Wikipedia:Peer review/Kubla Khan/archive1

Kubla Khan

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been hugely expanded, and needs assessment with a view to progressing to GA/FA.

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  04:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley If there is a greater poem in the English language than Kubla Khan, no-one has told me about it. This is an important article, therefore, and a very substantial one too, so that I shall need to review it in stages, with suitable intervals for rest and refreshment. This tranche takes me as far as the end of section 3.

Let me say at once that this is an impressive article, with, in my opinion, the potential to reach FA status. My carpings below should be read in that light.

• Lead
  • "Preface" – I see why you have put it in quotes, but it doesn't look well on the page: it looks as if you are using the quotes disdainfully. Later in the article the frequent repetition of "Preface" in quotes becomes rather obtrusive. I think the capital 'P' in Preface is plenty.
  • "Individual from Porlock" – odd choice of word: what's wrong with the original "person"?
  • "let it lay" – I think you mean "let it lie".
  • "Along side" – one word, not two
  • "began to openly admire "– some people still believe in the superstition that a split infinitive is wrong; they are foolish, but I find it saves grief if one humours them

 Done = Agree re. person, "Preface"; I rephrased re. lay, agree re. alongside, and I chose to leave the split inf. until/unless others grumble; it seems clear enough to me. Chzz  ►  05:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Background
  • "Quantocks" – I'd add a few words to put this in geographical context: e.g. …the Quantocks in the South West of England.

I've had a go; I wanted to mention Coleridge Way, but it's not very elegant; please improve if you can. I think that the wikilink gives clarification, but if others thing "SW England" or something helps, go ahead; on the one hand, I can understand the term "Quantocks" being a curiousity for some people, on the other, I like such curiosities, which can lead users to further article exploration. Chzz  ►  06:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've tinkered a bit. See what you think. - Tim riley (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I can live with it. I did consider putting Q. Hills, but I lived in Taunton for a while, and I just know that that term would grate with the locals. It is definitively "The Quantocks", they'd never call it "The Quantock hills". But, that's a local problem; the term is quite valid, and it does make it more readable. Chzz  ►  18:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• • "with his fellow poet William Wordsworth and his sister Dorothy Wordsworth" – ambiguous: whose sister? (Of course everyone will know it's WW's sister, but the construction nevertheless leaves open the possibility that Dorothy was STC's sister, married to WW, and one should nail such ambiguities.)

I'm trying to think of an answer for that one; the surname kinda helps, but is not ideal. Suggestions appreciated. Chzz  ►  06:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If forced to choose I go for precision over elegance, so I'd write, "...his fellow poet William Wordsworth and Wordsworth's sister Dorothy." A bit lumpen but clear. - Tim riley (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, I thought of that, and felt the same as you. I asked a couple of other people, and we couldn't come up with a better solution, so...yep. I'll go with that. Chzz  ►  18:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Italics or not? Kubla Khan is generally italicised but not in the fourth para of this section.

Fixed. Chzz  ►  06:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• • "and there is little evidence to suggest" – is there any at all? If so you might mention it; if not, you could make this stronger – no evidence.

Not sure, right now; I will check sources. Chzz  ►  06:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave this with you. We can leave it as is if need be. Tim riley (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• • "convinced Coleridge to publish Christabel" – this Americanism jars rather in an English article. Anglice, "persuaded C to publish.." or "convinced C that he should publish…"

Agree, changed to 'persuaded'. Chzz  ►  06:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• • "A contract was formed" – an odd construction: perhaps "made" or "agreed".

I've used "contract was drawn up" - hope that is OK. Chzz  ►  06:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• • "the poem being published" – an old fashioned pedant (e.g. me) would insist on a gerund here – "the poem's being published"

Agree, changed. Chzz  ►  06:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• • "an opium induced dream" – I'd be inclined to hyphenate "opium-induced" when used attributively, as here.

Agree, changed. Chzz  ►  06:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Style
  • "The rhythm of the poem, like its themes and images, are different from other poems" – should be "is different"

Agree, changed. Chzz  ►  08:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• • "sound based techniques" – another one for a hyphen, me judice.

Agree, changed. Chzz  ►  08:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• • "sound based technique"s: both "cognate variation" and "chiasmus" need either a blue link (if available) or a brief explanation. You really ought to do the same for the other specialist technical terms in this section, such as "assonance", "iambic octameter", and "odal hymn".

