Talk:Poetry analysis

message: I may have taken "be bold" too literally (I'm new). I rewrote the page completely, in response to comments on "Pages needing attention". I had planned to cover specific aspects of poetry analysis as suggested above by Filiocht, but after writing a description of the process, and then wikifying that, I found that most of this material (overview of symbolism, overview of meter, etc.) are already well covered in other articles (Poetry is a featured article). So, instead I described the process of analyzing poetry, through specific examples, that I hope will show the reader what poetry analysis is and how to use the information in these other articles. In short, I thought that, yes, the page did need major work, and, no, I shouldn't re-invent a bunch of wheels. I am very open to making what I put up into an Overview section, and following it with separate sections on more specific topics, but my sense is that we may find that these separate sections already well covered in some cases (metrics and scanscion, for example) or in others should be given their own articles (such as schools of poetry). BradGad 09:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: —and then I merged it all myself. --Theo  (Talk) 19:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: There is good material on this page, but its current organization strikes me as haphazard. What would folks think of the following organization, with "Overview" being mostly what is now in "Close reading"? The idea would be that the Overview gives readers an idea of what poetry analysis is, why it might be worthwhile to undertake, and how to go about it, and the subsequent sections would provide critical tools and concepts that readers would need to undertake poetry analysis on their own.
:#Poetry analysis
:#Overview
:#Tools for poetry analysis
:##Poetic forms
:###Closed forms
:###Open forms
:##Imagery and symbolism
:##Meter and rhyme
:#Approaches to poetry analysis
:##Reading poetry aloud
:##Poetry in different cultures
:#References
:#External links
Obviously this is not exhaustive, but it does seem to me to be an extensible and maintainable structure. BradGad (Talk) 21:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page organization 

message: I feel that what we are missing here is a section on analysing the big picture:  What is the 'story' that is being told? Not the literal story but the heart of the poem. For example: Another tells of a buried child; The Destruction of Sennacherib tells of the last days of the Assyrian king; The silken tent compares a woman to a tent. In a sense, this about the 'theme' of a poem.  It also embraces the voice of the poem (who is speaking), and the rest of the of Kipling's 'honest serving men': the events in the poem; when these occur; where is the 'speaker' and where do the events occur; why does the speaker speak?  William Harmon has suggested that starting an analysis with: "This poem dramatizes the conflict between …" is a key technique and it fits into this big picture approach.
[And now I find that Harmon is a red link, so I should explain that he is Professor of English at University of North Carolina, author of five books of poetry and editor of A Handbook to Literature.] My problem is that I cannot see how this fits in the existing article structure. Harmon's dramatic conflict approach feels like a school of criticism (does anyone know its name?) but the overall concept feels like a subsection of the Overview (which feels like a form of bloat).--Theo  (Talk) 15:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The big picture 

message: Someone should nominate this for featured article. Revolución 02:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We are the only someones here, Revolución. There is nothing to stop you nominating the article; indeed, I encourage you to do so.  I already have an FAC in train, which is why I am not being bold myself. --Theo  (Talk) 11:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent article! 

message: This article links to monometer through octameter, and then says that those with more than 8 are quite rare. How common, to be exact, are those with 9 or 10?? Georgia guy 00:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Without surveying the entire canon of poetry it is impossible to be exact.  I am unaware of any poems using anything more than eight feet but I do not read much experimental poetry and scansion is not always on my mind. --Theo  (Talk) 06:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enneameter & Decameter 

message: Filiocht has suggested that ==Schools of poetry== and ==Schools of criticism== should be our next area of focus.  The more I thought about the former, the more convinced I became that it should be a separate article linked from here and Poetry, at a minimum. So I synthesised List of schools of poetry. It needs expanding, tidying, and, more pertinently, a summary should be written in the section here. Precis is not my strength so would someone else like to have a crack at that? --Theo  (Talk) 23:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Schools of poetry

message: This article has a lot of great content, but the form and tone are of a textbook.  The reader is carefully led through many examples.  I would suggest lots of work to tighten up the article and remove the "teacher's voice", as outlined by the item "Page organization" above. NuclearWinner 21:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, there are way too many dashes in the article. Wikipediarules2221 07:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sounds more like a textbook than an encyclopedia

message: (No comment required)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.232.122 (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section needed 

message: The introduction to this article is eerily similar to this site http://languageisavirus.com/poetry-guide/poetry_analysis.html
58.174.96.47 (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That site uses material from WP ... if you scroll down to the bottom you'll see the disclaimer. Eniagrom (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism?