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 not promoted by Raul654 05:05, 11 March 2009 [1].

---

The Lucy poems[edit]

Nominator(s): Kafka Liz (talk), Ceoil and Ottava Rima

I am conominating this for featured article with and Ceoil and Ottava Rima. We have worked long and hard on it, and I think it now meets Featured Article criteria. There is a peer review here. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Re: "This includes Hunter Davies, who determined that the poems impact rely more on their popularity...". If I am reading the intent of this sentence correctly, and perhaps I am not, place an apostrophe after "poems" because the poems collectively possess "impact", and change "rely" to "relies" because "impact" is singular. Also, I am not sure it's absolutely correct to say he "determined" something "when he claims" it, as there does not appear to be clear cause and effect. -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "impact" would suggest a cause and effect relationship. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I reworded the sentence, by the way. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the copy edit, Michael. Ceoil (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tech. Review from Truco (talk · contribs)

• External links (toolbox) and ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS) are found up to speed.
• Dabs need to be fixed (toolbox).--₮RUCӨ 00:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but fear not; dab now fixed. Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...are now up to speed as well.--₮RUCӨ 01:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phew! Thanks. Although you review was generated by a script - no offence Truco - no support or opposed vote was offered, so thats ok. Ceoil (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my reasons on your talk page, and in addition, the dabs are in the toolbox, the only script I use is REFTOOLS.--₮RUCӨ 15:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - All images have sufficient descriptions and verifiable licenses. Sorry I didn't get a chance to review this article earlier. I'm finally doing so now. (It is funny to see my professors' names in the bibliography! Such a small world we live in.) Awadewit (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets pretend such people aren't connected to us, shall we. Otherwise, there are a lot of references that should probably be struck from many of these pages. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(By the way, I'm teasing.) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20

31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Prose is clunky (too many Latinisms?), also repetitious. In light of user:Ottava Rima's continued defense (on the article's talk page) of the illogical Sentence 6, I am now changing a firm oppose; for, I don't see any improvements taking place. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sentence 1: "five verses" Most people think of a verse as a line or stanza; true, it can mean a poem, but the sentence remains ambiguous: it can be read as five poems or a series of poems each with five verses.

Its because the article title contains the word "poems". Didn't want to say The Lucy Poems are a series of five poems... But I see what you mean. reworded back to 5 poems for now. Ceoil (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sentence 2: "seminal?" Is it needed, when Wordsworth and Coleridge are mentioned? "Co-authored?" Although "coauthor" can be used as a verb, "jointly authored" is better, or even "jointly written." "represents both Wordsworth’s first major publication and the beginning of the English Romantic movement?" It didn't represent W's first major publication, it was W's fmp; similarly, it marked the beginning of the ERM ("represent" is too general).

Reads jointly written now. And represented is now was; (if you know what i mean) . Ceoil (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seminal gone, as the beginning of the English Romantic movement is enough. Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sentence 3: "The "Lucy" series chronicles the poet’s unrequited love for the deceased eponymous heroine." Sounds like a funeral director's note. To "chronicle" is to record; it could apply to a poem if something is already known about it, but it sounds off in an introductory sentence. Same with "unrequited," "deceased," "eponymous." Please find simple substitutes.

chronicles at least is reworded. I'm not sure "unrequited," "deceased," "eponymous" are misplaced. Liz might be a better judge than me. Ceoil (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the "chronicles" point but don't see a problem with "unrequited," "deceased," or "eponymous". Kafka Liz (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sentence 4: "Although she remains physically distant and subtly incorporeal in all five poems, to Wordsworth she represents "the joy of my desire" and is longingly referred to as 'cherished'." What does it really mean? "Physically distant" and "subtly incorporeal?" Is it someone always seen from afar, and then always shrouded in mystery? And why "although?" In other words, why can't a figure shrouded in mystery be the joy of my desire, especially in poetry? More importantly, it is too much abstract information too soon. We need to know something more concrete about these poems. (Especially for people like me who are vaguely thinking of "Lucy Gray" from junior high-school!)

