Talk:Joyce Kilmer/Archive 1

message: The article should delve into kilmer's life before a discussion on "trees".  He did more than write that poemAdambiswanger1 19:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trees

message: Trying to bring this article up to Good Article standards and nominate it before 01JAN07. —ExplorerCDT 21:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit 25DEC06

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
** Meets guidelines at WP:LEAD.
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
** Done. Per guidelines.
*This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.
** Been informed that the Automated PR ignores or does not recognzie images in the infobox. One image seems to be enough.
*See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
** Done, see previous comment.
*If this article is about a person, please add  along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
** Done.
*Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.
*There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.  
** Finished article today. Taken care of.
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
** I think this has been satisfied, but will continue to proofread, copyedit, etc.)
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 13:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi Automated Peer Review 

message: There are 7 things that must pass before an article reaches GA status. I have reviewed it and the result is as follows:
#Well-written: Pass
#Factually accurate: Pass 
#Broad: Pass 
#Neutrally written: Pass
#Stable: Pass 
#Well-referenced: Pass
#Images: Pass
Well done, the GA has passed successfully. 
Reviewer's notes:
Well done to all involved - this is a very good article. My only suggestions might be that the section on the poem "Trees" could be split into a new article, with a smaller summary and a "main article" type link, although if this is the poet's most notable work then it probably deserves to be here. Also, perhaps the list of places named in honour of the poet could be made into prose, although the list is effective in relating the information, so is fine. Well done and happy new year. Bob talk 19:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hooray! Yeah, Trees deserves a standalone article. I'm going to move the GA to the top of the talk pageValley2city 20:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: For FA you will need a two paragraph lead, use  to cite your web sources, and the image needs to be made a bit smaller. M3tal H3ad 01:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * In what ways should I expand the lead? According to WP:CITE, CSS templates for citations are not mandatory. How small for the image? Will I need other images? —ExplorerCDT 01:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Result

message: If the article can read "Frederick Barnett Kilmer (1851–1934), a physician and analytical chemist employed by the Johnson and Johnson Company and inventor of the company's baby powder." is ok in the article, why was mentioning he was from Connecticut deleted from the article? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 10:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Father

message: While I don't agree with ExplorerCDT's unnecessary personal attacks, I do agree with his argument.  The fact that Kilmer's parents were from NYC and CT doesn't help the reader understand him any better, and isn't really anything other than trivial information.  In Senator Obama's case, it is a bit more appropriate to mention, because his father was from someplace unusual (well, unusual for the father of a US Senator), and it gives a little more insight about the Senator.  I would also point to other featured articles, such as George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt, none of which explicitly name their parents' places of birth (although TR's does mention his family background, but it is quite relevant to his later entry into politics).  Cheers! --DarthBinky 23:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:30|Third Opinion]] 

message: All those invited from various WikiProjects, please post your comments below.  Please avoid reminding User:Alansohn, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and I about WP:CIVIL, because that's never really helpful in tempore belli. Thank you though, in advance, for your opinions. —ExplorerCDT 00:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus Building

message: Please visit the talk page and review the recent edit-warring history for Joyce Kilmer and please comment on whether certain genealogical information (which I think is irrelevant and anti-policy) should be inserted into the article. —ExplorerCDT 00:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion brought over from WikiProject Biography talk page

