Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Poetry of the United States

Poetry of the United States

Article is still a featured article.

This article doesn't read as a coherent whole; uses jargon without explanation; and is far from comprehensive. On coherence: The first and seventh sections attempt (but largely fail) actually to discuss the subject at hand. Sections two to six do not even do this: they are a slightly enlarged version of a list of American poets. Indeed, it's difficult to get an idea of what the main themes in American poetry really have been. On jargon: there's lots of it that's unexplained. Eg there's a whole section on modernism which doesn't even say what modernism is, and surrealism is used without explanation too. On lack of comprehensiveness: The (poorly written) lead section mentions by the end of the millennium (what's wrong with century) there was an "increased emphasis on poetry by women, Afro-Americans, Hispano-Americans and other subcultural groupings". The article proper does not mention this at all, with no discussion whatsoever on Afro-American and Hispano-American poetry. This is far from being an example of one of Wikipedia's best articles. jguk 20:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are clear links to both modernist poetry in English and surrealism. I'm sure the article could be improved in many ways. Charles Matthews 07:37, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I know I have a vested interest, but I find most of the reasons for delisting given both vague and subjective. As for the 'jargon', these terms are linked for readers who want more info. This article is not the place to explain modernism or surrealism, for example. The major theme in American poetry is the emergence of an American poetic idiom and this is covered in the article. After that, there are as many themes as there are poets, or more even. Like any other article, this one could be improved, but FAs are not expected to be perfect. Filiocht 08:56, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

This from the talk page leads me to believe that the objection is based on the fact that there are words in the article that the objector is not familiar with. The same would be true for me reading a maths article, but that would not make it an invalid use of those words. In this case, words like 'writerly' have a precise meaning that is the exact fit needed. This is what dictionaries are for. Filiocht 13:22, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

A featured article should be accessible to all. Certainly one on a broad subject with a title that sounds like an introduction to the subject of US poetry. Jargon in a general article like this, if used at all, should be explained. In short, the article should be standalone. I note you have not addressed my other comments. Is that because you agree with them? ;) jguk 20:49, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that a featured article should be "accessible to all". The purpose of a good article should be to inform the reader: part of that task is accomplished by using appropriate vocabulary. I agree that needless puffery should be trimmed from featured articles, but in articles where the words are difficult (and perhaps unfamiliar to many) yet necessary for the sake of precision, we can't remove them. There are many featured articles that contain words I do not know. I don't take that as a sign they shouldn't be featured. I may (if I like) take it as a sign I should consult my dictionary. As to the other complaints, I feel some of them are a bit vague, but I'll look at the article more closely and see if they can be addressed. Jwrosenzweig 23:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

After further discussion on the article talk page, I find little merit in this application for delisting. Sure, the article could be improved with more work — goes without saying (must be 1000 poets in its scope). But the standalone business is more like self-righteousness than a serious comment on how to write WP. Linking off a central page like this is only common sense, and trying to discuss all the implications on the page itself is really not the way forward. Charles Matthews 09:40, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object to removal. Generally a very complete article. If it has jargon you don't understand bring it up on the talk page and see what you can help do to make the article easier to understand. But also, I'm sure there are a large number of good print references available on this subject. Filiocht, et al, can you guys put some together? I'll try to take care of properly formatting the external links used as references, thats my bugaboo. A little worse than I thought. Only the first site listed as a reference seems to be able to be reliably used as one. The others seem like standard external links. - Taxman 19:14, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)