Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:11, 17 September 2009

Ode on Indolence

Nominator(s):Ottava Rima, Mrathel (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Ode on Indolence/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets all the criteria, or can do so with a little work. The page gives a great discussion of the poem from various sources and has been the product of several hours of work by a group of editors.Mrathel (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to add a note - this poem is almost the opposite of "To Autumn". It was not universally praise, and not even that well known. It has been neglected. So, don't expect a lot of information about critical response, themes, or the rest. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• I'm assuming that current ref 10 (Letter to Sarah Jeffrey..) is from the Siike collection? Probably should indicate that to be precise.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I attributed it as a quote from Colvin (it is quoted in most of the biographies, but that was the quickest to find) so I wouldn't have to clutter up the ref list with yet another reference note. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments

• Note 33 is just "pp. 78-79".
• Wu and Houghton in sources but not quoted in paper (this is acceptable to many folks, and is probably acceptable at FAC, but every time I submit papers to peer-reviewed journals, they always mention this).
• Many of those critics/biographers (as well as Charles Armitage Brown) seem to have heir own articles. Do you want to wikilink them?
• Read this sentence twice: "Sidney Colvin, in his 1917 biography, ranked grouped "Ode on Indolence" with the other 1819 odes as examples of short poems that made up Keats's achievement as a poem." What does "ranked grouped" mean? Should that be "achievements as a poet?
• Is "despite that Keats wrote" a Britishism? I would be forced to say "despite the fact that Keats wrote".
• I'm not keen on the wording of "a concept of reconciling thought and sensation as with other opposite pairs" as an explanation of negative capability.
• I altered an awkward section of wording that referred to the images as discussed in stanzas two and three... then looked at the poem on Wikisource. I'm not sure that the second and third stanzas are the correct ones... ?
• The articles gives line 14 as the location of "why did ye not melt", ("why they did not melt in line 14") but I see it later than that in the Wikisource version...?
• "has been considered by various critics to have been "... is this a paraphrase, or are we missing some quotation marks?
• Can "Keats was not satisfied" be sourced to Bates p. 528 (which is the nearest subsequent ref)? Don't make me slap a {{fact}} tag on you!
• Is there a date for the Aske source?
• What makes the "Yoon, Myung Ok" source reliable?
• Erm, now that I'm looking, I don't think anything can be cited to Yoon. Bush should be cited to Bush, and that looks suspiciously like a direct quote of Yoon; is it a quote of Yoon quoting Bush? PLus I can't find the "shares structural elements" bit, but the durn thing isn't searchable.. where is that bit?
• "Soul making" is left unexplained. I found a nice letter excerpt here. I'm not saying you should use that source. I'm saying the idea should be explained, at the very least through a footnote.. which might in turn quote that excerpt.. as you see fit...
• Did we ever decide whether or not ISBNs are required?
• one source has the date in parentheses; not sure why.
• Does Romantic poetry need to be mentioned/wikilinked elsewhere? Ling.Nut (
• "Thompson's Castle of Indolence". Oh, some people get positively bent out of shape if you wikilink inside a direct quote.. needlessly, IMverystrongO. But i think it is a disservice to name-drop poor Thompson without a blue link, and the same is true (to a lesser degree) of the poem...
• "state of being" is vague. Find a better phrase?
• "Poesy alone is the narrator unable to dismiss" Is that whole section of sentences sourceable to Bates, again? I read the poem, and I do not see Keats as having been unable to dismiss Poesy. They are all dismissed. None linger. Unless I am dense. Which is possible.
• I added a couple blockquotes; some of the other direct quotes look arguably blockquotable as well. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• I see Mrathel fixing the Yoon thing, but I'm thinking that journal may be a non-peer reviewed journal from a Korean university. Any takers on finding out? Ling.Nut (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• I believe, since my computer will not install all proper language packs needed to fully utilize the website, that this is the website for the English Language and Literature Association of Korea, which publishes the journal. From a glance, it appears peer reviewed and academic...but since little information currently in the article comes from the Yoon source, I am not going to grab at straws to keep it in the article. Mrathel (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Reply
• Tried to add links to critics and figures who have own pages
• Attempted to make the Colvin position clearer, though I do need to go back and reread to make sure I am not improperly clarifying.
• I would also say "despite the fact" and have changed the text.
• I believe the melt line comes from line 19; that is if the epigraph doesn't count as a line and my counting is as good as I hope it is.