message: I'm not going to point fingers here, but the 3RR has been violated.  Lets stop this edit war and build consensus.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 00:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My read on this is pretty straightforward: someone's family status, including all the material about someone's siblings and where one's parents are from, certainly can be highly relevant (see, for example, the Franklin Delano Roosevelt article, which not only notes that both Franklin's parents were from old New York families, but also finds space to discuss kids, cousins, siblings, and family ethnic background.  That is an article where space is at a premium and there are many daughter articles (including an article on the Roosevelt family geneology).  HOWEVER, before seeing the material in I'd want to see that an independent source from a peer reviewed journal or a significant press, preferably an academic press, found it important; citations to the census, birth certificates, or genealogical web sites all smack of original research.  In general, this article could use more information from higher quality sources focused on poetry rather than local history or genealogy (Joyce Kilmer has certainly made it into a range of anthologies, and there must have been quite a bit of review material from the period). Also, this just isn't worth this edit war. I hope the third party input is helpful. Sam 16:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * REPLY: The difference there is precisely that the Roosevelts were a prominent, influential family with several notable members who gained their notability themselves, not because of their association with a famous relative.  The Kilmer siblings are, for lack of a better term, not notable enough for inclusion other in saying "well, these people just happen to be related to a famous person".  It smacks of that episode of Arrested Development with the four brothers of Andy Richter, or being the non-acting siblings related to Baldwin brothers. —ExplorerCDT 19:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's part of why the independent source is important.  I was looking earlier at another poet, Mary Sidney Herbert, and her bio is rife with discussion of her family (a poem reacting to the death of her brother is going to be the poem of the week next week on Portal:poetry), but it is because it is material to both the discussion of her life and to her poetry. Some of them are notable on their own, some aren't.  I don't think there is an automatic answer. But, it's not to we humble editors to determine this.  What authorities have said this is important to Kilmer or his poetry? That's how I'd figure this one out, but what gets done on this page is up to you all. Sam 19:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * See below, i just touched upon that in the subsection below titled "A shift in focus" to Ruhrfisch's comments. —ExplorerCDT 19:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR has been violated 

message: Can anyone tell me which Wikisage said that? Look here for the surprising answer: it is disingenuous to remove valid, referenced material. no legit reason given for removal, therefore reverting. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "it is disingenuous to remove valid, referenced material."

message: As I see it, three questions are involved. Should biography articles at least mention: 1) the place(s) from which the subject's parents come? 2) the names and birth and death years of the subject's siblings? 3) the names and birth and death years of the subject's children? These least two questions are obviously only for cases where the subject had at least one sibling or child. Note: I posted the preceding on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography too. Feel free to edit it there if it does not accurately reflect the issues involved here. Hopefully this has been resolved there in other cases and that should settle the questions. If not...
How about a shift in focus? Since the article is about Joyce Kilmer, perhaps the answers to these questions lie in focusing on Kilmer. If something made a difference in his life (like where his parents came from), include that information. If not, do not. The standard is (as always) verifiability - if a biography discusses his siblings or children and their influence(s) on Kilmer, or he wrote of them, then I think it is acceptable to include this information.
I personally would imagine that both Kilmer's siblings and children made some difference in his life and, if this is so, would therefore mention them. It appears from their birth and death dates that his siblings all were dead by the time he was thirteen years old. One possible way to include them would be to say something like "Two of Kilmer's siblings, Ellen Annie Kilmer (1875-1876) and Charles Willoughby Kilmer (1880), died before his birth, while Anda Frederick Kilmer (1873-1899), died when he was thirteen years old." Then go on to briefly discuss the effect these deaths had on him (much as the death of his daughter Rose is now handled in the article). What do the biographies say about Anda's death and Kilmer? What about his parents having lost two children - did that make them more protective of him as the (last) baby of the family? Focus on the subject and see if these merit inclusion on that basis. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 19:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A shift in focus 

message: There are currently five statements in this article that are followed by "citation needed". The statements either have to be removed or citations included for it to keep its GA class. --Nehrams2020 18:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations needed

