Talk:To Autumn

message: Must you have that beautiful poem in typewriter font? Unindent it and use "< / b r >" (without the spaces). Rintrah 14:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Font

message: Generally source documents are stored at Wikisource. However since the poem is so short it arguably could be included here, although it really should be at Wikisource. If you must include it in the article, look at some other articles on how to do it, such as Ode to a Nightingale (although I think that example is poor also).. don't just cut and paste text into the article it doesn't work. -- Stbalbach 02:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poem source

message: I found this syntax in the article and I think it is a mistake, but I wasn't sure how to fix it: "His syntax incorporates lacks hiatus " Karanacs (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed - removed "incorporates". I think it was two sentences chopped together. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Feel free pointing what is wrong instead of give a bad review. TbhotchTalk C. 00:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: question

message: Hey! I modified the image to a larger file, and replaced it with another: a  pretty crude attempt to drop out the background. Change it back if it doesn't suit everyone. I fixed up the versions of the poems elsewhere, and the link here. cygnis insignis 06:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The creator of the illustrations was William James Neatby (1860-1910). cygnis insignis 07:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: image changes

message: Will someone please explain why the line numbers at the end of each stanza are necessary.  The article already says that there are three stanzas of eleven lines each.  To put line numbers at the end of each stanza seems to me distracting and unnecessary. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  line numbers 

message: what's up with these gratuitous percentages? if they refer to occurrence within the poem, as the previous sentence suggests, why bother at all? if they are in reference to his overall output ok, but really these numbers are meaningless and slightly insulting without context - a form of analysis that comes off as pseudoscience at best.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.170.15 (talk) 08:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  structure % 

message: One thing to consider: Amandajm added: 'It has parallels in the rural landscapes of the English painter John Constable, [1] with Keats himself describing the fields of stubble that he saw on his walk as being "like a painting".' The source cited, by Boey Kim Cheng, states: "The poem inhabit[s] fully its autumnal canvas, richer than any Constable painting." That is not the same as claiming a parallel to the landscapes of Constable specifically. If no other source can be found to support a direct connection to Constable, I think this sentence will need, if not deletion, serious modification, or else it will amount to WP:OR. While I don't think the source is quite a "fringe item", as is claimed on the review page in the transmission of Ottava Rima's comments, the important thing to note here is that it never claims any direct connection of this poem to Constable, only to landscapes "richer than any Constable painting". There is something painterly in the scene as depicted by Keats, and I think we can use Cheng (Boey?) to support that, but that is probably as far as we should go. --Alan W (talk) 06:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, where is the source for the quoted words "like a painting"? I see that a letter of Keats's does suggest he saw something painting-like in the scene, but not in those words. Ottava made a good point here, though I think we might still be able to use Cheng at least for additional support to what Keats himself said. But, again, what is the source of the quote? --Alan W (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, in the absence of any response, I have taken a stab at this. --Alan W (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Painting 

message: Similar problem in the last paragraph of the lead. "It may be seen as the poet's response to the many English poems, such as Byron's Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, written in praise of the natural beauties of other countries, or as a direct contrast to Shelley's Ode to the West Wind, published the previous year." No doubt that Keats had a different idea of what good poetry was, and I believe he was critical of much of what Byron and Shelley did. That doesn't mean, however, that this poem is a specific response to anything in Byron's or Shelley's output. There are two problems here: the lead shouldn't really introduce anything that is not covered in greater detail in the body of the article; and this needs to be sourced. If anyone has really unearthed some specific response to the above poets in "To Autumn", then put something into the body of the article and cite the source. And then it will be legitimate to leave this sentence in the lead.
I just noticed that the debate between Amandajm and Ottava Rima on the FAR page really ends up concluding the same thing: [OR] "The statement about Byron is original research and not in the body of the text" [Amandajm] "The contrast with Byron is pertinent, and needs to be in the body of the text as well. Yes, it requires appropriate referencing. But noone who knows anything about Romantic poetry would consider a comparison between Byron and Keats as OR." Still, you should come up with a source, and in this case it should be very easy, since as you say, Amanda, the fact that Byron and Keats wrote very different kinds of poetry is obvious to anyone who knows the Romantic poets. And if we talk of any specific responses, then I agree with Ottava that it really is OR and needs the source all the more.
So who is going to do this? As I said, I am not now in a position to do all that much work on this article. If no one else is, then some of what was recently added, will, I hate to say it, have to come out, or the article will be judged unsuitable for Wikipedia altogether, not just of sub-FA quality. --Alan W (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As above, I have seen no further comments from anyone, so, without having access to any but my one good source, I did what I thought the minimum to avoid coming under fire for WP:OR. If anyone can find a reliable source arguing convincingly that the poem was a "response" to anything by Byron or Shelley, this can be edited further. --Alan W (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Byron and Shelley 

message: Read some more of the newest version. Amandajm, your reorganization of the material that describes the themes and structure of the poem is for the most part very good. Much clearer now. The only point I can think of raising at this time is that the word "destitution" somehow does not seem quite right in this context. Can't (yet) think of a single word that would be better, though. Decline, death, decay? --Alan W (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Comment 

message: Having now read Alan Bewell's Romanticism and Colonial Disease and some of the other secondary sources, I see very clearly that "To Autumn" is not at all an "expression of colonialist sentiment", nor does Bewell make that claim. Keats nowhere justifies colonial expansion, here or in any of his other writings. Bewell shows that Keats was aware of the detrimental effects of diseases that ran rampant in the colonies and believes that Keats was expressing in this poem a "nationalist" sentiment of appreciation for the more healthful character of the climate of rural England. (Geoffrey Hartman also interprets the poem as including this "political" element.)
I have removed the other Bewell source from the References, having determined that it is simply an extract from Bewell's 1999 book and is therefore entirely redundant and possibly confusing, with its 2008 date. --Alan W (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good! What I read of that book online seemed very interesting. Amandajm (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colonialist sentiment? 

message: Yes, there are three people mentioned in that sentence, two besides the publisher himself. But I don't see any confusion over the identity of "his". To change this to: "Keats did not send "To Autumn" to Reynolds, but did include the poem within a letter to Richard Woodhouse, Keats's publisher and friend, and dated it on the same day". seems to me unnecessarily awkward and clumsy. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what? I agree. It's clear enough from the context, and if you consider that broader context, it does read better your way, Martinevans123. I just reverted my reversion. --Alan W (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  His