Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Burnt Norton/1

Burnt Norton

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: List. Much was done to improve the article, and the original reviewer basically retracted his review. Those who participated in the reassessment concurred that the article met the GA criteria. bibliomaniac15 01:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This article was, I believe, unreasonably quickfailed because it provides no online references. The reviewer, not having access to the published sources cited, therefore failed it as "stinking of OR". --Malleus Fatuorum 14:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to note that the poem in question is short and in copyright until 2030, so it is hard to find specific works devoted to it (as people cannot provide a thorough close reading without the possibility of infringing). I am sure there are sources that I left out, but I covered all of the major and critically renown sources on the matter (13 non-primary Eliot sources when you count those quoted from a book that collected some of the original critical responses to the poem). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree the article was unreasonably quickfailed. I commented a moment ago when this was raised at GAN. I hadn't realised from that discussion the reviewer had applied a quickfail result. I thought the reviewer had commented awaiting feedback. Quickfailing with the phrase "Large parts of this article absolutely stink of original research" based, apparently, on alleged under-citing and the use of books (which the reviewer doesn't have to hand) as sources is, not to put too fine a point on it, rude.

The spectre of citationitis raised its head in-review when discussing the poem section, even though here the cite is to a small page range, which can often summarize to several sentences. I felt there's some crossover between plot elements and themes between the Poem and Themes sections, but that is something I'd ask about and discuss with the nominator, were I reviewing. At the very least, replacing in the nominations queue is appropriate. –Whitehorse1 14:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me you've read the review? Let me quote from it: "It passes the quick-fail". Alan16 (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. You: "Starting review, and it will not take too long. Alan16 03:55, 9 August 2009". GA1 revision history: "04:17, 9 August 2009 Alan16 (GA fail)". That's 22 mins. I take it you're referring to a distinction between a quickfail (in which no full review is undertaken) and a fail without hold (in which problems are sufficient to rule out any short hold). –Whitehorse1 15:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I said it wouldn't take long because I'd already read the article and made a decision, and all I had to do was write that down. I felt the latter of what you described applied to this article. I was obviously mistaken, and I think it was perhaps a mistake, and now I am a disgrace to GA reviewing history. Alan16 (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that's a bit much. –Whitehorse1 15:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ottava has added the ISBNs for the sources. Hopefully that resolves this issue. Alan16, please note that the very first example on WP:REF guideline is indeed a book, and not an on-line source. — Ched :  ?  16:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This is... What's the point? I never said that the books weren't reliable - I said that some of the numerous online sources might be a good idea... Alan16 (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: The references and citations are fine. However, the lead doesn't summarize critical response. Majoreditor (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Expanded with two sentences, but it was hard to summarize it all without putting too much weight in it (MoS wants 1 paragraph for the lead, so I figure two moderately sized paragraphs are fine without going overboard). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I made some other clean ups with a small expansion of the lead. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on the lead, Ottava. It's fine now. Majoreditor (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict>

• Comment: I agree with others that the original review issues regarding references are not consistent with WP policy on references; I agree there is no evidence of original research. That said the article has some issues, primarily concerning written expression, which I have started to look at, but don't have much time to work on right now. I can come back on and off over the next couple days. While I think the first review should be set aside, here are some concerns I would want to see addressed before it passed:

• Repetition in the lead of reference to contemporaneous writing of M in the C.
• "The poem's title refers to a town Eliot visited known as Burnt Norton" - later text implies it is a manor, not a town. Clarification is needed here - is Eliot taking the name of the manor and applying it to a fictional town in the poem, or is there an actual town and manor called Burnt Norton? This needs clarification in the lead, and possibly fuller explanation in the relevant part of the body text.
• "The idea of "Burnt Norton" " - strange. The ideas expressed in "Burnt Norton"" perhaps?
• "The actual Burnt Norton is a manor located..." Does this para belong in the background section - it sounds more like the material in the later section called "Sources".
• ""Burnt Norton" was published on its own in 1941 when "East Coker" and "The Dry Salvages", two later poems of the Four Quartets, were being published" - confusing: how can something be published on its own when two other poems were being published. Does this literally mean that two books came out at once, one containing Burnt Norton, the other containing East Coker and The Dry Salvages?
• Style query - (my ignorance at work here) - should the poem titles be in quotation marks, or in single quotes / inverted commas / italics?
• We are told the garden "became the focus in the poem", but then when the poem itself is being described, we have several lines that tell us of very abstract themes, then the description says "The scene of the poem moves from a garden...", thus leaving the garden behind before we have heard anything about it. The garden should either be mentioned earlier, with examples of how it is significant in the poem's text, or the earlier text of the WP article should not suggest the garden became the focus in the poem.
• "The beginning scene" is a clumsy phrase; I htink "The opening scene" or "The first scene" would be better.
• "Peter Ackroyd believes that it is impossible to really paraphrase the content of the poem. The poem is too abstract to really describe the events and the action.[13] However, the discourse on time is connected to the ideas within St. Augustine's Confessions."

• "to really" used twice, and this is not a great phrase to ever use in an encyclopedia if it can be avoided.
• The use of "However" implies that the third sentence stands in contradiction or contrast to the first two. However, it seems like something of a non-sequitur to me.

• "However, George Orwell looked down upon what Eliot was doing within the poem..." This expression does not work, though I am a little stuck on how to resolve it. It reads rather as though Goerge Orwell was viewing it from a great critical height, whereas I think what is meant is that Orwell disapproved of Eliot's intent. This needs work.
• "The beginning scene has a rose garden that allegorically represents a potential existence. Although the garden does not exist, it is described in realist manner and gives it a sort of reality." This makes little sense, as well as needing copyediting, starting with the vague expression "sort of".

Not every single point above needs fixing at GA rather than FA, but overall the text is not clear enough to the reader to pass GA at present. I am more than happy to work with Ottava over this week to assist if I can, but I'm a little pressed for time right now and am in opposite time zones I think. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Repetition fixed - I was going to move it down and forgot to remove the first bit. However, I rewrote it and left the placement in the second sentence. 2. Rewrote. 3. Changed "idea" to "concept". 4. Sources is reserved for poetic sources where background is reserved for historic information behind the creation of the poem. Two different critical approaches. 5. Published in the same year but each independent of the others. Rewrote somewhat. 6. Style - I prefer italics for these kinds of works, but many editors on Wiki like to force quotes for any poem smaller than 200 lines. Who knows really. 7. I rewrote the first line to mention that the garden provokes the discussion as per the summary. 8. They are referred to as "parts" so I am going to use that term to describe what the referential is. 9. I added "make up the poem's narrative structure". This should let the reader know that you can't describe the action but can describe the philosophy. I rewrote the next line some also so the "however" makes more sense. I removed the "really"s, especially when I split infinitives in an awkward manner. 10. I simplified it to "disapproved of "Burnt Norton"". 11. Rewrote the section. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all these improvements. I will continue to make comments here, unless editors want me to move this discussion to the article talk or elsewhere.

• ""Burnt Norton" served, to Eliot, "social usefulness". The poem was the first of Eliot's that relied on speech, and the narrator works as an orator who speaks to the audience directly. Humankind, to Eliot, was affected by Original Sin and could follow the paths of either good or evil and that people can atone for their sins. The individual must leave the time bound world and look into their self, and poets must seek out perfection not bound by time in their images in order to escape from the problems of language." This whole para is tricky. It reads as a series of non-sequiturs. The first sentence tells us the poem serves "social usefulness". I don't know what Eliot meant by that, but I do not feel the sentences that follow give me an answer. They appear to be about Eliot's theology and his critics' interpretation of how that theology works itself out in the poem. None of it appears to explain either Eliot's strange term (social usefulness) or how it is represented in the poem. The second sentence is about the narrative format of the poem. The third and fourth are about theology or faith. Within the third sentence,we are told humankind "was" affected by original sin, but that people "can" atone for their sins, changing tense; it is also not clear why original sin is being connected with choice of good and evil - i am aware of the connection in Christian theology, but not that this para explains what Eliot is driving at.
• The following para is better. It however contains this sentence: "The scene beneath London is filled with those who are similar to those of The Hollow Men and describes people who do not understand the Logos or the order of the universe" - but the reader of this WP article has no idea who the people are in The Hollow Men, so nothing is evoked by this reference, while the lay reader will have no idea what "Logos" is.

More anon. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the perfect place to comment and discuss improving the article. Please don't let me interrupt. Geometry guy 00:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Made changes to both paragraphs. I also added a parenthesis to explain that Logos is a representation of Christ along with a Wikilink. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thank you Ottava for your revisions (and thank you Geometry Guy). I have now been through the text more carefully and have made some copyedits and rearrangements, including in one or two cases to points raised above. I have two outstanding queries that both concern the "Themes" section and then, were it down to me, it would pass GA:

• "However, the philosophy can be explained as the discourse on time is connected to the ideas within St. Augustine's Confessions." This sentence is unclear. We have no idea what "the philosophy" refers to: Eliot's personal philosophy of religion? Some philosophy expressed in the poem? Acroyd's philosophy of criticism? This needs careful clarification.
• "Consciousness cannot be connected to time but humans cannot actually escape from it." Too cryptic. The first two times I read it I didn't even register that "it" was consciousness. However (assuming I got that right eventually) the sentence seems like a kind of non-sequitur. I am going to have trouble explaining myself here, but I'll give it a shot. Why is there some sort of paradox or contrast here (implied by the word "but") - is the implication that, were consciousness connected to time, humans could then escape it? That seems not just nonsensical, but seeking to relate two unrelated types of concept. Also, if Eliot is trying to ground his ideas in the Confessions and the importance of the present moment, why is not conscoiusness connected to time by being the awareness of the present moment? Sorry, I realise that sounds like I want to debate St Augustine, and that is not my intention (!), but rather, as a reader of this passage, it does not make sense and raises objections and questions in my mind. Something needs to be fixed here, but it may take a couple of iterations to work it out. I'm sorry, but I am also handicapped by not having the sources (including the poem!). regards hamiltonstone (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried to rewrite it in order to explain. A problem is that this is one of the most philosophically difficult poems. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Ottava. OK, in my view this article now qualifies for GA. Other views? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• List as GA. I thought the article was pretty good before, but it's been improved during this review and in my opinion now easily meets the GA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• List. The article meets all GA criteria. Majoreditor (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)