O Captain! My Captain!

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

Just got this article to GA and, with the exception of a few things, I think it's pretty much comprehensive. I'd appreciate comments with an eye towards a featured article nomination. I have no experience writing poem articles before this, so I may have completely missed the mark here. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from Template:FAC peer review sidebar. If FA regulars have to do all the maintenance, they may stop following that very useful sidebar :) And please add the sidebar to your userpage so you can help out at Peer review! Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

Hi Gog, thanks for your willingness to look over this. Yes, I’d appreciate if you pointed them out. If it’s hard to understand for anyone, it can certainly be phrased better regardless of AmEng or what have you. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie, I am proposing to copy edit it, rather than laboriously explain each proposed change and leave it for you to do. But feel entirely free to ask for an explanation of anything you don't understand or to revert anything you disagree with. There will, still, I reckon, be some more standard suggestions, although bear in mind that I know nothing about what an article on a poem should include or how it should be structured. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping me then when you are finished, so I don't get in your way. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that works for me- I'm still trying to figure out what a poem article should look like as well. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, source says 1860.
  • Uh, cut to 'they never met', but 'they were never introduced' suggests that they could have met without being introduced and 'never spoke to each other' isn't directly supported in the source,though it wouldn't be much of a stretch if you want to go to that.
  • replaced with direct quotes, "striking appearance" and "unpretentious dignity", source doesn't elaborate any more. I'd like to write a broad-concept article on Lincoln and Whitman which would go into more detail.
  • Vendler writes "Though we do not know, factually, that "O Captain" was composed before "Lilacs," it seems to me that the sailor-boy's dirge must have been the direct response of the poet to the collective call in "Hush'd be the camps."", so ... maybe? I think the idea that Lilacs is considered to be more Whitman himself speaking whereas My Captain was intended to reflect the nation's conscience by coming from the point of view of a "sailor-boy" ... Eddie891 Talk Work 21:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Initially, I struggled to find the publication date directly sourced (A few actually make the mistake of placing first publication in Sequel to Drum-Taps), so the first indication of the date I had was simply 'two weeks before it closed'. I think it's interesting/significant that the publication that first published a major American poem closed shortly after, but have converted to a note, to eliminate the awkward phrasing as well as the question of direct relevance. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fascinatingly, I don't know. Most sources agree upon 1865, with many specifying in the fall. Some state 1866, but they are in the minority so it's safe to discount that. Kummings is pretty clear that publication in The Saturday Press came before Sequel, and the Whitman encyclopedia agrees, yet this suggests Sequel was published in October (before November, if memory serves). this suggests publication in early October. This suggests, however, that it was not ready for distribution until December. Therefore, My OR guess is that Sequel was published in October but copies weren't really sold or widely distributed until December, and the date of 4 November in the Saturday Press is much more convenient for sources than a range of several months. Similarly, we have no idea when Whitman actually wrote the poem itself, it could have been any time from Drum-Taps to Sequel, which is several months. As a result of this long-winded but inconclusive explanation, I thought it better to leave out any specifics. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could add exactly this minus the OR to a footnote if you want (Along the notes "Although Sequel was published in early October, it was not ready for distribution until december") Eddie891 Talk Work 23:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IMO if something along these lines is not added it is difficult to see how the article would be "complete".
Added
  • Cut the whole bit about Harpur and Swinton, though I'm sad to see it go-- it is pretty vague and not really helpful. Preserving on talk page. The full context of Whitman's conversation is almost better, Traubel presented Whitman with a newspaper saying "If Walt Whitman had written a volume of My Captains instead of filling a scrapbasket with waste and calling it a book the world would be better off today and Walt Whitman would have some excuse for living". Please don't tell me I'll have to cut that too! Eddie891 Talk Work 23:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to clarify a bit. The allusion is that he might have actually liked it but been annoyed that it was this poem which became popular, but I cannot get a RS to explicitly state it.
I'm not sure that the text can stand that level of subtlty. It looks fine now, but, optionally, replace "a different poem" with something like "a poem more typical of his work but less popular".
I don't think that's explicitly in the source
  • Combined into one para
  • Yeah, I would pull the "that wasn't me!" card, but it was...
  • 3. I cut it. In retrospect, Kummings is spectacularly vague on whether he means to be talking about the poem being one of Whitman's most famous 'ever', as his phrasing suggests, or 'when it was published', as the context surrounding the section suggests.
  • removed Williams's pic, cut to one lengthy paragraph. I'd argue against losing much more on the reference (as much as I hate popular culture sections on the whole), because I think a lot of the poem's attention has come from that scene.
  • Ode doesn't really help so removed. It definitely is an elegy, but I'm not finding any great RS's for it, so cut. It's not like the reader loses much from that because they can get the gist without knowing it's an elegy.
  • To be honest, looking at vendler, I don't really understand what's being said at all. Can you help me here?
I can see what they are saying, but intelligibly paraphrasing it is going to be the devil. You got any other descriptions of its poetic structure?
Epstein writes that it's in nine quatrains? Eddie891 Talk Work 02:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I wrote this without direct reference to Epstein, but it seems to all be citable. What do you thinK?