• Not sure about ISBN's; would be happy to add all of them if necessary.
• Yoon, as far as I could see when I came across the article, was a credible Korean poet and critic (though I admit I do not know much about her); I added the information of the Journal in which the article appeared. As for whether or not anything can be sourced with the ref, I will have to pay close attention; she does make her own points based upon what Bush and Vendler say, though I will have to look how it was added and edited to see if any of her take on their opinions made it into the article.
• I know nothing of "Soul Making" and will have to leave that explanation to Ottava
• The blockquotes can go either way when they are around 2-3 lines of text; I tend to let the most vocal win that argument.
• There should be a way to link to Thompson and his poem outside of the direct quote... perhaps following it. Will take a look.
• Keats's ability to dismiss Poesy will have to be taken up with the Bate text, which I do not currently possess.
• Thank you for reading so thoroughly Mrathel (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(Adding to Mrathel's response) 1. Fixed the ref without a name (thankfully, it was a direct quote with attribution before, so it was easy to find). 2. Wu was quoted but I put in someone else in its place (he is just a primary text with a few footnotes). Houghton was dropped during a rewrite I believe. Both entries are removed now. 3. The only one I saw unlinked was Walter Jackson Bate - am I missing something? Or do you mean in the ref list also (they are linked in the body). 4. "ranked grouped" was fixed along with the rest (a stray word, I guess). 5. Mrathel added "despite the fact", but that is a colloquialism that is a little off in the sentence. I reworded it again to "even though Keats claimed in a letter". 6. The source literally says: "Striving to reconcile opposites, to balance 'thought' with 'senasation', and to explore the relationship between art's power of consolation and life's unavoidable hardships...." (p. 405) How would you want to reword the sentence while staying true to it? 7. "to the images" Images is another word for figure, persons, beings, etc. (i.e. line 35 "The first was a fair Maid, and Love her name"). 8. I assume someone changed this as I cannot find it. 9. Paraphrase. He lists various critics and their views. 10. Done, I believe. 11. Done. 12. Yoon is reliable because it was published and it quotes its sources directly (plus, there is nothing controversial). Many universities also seem to have subscriptions and use it. It has been around since 1955 (which makes it notable if not "reliable"). However, looking back, the information is said by Yoon to come from Vendler. Vendler places it before "Grecian Urn". The work is on Douglas p. 148 (Yoon's second cite), so someone probably corrected Yoon already. 13. I think Mrathel handled soul making. I haven't checked on what was added. 14. I'll add ISBN later regardless. 15. I think this was changed. However, I moved the year for the Yoon to the back and added parenthesis per it being a work in a journal. 16. I don't know. It was published later so it wouldn't have any necessary encyclopedic value within the body of the text. Plus, "Romantic poetry" is more of a term to throw in when more wikilinks are needed than anything else. :) 17. I try not to touch things within quotes. Ask Sandy or WT:FAC and find out what people think. 18. I assume "state of being" just implies that Keats feels Indolent based on the title right there. Would "idleness" or "laziness" be better? 19. From Bate (527–528) - "When he recognizes the figures, the poet really wishes to follow them. It is only because he cannot do so that he ends by dismissing them Before Poesy he is really helpless: he is too committed to be able to find any effective reason at all for even pretending to dismiss it. He is certaintly not prepared to reduce it, like ambition, to a mere 'short fever-fit.' He can only give it a general 'no' (immediately followed by a qualification, 'at least for me') ...." 20. I would be weary about the blockquoting. MoS says only to have blockquotes on 4 or more lines -on- wiki (not in the edit box). The blockquote that was added for the letter in "Themes" fails the MoS standard as with both in "Critical responses". Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• I'm assuming that current ref 10 (Letter to Sarah Jeffrey..) is from the Siike collection? Probably should indicate that to be precise.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I attributed it as a quote from Colvin (it is quoted in most of the biographies, but that was the quickest to find) so I wouldn't have to clutter up the ref list with yet another reference note. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Why "British" rather than more precise "English"?
• is a poem written by the poet do you need written?
• despite that Keats wrote reads oddly, and possibly ungrammatical
• along with perhaps as well as is more precise?
• worked as a surgeon for Guy's Hospital in Southwark, London, for which he was not well-paid. perhaps worked as a poorly paid surgeon...?
• However, he did enjoy the process "However" looks like padding, also elsewhere in this article. Since "enjoy" is repeated in the quotation, why not a bit of elegant variation such as "derived pleasure from"?
• epigraph is a dab
• I'd prefer 0.4 to .4
• ''leading him to ask the figures whey they did not melt in line 14 reads oddly
• narrator unable to dismiss is he is missing?