Point taken that a mysterious figure can indeed be cherished. I think it's important to bring across the fact that Lucy is very much not a physical presence, though, and exists more as an ideal than as a flesh-and-blood woman. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sentence 5: "The foreseen reality of her death weighs heavily on the poet throughout, imbuing the verse with a melancholy, elegiac tone." The expression "foreseen reality" assumes we know something about the death already, but we don't. The last part, on the other hand, seems like an overkill. "Melancholy, elegiac tone?" What else can it be?

Agree re The foreseen reality, but to my mind melancholy, elegiac tone is apt. Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded the "forseen reality", but I think "melancholy, elegaic tone" works here. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sentence 6: "Although today the "Lucy" poems are considered among Wordsworth's finest work, Wordsworth did (not) conceive of them as a group nor were they published as a series during his lifetime." The subordinate clause should offer a counterpoint; as it stands, it is ambiguous: it seems to be stressing "finest," not related pieces.

Done. Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sentence 7: "Between the 1798 and 1802 editions of Lyrical Ballads, Wordsworth made many revisions to the poems and their sequencing." Why is this important? And why 1798? The poems were written only in 1800 (we were told upstairs).

Its an important aspect and developed in the article body, though this should probably be brought across better. The poems were published, not written (completed), in 1800. Ceoil (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone like me, who knows a few poems of W. by heart (or thinks he still does), should be reeled in swiftly by the lead. The first seven sentences, however, have snuffed whatever little excitement I brought here. I'm afraid the article will need to be majorly copy-edited (if the rest is anything like these sentences). Will swing by again in a week or thereabouts. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot, for the life of me, see one proper objection in the above. Instead, I see absurd comments. For example - "deceased" needs a "simple substitute". You can't get more simple than "deceased". Ottava Rima (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion continues on F&f's examples for FAC. (Moved per Ottavo Rima's request.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F&f's comments for Ceoil and Kafka Liz

Reads much better already. (In the meantime I read the Lucy poems and it turns out that I had memorized the third as a part of a "patriotic" group that had included Walter Scott and Robert Browning.) Anyway, here are some more thoughts.

• (New Sentence 3): "The "Lucy" series centres on the narrator's unrequited love for the deceased heroine." Do we know that it was unrequited? Wouldn't " ... the narrator's enduring longing for a deceased object of love," be more accurate?

• It think its fairly vital to bring accross the fact that the love was unrequited. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (New Sentence 4): "The figure of Lucy, described as 'the joy of my desire' and longingly referred to as 'cherished,' remains physically distant and subtly incorporeal in all five poems."

• Reworded and clear now, I think. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think from the perspective of a reader, your own words above ("flesh and blood" and "presence") would work better than "subtly incorporeal;" in other words, something along the lines of, "Lucy, who never appears in flesh and blood, permeates the poems as an powerful evocative presence" is at once clearer and more accurate.
  • Also, I don't know what the two descriptions, "the joy of my desire" and "cherished," do for the reader. I wonder if at this point an actual stanza wouldn't work better. (such as: "She died, and left to me| This heath, this calm and quiet scene;|| This memory of what has been,| And never more shall be.||")

• • Yeah, might swap these, just need to mull it over. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now, the rest of the lead. (Mattisse below has alluded to these points as well.)

• Sentence N: "Although he did not change the theory of his poetry and only claimed to be refining his development from a mimetic to an expressive form of representation, noticeable thematic shifts are evident from the surviving drafts."
  • "only claimed" --> "claimed only"

• • Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • "from a mimetic form of representation to an expressive one" is better (that is, if this is intended).
  • This entire sentence, though, goes over the reader's head, especially since (in the link) the many meanings "mimetic" include "expressive." Why, for example, is "refining his development from a mimetic form ... to an expressive ...," not a thematic shift? In other words, you should state (simply) what the thematic shifts are or bag the sentence.
• Sentence (N+1): "Only after Wordsworth's death in 1850 did Victorian publishers and critics establish a final organization of the poems as a fixed group, leading subsequent anthologies to present the verses as such."
  • Do we need "1850?" (I mean you are saying Victorian, so the reader has an idea.)
  • Do we need "final?"
  • "as such" is vague.
  • "subsequent anthologies" implies that "Victorian publishers and critics" were anthologies.
  • "establish a final organization of the poems" Such structure can't be established; it's merely agreed upon.
  • I feel it is better to be explicit, such as in: "Only after W.'s death did Victorian publishers and critics agree upon an order for presenting the poems as a group, one which anthologists since have preserved." (At least two of mine—Q in the 1927 Oxford Book, and Helen Gardner in the 1980 New Oxford Book— have the same order.)
• (Sentence (N+2): Whether the character Lucy was based on a real woman or was a figment of the poet's imagination has long been a matter of debate among literary scholars.
  • "Whether Lucy was a real woman or one imagined by the poet has long been debated by scholars." We don't need "literary;" what else could they be?
• (Sentence (N+3)): "Generally reticent to comment on the poems, Wordsworth did not fully address the subject or reveal details of her identity."
  • "Reticent" means "disinclined to speak freely." So, you want to say, "Generally reticent about the poems ..."
  • What does "... W did not fully address the subject" mean, especially when he was inclined to be reticent? There's repetition here.
• Sentence (N+4): "Some critics speculate that the character represents Wordsworth's sister Dorothy, while others contend that she is an idealisation.
  • This seems like Sentence (N+2) all over again. Best to delete (N+4) and include info upstairs. Something like, ""Whether Lucy was a real woman—possibly the poet's sister Dorothy—or one imaginatively idealized by the poet has long been debated by scholars."
• Final lead sentence: "Both schools agree that Lucy is a device through which the poet develops his thoughts and meditations on loss, nature and beauty."
  • A "device" is used or employed. So, "Scholars, however, agree that Lucy is a literary device employed by the poet to meditate on loss, nature, and beauty." might be better. (or "beauty, nature, and loss" if you worry about the cadences of the language). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Ottava Rima

• "Do we need "1850?" (I mean you are saying Victorian, so the reader has an idea.)" - Yes, we do. The Victorian period started in 1836 and ended a long time after his death. The date is necessary.
• "only claimed" --> "claimed only" There was only one claim, thus, "only claimed" is the only logical phrase.
• "We don't need "literary;" what else could they be?" Philologist, historians, psychologists etc. All of these fields would look at the poems in a non-literary way.
• ""Victorian publishers and critics" were anthologies." yes. Any collecting of the poems as "Lucy" poems would be, by definition, an anthology because they were not originally collected as a set.
• "Such structure can't be established; it's merely agreed upon." Not true. Once a structure is published, it is established.
• "Reticent" means "disinclined to speak freely." It also means reluctant.
• "There's repetition here." One sentence deals with the poems. Another sentence deals with Lucy's identity. Two different subjects.
• "A "device" is used or employed." - Hence the phrase "through which". Ottava Rima (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request by F&f (to Ceoil and Kafka Liz)

I would like to request that Ottava Rima be kept firmly under wraps, especially when I leave comments for the two of you.

Consider, for example, his response to "'only claimed' --> 'claimed only'":

• "There was only one claim, thus, 'only claimed' is the only logical phrase."
  • No. "only claimed" can imply that he didn't do anything more than claim, and "claim only" does not mean that there was more than one claim, but rather that in the context he "claimed no more than." I mean even the high-schooler in our household understands this.

Consider again, "reticent":

• He says, "reticent also means 'reluctant'"
  • True, "reluctant" is a secondary meaning (although not in Webster's or the OED), but this use is wrong when "reticent" (as disinclined to speak freely) alone suffices.

And, yet again:

• "'We don't need "literary;" what else could they be?' Philologist, historians, psychologists etc. All of these fields would look at the poems in a non-literary way."
  • Would philogists, historians and psychologists be creating a convention of ordering the poems?!