It is written in nine quatrains, organised in three stanzas. Each stanza has two quatrains of four seven-beat lines, followed by a four line refrain, which changes slightly from stanza to stanza, in a tetrameter / trimeter ballad beat.

  • Not needed, cut
  • Done
  • I added dates and descriptions, my thinking previously was that they have wikilinks so the reader would be able to click on them for context, but you're right that it makes sense to havea brief qualifier. My thinking in grouping them is that all are about the structure if you look at the structure in its absolute broadest possible sense, i.e. Why and how Whitman wrote the poem and how and why it looks like it does. For instance, Gailey adds qualification to why Whitman might have consciously chosen to adopt a more standard structure, and Winwar presents a contrasting view, suggesting that he encapsulates the heart of the folk. I thought their analysis was useful and couldn't think of anywhere better to put it.
It's good stuff. "Structure" is the stanza stuff etc. I would move this up to under "Analysis".
  • Epstein doesn't specify and I don't have access to Whitman's letter, unfortunately.
  • It's quoting from the poem, how do you suggest attribution?
My fault. I meant attribute "The poem utilizes elements of war journalism". Unless there is a clear scholarly consensus, which I assume there isn't.
Ah, it was Vendler.

That's it from me on a quick first skim. See what you make of my thoughts and I look forward to meeting this again at FAC.

SandyGeorgia I'm done. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie, I'll look in after you have finished processing the Milder Gog :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of swift responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, a lot Gog. I think I've responded to all your comments, a couple more queries. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Have I responded to all of your queries? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yup Eddie891 Talk Work 18:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia

  • Done
  • Done
Fixed
Fixed

Eddie, I am going to stop here for now and give you a blunt recommendation. My prose is not stellar, but MilHist editors working on a poetry article could benefit by bringing in a literary type. This is one of my favorite poems, but the article is just not soaring as a poem article should; the writing is plodding along factually like a military article :) :) Many of the editors I would normally recommend to look in here are either no longer with us, or may be too busy, or are not from the U.S. But ... @Victoriaearle, Ceoil, and Kafka Liz: If none of them are interested, perhaps a post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry would help you locate a literary contributor. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can fix the minor phrasing issues, I can rephrase sentences, but at the end of the day my prose isn't really that great. It's dull and it plods along, and I'm just rather boring, I'm afraid. I'd love suggestions on how to improve it, but if nobody can get around to it maybe this is the end of the road for this article. And I'm OK with that, I suppose. Cheers and thanks for all the time you've spent (hopefully you don't consider it wasted), Eddie891 Talk Work 18:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That describes me, too ... and my prose works for the medical articles I write, and yours/Gog's work the MILHIST articles you write. I hope it's not the end of the road. If no one else picks this up, I will do what I can to help, but we may amount to the blind leading the blind :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another idea ... Harrias has quite fine prose; perhaps we can drag them in here! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"quite fine prose", high praise indeed! I can't make any promises, but I'll try and take a look later this week. It is unlikely to be the next couple of days though, as I am over-committing myself in more or less every aspect of life! Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me have a look tomorrow ... adding to my ToDo list! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eddie, sorry for the delay ... starting in now ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Victoriaearle: Thanks for this comment, I could rearrange the 'structure' under 'analysis' to 'style', which might answer Gog's comment above about some stuff not really fitting in, and then the rest of the section could go under 'themes'? Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eddie891, the best thing to do is to play around with it and see where it gets you. What's important though is that Whitman's style is distinctive, which I'd assume would be addressed in the sources. Same goes for themes. Victoria (tk) 02:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SG continued

Please revert anything I mess up. And take my prose recommendations with the grain of salt, as my prose isn't great ... just trying to help out ...

