Wikipedia:Featured article review/A Song for Simeon/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC) [1].

---

A Song for Simeon

Notified: FAC nominator blocked, no other significant contributors, WP England, WP Poetry, WP Christianity, two-week talk page notice waived by FAR Coord.

Review section

This featured article review is one of six procedural nominations, as considerable issues have been found in other Featured articles by the same nominator. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. The original nominator is blocked. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Review of sources and citations by Vami

Reviewed version. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 11:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

To begin, I could not find,

1. Eliot, T. S. "A Song for Simeon" in Ariel 16. (London: Faber and Faber, 1928).
   1. [a]: It is not proper for this citation to be in the lead.
   2. [b, c, & d]: Sourcing text pertaining to the poem's construction and content to the poem itself strikes me as OR.
2. Eliot, T. S. "A Song for Simeon" in Collected Poems: 1909–1935. (London: Faber and Faber; New York: Harcourt Brace, 1936); and Collected Poems: 1909–1962. (London: Faber and Faber; New York: Harcourt Brace, 1963).
   1. [a] It is not proper for this citation to be in the lead.
   2. [b, c, & d]: ...does citing the books in which the poem was published suffice for demonstrating, via a reliable, secondary source, that it was published in those books?
   3. [e & f] Sourcing text pertaining to the poem's construction to the poem itself strikes me as OR.

These books do exist, but I think their use speaks to the age of this article. Just googling the poem allowed me to find it online.

3. Timmerman, John H. T. S. Eliot's Ariel Poems: The Poetics of Recovery. (Lewisburg, Pennsylvania: Bucknell University Press, 1994), 117–123.
   1. [a]: Unsubstantiated. This selection of pages is an analysis of the contents of the poem.
   2. [b]: Ditto.
   3. [c]: The only portion of the relevant text supported by this citation is For the second, "A Song for Simeon", Eliot turned to an event at the end of Nativity narrative in the Gospel of Luke., from pages 118 and 119.
4. Murphy, Russell Elliott. Critical Companion to T. S. Eliot: A Literary Reference to His Life and Work. (New York: Facts on File/InfoBase Publishing, 2007).
   1. Tertiary source. A textbook specifically.
   2. [a] pp. 50–51: Verified.
   3. [b] p. 18: Verified.
   4. [c] ibid.: The only part of the relevant text substantiated by this citation is the overquote that makes up the back half of the text.
   5. [d] pp. 19, 50, 376: Verified.
   6. [e] p. 19: Verified.
   7. [f] p. 276: Unsubstantiated.
5. Rainey, Lawrence S. (editor). The Annotated Waste Land with Eliot's Contemporary Prose (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 9ff.
   1. "9ff"...? Page 9 discusses Eliot's work at various banks in the mid-1910s, but no poems.
6. Gordon, Lyndell. T. S. Eliot: An Imperfect Life. (London: Vintage, 1998).
   1. [a] pp. 20, 212, 223: Verified.
   2. [b] p. 223: Unsubstantiated.
   3. [c] p. 225: Verified.
   4. [d] p. 224: Verified, but should really be pp. 224–25
   5. [f] p. 104: Unsubstantiated. Gordon does not say who is saying this utterly ridiculous thing ([...] that Eliot was at his most brilliant in his prejudice.), and the article misquotes the book. It reads, "It is also suggested that Eliot is at his most brilliant when he incites prejudice", in the context (so it would seem) of ill-advised satire.
7. Eliot, T. S. Preface to For Lancelot Andrewes: Essays on Style and Order. (London: Faber and Faber, 1929).
   1. Verified via John Hopkins University.
8. Staff. Books: Royalist, Classicist, Anglo-Catholic (a review of 1936 Harcourt, Brace edition of Eliot's Collected Poems: 1909–1935) in Time (25 May 1936).
   1. Verified.
9. Kirk, Russell. Eliot and His Age: T. S. Eliot's Moral Imagination in the Twentieth Century. (Wilmington: Isi Books, 2008), 240.
   1. It would appear from Google Books that the cited page does indeed contain the text quoted in the full citation. I can't actually make sure, though, because the best I can get is a snippet view. As an aside, the publisher, ISI Books, has a Conservative agenda to push and specializes in tertiary sources. Recommend replacement with something less odious.
10. Zabel, Morton D. "T. S. Eliot in Mid-Career", in Poetry (September 1931): 36:330–337.
    1. Verified. Except that this was printed in the September 1930, not September 1931 (since corrected).
11. Symes, Gordon. "T. S. Eliot and Old Age", in Fortnightly 169(3) (March 1951): 186–93.
    1. This is not on JSTOR so I can't verify this.
12. Stead, Christian. The New Poetic: Yeats to Eliot. (Harmondsworth: Pelican Books, 1969), passim.
    1. "Passim". No, thank you.
13. Eliot, T. S. "The Journey of the Magi" (London: Faber and Gwyer, 1927).
    1. Unsubstantiated; further, see [1] and [2].
14. Moody, A. David. Thomas Stearns Eliot: Poet. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 114.
    1. Unsubstantiated. The only things shared between the cited page and the relevant text is the publication of "A Song for Simeon" in "September 1928".
15. Gallup, Donald. T. S. Eliot: A Bibliography. (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1969).
    1. [a] p. 36: This substantiates the last sentence of the relevant text, and nothing more.
    2. [b]: No. I again do not think "passim" shall suffice.
    3. [c] p. 36: I do not know why we need this level of detail, but this citation supports it.
    4. [d] ibid.: Verified.
16. [16] and [17] are verifiable but strike me as SPS.

• Move to FARC, it does not look like anyone will pick this one up, and the usual problems are present. Could be expedited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC, accelerated process, same issues as the others; seems unlikely that this will be picked up. Hog Farm _Talk 13:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC, accelerated verification issues warrant an accelerated process imo. Z1720 (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Verifiability concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Delist, accelerated. This article is absolutely salvageable. But will anyone salvage it? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delist, accelerated, per similar issues in other FAs by same nominator, requiring extensive work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delist, accelerated, per sourcing issues noted above. This honestly needs a new FAC even if salvaged. Hog Farm _Talk 18:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delist, accelerated, veribility concerns. Z1720 (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.