message: The sentence:Kilmer was considered the leading American Roman Catholic poet and lecturer of his generation, whom critics often compared to British contemporaries G. K. Chesterton (1874–1936) and Hilaire Belloc (1870–1953). was sourced by the "Hillis, John. Joyce Kilmer: A Bio-Bibliography. Master of Science (Library Science) Thesis. Catholic University of America. (Washington, DC: 1962)" reference. I hold some doubt over whether this is applicable, given the source is his grandson-in-law. "Kilmer was considered the leading American..." being sourced to this reference isn't proper, given this relationship. I've added a  tag, rather than removing it under WP:V, and I would appreciate that this sentence be reworked or sourced by a reference which doesn't have a COI like the previous one did. The part about the critics could also benefit from this as well, as it is another opinion, and an opinion sourced to a family member, which does not constitute a reliable source in this instance. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T • C ] 06:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if we're going to make such a strong and central statement in the lede, the claim should at least be examined a bit more closely. Which critics said this? When? In what context? The source has to be taken with at least a grain of salt, and I think if any claim should be examined, it's this one. Mak (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point exactly. Who were these "critics" (note the plural)? Who "considered" him one of the greatest? Is this a marginalised opinion that he is the greatest, or is it widespread? If it's marginalised, then it needs to be rephrased to saw "Considered by x to be..." If it's widespread, provide multiple sources in the article to show it. Daniel.Bryant [ T • C ] 06:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I think your concern is now assuaged, at least temporarily until this issue is expanded upon in the section Criticism and influence when i get around to it (read: not now). Making me jump through hoops at 11:43 in the evening when I'm on vacation ain't going to get anything done anytime soon. —ExplorerCDT 06:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, could you please give page numbers when giving paper sources? (It'll save time if there's ever a question in the future) Thanks. Mak (talk) 06:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * I only have an electronic edition of that source. Alas, no page numbers. —ExplorerCDT 06:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wait with great interest for the completion of the aforementioned section, and considering the rest of the article, I;m sure you'll do a great job of it. I'd just like to second Mak above regarding page numbering - see  (and then the references below it) for a good way of structuring. Cheers, and best of luck with the article, Daniel.Bryant [ T • C ] 06:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hate to be a bitch, but even the Belton House example you gave me doesn't conform to the requirements of WP:CITE. —ExplorerCDT 06:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please include page numbers for book references. Daniel.Bryant [ T • C ] 06:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The important thing is that all the necessary information is included. It's not as important how it is included, as long as it's there. Mak (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for sentence in lead 

message: Wikipedia is not a genealogical database addresses whether an article topic may be devoted to a notable person.  It does not answer the question of whether relatives of the notable person should be included as part of the article.  Wikipedia is not a genealogical dictionary states that many genealogical details may be omitted in exchange for a better-flowing, more rounded article.  Template:Biography clarifies this and explains how to handle marriage and offsprings to maintain a better-flowing, more rounded article.  In regards to the above behavior (not anyone in particular), some of the above discussions seem to have heated somewhat because some posted opinions do not include a reference to a Wikipedia policy, guidline, page, etc.  Withough justifying an opinion with a Wikipedia policy, guidline, page, etc., that opinion is just a personal opinion that is equally valid as another editor's personal opinion.  The editors behind these two competing personal opinions may resort to name calling, reverting, and other not nice things.  To work towards maintaining a cooperative spirit on this already great article, please resort to a Wikipedia policy, guidline, page, etc. -- Jreferee 18:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The notable person and their relatives

message: Among the edits made to the article article are a number of changes that impose a British English spelling on several words, such as "honour" and "valour" among others. As this article is about an American, born of American parents (there's that dreaded genealogical information again), who doesn't seem to have ever stepped foot in England, there seems to be little justification for use of any British English. More importantly, the article is largely written using American English wording and grammar, and inconsistently uses such words as "center" and "honor", among many other inconsistencies. Can anyone offer a valid explanation as to why any British English (except where included within a quote) should not be modified to reflect the appropriate American English usage? Alansohn 02:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: British English vs. American English

message: Alansohn's contribution citing Kilmer's discussion of suicide in review of Richard Barham Middleton's "Monologues" in the New York Times.  This article he cites Kilmer discusses his boredom with those who :praise of suicide so common in "aesthetic" circles" and dismisses Middleton's work as third-rate. He later echoes this reviews in a 1914 letter. It's a false citation provided by Alansohn, and I've removed it. —ExplorerCDT 03:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kilmer, Suicide and Alansohn

message: Sorry to bother everyone but I just got done reading this article and thought it was excellent! However, I was about to make a remark regarding the inclusion of his children and I see that there is a heavy debate going on. I apologize in advance for causing anymore tension here, but why exactly are the children included? Have they done anything notable that warrants their inclusion in the article? MetsFan76 04:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh ok because I also had an issue with the siblings as well.  I really don't find them relevant for this article. MetsFan76 04:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: I added an above todo list template.  Please add to this list only those items that will move this article to FA status.  Limiting the edits to the article to those items on the todo list may help bring some stability to the contributions to the article. -- Jreferee 05:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo list, FA, and Stability