Talk:An Apology for Poetry

Page creation

I created this page from info at Sidney's article, because this huge block of text was only about this work. I chose the name I was most familiar with. If you think the page should be moved, let's talk about it. —Scouter Sig 14:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A concise summary of what was removed should remain at Sir Philip Sidney, not to cannibalize that article. A Main article hatnote at the sub-section would guide the reader here for the fuller account. --Wetman (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topic sentences

If an existing sentence were moved to the head of each paragraph, or a new one devised, summarizing the contents of the paragraph, then the scattered material, some of it repetitive, would easily marshal itself, topic by topic. I have made some lesser tweaks and links. --Wetman (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incoherence

The introduction says it was written in 1581, then says it was written "before 1583". Which is it? 142.68.218.183 (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norton anthology of criticism has it listed as 1580-81. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.55.93 (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not very clear

A lot of this is only understandable by students of literature (and not all of them; parts of it seem infested with assumptions derived from New Historicism). Surely the goal of an encyclopedia is to present information to the general reader in a way that is understandable. The discussion under "Influence" is often cryptic and telegraphic, and assumes a familiarity with many many concepts and arguments that are, for the hypothetical general reader, likely to be quite obscure, their significance unknown. Under "Significance," the discussions are even more obscure, and seem to be used mostly to present, as I said, New Historicist notions, that is, it presents a single interpretation of the text, something which is more appropriate in a scholarly article, not an encyclopedia article. "Sydney's Method" is even worse: it doesn't say anything about who or what might be doing the censoring of Sydney's text, and reads in fact, like an excerpt from an undergraduate essay, again, particularlized interpretation, not acknowledged fact. In short, the article is a mess, and badly needs pruning and cleaning up. Theonemacduff (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on An Apology for Poetry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516000249/http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/defence.html to http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/defence.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/yskretz/sidneypask.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]