Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Danny Deever/archive1

Danny Deever

I've recently overhauled this to use inline citations (except for one source, which I'll try and chase up at the library - my copy got misplaced in a move). It's pretty good, in my opinion: it covers the context of the poem, the literary style, the actual content, and the musical settings in about equal detail; it's referenced pretty fully; it avoids excessive quotation of the source text (which is really very tempting); it has useful external links. It went through peer review around Christmas, without getting much feedback either way.

The only major problem with it seems to be that it's short, but then it is an article on a single poem (albeit a rather famous one), and so was never going to be overwhelmingly long without becoming a piece of lit.crit. which we don't want (and I certainly don't want to write). Thoughts? (Note that this is a self-nomination - 99% of the article, at a guess, was written by me) Shimgray | talk | 00:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• comment+suggestion Here are my thoughts:

1. The lead usually is of 2-3 paragraphs. This one is only 2-3 sentences, maybe you will need to add more from the article itself.

2. I think ordering of the article is problematic. Here my suggestion: 1)Poem itself, 2)Summary, 3)Style and Form, 4)interpretation, and 5)critical reaction. Sound more logical this way.

3. Any information about the motive behind writing this poem? Any historical background?

4. Any alternative interpretation to the poem? The summary part of article is direct paraphrase of the poem, but any messages this poem is saying? Symbolism?

5. The critical reaction section consists of only comments from other poets and authors from that Era (except Orwell of course), and modern implications? Is this poem an exemplary piece of literature from that Era that students are still learning now?

I think you probably can find these informaton easily (in libraries, not internet) considering the importance of this work. Temporary account 01:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The lead is a bit of an odd case. I can't really think of three paragraphs worth of summary! I've hacked the article around a bit to work on the ordering, but the internal flow is all messed up, so fixing this will take some work.

Historical background &c - not really. He had the opportunity to write some verse for a literary magazine, he came out with this, people liked it. He doesn't seem to have thought of it as topical poetry, no critical study I've seen discusses a message or any symbolism. It's a ballad, and ballads tell a story; not much room for innovative interpreting.

There isn't much contemporary teaching of Kipling AFAIK - he's popular, but generally as something people read for pleasure rather than for criticism - so I wouldn't expect much contemporary reaction or indeed contemporary education. It's not a deep poem, not one that responds to new interpretations well, and there's a good case of "well, they said it already" to be made. I've dug up another bit of critical commentary, so will add that later. Shimgray | talk | 22:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The lead should be expanded. My most major concern, however, is with the Summary. The young soldier is unaware of what is happening, at first - he asks why the bugles are blowing, and why the Sergeant looks so pale, but is told that Deever is being hanged, and that the regiment is drawn up in to see it. He presses the Sergeant further, in the second verse - why are people breathing so hard? why are some men collapsing? These signs of the effect of watching the hanging upon men of the regiment are explained away by the Sergeant as being due to the cold weather or the bright sun. The voice is reassuring, keeping the young soldier calm in the sight of death, just as the Sergeant will calm him with his voice in combat. This is probably original research. A wikipedia article is not supposed to refer to the reader with questions (it is an encyclopedia). The voice is reassuring? Unless a citation can be found for such, it definitely shouldn't be in this article. Another sentence, The strong rhythm makes it, as with many of Kipling's ballads, a popular work to read aloud or to sing., needs a citation. I also think the layout is pretty bad; summary should go before a critical reaction. Thanks, AndyZ 01:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"A wikipedia article is not supposed to refer to the reader with questions" - I'm not sure I get this. This section is a close summary of the text of the poem, and these questions aren't anything more than rewording the lines What makes the rear-rank breathe so 'ard? and What makes that front-rank man fall down? for the benefit of a reader not familar with the "language" of the piece. The poem's a ballad, a story, and the summary is an attempt to explain that story as a complement to the actual text. It's a simple and direct rephrasing, and I'm really not sure it counts as original research any more than a plot summary of a book does.

I've found a citation for "reassuring", since I agree with you this is a bit more interpretative than most of the piece - Ayers remarks "In their question and answer session the Colour Sergeant is in his place close behind the 'files on parade' and is trying to talk the men through a difficult time (...) even in the heat of battle the Colour Sergeant still talks the men through the action", and pulled "popular to read aloud or sing" since we have the music section. Shimgray | talk | 22:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't find anything about the sentence cited with citation 2b in the site linked (the voice is reassuring). Most of my concern now falls into the summary section (and perhaps the structure). The article shouldn't contain personal pronouns like "us" that refer to the reader of the article, as in: The fourth verse brings us the hanging. Otherwise, it looks pretty good. AndyZ 00:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've fiddled the summary section around a bit. I'm personally not too happy with the structure as it stands; I'll see if I can think of anything better. The 2b citation is actually on the second page of a two-page article; scroll to the bottom and "Notes on the text" (it's split into general notes and a close reading); notes for [lines 9-12]. I'm not sure if this should be rendered as two seperate links, since they're intended as part of the same article. Shimgray | talk | 19:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)