Talk:The Lucy poems

Lead

It was mentioned a few times during the FAC, that the lead did not 'draw in'. I think this was more than to do with prose, might have to redraft its structure, and take in a few more angles. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Good article, keep going all..Modernist (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Parody

Upon the Lonely Moor, by Lewis Carroll, is a parody of Wordsworth's "childlike" nature poems from the Lyrical Ballads. Did you happen to find a reference to this anywhere? Awadewit (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been searching since you mentioned it on the FAC talk; but no luck yet. Stay posted though; tomorrow i visit the big city with my Christmas tokens. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Newlyn, Lucy Coleridge, Wordsworth and the Language of Allusion Oxford University Press (2001), page 101. ([1]) --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 02:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That's funny. I know a big chunk of the poem by heart, but this one is slightly different. For example, mine starts with,

I'll tell thee everything I can
There's little to relate
I saw an aged aged man
A-sitting on a gate
"Who are you aged man?" I said
"And how is it you live?"
"His answer trickled through my head
Like water through a sieve
...

This one also doesn't have what I always thought was a great lament for the passing of youth:

"And now if e'er by chance I put
my fingers into glue
Or madly squeeze a right hand foot
into a left hand shoe.
Or if I drop upon my toe
A very heavy weight
I weep, for it reminds me so
Of that old man I use to know
Whose look was mild, whose speech was slow
Whose hair was whiter than the snow
Whose face was very like a crow
With eyes, like cinders, all aglow
Who seemed distracted by his woe
Who rocked his body to and fro
And muttered mumblingly and low
... (don't remember) ...
That summer evening long ago
A-sitting on a gate."

Let me see what I can come up with. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I checked my Roger Lancelyn Green edited Alice (OUP 1992) and the version of the poem I remember is indeed the one in Through the Looking Glass. Here is what RLG he says in his footnote to the poem: "In his letter about Hudibras to R. Brimley Johnson quoted above, Dodgson (Carroll) concluded, 'It may interest you to know that the verses on the Aged, Aged man were written long before Alice was thought of, and appeared in a magazine called The Train in the year 1856, as a parody of Wordsworth's poem "Resulution and Independence". The character of the white knight was meant to suit the speaker in the poem.' The original poem (The Train, ii. 255–6, October 1856) was called 'Upon the Lonely Moor,' and is a parody of the subject matter, but not the metrical form of Wordsworth's 'Resolution and Independence, or The Leach Gatherer' (1807). Dodgson seems also to have been recollecting another poem by Wordsworth, 'The Thorn,' as it originally appeared in Lyrical Ballads (1798); cf. stanza x (l. 105), 'I'll tell you every thing I know,' and stanza xi (ll. 111–14) begins:

I'll give you the best help I can:
Before you up the mountain go,
Up to the dreary mountain-top,
I'll tell you all I know.

Dodgson's original parody 'Upon the Lonely Moor' is reprinted in all collected editions, e.g. Hamlyn pp. 241–3." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fowler, this is very helpful. Ceoil (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Very welcome, and here is a link for "Resolution and Independence" as well as one for a medical(!) perspective on it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Re the 2nd link - crikey! Um, I don't suppose there is any chance that you would help copy edit the article Fowler? No harm in asking. Ceoil (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be delighted to weigh in from time to time. I might not be able to follow it real-time though, if that's okay. I'll make some general (random) comments later today. I should point out though that I'm far from an expert on this; besides you are all seasoned writers. Here, btw, is a link for the Aged Aged Man. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I assure you, all and any help is gratefully recieved. This seems do-able again now. Slate is wiped clean as far as i'm concerned (that goes both ways). Ceoil (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting?

So, I was going to work on copyediting this article this weekend. Is anyone still interested in doing that - or is there too much drama now? Awadewit (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do your thing...Modernist (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The candidacy is closed; but myself and Liz are going to take a month or so and work away and when we are happy go for round II. Of course help is always more than welcome. Drama not expected for the next 30 days or so. Ceoil (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have made a copy-edit of one subsection, Lyrical Ballads on my subpage, User:Fowler&fowler/The_Lucy_poems. My comments are enclosed within < ...> Please treat them as the questions that an average reader might ask. Similarly, please treat the changes I've made as ones that s/he (Av Re) might make. I don't bring any specialist expertise here. I will copy-edit the other sections as and when I find time, but hopefully soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for putting this together - it is extremely helpful! Kafka Liz (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I see many of these changes were adopted - thanks for your help, Fowler! The section already reads much more smoothly. Awadewit (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've quickly c-e'ed Separation from Coleridge on my subpage. Needs more work for narrative flow. (Today was very tight time-wise.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Have these been added to the main article yet? I'm traveling this week, and it looks like I've got a lot of catching up to do. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we are up to date, I just happly brought accross the Seperation section, more or less in its entirety. Thanks Fowler. Ceoil (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Influences

• 1 "He followed the abab rhyme used in four of the Lucy poems and widely by

Wordsworth elsewhere. Controlling the elegiac tone carefully, he did not have..." p. 70

• 2
• The Mark Jones book cited might have some more about influences.
• 4

I can look through Jones next week to see if he says anything about influences that we missed. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ottava. Ceoil (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting questions

I'm going to list my copyediting questions here as I go. This is going to so much more fun than my normal copyediting jobs - an article about Romantic poetry! *sighs in happiness*

Lead

• The Lucy poems are a series - Since "series" is singular and the sentence is making a direct comparison between "the Lucy poems" and "a series", should this be "The Lucy poems is a series"? Or, since this is BE, should it be "The Lucy poems are a series"? Awadewit (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Are a series. We get this all the time on alt.rock pages - "Electro Hippies are a band" vs "Electro Hippies is a band". Is sounds very weird to me, and they is Brits, so are. Ceoil (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Note, though, that in the third sentence "series" is singular again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It would seem that throughout the rest of the article "series" is singular. This needs to be standardized. Awadewit (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• They were first published in the second edition of Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge's (1772–1834) Lyrical Ballads (1800), whose initial printing was Wordsworth’s first major publication and arguably the beginning of the English Romantic movement. - I'm having trouble rewriting this sentence. Note that I have had to insert something about the fist edition to make it correct, but it sounds inelegant now. Awadewit (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

How about "They were first published in the second edition of Lyrical Ballads (1800), a collaboration with Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772–1834); two years earlier, the book's first edition had not only signaled Wordsworth’s first major publication but also helped launch the English Romantic movement. (Do we need "arguably?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Still not happy with this. When did LB begin to be considered W.'s first major publication? Right away or later? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed to: "They were first published in the second edition of Lyrical Ballads (1800), a collaboration with Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772–1834); the book's first edition was Wordsworth’s first major publication, which had helped launch the English Romantic movement." Awadewit (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Although they are presented as a series today, Wordsworth did not conceive of them as a group, nor did he publish the poems together. - It is confusing to the reader to say that Wordsworth did not publish the poems together when the previous paragraph has just said he published them (presumably together) in Lyrical Ballads. What precisely is meant here? Awadewit (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Went for published in sequence. Ceoil (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Did W. see them as related? My guess is that he did (since Lucy occurs in all); consequently, "conceive of them as a group" which can mean, "conceive of them as related poems," might not be the best choice of words. Do you think it might be more informative if we said instead: "Although presented together today and likely seen by Wordsworth as related, the poems were never published by him in sequence." (We will, of course, need a cite for that.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is really important to say that Wordsworth did not conceive of the poems as a group, as one might assume. Awadewit (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A tricky question, and the subject of much debate. The final truth is that Wordsworth never did make the grouping explicit: it is completely a creation of critics and theorists. The grouping is based both on the stylistic and thematic similarities as well as on various comments and intimations by Dorothy and William. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Correction - Wordsworth did not use Lucy in all of the "Lucy" poems. One is missing any direct naming of Lucy. Also, "Lucy" appears as a name in other Wordsworth poems. Only these five are seen as a unity based on scholars later combining them as a series. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think the lead should list the five poems - thoughts on this? Awadewit (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Done now. Ceoil (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Delighted. Its nice to see goodwill back here on this talk again. I can fix these. Ceoil (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Great idea. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Lyrical Ballads

• His intention was to settle with his sister, Coleridge and Coleridge's wife "to pass the two ensuing years in order to acquire the German language, and to furnish ourselves with a tolerable stock of information in natural science". - Women have names, you know. :) Could we add them? Awadewit (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, this looks bad. Done. Ceoil (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

:) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Separated from his friend and forced to live in the solitary company of his sister, Wordsworth used the "Lucy poems" as an emotional outlet. - Does it sound strange to say "solitary company"? I kind of like the phrase poetically, but I'm wondering if it is actually illogical. Awadewit (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sole company? Ceoil (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes more sense to me. Awadewit (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility could be "unshared." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would seem she deliberately sought this path. Ceoil (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to take a look at the article, but from what I've read, it seems they could not afford to entertain in the manner expected of or by people of their social station. Wordsworth on his own could have managed, but supporting Dorothy took all his spare resources. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something (and due to various computer difficulties, I may be), the sentence seems to be unchanged. It seems pretty accurate to me as is, but I'm open to changes. Kafka Liz (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to "sole". Awadewit (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The poems