Added wikilinks; sadly, we lack an article on iambic octameter; I've made a redirect to iamb; also nothing yet for odal hymn, but there should be, so left as a redlink pour encourager les autres. Chzz  ►  08:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought fleetingly of cobbling together an article on "iambic octameter" until it occurred to me that "I am the very model of a modern Major-General" is also in iambic octameter, and it's beyond me to write an article that embraces both that and Kubla Khan. - Tim riley (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Later: looking at the opening of the poem on the page, isn't it in iambic tetrameter? - there are only eight syllables to each line. Or have I forgotten (if I ever knew) some technical rule of scansion that groups two lines into one? - 12:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know; I've just tried to understand, reading in a couple of books...but this really is where we have a bit of a problem. I assume the source provided backs up the octameter fact, but I don't have that reference at present. I might be able to obtain it, but I can forsee further similar problems in trying to develop it. I don't have an answer to that. Chzz  ►  18:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've rummaged on shelves and on the web: the huge preponderance is for "tetrameter". I propose to amend accordingly.

• • "the odal hymn as used by others have a stronger unity" – "has a stronger unity"

Agree, changed. Chzz  ►  08:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• • "Coleridge believed in writing poetry that was unified organically" – citation needed

Added a citation to cover this fact. Chzz  ►  08:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• • "It is possible that Coleridge was displeased by the lack of unity in the poem and added a note about the structure to the "Preface" to explain his thoughts" – citation needed

Added a citation to cover this fact. Chzz  ►  08:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Preface
  • "including that Coleridge's claim to have a copy of Purchas with him, a very large folio book, would have to be carried with him". – this reads rather oddly. I take it you mean the book was too big to have been casually carried by STC.

Yes; and by the time I reached this point in your comments, I'd already re-worked that little bit. Hopefully it is now OK. Chzz  ►  19:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• • "interruption by a "person on business from Prolock": "At this moment he was unfortunately called out by a person on business from Porlock, and detained" – one too many persons from Porlock, I think. I'd omit the seven words before the colon.

Agreed, and removed. Chzz  ►  19:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• • "The actual person from Porlock mentioned could be many people, including Wordsworth, Joseph Cottle, John Thelwall, Coleridge's wife, or merely a literary device. As a symbol within the preface, the person represents the obligations of the real world crashing down upon the creative world or other factors that kept Coleridge from finishing his poetry" – two highly speculative statements, for which proper citations are very necessary.

Again, at present, I can only speculate that the assertions are covered by a source which I do not, presently, have access to. Chzz  ►  19:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I reckon a reference to Stevie Smith's poem on the Person from Porlock, together with a mention of commentators on that, should cover this point. I'll add in due course, unless you disapprove. Tim riley (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• • "When the "Preface" is dropped, the poem seems to compare the act of poetry with the might of Kubla Khan instead of the loss of inspiration causing the work to have a more complex depiction of the poetic power." – I entirely agree, but without a citation this is pure POV.

Same trouble again. I don't think this is OR or POV, because I'm sure the reference at the end of the para would cover it - but that book is not available to me, unless I can order a copy. Chzz  ►  19:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This is on my list for a trip to the British Library on Saturday. The books I have ordered are:

Barth, J. Robert. Romanticism and Transcendence. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2003; Beer, John. Coleridge the Visionary. New York: Collier, 1962; and Yarlott, Geoffrey. Coleridge and the Abyssinian Maid. London: Methuen & Co, 1967. Tim riley (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC) More to come over the next few days. – Tim riley (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Second batch of comments

• Poem
  • Passim: when Kublai Khan is referred to by one name, I believe it should be "Kubla" rather than "Khan". (Cf the great Pakistani cricketer, Imran Khan, who is always referred to as "Imran", not "Khan".) This is Coleridge's own practice in the poem, and should, I am sure, be followed in the article.
  • "which signifies a difference" – even with a citation this is a bit strong: how about "may signify a difference"?
  • "his decadent use of creative powers related that ignores nature" – this doesn't appear to make sense – "related" seems to mess up the sense
  • " After the water of the fountain merge into the ocean" – either "waters" plural or "merges" singular.
• Themes
  • "the two sections discuss two types of poems" – two types of poem; and "discuss" is a slightly odd term
  • "master over his creative powers or a slave to it" - either "power" singular or "them" plural.
  • "As a component to the idea" – "component of", perhaps
  • "a description of that world and a description of how the poet enters the world" – "enters it" would be crisper.
  • "Khan is connected to the use of the stream in Wordsworth's The Prelude" – citation needed
  • "harness tap into nature" – either "harness" or "tap into", presumably?
  • "both Osorio and Kubla Khans" – the plural is, I imagine, unintentional
• Tartars and paradise
  • "They were seen as … outcasts" – citation needed
  • "There are also comparisons between Khan with Catherine the Great or Napoleon with their building and destroying nations" – citation needed