Went with that minus "a collection"

OK, that's a lot (hopefully some bits useful), but overall, this article is in considerably better shape than when I first read it a month ago. You could take one of three routes next: launch at FAC to see what happens (maybe a literary type will engage, we seem to have lost most of them); submit it to GOCE in the hopes that a literary person will engage there, or post to the Poetry Wikiproject to see if someone will engage. Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

I will make comments as they occur to me and edit hands on as well.

Thank you so much for taking a look! Eddie891 Talk Work 02:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might say more about Whitman's work in the hospitals in the Civil War, how he wrote letters for illiterate or previously wounded soldiers and to families of dead soldiers (if I recall correctly). His wartime experiences might be worth more attention in the lead.
Yeah, I've gotten a copy of Now the Drum of War: Walt Whitman and His Brothers in the Civil War. I'll look to add smth soon. However, I'd like to write a broader-concept article on Whitman and Lincoln at some point that could go into more detail. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would concur with Sandy that the mentions of George feel out of order.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He usually ended or began the lectures by reciting "My Captain", even as his growing prominence meant he could have read a different poem, such as "When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Gently Bloom'd"." I'm not quite sure what this means. Presumably there was an audience expectation that he recite OCMC (to shorthand it), which I imagine was more popular than the others.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The implication in sourcing is that Whitman may not have been entirely honest when saying things like ""Damn My Captain [. . .] I'm almost sorry I ever wrote the poem"," because he chose to read it at these lectures even when he was distinguished to the point where he could have gotten away without reading it-- whatever the audience expectation may have been. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during the 1900s." Perhaps "during the first decade of the 20th century" to avoid ambiguity.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually Epstein is referring to the whole of the 20th century. Clarified. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not clear as to why some of the quotes are in the reaction section as opposed to style, and vice versa.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to split them into 'broader analysis' under 'reception' and 'specifically about structure and feel' in 'style', but admittedly there isn't a great dividing line here. For instance, while Coyle calls the poem in general Whitman's "least charectaristic" and Williams considers it a "truly awful piece of near doggerel triteness" (So I put those two in reception), Epstein is specifically referring to the poems "meter and rhyme" when he says it is "uncharacteristically mechanical, formulaic" (so I put it in reception). Then I lumped a paragraph of speculation as to why Whitman wrote the poem in such a traditional style into 'style' as well, which is why I put quotes about its "sing-song" quality and the like there. However, you aren't the first person to question this, so if my explanation doesn't make sense, please do tell me. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the second stanza, Lincoln has become America's "dear father" as his death is revealed ("fallen cold and dead").[52] " Perhaps start, "By the end of the first stanza"--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll get back to this as soon as I can.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would reverse the second and third sentences of the lead's first paragraph. The success of the poem is more important to this subject than the other poems Whitman wrote.
  • If WW worked for the government, why did he need to travel from NYC to DC to take care of his brother?
  • I just cut the second mention of George (at the battle of Fredricksburg, it's not entirely relevant and more confusing an anything it seems. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New York Times News Service check capitalization and italicization.
  • I think it's right? It's at least the capitalization and italicization the article I cite uses Eddie891 Talk Work 00:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some hands-on changes, feel free to revert.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me Eddie891 Talk Work 00:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other thing I'd like to say is that the grouping of the various comments re the poem in the Analysis section seems a bit random and unorganized. Perhaps it could be clearer why comments are where they are.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Wehwalt, thanks so much for taking a look at this. I just reorganized the grouping of the comments under 'style' in a way that seems to have more logic (at least to my mind). Is that any better? Eddie891 Talk Work 03:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I like it better.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment(s?) from Aza24

I may take a while to come back here for further comments so I'll probably catch this at FAC later. Just glancing at it though, I'm not a huge fan of having an "Analysis" heading – it just seems to do little more than result in an unnecessary three layer sectioning. I would reckon that "Style" and "Theme" are more than independent enough to not be grouped together. Just a thought, not a huge deal of course. Aza24 (talk) 08:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Aza24. Done. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Category