• The grouping was initiated by Thomas Powell in 1831 and codified by the Scottish historical writer Margaret Oliphant (1828–1897) in her 1875 anthology. - Who is Powell and where did he initiate the grouping? What was the name of Oliphant's anthology? Awadewit (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Having difficulty here. Ottava, Liz? Ceoil (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Check the reference section - Powell, Thomas. "Literary Characters. No. III. Mr. Wordsworth." Fraser's Magazine 3, June 1831. 557–566. He is also "Wordsworth's friend". :) No Wiki page. I could make one when I work on Wordsworth, but that is pushed back some. My ability to edit right now is severely diminished. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(working on this) Kafka Liz (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm having some difficulty tracking down the anthology in question. It seems she argued in an 1871 essay that the poems formed a group, but I'm not finding an anthology published in 1875. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the statement is correct at this stage. Ceoil (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded it. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ostensibly straightforward, the divided structure of the seven stanzas, in which the motion of the moon is set in opposition to the motion of the speaker, serves to underscore the speaker's ambivalent attitude towards the imagined death. - I think perhaps too much is being smooshed into this sentence. In what way is the speaker ambivalent? How does the opposing motion signifying ambivalence exactly (that is not clear to me)? Awadewit (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• I see this has been clarified. Ceoil (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• I tried to clarify this, but I'm not sure I've been entirely successful. Let me know if these changes clarify things or muddle them further. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• It is clearer to me. Awadewit (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• The dramatic first stanza contrasts with the subdued tone of rest of the poem. As lyrical ballad, "Strange fits..." differs from the traditional ballad form emphasising abnormal action and instead focuses on mood. - In what way is the first stanza dramatic? What is the mood of the poem? Awadewit (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Took out dramatic at least. Ceoil (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

We have to have something to contrast with "subdued", though. Awadewit (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

How about something like: "The striking first stanza, speaking of (or professing) passion confessed only to the lover, contrasts with the somewhat subdued tone of the rest of the poem."? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

But then we are back to the problem of what exactly makes it "striking" - I'm sure the sources must say. Awadewit (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded this, including the phrases Hartman cites. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is much clearer - thanks. Awadewit (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've added links to the Wikisource copies of the poems' texts in the middle of the article. I know this violates God's MOS, but I think this is far more helpful than the link at the bottom of the article. When I was reading about the poems, I wanted to read the poems themselves, so I have made them easily accessible. This is what IAR was made for, IMO. Awadewit (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree very much with this move. Considering the readership is most likely going to be high school students cramming, any convienence should be made for them. Ceoil (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

:) Great idea. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• its hypnotic motion towards Lucy's cottage parallels that of the lover - The phrase "hypnotic motion towards Lucy's cottage" seems slightly wrong to me - isn't the moon hypnotically affecting the lover? To describe motion of the moon itself as hypnotic seems off. Awadewit (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The moon's motion hypnotizes the lover. As it sinks (in his mind) he becomes entranced. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed to: "As the lover imagines the moon slowly sinking behind Lucy's cottage, he is entranced by its motion." Awadewit (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• The image of the moon represents how love causes a lover to be fixated on something beyond the beloved. - What is the "something"? (Also, the whole sentence is awkward but I can't find a fix right now.) Awadewit (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The something would be the moon in this case. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed to: The image of the retreating, entracing moon represents looking beyond one's lover. - This could be better, though. Awadewit (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Further, the image of the retreating, entracing moon is used to portray the idea of looking beyond one's lover. Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• To convey the dignified, unaffected naturalness of his subject, Wordsworth uses simple language, mainly words of one syllable. - I find the use of "mainly" awkward here. Other options? Awadewit (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Primarily? Or just cut the final clause. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I would substitute mainly for just...Modernist (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed to "primarily". Awadewit (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Another option could be "chiefly." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Largly? Ceoil (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nature interrupts the voice of the poet after the first line and a half, in the words of the literature historian Susan Eilenberg, usurping "the poet's control over his poem...and not letting him speak again until it (nature) has destroyed its subject". - What do we think about cutting this sentence? It is not well integrated into the section about the poem. The rest of the section flows so well together! Awadewit (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Awadewit (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• The lifeless rocks and stones described in the concluding line convey the finality of Lucy's death and the absence of any animating force. - I'm not sure what "absence of any animating force" means. Awadewit (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I trimmed. Ceoil (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• The narrator's response to the girl's death lacks bitterness or emptiness - Is it important to say what the response lacks - it, of course, lacks many things. Should we stick to describing what it is? Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Describing the poem in letter to Thomas Poole dated April 179 - date is incomplete Awadewit (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

1799. That is the only year left for when the poem were written. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• This poem consists of two stanzas of four lines each, both of which are characterised by spare language. - Every time I read this sentence, it sounds strange. The "both" seems to be referring to the "four lines". Am I crazy here? Awadewit (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Place a comma before the "of" and the both definitely refers to stanzas. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Awadewit (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Another option is: "This poem consists of two stanzas, each four lines long and each characterised by spare language." But if both stanzas are characterized by spare language then the poem itself is! So, one could say: "Written in spare language throughout, the poem consists of two stanzas, each four lines long." What is "spare language" though? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC) (Whoops, have to stop now. More anon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

Changed to F&F's version. As to spare language, it means "economical" or "sparse". This is not literary jargon, happily. This is a definition that comes up in online dictionaries. Awadewit (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A piped link to economical or pare here might be helpful. Ceoil (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Linked to wiktionary. Awadewit (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of "She dwelt among the untrodden ways" seems a bit haphazard to me. The paragraph begins by talking about the symbolism of the "untrodden ways" and ends up talking about Wordsworth's reticence to discuss the poem. I think this paragraph needs to be rewritten - perhaps some of the material should be moved elsewhere. Awadewit (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

See below - I've been wanting the section on that poem shortened for a while. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I've started a trim. Ceoil (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking better. The only sentence that really sticks out now is "Throughout the poem sadness and ecstasy are intertwined, a fact emphasised by the exclamation marks in the second and third verses." This doesn't seem to be connected to the description of Lucy - the topic of the paragraph. Awadewit (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sentence moved to the last paragraph in the section. Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• The third quatrain "She dwelt..." is written with an economy and sparseness intended to capture the simplicity the poet sees in Lucy. - Does "the poet" mean Wordsworth or the poet-narrator? Awadewit (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That could be an article in itself. :) I would swap poet for narrator to appease the New Critics, even though they are dead. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Besides, there's a little New Critic in all of us. :) Changed. Awadewit (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• The influence of the traditional English folk ballad is evident in the metre, rhythm and structure of the poem. - Did Percy's collection influence all of the poems or just "She dwelt"? Awadewit (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

From memory, the source mentions "She dwelt" only. Ceoil (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarified. Awadewit (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• According to critic Carl Woodring, "She dwelt..." and the Lucy series can be read as elegiac, that is, a "sober meditation on death or a subject related to death". He finds that they have "the economy and the general air of epitaphs in the Greek Anthology....if all elegies are mitigations of death, the Lucy poems are also meditations on simple beauty, by distance made more sweet and by death preserved in distance". - There is a lot of quotation here - I would suggest paraphrasing more of it. Awadewit (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

But it's so perty. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Tried to trim the quoted material here a bit. Ceoil (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What does the "Greek Anthology" bit mean? Awadewit (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Dabed to Greek mythology. Ceoil (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• One passage was originally intended for the poem "Michael"–"Renew'd their search begun where from Dove Crag / Ill home for bird so gentle / they look'd down / On Deep-dale Head, and Brothers-water" - I'm of two minds about this kind of information. To me, personally, it is fascinating and important to include, but I'm a scholar. I'm wondering how important this is, especially when it is tacked on to the end of the section. Thoughts? Awadewit (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Move to subpage on the individual poem (see below also). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved. Awadewit (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• a patriotic reading would reflect his political perspective at the time - Can we be a little more explicit about what his political perspective was at this time, particularly since Wordsworth underwent fundamental shifts during his lifetime? Awadewit (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"Hooray England's countryside, its beautiful" most likely. Besides that, it would be too boring of a discussion. How about a change to "a patriotic reading would reflect his appreciation for the English landscape and the pride he felt in its beauty at the time". Ottava Rima (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice. I reworded like this, though as an Irishman on Paddy's day, it killed me. Har. Ceoil (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Much better. Awadewit (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• The possibility remains, however, that Wordsworth is referring to England as a physical entity rather than as a political one, an interpretation that gains strength from the poem's identification as a Lucy poem. - I think explaining how this would change the interpretation would help readers. Awadewit (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm working towards expanding this section, and will make clearer then. Ceoil (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• In 1802, instructions were given to Wordsworth's printer to place "I travelled..." immediately after "A slumber did my spirit seal", but the poem was omitted. - Do we know who gave those instructions? Awadewit (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wordsworth, though I see how that wording could have been confusing. More explicit now. Ceoil (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• The second and fourth paragraphs of "I travelled...." could probably be joined together to make the description of the poem clearer to readers. Awadewit (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Ceoil (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation

• The second and third paragraphs of "Interpretation" could usefully be combined, particularly since so much of them is about the relationship between the figure of Lucy and nature. I would also suggest highlighting the scholars less and their ideas more. I think that the Wikipedia habit of attributing every idea is unnecessary. From reading the sources, you should have a good idea of which interpretations are important enough to attribute to a particular scholar. Awadewit (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The scholars were stated more in this section because of the wide range of arguments. There are few disagreements, but there are little blatant agreements. Each scholar has their own twist on nature and death in the poem. As you can see, there are psychoanalytical sources next to deconstructionist sources. Of course, there are New Critics, Feminists, and New Historicists thrown in too. Then there are the plan ol Historicists and a even philologist. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It might be more helpful to list the schools from which the scholars come. So, for example, the section would read "In a feminist interpretation..." followed by "In a psycholoanalytic interpretation..." - This is more helpful to readers than the names of individual scholars, I think. Awadewit (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

OR problems - most don't address themselves by the school. It might also be confusing to say "Yale School" or other subschools, or if someone happened to change their views over time (which is the case for quite a few). Ottava Rima (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Such imagery does not necessarily help the reader's imagination, at least when trying to relate to the events of the poem. - I'm not sure what the "such imagery" is referring to. Awadewit (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"They combine rural themes with mental creations and present nature as both benevolent and malign." Ottava Rima (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Each poem creates an ambiguity between the sublime and nothingness, as the poet struggles to find a manner with which to best represent death - Is "the poet" Wordsworth or the narrator? Who is struggling, exactly? Awadewit (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wordsworth. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarified. Awadewit (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• They form a rite of passage - It is not entirely clear to me what this "rite of passage" is. Awadewit (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Development into maturity - from child to whatever (some corrupted version of humanity lost to nature's domination) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed to: "They reflect a rite of passage from innocent childhood to corrupted maturity". (Would be nice to do "innocence and experience", but that is a reference lost on most.) Awadewit (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Lucy's death suggests that nature can bring pain even to those who loved her. - Is this supposed to be "who did not love her"? Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Pain to a lover is interesting. Pain to a non-lover isn't. This is saying that Nature is an abusive spouse. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I find the sentence a bit elusive - perhaps it is the "even" - why "even"? Awadewit (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It could just be a colloquial expression. I see it in the same vein as "Crime is rampant here and even the police are targeted" or something similar. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Reworded as nature can bring pain to all, even to those who loved her. Ceoil (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've significantly reorganized the last paragraph of the "Death" section - please check to make sure it is still accurate. Awadewit (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The image on the left causes the block quote to format in, which causes WP:ACCESS problems. The pic needs to be dropped, the caption needs to be shorten, or something else needs to be done to fix this. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I changed the quotation template to specifically indent next to the image (this makes the block quote clearer on the page). I was under the impression that this template complied with WP:ACCESS. Awadewit (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No clue, to be honest. I don't have any of those hand held phones to find out. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Identity of Lucy

• Further examples of the Dorothy/Lucy interchanging can be found in "The Glow-Worm" and "Nutting". - I'm not sure what "interchanging" is supposed to mean here. Awadewit (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Lucy in those poems is Dorothy and more blatantly so in some cases. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Chaned to Lucy representing Dorothy . Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Further examples of the Dorothy/Lucy interchanging can be found in "The Glow-Worm" and "Nutting". Wordsworth uses other names for Dorothy in his poetry, even another Lucy. The poet also responded to poetry that described characters named Lucy. If Lucy is Dorothy, Wordsworth's discussion of her death is not the common depiction of her in his poetry. If "Strange fits..." was about Lucy, the others could simply be a continuation of the poetic theme and not necessarily focusing on Dorothy or her death. This could explain why the Lucy of "Three years she grew..." is described in a manner that does not connect the character to any woman that Wordsworth knew - This paragraph is difficult to follow. It begins by talking about "The Glow-Worm" and "Nutting", but then seemingly drifts away from those poems. I'm just sure what the point of this paragraph is - it needs to be rewritten a bit, with a focus on organization and clarity. Awadewit (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• The "Identity of Lucy" section could use a bit of restructing. The topic sentences of all of the paragraphs focus on the scholars who made the arguments, rather than the arguments themselves. It seems to me that each paragraph should (and basically does) present a different view on the identity of Lucy. However, this is not immediately clear to the reader. For example, the Myers paragraph is largely a quote. I would suggest writing a topic sentence that summarizes this quote and its emphasis on emotion and then quote more selectively from Myers himself. Awadewit (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• The paragraphs beginning with "Kroeber" and "Mahoney" can be combined - the ideas in them are very similar. Also, I would encourage the editors to paraphrase more. Much of the language in these quotations will be difficult for the lay reader to understand. The idea is not difficult, however. Awadewit (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Merged at least, and simplified to an extent. Need to engangle a bit more. Ceoil (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of the "Identity of Lucy" section belongs somewhere else in the article, as it discusses the way the narrator appears in the poem. Awadewit (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've cut this now for a seperate section, intend to place an overview in "The Poems" section, just before the individual works. Ceoil (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Revisions

• Actually, I think that this section can be deleted and the information placed in the the appropriate subsections of "The poems". Some of the subsections already discuss changes made to the poems, so I think this would help organize this confusing topic. (This is a very tricky page to organize.) Awadewit (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree; might leave this to last, or at lease until Liz is back online. Ceoil (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, though I'm not gone on the result. I think the point might be lost as that the two para's are now seperate and demoted to the final paras in two of the poem sections, but I'll leave it open to the floor, ie Liz. Ceoil (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Critical assessment

• It would be helpful to the reader to have a summary of the critical assessment at the beginning of this section - a little roadmap to the section. Awadewit (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, overall the section is not yet properly coherent. Work left here. Ceoil (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Likewise John Keats (1795-1821) praised "She dwelt..." - Is there anything more specific we can say about Keats's statement? This is rather vague. Awadewit (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• The poet, painter, and printmaker William Blake (1757–1827) merely marked an "X" besides "Strange fits", along with two other poems on the contents page of his copy of Wordsworth's Poems (1815). - I'm not convinced this is worth including - this is interesting to people like me, who study Blake, but I'm not sure that it would be interesting to the average reader. Awadewit (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Other reviewers emphasised the importance of "She dwelt among the untrodden ways", including Scottish writer William Angus Knight (1836–1916), when he described the poem as "incomparable twelve lines." - Is this really worth including? It is not that specific. Awadewit (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Has been cut. Ceoil (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is a lot of quotation in this section. I would suggest trying to paraphrase more of it. Too much quotation is difficult to read because the reader is switching between lots of different writing styles very quickly. Awadewit (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This is very much an outstanding weakness in this section. Ceoil (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Literary influence

• Do you have a source stating that the most common reaction to the "Lucy poems" was parody or that their most lasting influence was in parody or some such thing? It would be nice to have a general comment at the beginning of the "Literary influence" section. Awadewit (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• on the way many nineteenth-century critics sought to establish "definitive" reasonings - I'm not sure what "definitive reasonings" means - is this supposed to be "definitive readings"? Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Changed to readings. Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Bottom three poems

The three later poems didn't have their own pages, but now two do. They contain the same information. I know I can expand the pages of those sometime soon (after Wednesday most likely) but they will require better summaries in those section (i.e. more summarized, as they right now duplicate info). The two top poems could also use more summarization and other content moved to their main sections. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree and aware, though I traveled is not a cut and paste. The idea was to build thoes articles first, and then improve their sections on the Lucy page. I'm just not finished yet. If you get time in the next days we could dky, though a hook for I traveled is not suggesting itself (and its just not finised yet). Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have some stuff on Eliot to put up but I will try. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Words that occur seven or more times

This is not that important, but I thought it might be interesting to list words that are used seven or more times (don't ask, "why 7?") in the article just in case we are unwittingly favoring some. Here they are: According (9) Although (10) article (11) ballad (8) beloved (7) Between (18) character (8) Coleridge (43) Critic (12) critics (11) described (12) describes (10) Dorothy (22) edition (9) English (16) friend (12) Geoffrey (8) Hartman (18) however (12) Identity (7) importance (9) English (16) friend (12) Geoffrey (8)Hartman (18) however (12) Identity (7) importance (9) Language (9) letter (9) Literary (23) London (9) Lyrical (25) Mahoney (7) Matlak (15) Moorman (9) narrator (16) Nature (39) original (9) Oxford (7) Passion (16) Poetry (20) Reality (7) (represent (6) representation (1) represented (5) representing (3) represents (2)) Romantic (7) Samuel (9) second (9) series (12) Shower (8) Sister (15) Slumber (17) Spirit (14) stanza (13) Strange (29) Thomas (8) (traveled (1) traveling (1) travell (1) travelled (17) travelling (1)) University (22) unknown (10) Untrodden (12) William (28) Wordsworth (159) (writer (5) Writing (5)Written (10))  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thesaurus time. Ceoil (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I struck a few titles, surnames etc that cant be avoided, and for a few I've rewored. Ceoil (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Great work, Ceoil! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The poems

I'm unhappy with this section's preamble; currently it discusses the Victorian to modern grouping of the poems, but surely instead should give an overview of their thematic threads, and general outline of what binds them together etc etc, ie lead type stuff. I'd like to rewrite this and spin the current into a seperate section, such "As a series" or something, later in the article, between "Poems" and "Interpretation". I won't be doing this today or tommorow, just asking for openion. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't the general outline of what binds them together be the themes? The poem section now just explains -why- those poems are listed and others are not. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I reworked this a little, can you take a look. Ceoil (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps move the grouping to the end of the Background section. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It occured to me, but I think it might be too much background before we get to the meat, ie the poems themselves. SJ seems to be going well (touch wood). Ceoil (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Its very dry and factual as it stands, given we are writing about poems that led to the birth of the romantic movement. I think we need a lot work here, to be crude, it needs juice and involvement. The sence of longing and nostalgia needs to be drawn out. Ceoil (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Overall, things seem much improved (thanks, Awadewit & Ceoil for the copyediting, and F&f for the critique), but I think the lead is a little choppy now... I'm not sure I'd be able to fix things in a way that would work for everyone. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose choppy is what I meant by dry. I'll see if I can add and people can say yea or nea as they see fit. I wont start crying either way. Ceoil (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with the construction of the second sentence, for starters. It seems very awkward. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought our old use of seminal about summed it without acquard punct and backwards shifted phrases, but there you go. I cant fix it either, its now too tricky with too many qualifiers for one single, lone sentence. Well fuck it. Ceoil (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I know... I've been playing around with it trying to come up with something. What was the problem with "seminal"? I've forgotten. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Something along the lines that "seminal" had too many words. Ceoil (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I'll take another look and see if it can't somehow be reincorporated. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What about "They were first published in the second edition of Lyrical Ballads (1800), a collaboration between Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772–1834) which was both Wordsworth’s first major publication and a milestone in the early English Romantic movement" ? It eliminates the "seminal" which F&f objected to, while preserving the key points within the sentence proper. I'm still not entirely happy with it, though. Thoughts? Kafka Liz (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it certainly better than we have, so in it goes. Ceoil (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you notice ...

... anything unusual in the images I've just added to Palgrave's Golden Treasury? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean the unusual titles rather than the hidden Satanic symbols? Are the titles Palgrave's invention? Kafka Liz (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

:) Yes, they are! I had no idea. How did you guess? He added them, apparently, not just to Wordsworth, but also to Keats (P. mentions this fact about "Keats and others" in the footnotes) and a few others. See, for example, page 32 of Wordsworth's slumber. See also Davies's 1965 "Another new poem by Wordsworth". Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

PS. Since GT was read (and memorized) by generations of English-speaking peoples, you do find references here and there to "The Lost Love," including by Lawrence's Jessie, by the editor of Love is Enough: Pre-Raphaelite Paintings and Poems (which seems to be pairing this painting? with dwelling "among untrodden ways"). The same with "The Education of Nature;" the two Palgravian names had already been adopted by an American anthology, Golden Leaves from the British Poets, published just five years after GT. This influence of GT seems to have rapidly waned after the end of WW I (as far as I can tell in a quick skim of the lit.). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hadn't heard these titles before, having only read the poems in modern editions; I wonder if there's any commentary on these titles, since so many critics and anthologists would have been familiar with them. Interesting stuff... Kafka Liz (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) First of all, there is an entire book on "Slumber," (see below) which seems to be suggesting, among other things, that the grouping was entirely (?) the handiwork of Victorian Wordsworthians. I'm guessing that the book should be added to the bibliography (unless of course it is wildly out in left field or unless it is already there). Here are the book details:

• Caraher, Brian G. (1987), Wordsworth's "Slumber" and the Problematics of Reading, Penn State Press. Pp. 292, ISBN 0271026243, 9780271026244 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

PS Caraher is (or was in 1992 (in this "list of contributors" of another book)) at Indiana University, and seems to be an author/editor of a number of (scholarly) books. The reference to Palgrave in the "Slumber" book is mostly on page 32, although it begins on the very last line of the previous one. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be interesting to find out how he order in Matthew Arnold's grouping is different from Palgraves. More later in the day. I'm happy to do the legwork for this as long as you guys can tie a little rope around me, hold on to the other end, and keep me from tumbling into the vast ocean of OR (I mean original research) that lies all undiscovered before me (with apologies to I. Newton). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Consider yourself covered. Ceoil (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Will attend to the article this weekend. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As a series

We have logical errors in the lead, again. The second para states that Wordsworth "did not conceive of them as a group" (true), but many other claims are made about the genesis and meaning of the poems as if they were concieved as a group. I know that this is down to the fact that they were composed during a the wider period of the lyrical ballads period; just saying it here so others have in in mind as I go about resolving this, perhalps acrobatically. Ceoil (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Gah. Missed this amid other weekend kerfluffle. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

GAN

This is more than enough ready for a GAN and it would give a boost to the article in the FAC process. This should probably be listed. It might motivate people towards the last finishes and give a indepth peer review (via the GAN reviewer) to anything needed. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm good to go with that, and I think everyone else is too. A thorough pre-FAC can only be beneficial. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Lucy poems/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello all. I didn't quite realize what I'd stepped into in signing up to review this article; I have some idea now, having read the FAC nom. I'll do my best to provide detailed feedback on all the GA criteria. Ricardiana (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 1: well-written

Lead

• unrequited love for the idealised Lucy I think a general reader would think, from this sentence, that Lucy is a real person. Can you add something like "the idealized and possibly fictional..."?

• I think part of the problem here is the phrase "who had died by the time the poems were composed," which gives the strong impression that we are taklking about a real person. Let me see what I can do. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've tried rewriting the sentence as "He channeled these feelings into poems that project his frustrations onto an unrequited love for the idealised character of Lucy, an English girl who died young." I think using "idealised character" implies her possible fictitiousness sufficiently at this point, and the question is addressed more fully in the lead's final paragraph. Thoughts? Kafka Liz (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• I like that a lot - sounds great. Ricardiana (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Whether the character Lucy was based on a real woman - is "character" necessary here?

• Removed. Unnecessary, especially if used above. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. Ricardiana (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Some scholars have speculated that Lucy is based on Wordsworth’s sister Dorothy, while others see her as an idealised figure makes it sound as if WW could not possibly have idealized Dorothy (which may be true - but isn't the point here).

• Changed to "while others see her purely as a creation," which is the point I think we're trying to emphasise here. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Ricardiana (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ultimately, Lucy is a literary device employed to meditate on loss, nature and beauty. Could you add something like "Ultimately, scholars/most scholars agree that"? Otherwise the sentence is in danger of sounding POV - as if the article is arbitrating which of several views is correct.

• Done. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Background

• The block quotation in "Separation from Coleridge" is formatted differently from the quotation in the preceding section. Whichever way you choose to format block quotations, they should be formatted consistently.

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Soon, the expiration of the lease in Alfoxden provided the opportunity for the two friends to live closer. In September 1798, Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Dorothy travelled to Germany You've already mentioned this move to Germany twice, and the expiration of the Alfoxden lease and the move to Goslar once. The shift back in time when the reader thought to be going forward is jarring. I think this might be fixed by having the section on Lyrical Ballads talk only about WW&C's meeting and early friendship, the section culminating in a mention of the LB. The separation from C can then be amalgamated into the section so-titled.

• Working on this... Kafka Liz (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've reordered these sections somewhat. Please let me know if it all still makes sense, or if I've accidentally duplicated sections; I'm feeling a bit fuzzy this morning. I removed "The fourth Lucy poem, "Three years she grew in sun and shower", was written in the days preceding Wordsworth's reunion with Coleridge. The final poem, "I travelled among unknown men", came two years later, shortly before Wordsworth was again separated from Coleridge.<ref name="Matlak 47">Matlak 1978, 47</ref>", which no longer fits very well. I'll try to reincorporate it, but if anyone else wants to take a crack at it, it's fine by me. Also, I'm going to double check the ref names to be sure they all still work correctly; please let me know if I've missed any. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• This looks good to me; I think it reads much more smoothly. Ricardiana (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Coleridge's wherewithal allowed him to entertain lavishly I think the general reader will be thrown off by "wherewithal." Also, I think the sentence could be re-worded to be more concise; something like: Coleridge was able to entertain lavishly.

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The poems

• they are not about any one girl who has died To my mind, a girl is a little girl. Can we just say "person"?

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Lucy is Wordsworth's muse and the poems as a whole are, according to biographer Kenneth Johnson, "invocations to a Muse feared dead", and represent the fear of a loss of creative energy Can we get rid of one of the "and"s here?

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• the sterility of the imagery reflects the futility of his longing This is a nice sentence, but the word "sterility" is a bit vague. I can see already the freshman papers that latch onto this, and the blank look of the student when asked "So what did you mean by 'sterility'"? Can we explain more what is meant here?

• Someone with the sources - is it closer to asexuality? Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• That sounds right, but I don't have this particular source to hand. Also, the source doesn't seem to have a corresponding entry in the bibliography, unless it is a typo for the Johnston book (I'll check this). Kafka Liz (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• From the original (verifying Awadewit's expectations) - "For the purely psychological agenda of the poems, the reason that Lucy is dead, and curiously sexless for a lover, is obcious: she must be killed off and presented as never having been a sexual temptation in the first place, despite her highly sensual identification with the natural world." Ottava Rima (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• This has now been reworded. Awadewit (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Looks good. Ricardiana (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• His love operates on the unconscious level and is left to connect to Lucy through natural images Oh, Geoffrey Hartman and your evocative prose! ~ What is meant by "connect to" here? Again, a very broad term - can we be more specific?

• Changed to " His love operates on the unconscious level and he can only connect to Lucy through natural images" Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is better, but still a bit unclear. How about "His love operates on the subconscious level, and he relates to Lucy more as a spirit of nature than as a human being."? Kafka Liz (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think that sounds much clearer. Ricardiana (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Similarly, the twentieth-century critic Spencer Hall believed the poet represents a "fragile kind of humanism". The introduction of a critic's name with "similarly" leads me to expect that some other critic has been named earlier in the paragraph, but that's not the case. Could you add something at the beginning along the lines of "Critics agree" or "Critics such as Geoffrey Hartman"?