I don't have any high hopes of referencing this one, and I think we shall have to lose it. Tim riley (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• • "Judaeo Christian" – the OED hyphenates this
  • "In the tradition Coleridge relies on … creating an enclosed garden" – citation needed
  • "on Sara Hutchinson who Coleridge wanted"– "whom"
  • "Heliodurus" – Wikipedia has him as Heliodorus (Heliodorus of Emesa)
  • "A Laurel crown'd her Head, an a Quiver in a Scarf hanged at her back" – is this a correct transcription of the quote? "…and a Quiver" seems more likely

On my list for checking at the British Library Tim riley (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sources
  • "women who Coleridge admired in some way" – "whom"
  • "The Abyssinian maid … unattainable to him" – there is only one citation in this paragraph, but four separate statements. Does the citation cover all four?

On my list for checking at the British Library Tim riley (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Critical response
  • "critics, than actual content" - "critics, rather than actual content"?
  • "Coleridge's statements on the origin of the poem…" – the word "claimed" is used twice in this paragraph and in thirteen other places in the article: it's rather a loaded verb, and might be better replaced by a more neutral one, such as "said" or "wrote"
• Later analysis
  • "…among the most valued on our possessions…" "on" or "of"?
  • "…a psychologial curiosity" – is this irregular spelling accurately transcribed from the quotation?

I think we can chance this and correct the spelling. Tim riley (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• • "…are the marvelous creations of his genius" – did Woodberry write "marvelous" or (more probably, I think) "marvellous"?

On my list for checking at the British Library Tim riley (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

More to come. - Tim riley (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Third and final batch of comments

• Modern criticism
  • The quotations from Lowes are very extensive, and could, I think, be pruned a bit. He isn't saying anything controversial or startlingly new.
  • I am not sure about the Furst references: you quote her as saying that TSE's objection is "not unjustified" but you don't say what evidence she advances in support of that assertion. The references to This Lime-tree Bower my Prison and The Pains of Sleep seem irrelevant. (Nobody, surely, would deny that STC's poems are of widely varying quality.)
  • Humphry House – note spelling of his first name (actually his second – he was Arthur Humphry House, though the Arthur was never used).
  • The excerpts from Professor Schneider's book go on a bit: their purport could be conveyed just as well, I think, with a good few cuts to this paragraph.
  • At Virginia Radley's comparisons of this poem with Fears in Solitude and Frosts at Midnight, I think you might blue-link these two poems. I know links from within quotations are not generally encouraged, but I think they would be helpful here.
  • "Judging by the number and variety of critical effort to interpret their meaning" – this reads oddly: I wonder if the original words were "critical efforts" (plural)
• General
  • I found the final section, Modern criticism, much too long. It unbalances the article, and should, in my view, be reduced to no more than half its present length. To illustrate this I have done a quick word count, and while mere arithmetic is no evidence of quality, it does rather show up how bulky the final section is: Lead: 407 words; Background: 1,121; Style: 606; Preface: 767; Poem: 880; Themes: 897; Tartars and paradise: 826; Abyssinian maid: 786; Sources: 477; Critical response: 1,090; Later analysis: 1,045; Modern criticism: 2,766.
  • Going through the article with a proof-reading eye I noticed that you have evidently been scrupulous about preserving the punctuation of critics etc when quoting them. This is right and proper, but there is room for flexibility when it comes to single-v-double quotes and also to titles. In particular, I think you might give serious consideration to altering references to this poem (and others) so that where the quoted authors (Lowes et al) render it thus: 'Kubla Khan', you silently alter it to Kubla Khan. As it stands one switches from one form to the other within the same para, which assaults the eye a bit.

This article is a judicious and thorough treatment of its subject, and in my judgment has the potential to be promoted after further revision. My comment on the length of the final section is a matter of opinion, with which others may disagree, but I think it is beyond dispute that there are some significant statements in the present article that lack a necessary citation. They need to be addressed before the article is nominated for elevation. – Tim riley (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)