# Talk:When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd

I have been planning an expansion of this article for some time, and working on it for the last 2-3 months in my sandbox. I added a few of those drafted sections moments ago. Planning to add sections on the poem's narrative, style, structure, critical reception, legacy and its influence on literature and culture (but not fucking trivia) and an analysis of the symbolism and themes within the next few weeks. Standby.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Moving more material over from my sandbox today. Some of it mostly developed needing minor additions or tweaks that I'll do in the article space going forward. I envision that I'm about 65-70% toward where I hope to see this article before seeking GA and eventually FA recognition for it. I aim to add more to the "narrative" section over the next few days, and the remainder of my work in sandbox will be on symbolism/themes, critical reception, and a brief paragraph about it's influence/Nachleben that should be in place in the next two to three weeks. Any questions or comments feel free to contact me. More to come. Thanks to anyone interested for your patience.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
ColonelHenry: I took a look at the article and made a few small copyedits. I also left some hidden comments, which you should feel free to remove at will. I noticed that the title isn't italicized in a few cases; I'm not sure if that was done intentionally in reference to a smaller portion of the poem, while the italics are meant to represent the title, or something else. There are also two disambiguation links which will need to be fixed before any sort of GA or FA candidacy. The link to George Bartlett needs to be either removed or clarified with some sort of unique identifier, because neither George Bartlett mentioned on the DAB page is the one in the article. The Hebrew poetry DAB could refer to a few things.-RHM22 (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks to the editors who have expanded and polished this article so impressively.
Two quick questions regarding references:

The sfn link to Shucard's text about Eliot is broken, because of a difference in years (the bibliography says 1985, the sfn says 1998). I tried to figure out which year was correct by referring to WorldCat, only to discover that the cited Routledge edition doesn't seem to exist. Is the reference to the 1998 edition published by Garland, or the 2011 revision published by Routledge?
There is no reference pointing to the Olmstead book about Roger Sessions; it's only in the Bibliography. Should it be removed?
Best of luck as this article moves through the GA process!--Lemuellio (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 11:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I am so sorry for the delay in reviewing this as I've been very busy lately both on and outside Wikipedia. I should have this to you by tomorrow at the latest JAGUAR  11:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

no problem, no rush --GA


### Initial comments
The first paragraph of the lead is very short and could do with expanding (or merging, seeing as the second paragraph is quite long and could do with some re-shuffling) in accordance to WP:LEAD
It could but there is also the idea to give the key facts in the first para, like a summary, and more detailed aspects visibly separated. Example: I am in the process of expanding BWV 88 (hint, hint). There will be more lead then but possibly in an additional para. --GA
I agree with Jaguar, the opening sentence hangs awkwardly. Our guidance is generally to avoid single sentence paragraphs as they inhibit reading flow. See MOS:LAYOUT. There is also an expectation that the introductory paragraph should establish the context, which appears to be done quite well in the first two sentences of the second paragraph, so it would be appropriate to bring them together. See WP:MOSBEGIN. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Other than that, I could spot no other issues with the lead as it is well written and summarises the article
"Whitman intended to write a distinctly American epic and developed a free verse style inspired by the cadences of the King James Bible" - did he intend to write an American epic poem? I didn't understand this part as how could it be American if it was to be inspired by the King James Bible which is English?
Well, the English Bible is again only a translation so not really English. Language finesse is not my strongest point. In German we have a noun "Epos" (a poem in epic form) which may be "epic" or not. --GA
I think the confusion is that the sentence appears to be attempting to carry two different meanings: 1) he intended to write a distinctly American epic, and 2) he developed a free verse style inspired by the cadences of the King James Bible. If there is an intention to say that he wanted the distinctly American epic poem to be based on a free verse style inspired by the cadences of the King James Bible, that would need a more detailed and clearer explanation. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
From a quick bit of background reading, it appears that Whitman wanted to create a new style of American literature, and using free verse was a part of that, as it seemed more fitting to his subject matter. The King James Bible is generally acknowledged to be an influence on free verse, and Whitman was an early exponent of free verse, so it's related, though it could probably do with better phrasing or explaining. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
"Some biographies indicate that Whitman journeyed to Washington" - sounds a bit old, how about travelled?
I think it sounds old intentionally but will be understood. --GA
"The poem's subtitle indicates it was written on 19 April 1865" - this date should be in m-d-y format, if it wants to retain US dates
good catch, fixed --GA
"However, according to Loving, the poem’s original greatness" - is this "greatness" as in meaning the poem was well received from critics?
My reading: the poem is great from the start, without emphasis on the symbolic motifs. --GA
"Burroughs would publish an essay in May 1865" - this is in a different tense? Would you prefer Burroughs published an essay in May 1865
tried --GA
"John Peter began to question whether Eliot's poem were an elegy" - was an elegy?
matter of styling the subjunctive, - a bit old but understandable, I think. --GA