• This has been rectified by removing the word "similarly". I think the original idea was that Hall's ideas were similar to the ideas presented in the paragraph, but it is probably unnecessary to say that. Awadewit (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Awadewit! I see - yes, I think it is probably unnecessary, unless you think otherwise. Ricardiana (talk) 05:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is fine as is. Awadewit (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

All right, then. Ricardiana (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Strange fits of passion have I known"

• and is based around a fantasy of Lucy's death "Based around" sounds casual to me. Is there a more precise verb that describes what the poem is doing here?

I'd go for 'built upon' as it is the starting point. Not very elegant, but? Ceoil (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Changed to "revolves around". "Centres on" might work too, if "revolves" is too casual. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• I can't think of anything markedly better. I do like "revolves." Ricardiana (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• As lyrical ballad, "Strange fits..." differs from the traditional form Makes it sound as if there's only one traditional form. Do you mean traditional ballad form?

  Ballad added. Ceoil (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"She dwelt among the untrodden ways"

• where Lucy lived in the opening quatrain Dangling modifier, I believe ~ sounds like an interesting place to live, though!

  I've been there, and its ok only. Anyhow, fixed. Ceoil (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Her femininity is described in girlish terms, which has drawn criticism from those who see the female icon, in the words of literary scholar John Woolford, "represented in Lucy by condemning her to death while denying her the actual or symbolic fulfillment of maternity Ordinarily, I'm a big fan of long sentences. However, this one winds quickly through a number of clauses. Can it be broken up or re-phrased?

  Broken up, but its still a little stiff. Ceoil (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Still working on this. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• A copy of "She dwelt..." was found This makes me very curious. When - by whom? I realize it's not really germane, but to keep readers from being tantalized / distracted, could you move this out of the Divine Passive, or perhaps add a quick footnote?

• Ottava? Ceoil (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Printed in Ernest de Selincourt's Early Letters of William and Dorothy Wordsworth (1935). By deleting two stanzas, and making a few verbal changes, Wordsworth achieved the terse published form of his great dirge." from A-4 of Abrams's work. Header says "Version in a Letter to Coleridge, December 1798 or January 1799". Ottava Rima (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Rewrote to match the source more properly - "An early draft of "She dwelt..." contained two stanzas which had been omitted from the first edition." Ottava Rima (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"I travelled among unknown men"

• knowing the basis for the character of Lucy is not necessary to appreciating the poem and understanding its sentiment Sounds POV. Can you add a citation?

• "Moorman, 423" is the citation that verifies this. I can provide a quote of the source if you want. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• I see the citation for the paragraph, but I think that it should be given for this particular sentence as well. Ricardiana (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Earlier critics assumed she represented a youthful love of Wordsworth's who had died, however modern scholars believe the character is likely a hybrid or largely fictitious comma splice; also, given earlier revisions, this may be unnecessary.

• I agree - removed. Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Grouping as a series

• literary critics who first presented the five poems as a unified set called the "Lucy poems". The grouping was first suggested Repetition of first - any way to re-word?

• It is two different "firsts". The first one is general (literary critics) and the second one is specific (Thomas Powell). So far, I haven't come up with a way to rewrite that isn't tortured. Awadewit (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• I changed the second "first" to "originally," which preserves both the sense and the syntax while removing the close repetition. Ricardiana (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• an arrangement that would seem to indicate a connection between the poems could be simply "arrangement that indicates" - I think the rest is implied

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation

• The poems describe a variety of different relationships "variety of relationships"

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• the poem takes an abrupt shift "shifts abruptly" (or vice-versa)

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• the connection she has with nature "her connection with nature"

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• and could the reader's ability to imagine how she might have been Is "could" the right word here?

• In all of the copyediting we've been doing, this sentence has been mangled. What was it supposed to say originally? Awadewit (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Done. I removed the clause completely - it is explained within the quote following in the next sentence. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• he is sheltered from such trauma by sleep and is sees her as a wider part of nature,[83] and deludes himself into believing that she will not die. More multipled "and"s

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• It is likely that Wordsworth used Could be "WW likely used"

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Identity of Lucy

• Moorman quotation is long enough to be blocked; I find that helps readability

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• wonders why such a figure would be dead Would be helpful to general readers, I think, to be reminded of Hutchinson's relationship to WW

  Done. Described her as "love interest" in order to avoid the complicated nature. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hartman holds the same view; to him Lucy is seen "entirely from within the poet, so that this modality may be the poet's own", but then argues Needs a subject before "argues"

  Done. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Kenneth Johnston concluded - Scholar John Mahoney concluded should be present tense

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• When compared to the other female characters in Wordsworth's poems, as literary critic Anne Mellor points out, it is revealed that they Wordy; also, the subject being compared is Lucy, I assume, and if so the sentence should go more like "When compared to other female characters ... Lucy". Also, as important as it is to include feminist perspectives, I don't recall Mellor mentioning the Lucy poems specifically; if she doesn't, I think will qualify as OR.

  Reworded, not very skillfully though. Ceoil (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm - good idea, but now there's subject/verb disagreement. Ricardiana (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reworded so everything outside and inside the quote agrees - "Lucy and Wordsworth's other female characters do not 'exist as independent self-conscious human beings with minds as capable of the poet's' and are 'rarely allowed to speak for themselves.'" Ottava Rima (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• From the source - "as in the cases of Lucy, Margaret, and Martha Ray" (page 19). Not original research. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Great! Ricardiana (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Furthermore, the character of Lucy has consequence only as a muse for the narrator. If Lucy is Dorothy, then the poems would focus on how Wordsworth lost the inspiration that he found in her I think this part assumes some background knowledge that's currently only glanced at in the article.

  Removed - Johnston's argument comes up in the previous paragraph so this bit is redundant. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. Ricardiana (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Critical assessment

• merely marked an "X" besides Is this a Briticism? "Beside" sounds right to me, but maybe this is like "toward" and "towards"

The claim for Blake has come up a few times brfore as not being strong enough to include. I've removed it for now. Ceoil (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wordsworth's friend Thomas Powell wrote that "A slumber did my spirit seal", Is there another way to introduce the quotation? The comma is not grammatical, although I see it's there b/c a colon isn't really suitable.

  Done. Comma was unnecessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Many of the Victorian critics "Many V critics"

  Done. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

  Done Ceoil (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• a "deep but subdued and "silent fervour" incorrect quotation marks within quotation marks

  Done. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• the poem as "incomparable twelve lines. Perhaps "as an"?

  Done. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Inconsistent use of verb tense throughout to refer to critics

  Unified all of the tenses in that section to past. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Other later critics de-emphasise Either comma between "other" and "later" or could just say "later"

  Done Ceoil (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Literary influence

• The parodies were intended, in part, to ridicule the simplification of textual complexities and deliberate ambiguities in poetry, and on the way "on the way" implies that the sentence earlier read something like "intended as a satire (on the way)". "Intended ... on the way" or "intended to ridicule ... on the way" don't sound right.

  I split the sentence at "ambiguities in poetry" and restarted the next clause to make it clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• "A Bard whom there were none to praise / And very few to read" Is this a comment on Hartley, or the name of one of his parodies?

  I believe it is a first line title of the parody (technically covering two lines). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

  I found the original, corrected the date, added both titles, and expanded to include the first four lines which mock Wordsworth. I believe it is clear now. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 2: factually accurate and verifiable

• Why no page numbers for the citations to Ober and Ober?

• I have a feeling that it was from this version, which lacks page numbers. The website should probably be added. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• I should be able to pick up the physical journal tomorrow and add the page numbers as well. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• While note 76 is to the Victorian Web, it's to an undergraduate essay. Is Edwards now a scholar - or is there some other source you could use?

• I don't think the information is necessary and could add too much to the caption of the image. The image itself might be a little out of place, but I don't know and I already gave up my say in that area. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with Ottava Rima on this point. I can find a better reference if everyone agrees we should keep it, but evocative as the painting is, I don't see a direct relationship to the subject of the article. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the offending image, as I see I am out-gunned. Ceoil (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a good image, it just had problems with formatting in the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd type a better reply, maybe a reason to keep it, but I'm choking on my sour grapes. Damn ye all. Ceoil (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You could just find a reliable source to connect the image of the 19th century dying female. Regardless, I always thought that Ophelia or the Lady of Shalott represented better versions of feminine death. Beata seemed way too alive and more directly Christian (more Coleridge) whereas someone like the Lady of Shalott seems more "naturery". It also has a more creepy love and death connection. Regardless, there are quite a few paintings by those silly Pre-Raphaelites that deal with dying women that are up for grabs. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Silly? Wash you mouth out with soap, pesant. Ironically, I DYK'd (is that a verb) The Lady of Shalott (painting)last yr, but can find no tie in in the sources. Ceoil (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note 88 needs its own citation, a la notes 11 and 19.

• Fixed. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• References sometimes formatted inconsistently, e.g., editor of volume sometimes given before and sometimes after title of edited volume (Brooks and Butler refs)

• Fixed. Kafka Liz (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hamilton is listed as a reprint. Can you give the original date of publication?