Each new responses above is more ludicrous than the previous one. What is going on here?? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Ottava Rima

• You have made many claims but offer no evidence to support them. When pointed out that you are wrong, you claim otherwise but offer no support. Then you put forth things that are obviously wrong: "Would philogists, historians and psychologists be creating a convention of ordering the poems" Yes! A psychologist would need the progression of the poems because of psychoanalysis and behaviorist approaches to Wordsworth's life. They are read biographically. A historian would need the poem structures to identify how they reflect on Wordsworth's life and if they connect to any individual. A philologist would need to know the order to see how Wordsworth progressed and how the rewritings and reworkings were affected by the other poems. There is at least once source provided on -each- of these three. This is standard knowledge that could be found in any introductory literary criticism course. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request again to Ceoil and Kafka Liz

So preoccupied is is Ottava Rima with arguing with me that he is not even aware that I mistook the sentence, "Whether the character Lucy was based on a real woman or was a figment of the poet's imagination has long been a matter of debate among literary scholars" for the previous one about ordering the poems! So, my original response should have been, "Why only literary?"

I would prefer that someone with proficiency at least at the level of an ordinary native speaker's reply to my posts, so that endless time is not wasted in arguing about the easy nuances of the language. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now - Agree with Fowler&Fowler that this needs a thorough copy edit. I was not able to get beyond the third paragraph of the lead:
• "Whether Lucy was based on a specific historical figure or was a purely fictional creation has been a matter of prolonged debate among literary scholars." - "specific historical figure" - why not "a person in his life" or something else less stilted. Why have the extra "a matter of"? Whether Lucy was based on a person in Wordsworth's life has been debated. Is it necessary in the lead to note that it was "prolonged"?
• "Some have speculated that the character represents Wordsworth’s sister Dorothy, while others hold that she is an idealised figure." Very stilted and clunky. Some have speculated that Lucy is based on Wordsworth’s sister Dorothy, while others see her as an idealised figure. "holds" #1 (why all clunky "holds"?).
• "Both schools agree, however, that the character is a device for the poet to develop his thoughts and meditations on loss, nature and beauty." Can you lose the "however"? "Both schools"? Why not start the paragraph by saying that Lucy is a means for Wordsworth to meditate on beauty, nature and loss. (Should not start out with "loss" in this triad:"loss, nature and beauty" is not a satisfying order.) Then you can get into whether she is modeled on a person in his life.
• "No precise historical identity for Lucy has been established, and modern scholarship holds it unlikely that Wordsworth modeled her on any specific individual. - Clunky "holds" #2
• "Generally reticent about the poems, he himself never addressed the subject." - Tony1 101 "he himself"?

