Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Raven

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:32, 14 October 2007.

The Raven[edit]

previous FAC

After the last FAC review, I feel that this article on Poe's most famous poem is standing up fairly well. I feel that this article meets FAC criteria. I'd love to see this pass before the end of October! Looking forward to giving this another go, so comment away! --Midnightdreary 00:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A nice article. With a few minor fixes, it will meet the criteria.

This passage feels awkward (rather than brilliant or engaging): "He explains that the poem was created by logically considering every aspect of it. For example, the raven enters the chamber to avoid a storm (the "midnight dreary" in the "bleak December"). The dark black raven sits on a pallid white bust to create a visual contrast."

Done I agree with you here, so I gave it a try. What do you think now? --Midnightdreary 01:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...suggested that Poe's particularly strong focus on structure and meter is so formulaic that the poem is artificial, though its mesmeric quality overrides that." This exact phrase is repeated twice in the article. I do have a problem with the phrase "...though its mesmeric quality overrides that." It feels awkward, because of the vague that.

Done I didn't realize I had that line twice! I cleaned it up and left it in the section that talks about the poem's structure. How does that work? --Midnightdreary 01:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The captions need work. Take a look at the wikipedia caption guidelines, because there are some really great examples and suggestions there. Specifically, the captions in The Raven need to provide context for the picture and draw the reader in. The fact that the picture is an engraving of a scene from the poem is nice, but we need something more. For example, does the image make an interpretation of the poem, does the image capture some special detail or emotion? On the bust of Pallas, surely we could have some information detailing the symbolism?

Done I'm not sure it's particularly strong, but I gave them a go. Your comment also inspired me to switch two of them around. Thanks for that link! Let me know if these new captions can be further improved upon. --Midnightdreary 01:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Parodies sprung up especially in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia and included "The Craven" by "Poh!," "The Gazelle," "The Whippoorwill," and "The Turkey." It might be interesting to explain what the parodies were parodying. For example, a parody of a politician might make fun of that person's unusual accent, lifestyle, or facial features.

Not done By definition, a parody is aimed at the original source material it is parodying. You're thinking of a satire; your comment doesn't seem to apply here. --Midnightdreary 01:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, good work so far. Jeff Dahl 04:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Okay, with these changes I'm satisfied. Only one other minor detail, I would remove the forced image sizing on the bust of Pallis, because it seems a little big. The other illustrations seem OK at 220px width. Jeff Dahl 18:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sumoeagle179 00:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are the citations in the plot summary really necessary? I clicked on them expecting to see some sort of clarification (maybe a subtlety or argued point in the plot), but that wasn't the case.-Wafulz 16:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were insisted upon during either peer review or GA review. At the time I wasn't too keen on it myself... but, there are so many different versions of the poem it's worth being clear about it. Besides, a quote is a quote and should be cited. I wonder if there's a wikipolicy on quoting works that are the topic of an article...? --Midnightdreary 17:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Since there is a whole article about it I think there should be a section about its popular culture status. Buc 07:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the article needs anything beyond what is mentioned in the "Critical reception and impact" section. Further expansion only invites massive amounts of cruft (as we saw in the last FAC review). I wonder if others agree with Bole2's suggestion? If so, I'll gladly flesh it out a bit more (if I can find third party sources that discuss it). --Midnightdreary 00:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that featured articles should contain sections about popular culture status if such status is important. With the Raven, a pop culture section would constitute little more than a list of trivia, which is why that stuff was put in its own article. Jeff Dahl 00:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it's cult status is important. Buc 18:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now you're arguing two different things. "Cult status" does not apply to "The Raven." As it seems to state in the article, "The Raven" has long-standing mainstream appeal. The fact that everyone from Homer Simpson to The Alan Parsons Project reference it is as irrelevant as, say, the various mentions of George Washington. Okay, maybe not the best example but still... where do you find a reliable third party source to cite in regards to the pop culture references of "The Raven"? I see your point, but I'm not sure how it can be worked in without trumping the seriousness of the article. What do you suggest? --Midnightdreary 22:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Addendum: In case not clear, I'm suggesting that "cult status" and "mainstream" are opposing ideas. Carry on! -Midnightdreary 23:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Support as last time. Some paras a teeny bit stubby but not a deal-breaker. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent article. Axl 17:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.