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Keats was both English and British, and I don't care which is used. If someone feels strongly, they can (and probably will) change it. 2. I believe this was rewritten. 3. "along with" has a stronger rhetorical connection between terms than "as well as". Also, "as well as" would imply that "Indolence" is also "Melancholy", "Urn", etc, as the "as well as" would follow the "is". (see: "the boy is good as well as bad" as an example). 4. Done. 5. I had to rewrite the previous sentence and the rest to accommodate the removal of "however". You can see the changes here. 6. Done. 7. Changed to "which provokes him to ask the figures why they did not disappear". Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. The two images need alt text as per WP:ALT. A sentence or two each should be enough. Eubulides (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

*cough* The images have had alts for a while. :P I beat you by 6 days. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I see the problem now. I was looking at what got sent to the user's browser, not the Wiki markup. Wiki markup requires a lower-case "a" in "|alt=". The capitalization caused the alt text to be ignored. I fixed that. The alt text is very good, thanks. In the next article you write, it's OK to write less alt text, as briefer is often better with alt text. Eubulides (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm wondering if the last paragraph in the Themes section could be rewritten or clarified a little. It says:

Regarding Keats's general philosophy, the ode is an early work discussing his concept of soul making, which Keats believed to be the method by which the individual obtains his or her soul through a form of education consisting of suffering and personal experience. Within his poems that explore this philosophy, Keats begins by questioning suffering, breaks it down, and draws conclusions about the world. The process is filled with doubt, but his poems end with a hopeful message. The hopefulness contained within "Ode on Indolence" is found within the vision he experiences in the last stanza. The poems as a whole are able to capture Keats's philosophy of negative capability, a concept of reconciling thought and sensation as with other opposite pairs, and his view on the chamber of maiden thought, the development progression of the mind. The poems fall within Keats's belief that his works should capture the beauty of art while acknowledging the harshness of life. However, the poem if read as the final poem in the sequence of the odes reveals that Keats is resigned to giving up his poetic career, and that life made it difficult for him to continue as a poet.