• Done. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Mellor's ISBN not hyphenated as others are (from Google Books, I presume?)

• Actually, hyphenation of ISBNs varies from publisher to publisher, so I'm not certain these are all correct. I tend to leave them unhyphenated for simplicity's sake. I'll see what I can find out. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Entry for Ober and Ober seems to be for a journal, but lacks page numbers or volume/issue info.

• Per my comment above. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 3: broad in its coverage

Criterion 4: neutral

• Wordsworth, as the lover and narrator You've just said that Lucy is not a love object. Which is it? It sounds as if there are different critical POVs here; if so, they need to be explained more, rather than agreeing with one or another at different times.

  Changed to: Wordsworth's voice slowly disappears from the poems as they progress and is absent by the fifth poem. Ceoil (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Ricardiana (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 5: stable

Fine here; a collaborative effort. Ricardiana (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have a theory incorporating the moon, the CIA, road tax, elephants, a dream I had, left aligned images, Tesco, and Wordsworth contolling it all; but no sources yet. Lets see. Ceoil (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Tesco, land of the six-year-old girl's stripper pole kit. Ricardiana (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 6: illustrated, if possible, by images

All images are fine; I do have one question, though, regarding File:Samuel Palmer Girl Standing .jpg. The girl in the picture is looking off the screen, as it were; isn't there some rule that people must be looking inwards, towards the article? Ricardiana (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Now left aligned. Ceoil (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello Ricardiana. Thank you, all good points above. Responding.... Ceoil (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ricardiana. Thank you for taking the time to comment; we'll get to work on the points you've raised. Thanks again, Kafka Liz (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ricardiana, we just keep bumping into each other! :) Thanks for reviewing the article! Awadewit (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That's true, we do! The 18th and 19th centuries are a great place to hang out. Ricardiana (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thank you, everybody, for being so nice! This is the friendliest GAN I've ever had. Please don't hesitate to tell me if I'm wrong about anything. I'm sorry this review is slow - lots of family obligations this week + dog-sitting + dissertation. But I am trying to be thorough, as you are using this for FAC prep. Let me know, too, if I miss anything that you want to have an outside eye look at (<--I know, that's a terrible sentence; but I'm too tired to think of a better one right now). Ricardiana (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh, well, things got heated pretty quickly at the FAC, and it got shut down before I had much of a chance to comment or work with people. It was a pretty disappointing experience. Honestly, I appreciate the time you're taking to do this, and it's a relief to get constructive criticism without feeling stomped on. :) No worries about being slow - I have things going on this week as well, and it's a huge article. I'd rather we all took our time and came up with a really fine article. Thanks again, Kafka Liz (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Ricardiana (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've gone through the entire article now. I hope my comments are helpful. Ricardiana (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article so thoroughly. Your comments are much appreciated. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I've passed the article as a GA. Nice job, everybody; good luck at FAC. Ricardiana (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ricardiana; that was a very detailed and astute review, which we were very much seeking. We were lucky for such analysis. Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text mentioning medium

I was just asked about why my recent edits to the article's alt text removed phrases like "Chalk drawing of", and thought I'd try to explain it here. Whether alt text should mention the medium is a judgement call that depends on context, and reasonable editors will disagree at times about this. But here are my thoughts.

In articles on art, where choice of medium can be crucial and it's reasonable to expect readers to be able to recognize the medium directly from the image, it's reasonable for the alt text to mention the medium. In articles on other topics, where the readers typically are less interested in (and less expert in) the medium, it's iffier. Alt text should contain only details that a non-expert reader can immediately verify merely by looking at the image. (This is a corollary of WP:OR; alt text can't have citations, so it can't include anything that could be reasonably challenged.)

Getting to the three images where I removed mention of medium from the alt text:

• I had no idea that Image:Margaret Oliphant Wilson Oliphant.jpg was a chalk drawing, and still can't tell for sure (merely by looking at the image) that it is a chalk drawing. If this fact is important to note, I suggest putting it in the caption, for the benefit of sighted readers as well. You might need a citation for it, if it's challenged.
• Of all the images, the strongest case for mentioning the medium is for Image:Samuel Palmer Girl Standing .jpg as it is most-clearly artistic as opposed to being illustrative. Here again, though, I'd suggest putting "pen and ink drawing" be in the caption rather than in the alt text, since it's not obvious (certainly from the thumbnail) that it's pen-and-ink.
• For File:Dorothy Wordsworth 2.jpg the fact that it's an engraving is not immediately obvious. It is obvious that it's black-and-white, so that detail could be restored to the alt text. This is a judgment call, but I doubted whether a visually-impaired reader would want to spend an extra second to hear the phrase "black-and-white", so I removed it.

Hope this helps to explain my reasoning (I don't expect everybody to agree with all of it...). Eubulides (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• I like your idea of adding the medium to the caption. I've done so for the two which have citations for the medium at the image description page. Thanks for your detailed explanations! Awadewit (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Indenting lines of poetry

As I read and copyedit this article for my FAC review, it seems odd to me that the lines of poetry were flush against the left margin of the article text. Thus, I have added the code style="margin-left:20px" to the <poem> tags. Feel free to revert this if it's not preferred, but I think it looks better indented a bit. Scartol • Tok 16:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I like this change. Awadewit (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Coleridge image

The image of Coleridge was previously on the left under a third header, in violation of MoS. It also formatted against block quotes in both positions (above and below the header), which is a violation of MoS. The image is of Coleridge from 5 years before. There is an image of Coleridge in 1804 by James Northcote, which was owned by Cambridge, of him facing to the left (blatantly), and it would be closer to what he would look like during the Lucy poems period. I have just put together some more stuff for an 1814 illustration of Coleridge, but it is beyond the time frame. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I moved the image up above the third header, and changed the blockquote template to {{imagequote2}}. I don't understand why it was moved over the right side of the page. Scartol • Tok 23:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't change the blockquotes. They have to be uniform. It does not matter -what- blockquote is used, there are to be no pictures on the left reformatting them, as they do not have the proper spacing and do not appear as a blockquote. Thus, it would fail the requirements to denote it as a quote. Also, having an image on the left drop to the left of a title is really, really inappropriate and causes major formatting problems. I always point this out at FACs in which people try to slip images on the left by this means. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what the "major formatting problems" are, but I did check the MOS today and it does encourage us not to have images placed directly under third-level headings as the text of the section and heading are sometimes disconnected in the process. Awadewit (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to fight about this, but it does matter which blockquote template is used. I designed the {{imagequote2}} template specifically for this sort of situation — when a left-aligned image is desired, and we worked hard to make sure it properly showed the image as indented. If it didn't look proper on your browser, perhaps we need to tweak the template some more. I'm not very fussed about this instance; I was just trying to accomodate the original layout of staggered images is all.

Perhaps you can explain to me why dropping the image down on the left into a third header is so egregious? It strikes me as a fairly simple way to remedy the problem. Scartol • Tok 00:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I cannot explain it. Awadewit (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As I've pointed out many times at FAC - when you have an image on the left dropping down into a header, it formats the header to the right. It also formats the text. This creates both html problems and aesthetic problems. You want headers to be uniformed with as little breach as possible. Also, if you notice the blockquote does not format properly on the other side. Plus, the pressure on the blockquote causes too much text to be crammed in one tiny area. I don't remember which section on the MoS discusses left images and blockquotes. It came up during while working on Samuel Johnson. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well as I say, I won't argue about it. But I don't see what HTML problems are caused by the dipping picture method, and aesthetically I think it's fine. As for the right margin for {{imagequote2}}, I just added more space on the right. Very simple fix; thank you for pointing out the need. Scartol • Tok 11:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding a "See also" section with links to two year-in-poetry pages

I added this yesterday:

See also

• 1800 in poetry, year of first publication of all but one of the poems
• 1807 in poetry, year of first publication of "I travelled Among Unknown Men"

An editor removed it with an edit summary that said "inappropriate and tacky". In trying to discuss this with the editor previously, I made several points that the editor didn't respond to and instead simply shot off insults. If anyone else thinks the section would be useful to readers, or wouldn't be, please say so and we'll return it to the page, or keep it off with a consensus. It would be easier for everybody if we could avoid insults over relatively small matters like this. Reconsideration (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus at FAC makes it clear that such categories are inappropriate in the vast majority of cases and should be integrated if they belong in the article. These clearly do not. You were asked to get an RfC before changing thousands of articles without consensus, you failed to do this. Your changes on such a mass level are a blockable offense you know. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with these pages. They follow a pattern established at Wikipedia for other "year in" pages and are sourced. Awadewit (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

FAC makes it clear that pages are supposed to be integrated. See also sections are unencyclopedic to have. There was no RfC nor was consensus asked for. Furthermore, there is already year in literature pages, so this is an unnecessary content fork off of that. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:SEEALSO is an accepted part of the article. As WP:LAYOUT states, "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense", so here we are discussing it. The pages exist, so I am inclined to link to them as they are relevant. They are about poetry and the Lucy poems are poetry. If you want to discuss the existence of the "year in poetry" pages, that will presumably have to be done on a large scale somewhere else. When it comes to these two links, however, I don't see a problem. Awadewit (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If that is so, where are they on the pages that you have written Awadewit? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not know these pages existed until right now. I would be happy if Reconsideration added the links to the relevant articles. Awadewit (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I was refering to the year in literature pages. Year in poetry pages are clearly a subset. However, you have many, many pages without any link to that. Geogre also did not add such to any page, and those years in literature pages have been around for a very long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no requirement for Awadewit to be consistent, and there's no rule preventing him from changing his mind or forcing him to know everything. The state of the year-in-literature is more primitive now than the poetry pages and they aren't footnoted as most of the poetry-pages information now is (although I find most of the information seems to come from the same source I'm using for English poetry, nevertheless, footnotes are not required by Wikipedia for noncontroversial, unchallenged information). It doesn't matter much to me whether the link to the "year in poetry" pages are within the text of the article (which I think I'd actually prefer) or in a "See also" section. If in the text of the article, they'd probably have to be piped so that the "in poetry" part doesn't appear, because otherwise they seem to interrupt the flow of the writing (although I guess it could be done with parentheses). In the RfC early this year or late last year on numbers and dates, there was some opposition to piping year-in-subject links because some editors thought it was confusing -- readers might think they were going to the regular year article and either be disappointed in following the link or be ignorant about the potential link because they thought it was a regular year link. I wish that this was a commonly known practice, and then experienced Wikipedia readers would understand the links. All in all, given what I'd seen in the RfC discussions, I thought "See also" was the way of linking that would get the least objections. Reconsideration (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no requirement for Awadewit to be consistent, and there's no rule preventing him from changing his mind .. I believe you're referring to her mind. =) Scartol • Tok 11:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Awadewit! There doesn't seem to be any objection here to adding the links to the years in poetry within the text, at the spots where publication years are already mentioned. I'll do that. Reconsideration (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

She dwelt among the untrodden ways

Why is the second half of the first paragraph in this section suddenly uncited? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not sudden, apparently. I went through the history. It has been uncited since the page was expanded here. I checked every 50 edits from this point on and it has never been cited. We will need to find a citation. Awadewit (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Scartol

Good work on this article, everyone! It is well-researched and the prose is engaging. As I did a copyedit for my FAC review, I came across a few spots in need of polish and/or work. I also had some questions. So here are the nit-picky things that I didn't feel necessary to bring into the FAC discussion.

Lyrical Ballads

• The question of how much biographical info to include is obviously tricky. My rule is: If it's pertinent to the work being discussed, include it. Otherwise, it's probably not too urgent. I wonder if we need info about his parents, etc in this section.

• Fair point. What does everyone else think? I will go ahead and restructure the section if we agree to remove this material. Awadewit (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• I see Ottava has removed this material. I will go ahead and restructure the section, then. Awadewit (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ditto "The circumstances of their first encounter are uncertain".

• I am inclined to keep this, but I do see your point - it is not entirely relevant. What does everyone else think? Awadewit (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The section is unreferenced and should be expunged unless the original source can be determined. I don't like how people say that the events are unknown as per my research here which suggests that there are some definite events that are known. I can further verify it with statements from Adam Sisman's The Friendship, which analyzes the relationship of Coleridge and Wordsworth. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Awadewit (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• I prefer to include "emphasis in original" in the footnotes, but perhaps others feel differently. I daresay it's not a requirement either way.

• I like having this in the text as few readers look at the footnotes. Awadewit (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not like emphasis in the original nor use of the term "sic". It takes away from the quotes themselves and distracts people from the work. A note should only be made when altering the quote. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Is the original wording really "The principle object"? Seems like "principal" would be correct spelling here.

They are two different words. However, Principal is the one chosen by Wordsworth it seems. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• The quote before the blockquote indicates "the language really spoken by men", but the blockquote mentions "language really used by men". They're both attributed to the same source; are they two different quotes? Or did the precise copying get thwarted? (In the latter case, we should move the quote mark in the first one to after the word "the", since it's not part of the blockquote.)

Both are used in two separate parts as per here. The first quote is used by literary critics to denote a theory of language (or to give it a title) as seen here (with emphasis on Srikumar Banerjee and John Drinkwater as two immediately accessible examples). Ottava Rima (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded it to avoid the confusion. The introduction to the block quote now reads: "Wordsworth's aimed to use everyday language in his compositions". Awadewit (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Separation from Coleridge

• The tense is inconsistent here. Once it's "Wordsworth characterised the two poems thus..." and later it's "Wordsworth complains that..." I didn't switch it, since I'm not sure what the consensus of article editors is, but it should be consistent. This appears elsewhere in the article; I recommend a thorough check to make sure the author is described with the same tense when in relation to his work.

Fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The poems

• The tenses shift again here, even within the same sentence, heh: "Wordsworth structures the poems so that they are not about any one person who has died; instead they were written..."

I made a few changes, but there is a problem. Past actions can be put in past tense. However, some are constants and cannot be put in the past. I made some of the fixes that I could when logic allowed. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Earlier we read that "Coleridge acted as Wordsworth's muse..." and now we find "Lucy is Wordsworth's muse..." While I can see a distinction, this is probably confusing for some readers.

Use of "muse" for Coleridge seemed off. Changed to "Coleridge influenced Wordsworth" as that choice of wording seems more appropriate to the section. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed the second use of "muse" to "inspiration" as the word "muse" appears in a quote right after that anyway. Awadewit (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• I changed the wording of this sentence slightly: "Wordsworth's voice slowly disappears from the poems as they progress, and is entirely absent from the fifth poem." Please make sure I didn't make it mean something incorrect.

• That seems fine to me. Awadewit (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Having two different abbreviations for "Strange fits..." is a bit awkward; in the first sentence of its section it's referred to as "Strange fits of passion...". Maybe just use "Strange fits" each time?

Unified. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• I bristle at the phrase "complementary yet opposing". Perhaps a better description can be found?

• I haven't been able to think of anything better in the last few days. Awadewit (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• The quotation from "Katharine Jaffray" by itself doesn't help the reader much (at least not for me). Perhaps we could have a side-by-side comparison?

• Added. Awadewit (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• The tense problem is back, with one sentence reading "Kenneth and Warren Ober compare the opening lines..." and another reading "The critic Carl Woodring wrote that..." I prefer putting all comments from critics in the present tense, but either way it should be standardised. Again, this appears elsewhere in the article as well.

I would prefer if the whole thing was in present tense to be honest. I changed the tensing.Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. But it looks like there are still some inconsistencies in the "Identity of Lucy" section: "Critic Herbert Hartman believed..." and "Moorman suggests...". Perhaps others too. Scartol • Tok 14:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you know anyone that is good with scripts? It would be nice to get a tense script. By the way, done. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I won't be surprised if you hate me. But I think it's important for us to be consistent throughout the article. Right now some of the critical voices are present tense ("Literary scholar Mark Jones offers a general characterisation...") and some are past ("Critic Herbert Hartman believed Lucy's name was..."). Am I being too much of an English teacher dork if I request a single approach? Scartol • Tok 15:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that I originally wrote everything that was quoted in the present tense and then it was slowly turned to past tense. Fixed that whole section. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through the entire article and tried to fix the tense problem. I left the "Critical assessment" section entirely in the past tense as it was telling a history. Awadewit (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I added a space and changed the i to a capital letter in the Woodring quote, because a four-dot ellipsis indicates the end of a sentence. (If this was not the intention, it should have a non-breaking space in front and three dots, followed by a regular space afterward.)

• This sentence feels redundant, since its information is discussed at length in the previous paragraph: "Although the poem focuses mainly on death, it also elaborates on the the narrator's love for England and nature."

• Removed and revised a bit. Awadewit (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation

• "Early works, such as 'Tintern Abbey', can be viewed as odes to his experience of nature, although the poet preferred to avoid this interpretation." How about "...the poet disliked this interpretation"? Could we get another sentence of explanation on this?

• I removed this - I think it is a bit distracting anyway. Awadewit (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• The following sentence is very confusing. I get the sense that we're mixing poem titles with quotes from a critic: Cleanth Brooks wrote that "Strange fits..." presents "Kind Nature's gentlest boon", "Three years" its duality, and "A slumber..." the clutter of natural object. Clarify?

• "The imagery used to evoke these notions..." But the word "imagery" appears earlier in the text. As I understand the rules, the first instance should be linked, and this one only if it's been a while since the first link.

• Removed link. Awadewit (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• The quote that begins "Lucy, living, is clearly a guardian spirit..." is only three lines on my screen. My understanding is that block quotes should only be used for quotes of four lines or more. (However, it had an imagequote2 template on it, so maybe it originally had a picture nearby, which made it four lines?)

It had an image that was cut because another reliable source could not be easily found to link the image with the text at the time. Many of the blockquotes can be integrated as standard quotes. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• The mention of the "Lucy/Dorothy relationship" and "his desires for the death of his sister" come as a bit of a shock at the end of this section. Perhaps this should be moved to the following section? (Note also that the punctuation is inconsistent: Later it's shown as "the Lucy–Dorothy allusion".