Should not the lead invite the reader in, instead of making the poems sound like dead relics of scholarship? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not liking the word choice is not an objection. Furthermore, points like why "a specific historical figure" is necessary - it doesn't have to be a person he knew or part of his life. It means a person who was alive at one time. Regardless, you seek substitutions of phrases but not one of the criterias. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't really poor prose, not "brilliant prose", not "professional prose", an objection? You are saying the quality of the prose is not a consideration in FAC? What has Tony1 been doing with his tutorials then? You are violating his most basic examples. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Mattisse, "brilliant" means technically without a problem. It does not mean aesthetically as the way you please. Your objections are more over taste than substance. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard that definition before. Perhaps "technically without a problem" should be "written" into the FAC criteria to clarify. "He himself" can be seen as a technical problem. So can what Fowler&Fowler is trying to illustration to you, as it is straight out of one of Tony1's tutorials. So Tony1's values no longer hold? Perhaps that is why he hardly ever reviews articles. Anyway, I will not bother to followup, as it is clearly hopeless. The article will probably be promoted no matter what anyway. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He himself is one entry. You can change it if you want. I doubt one phrase is enough to justify an oppose over prose quality. Tony1 is quite comfortable making fixes when he sees them if he wants to, and he is also capable of stating what he things needs to be done also. If you have syntax problems, please mention them. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave several specific examples from the lead only So did Fowler&Fowlder. Between us we covered the lead. Those were examples only. Neither of us went beyond the lead. The lead, being an important part of the article, should be well written. This one is not, thus indicating that the article needs copy editing. It is not my article and if you want to leave "he himself" (one of Tony1's pet copy editing peeves) or anything of the other specific complaints listed in the lead, you are free to do so. It does seem that it is pointless for anyone to bother going through the rest article to list problems if you are going to disregard them. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Hi Mattisse - I agree with some but not all of the points you and Fowler&Fowler have raised. I'll try to address these over the coming days. I appreciate your taking the time to comment, and I'll try to work on the points you've brought up. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Mattisse, we can work through on the general points raised and let you know when we would like you to revisit. Its easy to get too close to an article and miss out on some phrasings others would see as needing obvious work. There are some good pointers here, thanks for the look. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Are the only literary influences of the Lucy poems that they have been parodied? This article says yes: Some authors haven't mocked them. If this is so, do we really need an article about them? Vb (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As part of Lyrical Ballads, the Lucy poems have been widely influential, as LB was probably the most influential collection of Romantic poems published. (And, yes, we need an article about them. Without a doubt. This is Poetry 101 and British Lit 101 kind of stuff.) Awadewit (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is so, please find a source that discuss this brilliant influence and summarize it instead of citing only two influences: parodies and Mary Shelley who seems to be the only one who was not a mockery. Vb (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vb, I think you are confusing things. They were influential with the Lyrical Ballads as part of them, but not on their own. It would be against WP:WEIGHT to go to length discussing the influence of Lyrical Ballads. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha! Eventually! The individual poem pages need to be filled out first. Attempting it head on would be murder. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vb, look at the very last paragraph. They also influenced Mary Shelley's The Last Man. Beyond that, there are little notable direct influences in literature (or, at least, ones that can be traced directly back to the Lucy poems as a series). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh yes! I read this but the way it is written is quite strange, isn't it? So Mary Shelley is the only literary influence that didn't mock? Please rewrite this paragraph. If not this article shall remain a parody. :-) Vb (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What exactly is "strange" about it? And Mary Shelley was the only one to produce works of notable quality that can be directly traced to the series as a whole and is not a parody. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I don't know anything about these poems. I just looked at the reason why they are famous, i.e. what are their literary influences. I read from this article that their major influences are parodies. The authors cannot find any other influences which is not a mockery but Mary Shelley. I think this paragraph is much too negative. Please cite first positive influence and then parodies or make a section exclusively about parodies. Vb 11:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.249.9 (talk) [reply]

• Fame is rarely derived from influences on other literature. Fame is mostly derived from critical reception and interpretation. Their fame is from the critics that have used it to examine aspects of Wordsworth's life, mental state, and his poetic development. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal I am no Wordsworth expert, but I do know something about this period of literature and I have successfully copyedited FACs in the past. I would like to help out here, but this bloodbath is scaring me. What would everyone say to taking a few days off from the article and returning on the weekend? We have several excellent editors here and it would be better if we could all work together rather than attack each other. These poems are beautiful and important - they deserve our best efforts. Awadewit (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. We need to step back a little, and relax a bit. Ceoil (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, this has been mentioned on the FAC talk page, but just to be clear, we mean only parking the above discussion for a while to let it cool down. We'll still be working away, and looking forward to repsonding to Fowler by the weekend or so. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, too many words. I'm afraid I have to agree with Fowler and Fowler about the stiff prose of the lede that fails to "reel in" the reader and waken his/her interest. That still fails to waken it, in the present revised state of the opening paragraphs. There are too many words. Some examples of infelicities, in the lede alone, that struck me:

1. "A significant milestone"-->"A milestone" (the significance is what makes it a milestone).
2. "the deceased heroine"; I suggest "the dead Lucy"—with some hesitation—but "deceased", seriously... please, give us anything but that bathos.
3. "only claimed to be refining" is frankly a misstatement. Try "claimed to be only refining".
4. noticeable thematic shifts are evident. Yes, they would be.. that's a tautology. Please pick either noticeable or evident.
5. "Only after Wordsworth's death in 1850 did Victorian publishers and critics establish a final organization of the poems as a fixed group, leading subsequent anthologies to present the verses as such." Words, words, words... How about "Only after Wordsworth's death in 1850 did publishers and critics start to treat the poems as a fixed series, and since then anthologies have presented them as a group"?
6. "Generally reticent to comment on the poems"— not correct English. How about "Generally reticent about the poems"?