A few things seem unclear to someone coming to this with no prior knowledge: (a) what is hopeful about the vision he has in the last stanza? (b) what is the chamber of maiden thought? -- "development progression of the mind" is a little awkward, (c) if the poem suggests he's resigned to giving up his career as a poet, how does that sit with the hope you mention? (d) "that life made it difficult for him ..." etc -- that sentence could be rewritten a little. SlimVirgin 12:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is solved in disconnecting a poetic life from life itself. If you believe that being a poet is the only way to be successful, then the end of a poetic career would not seem hopefully. However, if, like Keats in the poem, accept that poetry is no longer everything there is, then it is possible to see hope. The hope deals with suffering - "Keats begins by questioning suffering, breaks it down, and draws conclusions about the world." Lines 51 to 54 suggest that Keats is no longer controlled by the three aspects - Love, Ambition, and Poetry. To be free from such things is like a slave attaining liberty. Now, after I've said this, is it still confusing and are there aspects of the above that you would want to be mentioned in the page to help clarify? (by the way, I made some small changes) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• For Slim Virgin's concerns - Robert Gittigs, p. 314 - "The ODe on Indolence looks forward to the explorations of his soul-making doctrine in the following odes. In each one he takes the 'World of Pains and troubles', questions it, analyses it, and resolves it in some sort of conclusion. Although the questionings are dark, the explorations full of doubt,t he general effect of the conclusion in each ode is positive and hopeful. The 'visions', to which he looked forward in the last stanza of Indolence, are, in the last resort, creative, and happy in their fulfillment." Ottava Rima (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That edit helped, thanks. Sorry if I'm being picky here, but I'm still confused. I can see what you're saying about him freeing himself from desire or ambition, and this being a form of liberty. But that doesn't seem to fit with "his view on the chamber of maiden thought, a stage in the developmental progression of the mind where an individual experiences only pleasure and is soon replaced by a truer understanding of the world." His dismissal of the three figures, and his return to indolence (laziness)—"Ye cannot raise/My head cool-bedded in the flowery grass"— suggests he's still in stage one, the need for immediate pleasure. So he has not freed himself at all. Perhaps that's the point, but if it is, it's not clear.

I'm not trying to do OR here, but as I was reading it, these issues were jumping out at me, so I'm wondering how the sources reconcile the tensions.

Also, I think the article needs to say whose idea the "chamber of maiden thought" is, because it's mentioned but not explained. SlimVirgin 16:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I wikilinked to the general page with the belief. It seems that Wiki is very inadequate on the matter, so I will fix that page to create enough of a background so that we can figure out how to best summarize the belief on the Ode page. I'll go back and see if Gittings agrees with your view and how best to explain it (I might just directly quote him on the matter). Ottava Rima (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at the Motion book, Keats, that's cited. He writes that the three figures that appeared—Love, Ambition, and Poesy—reminded Keats that indolence was a privilege of the leisured class to which he did not belong (p. 404). Keats wishes he could feel as strongly for the three figures as he does about indolence, but he cannot -- "... no, she has not a joy—/At least for me—so sweet as drowsy noons/And evenings stepped in honeyed indolence." Motion writes that the poem is a preemptive strike in case Keats ends up disappointing himself or the reader; that is, it is a warning that laziness may win. SlimVirgin 17:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I made some minor fixes, but am left with a couple of comments:
  • "'This morning I am in a sort of temper indolent and supremely careless ..." Can you check the punctuation of this whole quotation in the source? Should the ellipsis be spaced on both sides, and, should the terminal period be inside the quotation mark?
  • I have no doubt this is thoroughly researched, but you rely heavily on books. Are there no serious scholarly articles that appeared only in journals? Or nothing worth mention?

--Andy Walsh (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

3 journals are not enough for you? :) Many of the authors who are cited from their books also wrote articles (saying the same things) on the subject - Bloom, Bate, Vendler, and Sperry, from what I know off hand. The problem is that "Indolence", unlike "To Autumn", is seen only as a biographical poem, so it tends to come up in terms of biography (it is only considered one of the "six great odes" by Biographers, and other critics simply talk about the "five great odes" and snub the poem). When I look for stuff later tonight in order to elaborate for SlimVirgin's concerns, I'll see what I can find. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I checked the quote. There was a space before the ellipses. Where I end the quote is at a dash. So, the quote marks would go before the period. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I am a fool - I just realized that the quote is a selection of the same passage Bate uses and is used in the paragraph before. Both used different portions but the same final line. I should have realized it before. Blah! I removed the second use. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good. Thanks for addressing those. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The article needs to be copyedited (by a third party), with especial attention paid to accuracy of paraphrasing and coherence. Here, for example, are the successive sentences of the lead:

• Sentence 1 "Ode on Indolence" was composed by the English poet, John Keat, in 1819."
  • Shouldn't we be saying somewhere that this is a poem; the title, after all, could be that of a short-story or even a novel. I'm guessing that there are standard Misplaced Pages guidelines for such opening sentences.

Although it makes it clear that it is a poem in the very next line, I added the word "poem" into the first sentence to be absolutely redundant. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sentence 2 "It is one of five odes he wrote that spring, along with 'Ode on a Grecian Urn,' 'Ode on Melancholy,' 'Ode to a Nightingale,' and 'Ode to Psyche,' though the precise dates of composition remain unknown."
  • Incorrect use of "though." What follows after "though" is a counterpoint to nothing that precedes it. You could say: "..., "Ode to a Nightingale," and "Ode to Psyche." The precise date of composition of the poem, however, ...

Though contrasts with the definite "spring". Using "however" in the middle of a sentence is tacky at best. It was rewritten in a more appropriate manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid "spring" does not offer a contrast. It is patently incorrect to say, "The poem was written in Spring 1819, though the precise date of its composition is unknown." However, you can say, "It is known that the poem was written in Spring 1819, though its precise date of composition has not been determined." Furthermore, each time you defend yourself in ungrammatical sentences, such as "It was rewritten in an appropriate manner," when you mean, "It has been rewritten in an ...," you dig a deeper hole for yourself. If you can't get simple verb tense right, why should we be confident you'll manage trickier issues? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a point here: Fowler, I'm responsible for some of the things you're objecting to, not Ottava, because I tweaked the lead a little yesterday. It's very nice of Ottava to take all the criticism like a gentleman, but I feel I need to relieve him of some of the burden. :) SlimVirgin 18:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• • "Remain unknown?" The reader has no idea that a search had been afoot for these dates. Better to say, "are unknown."

• Sentence 3. "Unlike the other four, 'Ode on Indolence' remained unpublished until 1848, 27 years after Keats's death, though he wrote on July 9, 1819 that its composition had brought him more pleasure than any of the others."
  • The use of "unlike," again, assumes that the reader knows something about the other poems. It is better to say, "In contrast to the other four poems, which were published soon after they were finished (or words to that effect), 'Ode on Indolence,' was published only in 1848, many years after Keats's death."

There is no difference between "in contrast" and "unlike". If there is a problem with one, there is a problem with the other. Choose a new substitute if you want it changed. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you should replace "unlike" with "in contrast to." I said that if you are going to use "unlike" or "in contrast to," you need to provide a context (which I provided by adding, "which were published ..."). Please reread. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• • "though he wrote on July 9, 1819 that its composition had brought him more pleasure than any of the others."

It was a typo and fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • Again, incorrect use of "though."

The idea is that he did not publish a work even though he enjoyed it. The "even" was removed during the editing process by others who said it was redundant. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no intrinsic connection between a poet's joy of writing a poem and publisher's decision to publish it. However, if Keats didn't send it to any publisher, then you need to say that, i.e. something along the lines of: "Although Keats enjoyed writing the poem, he never sent it to a publisher." Again, you seem to consistently misuse "though." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • Poor paraphrasing. First, as far as I can tell, Keats wrote that letter on June 9, not July 9. Moreover, it was written to a newly rediscovered confidante, and the words in question were: "I have been very idle lately, very averse to writing; both from the overpowering idea of our dead poets and from abatement of my love of fame. I hope I am a little less of a versifying Pet-lamb. I have put no more in Print or you should have had it. You will judge of my 1819 temper when I tell you that the thing I have most enjoyed this year has been writing an ode to Indolence." A self-deprecating, somewhat humorous, comment in a letter to a confidante is not the same as a poet's considered opinion. It is better to quote him directly.

Walter Jackson Bate, on p. 532, verifies the wording when summarizing the letter - "True enough, he had enjoyed writing it". Bate seems to take it at face value that it expresses that he enjoyed writing it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you understood my point? Yes, it does mean that he enjoyed writing it, but where does Keats say that he enjoyed writing it more than any of the others? "The thing that I most enjoyed" doesn't exactly carry that implication.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have asked many, many others and it is unanimous - saying "most enjoyed" means that you "enjoy" something "more" than everything else. By the way, Gorell uses the "though" in the placement. I guess he was an awful person who didn't understand how "though" was to be used. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sentence 4: "The ode follows a poet's contemplation of a morning of laziness, when three figures appear—Ambition, Love, and Poesy—dressed in 'placid sandals' and 'white robes.'"
  • "Follows" is ambiguous. Does it mean "traces," or "comes after?"