#### References
The bibliography link "Ich Sitze und Schaue" from Genesis, Evolution, and Interpretation of K. A. Hartmann's First Symphony is dead, could do with archiving if possible
asked friends for help --GA
helped and replaced --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I've never seen a bibliography section that long before! Nothing at all wrong with it, it's very good ;-D
Look at Kafka ;) --GA


### Comments
Very selective spot checking shows the following:

Writing history and background - "In the late 1850s and early 1860s, Whitman established his reputation as a poet with the release of Leaves of Grass. Whitman intended to write a distinctly American epic and developed a free verse style inspired by the cadences of the King James Bible.[2][3]" FN 2 is a website w/out page numbers and only provides the poem's text without a critical interpretation, and so it can't be the source for this info; FN 3 is an e-book without page numbers (the cite does have a page number) and I can't find this info via the search function in the book (though it could well exist; I just couldn't locate it)
Publication history - The second paragraph isn't quite accurate and needs some revision; the first sentence of the second para is cited to FN 35 - but that source does not have the cited material on either page 149 or in note #7 for that chapter as cited
Style and techniques - First paragraph, last sentence, (FN 43), can't locate the info in source cited; third para, last sentence (FN 57), "According to Warren, Whitman "uses anaphora, the repetition of a word or phrase at the beginning of lines; epistrophe, the repetition of the same words or phrase at the end of lines, and symploce (the combined use of anaphora and epistrophe), the repetition of both initial and terminal words.[57] >> can't verify in source
Legacy the T.S. Eliot section needs some reworking.  A check of the sources showed some issues but I didn't capture because I was pressed for time.
Primary sources - Whitman can't be used as interpretation. I found some examples of biographical info or interpretive information cited to Whitman's work, see i.,e FN 11. I haven't checked this, so it might be okay, but generally all the citations to primary sources have to be checked.
Avoid large page ranges, see for instance FN 30. I have access to that book and can't think what's in the sentence there that requires four citations and seven pages from the source.
Anyway, these are only selective spot-checks, but I was very busy today and found these on the first look, moving from section to section. My recommendation is that someone go through the article sentence by sentence and check the sourcing for each sentence. Anything that doesn't match should be deleted. Then it will require pulling new sources and rewriting. Finding good sources won't be difficult - the difficulty is reading everything and deciding what should be in and what not. Victoria (tk) 23:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for looking. I have little time until next week. Every help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


### Additional comments
" conceits of the pastoral elegy" in the lead. "Conceits" as used here would need explaining for the general reader, as it is not normal usage - it is a literary term. In the section dealing with this matter, this phrase is used: "The poem uses many of the literary techniques associated with the pastoral elegy", which is more appropriate for the lead. I suggest swapping the sentences, and then explaining briefly for the general reader the meaning in this context of "conceits". SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Good idea, copied the more generally understood version to the lead, don't think we need the other at all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
"it reflects a maturing of Whitman's poetic vision from a drama of identity and romantic exuberance that has been tempered by his emotional experience of the American Civil War". I am unclear what is being said here. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
My (limited) understanding is that the experience of the war changed his style. Improved wording appreciated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I like the detailed and informative Style and techniques section; though how much of that is directly about the topic, compared to being about Whitman's style in general? It would seem more fitting and appropriate if it were in the parent article, Walt Whitman, to which readers of articles about individual Whitman poems could be directed per WP:Summary style. Particularly so as such a useful and detailed discussion of his style and technique is not apparent in that article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
That seems a good idea, - would you do it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
:-) I would, but I rarely have the time for detailed Wikipedia work these days. I have a long list of "to do"s, but instead generally just do minor bits and pieces. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do a mere cut and paste, so it would require additional research and fact checking I don't have time for. :-( SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The Influence on Eliot's The Waste Land section is interesting, though I wonder how much of that properly belongs to a discussion of The Waste Land rather than here, especially as some of it is speculatory and against mainstream thought, and the focus is more on The Waste Land than on When Lilacs. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
On the whole I like this article. Informative and detailed. Nice work. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


### On hold
This is a very well written article and is also well researched. I admit I found it difficult to bring up any issues as I'm not well versed in this subject any more! Honestly I would have promoted this if the first paragraph of the lead appeared a little longer, but that could easily be fixed. The rest of the issues I found were minor!  JAGUAR  19:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reading a lot, and well!! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Please keep on hold, see concerns on my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I've read it, no worries, I'll keep this on hold until everyone's happy with the source checking. The prose itself is fine, and I thought it was comprehensive but it's been a while since I studied poems at college so I'm no longer well versed in the subject... JAGUAR  21:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It has been over three weeks since the last edit on this article, and a similar duration for the current hold. If progress isn't made soon, this should probably be closed; the article can always be renominated at a later date. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
This GAN has always been in the back of my mind. Gerda Arendt, how is everything going? I'm more than happy to leave this on hold if you're still able to address Victoria's concerns? JAGUAR  16:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not able to deal with Victoria's concerns who doesn't trust the author while I do. I am working on my own next GA, to be nominated tomorrow, and two are open, - let it go for now or say it's good enough, it's not up for FA and won't be, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I did not say anything about the author. I began to read the article and found problems; problems which persist that no one has addressed. I disagree that the problems are irrelevant at the GA level. We should be representing sources fairly and I believe I had to add a few citation needed tags. Nonetheless what's done is done, but let's not personalize it. It's best to judge the edits and the article and how well they reflect the sources cited. Victoria (tk) 17:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


