Wikipedia:Featured article review/H.D./archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Raul654 22:49, 14 December 2008 [1].

H.D.

Review commentary

Notified Paul August, Hoary. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

A Filiocht from 2004. I'm nominating the article as it is listed on Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles and will have to undergo the re-review process at some stage, and I want that to happen at a time when I am available to respond. I worked on this this time last year, and been meaning to get back to it since. Comments and suggestions welcome; and yes the lead needs to be expanded. I'll notify Paul August and Hoary, I might leave Filiocht's talk in peace. Ottava might be helpful here in a providing a detailed review (hint hint). Ceoil ^sláinte 22:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is, erm, not so close to any of my areas of interest or knowledge; several kilometres removed, indeed. (Anything beyond a mere mention of Pound or Freud tends to make me nod off.) I've read it and made a number of little changes of the kind that are particularly easy to make, but somebody is going to have to print it out, look at the whole picture, and red-ballpoint some shunting around of paragraphs. And some chunks need a lot of (well-informed) work, e.g. the stuff about which work is based on which classical work. -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images Image:Aldington.jpg: no proof that the image was published prior to 1923; missing author details. If it's anonymous and published after 1923 with copyright, then it will still be in copyright until 95 years after first publication. Similar problems with Image:Hdpoet.jpg (which I have already raised at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Modernist poetry in English/archive1): source appears to have been taken down, and the domain name lapsed. No evidence that it is public domain. Appears to have been scanned from a book, as the lines of text are visible through the image; no detail on publication date (likely to be after 1923, since H.D. did not become famous until after then) or on photographer's date of death. DrKiernan (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lead (2a) and general cleanup. Marskell (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Agree with points raised by Marskell (talk · contribs), in addition there are Referencing issues and the image issues raised by DrKiernan (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be an enormous pity for something to be delisted for such minor concerns, so I decided to try to look up the image; the most pressing concern. According to this, it was taken by Jennifer Benavidez, but I can't find anything on her. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Work still needed Who removed that nice infobox? ... Ceoil, are you still working on this? I see you and Hoary have done a great job on specifying exact concerns on the article page itself. On the image issue, my concerns are not addressed to my satisfaction; I think Benavidez was a modern day Doolittle-enthusiast who used to have a web site praising Doolittle at the University of Texas at Austin, since taken down (possibly once at: http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~slatin/20c_poetry/projects/lives/; I don't know how to search the web archive). DrKiernan (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still intended to finish this, so hold please. DrKiernan I agree re the images, first priority is to address. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Any update on this? Joelito (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 days and I'll finish up. Ceoil (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, that's an Irish three days? DrKiernan (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, very droll DrKiernan, although to be fair right on the money. I suppose I should have stipulated that I didn't mean 'day' in the usual sence. Anyway, I've stripped the article of all but the lead image, which I intend to claim under FU - as soon as I figure out how. Remaining tasks are responding to inline cmts by Hoary + a third lead para, and I'm working through those now. Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 3rd lead para added; one or two of Hoarys cmts left to respont to. Ceoil (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done. Ceoil (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no explanation of why she is referred as simply "H.D.". --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's explained with this sentence: "During a meeting with H.D. in the British Museum tea room that year, Pound appended the signature H.D. Imagiste to her poetry, creating a label that was to stick to the poet for most of her writing life." Perhaps it would be easier to not refer to her as "H.D." before this is explained, however? María (habla conmigo) 18:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm still not too happy with it. There seems to be some repetition of points, e.g. "HERmione...dealing with the conflict between heterosexual and lesbian desire....closeness to H.D.'s own life"; "H.D. completed...HERmione, based on the pull between lesbian and heterosexual love in her own life", and "she believed that the onslaught of the war indirectly caused the death of her child with Aldington: she believed it was her shock at hearing the news about the RMS Lusitania that directly caused her miscarriage." There are parts where it is unclear who believes what—or to put it more specifically, it is unclear whether the views expressed are widely accepted or fringe theories. These parts would be better expressed as quotes from acknowledged experts, or referenced to general works rather than minor academic journals.

I now regret not spending more time on this article, as I think it deserves (as Ceoil first requested) a proper review by an expert, which I am not. DrKiernan (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards support, but some comments:

"Imagism as a movement was launched with H.D. as its prime exponent." Shouldn't this be cited?
"All of her poetry up to the end of the 1930s was written in an Imagist mode, with a spare use of language, a rhetorical structure based on analogy rather than simile, metaphor or symbolism and a classical purity of surface that can often mask an underlying dramatic energy.[citation needed]" This cneeded stuff should be fixed.

This was from a very early draft. Now pared down. Ceoil (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Gilbert was killed in action. H.D. moved in with Cecil Gray, a friend of Lawrence's. She became pregnant with..." Maybe a bit choppy. And for the reader this information for her affair with Gray (who is he? How did the affair occurred?) comes a bit briskly.--

reworded and expanded (not by me). Ceoil (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for this to be Held. All of the above comments follow a common thread: the article is muddy. I think I need to do deeper research, find better, more widely accepted sources, better untwine the timeline in places, and generally bring more light into the facts of her life, career and influence. To properly achieve this will take to until early January. I realsie this is beyond the usual time allowed, but the more I read up on her, the more I think the page has the potential to be a fine example of a lit or biography FA. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is close enough to our standards. IMO, let Ceoil continue to work on this at his own pace. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.