"Follows" means to travel down a path and is a verb used quite often in terms of plots. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably out of my league here, but would "describes" be a suitable replacement? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Rhetorically, describe applies to something that doesn't have different stages. Follows applies to objects that have different stages. A river follows along a path. A road follows along a plan. The story is following along a plan, or, at this time, a contemplated concept. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You misinterpret again. I am suggesting that you are using an ambiguous word and I'm requesting more clarity. The word "river," by the way, more commonly collocates with "course," not "path." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I tried :) ... can't have expected to be much help here when I haven't read the poem. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Misplaced m-dashes. Better to say, "... when three figures, A, L, and P, appear dressed in ...

The m-dashes were added in and have been the consensus of many reviewers at multiple FACs as of late. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Fowler is not saying ditch the em dashes but to move them; that is, rephrase as "when three figures—Ambition, Love, and Poesy—appear dressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If that is true, why does he use commas. :) Dabomb, this is the user that claimed that every single one of the pages I edit has horrible language and pulled a major stunt on the Samuel Johnson early life page that caused a lot of problems. There isn't a good history between us, and the lines of "problems" is exactly the same as before. At one point, he claimed that the word "marriage" could not be used because it was "antiquated". The concerns are patent nonsense. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Dabomb87 does get it right. Ottava Rima, on the other hand, seems to consistently misinterpret most every sentence I say. Misinterpretation might be one reason why the paraphrasing in this article is so poor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sentence 5: "The narrator then examines them through a series of questions and statements about life and art."
  • "Examine" is ambiguous here. Does it mean "consider" or "quiz?"

It doesn't matter. It does both. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It does matter. When we use a word in an encyclopedia, we can't expect the reader to assume that all its meanings are intended. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sentence 6: "Although critics regard "Ode on Indolence" as inferior to Keats's other 1819 odes, the poem is important because it contains themes and imagery that appear in his other works, and for the biographical insight it provides."
  • Confusing shifts in the sentence. Better to say, "Although it has received less critical acclaim than Keats's other 1819 poems, "Ode on Indolence" is important both for the themes and imagery that it shares with Keats's body of work (if that is meant) and for the biographical insights it provides."

There is a difference from being called "inferior" and with receiving "less critical acclaim". One is a direct negative. The other is a neutral or a lesser positive. The rest of your phrasing is also far more wordy and less to the point. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, you have misconstrued my point, which has nothing to do with "inferior," but rather with your three shifts. If you want to keep "inferior," it is still better to say, ""Although it is considered inferior to Keats's other 1819 poems, "Ode on Indolence" is important ..." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, FWIW I prefer Fowler's sentence, and I don't think the distinction you are drawing is of sufficient importance to warrant retaining the original wording. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You prefer which of Fowler's sentences? He provides two that are quite different and each with major grammatical problems. That is one of the major problems in how he operates. If you have any lines that cause you concern, could you please introduce them in your own section? Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the "Background" section is plagued with many of the problems mentioned above. Other sections have similar issues. The following sentence from the "Themes" section is a particularly egregious example of such writing, "Regarding Keats's general philosophy, the ode is an early work discussing his concept of soul making, which he believed to be the method by which the individual obtains his or her soul through a form of education consisting of suffering and personal experience."Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As per previous incidents at FAC, I will make it clear that your oppose here, as I have demonstrated, is on improper grounds. I have responded to the above merely for the sake of other reviewers and for the FAC coordinators so they can verify that there are no real problems that you are identifying. As such, your future comments will be ignored on those grounds. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've no idea of the backstory here - and no, that wasn't an invitation to anyone to fill me in :-). I agree with Fowler that this sentence is poorly written and needs similar editing / proofreading. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima: I'm afraid you have demonstrated nothing. Moreover, in your obsessive need to have the last word, you doubly highlight the article's imperfections by repeating them in your defense. I will let Karanacs and Moni3 be the judges of my critique. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments on paragraph 1 of section 1 (Background)