• I'm reluctant to move this, as this is part of the overall "Death" theme. What does everyone else think? Awadewit (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The identify of Lucy came before the interpretation/death sections in previous versions. By moving interpretation down, it removes the context for mentioning it again in the death section. Thus, the confusion and the seemingly out of place appearance of the passage. This was one of the alterations that I heavily disapproved of along with the grouping section moved down. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What about adding a sentence in the biography section that alludes to this, so that it won't be such a surprise? Awadewit (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The conjecture about Wordsworth having problems with his sister is an interpretation of the poems placed back onto his biography, and not his biography affecting the interpretation of the poems. One section is Freudian, the other is Historical. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but the article freely mixes such interpretations (and does not even identify them, so that is not really the most salient point). The point is to make the article clearer - this is one way to do so. Can you suggest another way? Awadewit (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Restore the place of Lucy's identity up above the thematic section. It is common for such sections devoted to characters to come before themes in articles regardless. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's see what Ceoil thinks. Making such large-scale structural changes usually involves a lot of work, so it would be nice to find an easier solution. Awadewit (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Very little has structurally changed since I originally wrote the sections. This was the previous structure. The background was tight, and Coleridge was in place along with Lucy to keep the various psychologica/biographical interpretations together. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added the material to the "Identity of Lucy" section. Awadewit (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Identity of Lucy

• Again, we have some blockquotes that are shorter than four lines. Combine with the regular article text?

Fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• The quote from Coleridge about "the most sublime epitaph" is also in the section on "A slumber did my spirit seal". I think it fits better here, and I'd recommend removing it from the earlier spot. (It appears again in the following section, which also feels odd. But I don't have a suggestion about how to remedy this — it's clearly important in both of the latter instances.)

• I've removed the first use in the description of the poem. We could fix the repetition problem by removing the epitaph part from the block quote in the "Reception" section. What does everyone think? Awadewit (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Critical assessment

• Tense problems again. ("The first mention of the poems comes from Dorothy ... she wrote")

Fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• We should make clear that the emphasis in Davies' quote ("but the most important work...") is (I assume) original.

• Added. Awadewit (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Literary influence

• There are some problems with tenses here. "They also questioned..." and then "...such parodies comment..."

Fixed tense. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• I wonder if "Literary influence" is the best title for this section; I expected to learn of how other writers were influenced by the poems. Instead, maybe: "Parody and allusion" or some such?

Changed. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Again: Kudos for all your hard work. I look forward to seeing this as an FA! You may correct or ignore or respond to these items as you will; no need for green check marks or the like. Please let me know if you have any questions. Scartol • Tok 13:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Gill

I could have sworn that I used Stephen Gill in the article before. However, I could not find him, and I used him to patch up a missing ref. He is an important scholar and I am wondering why he is missing. His biography was also one of the first biographies I had of Wordsworth, so I don't know how it would have gone overlooked. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

To do

• I added a space and changed the i to a capital letter in the Woodring quote, because a four-dot ellipsis indicates the end of a sentence. (If this was not the intention, it should have a non-breaking space in front and three dots, followed by a regular space afterward.)

Will check at the library next week. Awadewit (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• The following sentence is very confusing. I get the sense that we're mixing poem titles with quotes from a critic: Cleanth Brooks wrote that "Strange fits..." presents "Kind Nature's gentlest boon", "Three years" its duality, and "A slumber..." the clutter of natural object. Clarify?

I would think cut. Without context or explanation, its vague and assumes too much. Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think we should expand by explaining more fully. I just need to get the source. Awadewit (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

To expian. Either it should be expanded or cut. Ceoil (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping to go to the library this weekend. Unfortunately, I can barely move my back! This will have to wait until next week. :( Awadewit (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Finish checking tenses.

• Cite the second half of the first paragraph in "She dwelt".

Rewrote. Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(It was getting hard to read through everything.) Awadewit (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed from article

"The sense of loss is most apparent when the narrator's ambivalence towards his lover peaks during "I travelled...", the last poem composed. Then the narrator overcomes his ambivalence, and, in turn, his grief. Lucy is left physically absent from the verse as Wordsworth likely attempts to hide a desire for the death of his sister by portraying Lucy's passing as a result of natural causes." - I added some sentences from this paragraph to the "Identity of Lucy" section. I'm wondering what we want to do with the rest of this. Awadewit (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations to Awadewit, Ceoil, Fowler, Kafka Liz, and Ottava. Well done! Modernist (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference to the Divine Comedy 1993 Song "Lucy"

I've added this reference (originally in its own section) to the Parodies and allusions section. The song is relevant to the text as it uses the text of three of the poems I travelled among unknown men, She dwelt among the untrodden ways and A slumber did my spirit seal. I've not added the reference for trivia reasons, but as a relevant allusion to the modern influence of the poems. TorstenGuise (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, TorstenGuise. I understand your wish to include this reference, and while I'm generally not in favour of such sections, I think you may have a point here. That said, I think the sentence/section needs to be written in a more thoughtful manner if we're going to include it. I'd like for Ceoil to weigh in here; he helped bring the article to FA and can comment in depth about this and other musical interpretations of the poems.

I'm not saying no, exactly, just that I'd like some more context, content and discussion before we re-add this. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As I posted on your talk page, I have not got the time at the moment to expand on it as I'm currently in the latter stages of writing a thesis on 17th century science/the royal society/Robert Boyle. As such, I've going to have leave it in your group's hands as I also have no expertise in English literature. The bane of being a scientist I'm afraid. TorstenGuise (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I think we can work something out here. I hope you can join us in further discussion? Your input on this is welcome. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If I can, I will be honored to do so. TorstenGuise (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• The song is not notable to the poems. The poems may be notable to the song. There is a difference, and the appropriateness would be to mention The Lucy poems on the song page and not vice versa. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, the lack of an appropriate citation would mean that adding the material to the page would fall under WP:OR, original research. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The song has been published, so how can this be original research? In any event, I agree that this content belongs to an article about the song, not in this article. --Una Smith (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no third party verification to discuss it. That is the very definition of original research. WP:OR "This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." Introducing something that doesn't even have sources, let alone proof of notability, into a featured article is one of the major content no-nos. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. At the time, I thought that more than one band had put the verses to music, and so I thought this type of arrangement might merit a mention. Since it is apparently only the one band, I'm no longer certain it does. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Lede:" ... Coleridge, who had stayed in England ..."

In fact, as the article makes clear later on, Coleridge and wife accompanied the Wordworths on the trip and they separated because the Wordsworths couldn't afford to live in Gottingen. In fact the Wordsworths arrived back in England May 1799 before Coleridge's return in July.

I'm a bit disconcerted by the remark "increasing impatience with his sister Dorothy". I don't have Mary Moorman to hand, but I don't remember that and there's no suggestion at all of the sort in Gill, which I do have. Later we read "Although Wordsworth sought emotional support from his sister, their relationship remained strained throughout their time in Germany. Separated from his friend and forced to live in the sole company of his sister, Wordsworth used the "Lucy poems" as an emotional outlet", and the citation given is to a "psycho-biography" by a relatively obscure professor at a private north eastern university (déja vu that all over again), a Jesuit college of some 2800 souls (ditto), neither very notable I should say. Can it really be right to empahasise it so? Are there other sources? My own feeling is that the reference later to the professor of liberal arts in the section "Identity of Lucy" is as much (and more) as he needs and the other stuff should be struck.

I'm not quite sure what to make of "Although Wordsworth sought emotional support from his sister ..." either. Isn't that a rather weak assessment of what was an extraordinarily intense relationship, one that Mary Moorman, if I recall correctly, bluntly characterised as intensely erotic, which indeed seemed to me about right when I was reading Wordsworth, both the poems and Dorothy's journals, very many moons ago? And going in that direction shouldn't more be made of F. W. Bateson and his suggestion that William was expressing repressed sexual longing in the Lucy poems? The death thing being some sort of Freudian resolution I expect? Haven't actually read Bateson.

Incidentally, I couldn't construe Note 4 at all: " ... the play with the incest prohibition etc."?

Finally it's the opening 400 lines or so of The Prelude (why some poems italicised while others quoted, per "Lucy Gray" for example?) that William wrote at Goslar. It might be worth stressing that in the interest of balance. Gill mention the "Lucy" poems just once in his biography, parethetically in connection with Coleridge's celebrated remark about it being William's sis snuffing it. Gill points out that what Coleridge was at pains to emphasis here was the intensity of the relationship between the two.

Just some suggestions for the editors. DaftOldBat89 (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks OldBat. Its been a while since I went through the sources, but I do have some of them scattered around here, somewhere. From a sence check, yes the forceful phrase "as an emotional outlet" needs to be looked into, though I do remember seeing other sources hinting at this. I think anyway; my memory isnt what it used to be.

"Although Wordsworth sought emotional support from his sister" - sure but it isnt intended to be an all ecompasing statement. The rest, give me a few days to check out. Ceoil (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

thumb|right|iF. W. Bateson - Wordsworth, A Re-Interpretation, (Longman 1954) p. 153

The origin of "frustrations" appears to be a 2008 article start Early_life_of_William_Wordsworth where we find the following

"In particular, it is possible that the "Lucy" poems allowed Wordsworth to vent his frustration with his sister, and that they contain the subconscious desire for his sister to die."

which is cited by p 153 of F. W. Bateson's Wordsworth: A Re-Intrpretation (see scan right).

But as DaftOldBat89 points out above, and as the scan confirms, Bateson's thesis was that Wordsworth and Dorothy's relationship had grown into a love affair and it was guilt over incestuous feelings, not frustrations with his sister's presence, that prompted him to kill off Lucy.

"Frustrations" is frankly nonsense and should be struck.

Kind regards to all my friend these pages. Ahmed Moustafa 23 (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A slumber did my spirit seal

he 2409:408C:2493:F485:0:0:D0E:78AD (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)