These comments are only examples from the lede (after it's been revised on FAC, yet). I'm afraid the entire article needs a thorough copyedit, especially for conciseness, and at this point I must oppose. I'm sorry if I've repeated a lot of stuff from higher up, but after glancing through the thread, I just can't stand reading the whole of it, especially not Ottava Rima's Monty Python routine (I didn't come here for an argument/Yes, you did). Bishonen | talk 00:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thats fine -understandable- but thanks for commenting anyway. The is another major copy edit going, we are combing the article from similar problems outlined above. Ceoil (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dead Lucy? That really sounds better? :) By the way, Bishonen, many of those lines have been changed four or five times today, so I don't even know what version you are seeing anymore. From my last count, there were 6 different people editing the lead as of late, and, of course, everyone has their opinion on what sounds best. This is why I don't like style based concerns. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"is frankly a misstatement." As pointed out above. "only claimed" means that he made one claim. "claimed only" means that any number of claims could exist but this one only said one thing. "only claimed" is the only acceptable phrase based on the logic of the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Have read only the lead so far. It looks quite good. Some suggestions for improvement:

• The name of the article is The Lucy poems (without double-quotes) but the lead starts out 'The "Lucy" poems' (with double-quotes). The reliable sources I found with a quick search (e.g., Hartman 1966, Matlak 1978, Ferguson 1973) tend to just say "the Lucy poems", though some other sources do say "the 'Lucy' poems" or even "the Lucy-poems". Also, the leading article "The" should not be part of the article name, for the same reason that the Iliad is covered in Iliad, not in The Iliad (which is just a redirect). Wikipedia article names are best done without punctuation, and since many reliable sources also seem to prefer that, I suggest renaming the article to Lucy poems, beginning the lead with 'The Lucy poems', and consistently say just 'the Lucy poems' thereafter.

Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead image is way too dark. I suggest this alternative photo of the same painting (this photo is also from Cornell[2]).
• 'claimed to be only refining his development from a mimetic to an expressive form of representation' Whew! That's a lot of high-lit jargon, and the wikilink to Mimesis won't help the newbie reader much (that article says that mimesis "carries a wide range of meanings", so which one are we talking about here?). I'd either translate this into simple English, or remove it.
• The lead caption is too long and is a bit forbidding and has some wording problems:

• As far as I know, the painting is untitled and so its description shouldn't be in italics.

Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to wikilink to William Wordsworth, or to even say "William".

Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ', Cornell University, Ithaca, New York' The minor detail of the painting's permanent location need not be in the lead caption.
• 'and dates from when the poet was 28 years old, the same year that he' is worded infelicitously.

Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 'the poems later known as the "Lucy" series'. Again, too much wording. Just call them the Lucy poems.

Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about this rewording of the caption?: "Wordsworth in 1798, the year he wrote the first draft of the Lucy poems." Or maybe you can think of something even punchier and more intriguing.

Shortened. Ceoil (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead uses British spelling ('idealisation') but American-style quoting ('"Lucy"'). I suggest sticking with British style uniformly, as the subject's British.

Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. Eubulides (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time. Need to consider you suggestion of changing the article title. For now though your other suggestions were positive. Ceoil (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input..Actually I wrote this caption - William Shuter, Portrait of William Wordsworth, 1798, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York per the VA projects correct MoS for painting captions - Artist, title (description), date, collection.....As to the rest of the captions I unlinked redundant title links; and will leave the rest to the authors of the article..Modernist (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this were an article about art, the full painting caption would be required. But it's an article about poetry. I don't know what "the VA projects correct MoS" is, but surely it covers articles about art, not articles about poetry. To take one WP:FA example, it's perfectly reasonable that Daylight saving time's caption for Image:Franklin-Benjamin-LOC.jpg says only "Benjamin Franklin suggested firing cannons at sunrise to waken Parisians" and it is neither necessary nor reasonable for that caption to add anything like "Engraving: H. B. Hall from the original picture in Passel painted from life by J.A. Duplessis in 1783, and now (1868) in the possession of John Bigelow Esq." Readers of Daylight saving time shouldn't have to wade through irrelevant information about Duplessis, and readers of The Lucy poems shouldn't have to wade through irrelevant information about Shuter. Eubulides (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image appears to be more red. Is it the same portrait? I haven't seen the actual one, and my copies tend to be black and white so I cannot verify which is more accurate. Do you have any information on that version? Also, mimetic should mean just a standard reflection of life. The idea would go back to M. H. Abrams Mirror and the Lamp. The mirror (mimetic) reflects life where the lamp guides people forward. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is the same portrait. There's only one 1798 portrait at Cornell. Our goal in this article is not to reproduce the portrait accurately; it is to illustrate the Lucy poet accurately, and (unless we're trying to suggest that Wordsworth wrote the Lucy poems in the dark) the lighter-colored photo more accurately depicts the Lucy poet. If you look around the Internet, lighter-colored and cropped versions also appear in Bowdoin[3], Today in Literature[4], and answers.com[5]. Only Wikipedia seems to be using the too-dark image when talking about poetry.
• Thanks for explaining "mimetic", but I'm afraid the explanation here won't help the typical Wikipedia reader there. How about replacing "from a mimetic to an expressive form of representation" with "from mirroring to expressing life"? That's shorter, sweeter, and less abstruse.

Eubulides (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• At the risk of using too many words, I changed the phrase to "from mirroring to expressing aspects of life". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, the Wikipedia image is closer to the original image in that it (likely) doesn't distort the saturation level of red. In other words, my guess is that the other image has been processed and both its saturation level of the red/orange bands and its brightness have been bumped up. If you want something brighter, but not color-distorted, I can easily produce such an image. Give me a few minutes. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be nice, thanks. Also, it should be cropped; that's standard in situations like this. Eubulides (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two images. It turns out that the original is not a perfect rectangle perhaps a result of some distortion (some uneven stretching or shrinking if it hadn't been framed for an extensive period (?)), or maybe the camera viewing angle was not the best. Anyway, I've also created a very slightly cropped version. If you want it cropped more, let me know. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great work F&f, no more copping please. I was gonna say something about no cropping, I'm gonna use the second lighter version...ty...Modernist (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good..better than the red ones...Modernist (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks for that. I see Modernist has added the lighter version.[6]. Looks well! Ceoil (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very welcome. Wonder how long he sat for that. It shows though that artists (at least some) were faithful to what they saw: smile lines and slightly thinning hair up top is shown even on a 28 year old. Also, conventions for portrait view-points (turning the torso to one side and then looking ahead) had been set long before the camera age. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the Napoleonic chest hold....couldn't see that in the darker version...Modernist (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This is way better than all the other online versions of this painting I've seen. Very cool. Thanks, F&f. Eubulides (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ottava Rima first noticed the color imbalance in the other versions. He deserves our thanks too. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks needed, really. My first role here is as another reviewer. Although I am listed on the nomination, I haven't had a direct role in the page for many months, and the page has changed a lot from the original userspace version that I worked on. If anyone was curious, the last time I had a major part was since here. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Is there a reason why the references are not in the Harvard/Cite format and the citations not in the ((Harvnb|...)) format? It is a bit of a pain for the authors, but once done, it not only helps the readers immensely, but can also be used by the authors in other Wordsworth articles, of which, hopefully, there will be many. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to help out with this, if there is demand. See, for example, History of Mysore and Coorg, 1565–1760 (section 1 onwards). Clicking on the footnote takes you to the citation with page number as it usually does, but then clicking on the citation, takes you to the reference (which is also highlighted in blue), and there, if an isbn number or link is provided, the text in the cited book can often be read. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our strong preference is to leave the cites as they are, I don't think templates are a requirment. Thanks anyway....Ceoil (talk) 19:45, 11 March 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.