### Close - promoted
After reading through this article again I can confirm it complies per the GA criteria. The other comments made by Victoria may be requirements for a future FAC, but the GA criteria is a little less demanding. Overall it is well written, well researched and comprehensive - in my opinion those qualities make an article great. Well done Gerda on all the work!  JAGUAR  17:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Jaguar, by my count there were two "citation needed" templates active in the article when you promoted it. Surely these should have been addressed before the promotion was finalized? (There are now three more, for a total of five.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
True, there were more tags added after I promoted it. I thought the article met the GA criteria but I'm no expert on the subject - other editors have decided to pry into the article for more issues only hours after I passed the GAN. It was my fault for not spotting the two citation needed tags in the article, but I think I'll let the others decide if this needs a reassessment... JAGUAR  15:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
See article talk, some were meant as a note to self, my understanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I confess that the field of literature is new to me, - I am ready to learn. Coming from music: when a piece is published I don't need a secondary source for that fact. A set of Haydn string quartets is published, fact, without anybody else saying so. Is this different in literature? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, I tagged this so as to remember what needs to be done when I get back to it. If you'd prefer to remove the tags, that's fine because now it exists in history and I can work from an old version if necessary. The amount of time it takes to find a source online and to match to the text is considerable and I didn't know when I'd be back so decided to mark the places that need work. Additionally it marks the issues here, despite its promotion to GA and despite the GA criteria that say a GA is "Verifiable with no original research".
The issue here is one of laying out the publication history faithfully. Sometimes a piece of literature is published and not re-published, tinkered with, etc., and that's the end of story. But the story here is more complicated. The poem was written while Whitman had a collection of poems being printed; he wrote a couple of other poems to go with this one and had them printed as a "sequel" to Drum-Taps. Eventually he took most of his poetry and reissued under the title Leaves of Grass and republished/reprinted repeatedly with some tinkering along the way. The publication history section on that article uses good sources and shows how it should be done. If a person had a copy of the 1867 edition at hand, then, yes, the publication date, publisher, table-of-contents, and number of pages will verify that information; but that would be the most that can be gleaned from that publication. Whether it has grammatical errors, etc., would require comparisons to other editions, which then would be OR.
It would be easy for me to take three or four books from my shelfs, find this poem in them, and then I could come to the conclusion that a., it's in the anthologies I own; b., state that therefore it's anthologized; and c., add citations for the books where I've found it . But that would be problematic. It's better to find a literary scholar to say it's commonly anthologized (if that's true, then it wouldn't be hard to find). The issue regarding anthologization is important because it goes to notability - if it makes it into an anthology (these typically are the literature texts used in schools and universities in the US) it indicates the piece of literature continues to be taught and studied – so it's best to get that type of statement from an authority.
Let's take these one at at time.
This statement is sourced to the 1867 edition (I didn't look to see if it's the fourth, and there are differences) and also to the intro from a recent edition.  I didn't have time to look, (and frankly when you search g-books frequently for the same topic the pages tend to go invisible), but if that second cite there to the intro tells us what we need, then the first citation won't be necessary and the tag can be removed. Whitman added the poems from Drum-Taps and Sequel to Drum-Taps as a supplement to the fourth edition of Leaves of Grass printed in 1867 by William E. Chapin
This sentence is cited to the 1891-92 edition, which is a primary source and according to WP:Primary we can't evaluate or interpret a primary source, but this sentence does exactly that by telling us in WP's voice what Whitman thought. Those kinds of statements require secondary sourcing. Whitman considered the 1881 edition to be final—although the subsequent "Deathbed Edition" compiled 1891–1892 corrected grammatical errors from the 1881 edition and add three minor works
This sentence is cited to four poetry anthologies, and goes to what I wrote above regarding anthologies.  Leaves of Grass has never been out of print since its first publication in 1855, and When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd is among several poems from the collection that appear frequently in poetry anthologies
Sorry – this is a lot of information to a seemingly simple question, but writing about literature isn't easy. I hope this helps. Victoria (tk) 14:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
It helps, and thank you for taking the time to explain, appreciated. I understand that it is a difference if we just need a title, or possible thoughts of Whitman are concerned, - for which the dead poet might be the only true reference. - I will watch, but am mostly busy elsewhere, as you know. It seems a notable work which deserves best possible coverage. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt and Victoriaearle after five years, I have attempted to resolve all of the tags in the article. You may want to check that I didn't mess anything up here. Cheers, Eddie891  Talk Work  02:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Eddie891 just to let you know that I've seen this but won't be able to get to it for a while. I do have it on my mental list, though. If I forget leave a message on my talk page where I'll not forget to see it. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 00:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)