I have now had a look at some of the remaining sections and I can say confidently that they too are full of inaccuracies. Consider the first three sentences of section 1 (Background):

• (Sentence 1): "In the spring of 1819, Keats left his poorly-paying position as a surgeon at Guy’s Hospital, Southwark, London to devote himself fully to the composition of poetry.
  • Ignoring for now that "poorly-paid" is the more common collocation, and that, "... devote himself fully to writing poetry," the more common expression, what are the facts? Here is Graham Hough (Late Professor of English at Cambridge) writing in Britannica: "At Abbey’s instigation John Keats was apprenticed to a surgeon at Edmonton in 1811. He broke off his apprenticeship in 1814 and went to live in London, where he worked as a dresser, or junior house surgeon, at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ hospitals. His literary interests had crystallized by this time, and after 1817 he devoted himself entirely to poetry." For more details, please see John Barnard's article, "The Busy Time': Keats's Duties at Guy's Hospital from Autumn 1816 to March 1817." Keats had in fact left the hospital in March 1817 (not 1819). The mistake can't be explained away as a typo, since the very next sentence in the section says,
• (Sentence 2): "On May 12, he was forced to abandon his plan after receiving a request for financial assistance from his brother, George, who had emigrated to the United States."
  • When someone has been devoting himself full time for two years to writing poetry, they are no longer in the planning stage of a career.

• (Sentence 3): "Unable to help him, Keats was wracked with guilt and despair, and chose to seek projects more lucrative than writing poetry."
  • Disregarding, for now, the fact that "racked" is the more common spelling, what does "chose to seek projects" mean? Do you mean "looked for employment?" The job of a surgeon on an East Indiaman, which Keats considered, is not a project. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you not beg of Hough to know which definition of "crystallized" he meant and perhaps suggest he use another word?:) I agree that some of the changes you have suggested would benefit the article, but I feel that many more of them are fall under the category of personal preference. I enjoy a good close reading, but other than a few issues, the majority of what you have pointed out as your reason for objection depends heavily upon your distaste for words and phrases that commonly appear in encyclopedic articles. Is it not, perhaps, a possibility that all the misconstruing that is taking place could, in part, be based upon the fact that you are dealing in minutia when you ask for clarification as to which definition of the word "examine" is implied. I will assume good faith, of course, but if your objection is based upon the dictionary definition of a handful of words out of an entire article, than perhaps the best course (n. accustomed procedure or normal action) would be to list them as SMALL issues that could be fixed before giving a lecture on rhetoric?Mrathel (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Mrathel, please see User talk:Karanacs and Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Samuel Johnson's early life. He has previous declared that I don't understand the English language, therefore everything I am involved in has to be wrong, and that he would point out how every line of every one of my pages is wrong. He has been pointed out as pushing things that are actually wrong as "corrections" and other problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

To Mrathel: Are you suggesting that the glaring inaccuracies in sentences 1 and 2 above are small issues? There is nothing ambiguous in Hough's use of "crystallize" in that context; however, look at the context of "examine": "The ode follows a poet's contemplation of a morning of laziness, when three figures appear—Ambition, Love, and Poesy—dressed in 'placid sandals' and 'white robes. The narrator then examines them through a series of questions and statements about life and art." What does "examine" mean here? Does the poet examine (in the sense of analyze or consider) the concepts of ambition, love and poesy? Or, does he "examine" their anthropomorphized forms (in the sense of asking pointed questions or cross-examining)? If both meanings are intended then you should say so. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Fowler, one thing that might be helpful is if you were to paste the article into a user subpage, and make the adjustments there that you think would improve it. Then we'd have something to compare. As it is, it's quite hard to follow all your points. Some seem fair and some seem harsh, and it might be faster to fix them than discuss which is which. Your version on a subpage would make things easier to follow, and the article's short enough for that to be feasible. SlimVirgin 18:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)