chosen this theme here?
  • I only found one source which speculated on this; it fits in with an interpretation I find very alluring, but which I didn't have enough variety in sources to flesh out (plus I did get a little burnt out doing the Interpretations section, I hope that doesn't show). Everyone else just says it was his original choice.

• "The five parts of The Waste Land are entitled: ..." – well, yes, that's the large-scale, formal structure, but it does come across as a bit of a throwaway line – "right, that's got the description of the poem out of the way, now let's get on with the critics". There are plentiful materials – embarras de richesse indeed – that analyse the poem's structure and the contents of the five parts, so I'd suggest we have a short paragraph on each part, and a snippet of one of them in a box on the right (maybe beside 'Style') to illustrate how Eliot combines his own words with allusions and quotations. Perhaps that means a subsection named 'Outline' or something of that sort.
  • Y Revision 11

• "subsequently included in future editions." -> "included in later editions."
  • Y Revision 1

• "purporting to explain his own metaphors, references, and allusions. These notes are considered to be of limited use to the reader,": what is missing here is any discussion of what those extraordinary notes might be for. What is behind the word "purporting"? Was Eliot mocking academic criticism with its detailed paratexts, perhaps? And was the discussion of the bird's "jug jug jug" (etc.) mocking natural history texts? There is as usual an extensive literature discussing Eliot's reasons for providing the notes: we don't need a comprehensive essay on the question, but at least a few pointers are needed here. (I wonder, by the way, whether the lengthy quote from Eliot 1956 at the head of 'Themes and interpretations' doesn't belong here; it doesn't exactly answer the question, unless we choose to believe that Eliot really was just filling in the blank pages (oh yeah), but it has some bearing on it. Or perhaps the analysis should be down there.)
  • Y Revision 10 Good call about the blockquote, I was originally going to write more around it down there but I've removed it. I've written a little more on the notes.

• "strongly resemble Whitman's 'When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd'": it does? How? It doesn't feel like it, with Eliot's "breeding ... mixing ... stirring" not paralleled by anything in Whitman's lines, and Whitman's repetition "mourn'd, and yet shall mourn", or the alliteration (maybe assonance too) of "lilacs last" and "dooryard ... drooped", and his metre in the face of Eliot's blank verse, ... I think the reader deserves some sort of discussion in support of what is on the face of it a non-obvious claim (beyond the word "lilacs"). Perhaps precis what Bloom and Lewis had to say on the matter.
  • ? Revision 8 This is why it's so useful to have these comments, I've spent so long reading about this poem so I knew what they were getting at but it needs spelling out if it's going to be in there. Neither of them go into massive detail so that's as much as I can put on the topic I think, let me know if you reckon it passes muster.
    • Yes, that's great.

• "That Shakespearian Rag" seems to be by Dave Stamper as well as Buck? It would be nice to link to a page with the lyrics, too.
  • Y Revision 3

• The word "also" recurs quite a few times, without adding much. Maybe lose a few of 'em.
  • Y Revision 2

• Quite a few terms need to be wikilinked, like iambic pentameter and free verse to name just a few of the more critically important ones.
  • Y Revision 1

• Works like Ulysses and publications like The Dial need to be wikilinked at first mention in the article body, even if they were in the lead section. There are numerous others so please check through the text.
  • Y Revision 1 I didn't want to fall foul of OVERlinking so clearly I've gone too far in the other direction. I've followed the principle of only duplicating links that are in the lead or for captions (e.g. Heart of Darkness) which means ones like Pound or Dante that are scattered all over are only linked in the body of the article once each. MOS:REPEATLINK says I could repeat them in each section if it would help, but I also don't want a MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Let me know if I've got the balance wrong.

• "Sage Homme" is French, so "{{lang|fr|Sage Homme}}" might be the best formatting choice. You could use the lang thingy for "il miglior fabbro" too.
  • Y Revision 2

• "visual arts ... collage ... Braque and Picasso": suggest you include an image of one of these collages here, the text and citation certainly justify a Non-Free Use Rationale image. I see that anything by Braque published outside the USA before 1929 is actually Public Domain and can be uploaded freely to Wikipedia, but oddly not to Commons. You read it here first. An image like this collage by Braque and Picasso, 1912 might serve neatly to make the point. I can upload it if you like.
  • Y Revision 6 Happily someone had already uploaded it to Wikipedia. It currently runs over to the next section, I don't know if that's a big deal. I might end up removing the Whitman bit anyway, stay tuned. (That won't make a difference anyway as it's above)

• 'Fertility, death and regeneration' is rather long and wandering. I wonder if Fertility wouldn't make a good section, with another on Death and regeneration?
  • ? Revision 7 I've just separated off a paragraph here because the rest of it is related to the Fisher King. I think part of the problem I had was trying to condense the exposition of the myth and go over its key points; I kept it to plot elements that were relevant to the analysis and any supporting stuff to make the narrative make sense, but I appreciate that it is a lot.

• Similarly, 'Religion' covers first Christianity, an obvious subsection, followed by Buddhim/Hinduism. You've said how Eliot came into contact with Sanskrit, but what about Buddhism? St Augustine needs to be wikilinked. You assume that readers will instantly spot that Sanskrit (please wikilink) implies Hinduism – this does need to be spelt out. The Sanskrit words need to be in italics (use the lang thingy again). You suddenly switch to the style "Bhatta (2018)" which hasn't been used up to now, let's avoid it. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad needs to be wikilinked and glossed as an ancient Hindu scripture. Wikilink Old Testament, New Testament, River Thames, card of the Hanged Man.
  • Y Revision 9 Wikilinks are covered in Revision 1. I've assumed when you say "glossed as an ancient Hindu scripture" you don't mean anything more specific than mentioning in passing that that's what it is.

• "subsequent modernist poets": well he wasn't going to influence earlier ones, so let's ditch the "subsequent", and wikilink modernist poets. I'd suggest you insert a further link at the top of the section, {{further|Literary modernism}}, too.
  • Y Revision 1

• We're generally not keen on linking inside quotations, but the poets' names in the long Wheeler quote do rather need linking, or they'll go over the heads of many new-to-the-subject readers.
  • Y Revision 1

• It'd be helpful to add a citation to Lovecraft's "Waste Paper" with a link to the text.
  • Y Revision 1

Images

• All are on Commons, and the copyright status of all of them seems to have been resolved satisfactorily.

Sources

• Spot checks are fine. The offline refs are AGF.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.