Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ode on Indolence/archive1
- 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:53, 10 October 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s):Ottava Rima, Mrathel (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets all the criteria, or can do so with a little work. The page gives a great discussion of the poem from various sources and has been the product of several hours of work by a group of editors.Mrathel (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wanted to add a note - this poem is almost the opposite of "To Autumn". It was not universally praise, and not even that well known. It has been neglected. So, don't expect a lot of information about critical response, themes, or the rest. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restart, old nom alt text, dabs, images and sources checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reaffirm support. An excellent article that genuinely interested me in the subject—one I admit I've had little experience with. Although the prose has gone through more than a few back-and-forth changes over the last month or two, regardless of the merits of the interim revisions—and despite any minor prose issues further reviews might reveal—what appears in the article right now clearly meets the 1a standard. [quibbles resolved, so trimmed from statement]. Very nice work once again. Steve T • C 22:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Lucid and comprehensive. My compliments to the chefs. I noted some minor citation issues in Talk:Ode on Indolence #Minor citation issues but they don't affect my support. Eubulides (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the citation problems. They should be fine now. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (disclosure, am a friend of and work with Ottava)
- asymmetrical 6-line endings - I see need for three explanations of techinical terms here. Overall quite good, leaning towards support, want to go over it again before I say one way or the other. Ceoil (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't heard of the term before and I don't know what it was doing. I went back to the source and I adjusted the paragraph appropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasnt asking for removal, so much the addition of blue links. But fine. I reread the page again in the interm, and I'm happy. I have some minor quibbles, but can sort them myself. Support. Ceoil (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A bluelink would be interesting, because that term is, for what I can tell, complete nonsense. I rewrote what I -think- it was trying to say. I think it was referring to the last 6 lines of each stanza. I don't know for sure. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasnt asking for removal, so much the addition of blue links. But fine. I reread the page again in the interm, and I'm happy. I have some minor quibbles, but can sort them myself. Support. Ceoil (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I reorg'd the Themes sect, are you ok with this. I took liberty, and guessed. Ceoil (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The last paragraph in your version happens to be the paragraph that introduces where the idea of indolence comes from and is temporally first, as the letter predates the poem. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't heard of the term before and I don't know what it was doing. I went back to the source and I adjusted the paragraph appropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I feel as though "Indolence" needs to be wikilinked in some way or place. I'm sure I can't be the only one who doesn't know what it is and wouldn't benefit from it being affirmed.
Lead: "four 1819 odes", I know it's the lead, but this statement to me cries out for the briefest remark on the other four odes, as in: (on a Grecian Urn, on Melancholy, to a Nightingale and Psyche).MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I reworked the lead. See how it reads now. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better. The only thing I think left for me to say: is the added content (on indolence/laziness) to the lead repeated elsewhere in the text (i.e. not original content)? But otherwise, Support. Great work. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The word indolence is a redirect to laziness and is an antequated term for laziness. I don't think this would need to be explained in the body of the article. The rest about Keats and poetry appears in the background section and the last paragraph of the themes section. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better. The only thing I think left for me to say: is the added content (on indolence/laziness) to the lead repeated elsewhere in the text (i.e. not original content)? But otherwise, Support. Great work. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It's an enjoyable read, a good length for the topic, the writing flows nicely, and the sources are all in order, so I'm happy to support. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Last time around a trip to Nova Scotia prevented me giving this a more than a cursory read-through. I can see no significant problems now, so I'm happy to support this article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - but with three suggestions; I don't like "than most of his contemporarie's works". I think It should be contemporaries', or even "contemporaries's". What do you think? Here, "three figures on a greek vase", I know this is a quote, but should it not be "Greek", upper case? And, lastly, I think the article should be written in UK English. If I am right, then "centers" needs to be "centres" and "favorite" needs to be "favourite". A most engaging article, which I am happy to support. Graham Colm Talk 19:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. "contemporarie" seems to be a typo and it has been fixed. 2. Probably, but I try not to correct the formatting of quotes, as many of my quotes deal with exotic English (you should see some of the stuff Milton wrote, for example). 3. Fixed, except for favorite as that is in a quote. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.