Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ormulum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ormulum

Semi-self-nom: I wrote it and did a lot of the early research, and with the aim of getting a second medieval literature FA, but the quality of the article took off with the intervention and ministrations of Haeleth. At this point, I honestly think this is the prettiest article on an ugly book ever. Geogre 02:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A well-referenced and informative article. The red links are a minor concern however, do you have any info on Jan van Vliet and the Ayenbite of Inwyt? The pictures also look good; well done! Brisvegas 03:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't have anything on Jan van Vliet. Haeleth might, but I'll see if he rates an article in the Dictionary of National Biography in the next few days. The only information I personally had was a substub ("A Dutch antiquarian and book collector"), and that wouldn't make an article. The Agenbite/Aygenbite is one of those big pieces that needs an article, but to do it any kind of justice requires a substantial effort. It will happen, but it's kind of a big pull. Geogre 03:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Franciscus Junius is a substub just like that right now... that should probably be even more of a concern! I've stubbed van Vliet, and provided a reference that looks like it should be useful, if anyone can find a copy. — Haeleth Talk 14:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. It's a very detailed article, with all the right foci. My only issue is that you seem to use Bennett disproportionately. Perhaps you can add some more information from other sources? Superm401 | Talk 05:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  It's difficult. Specialists are interested only for particular bits of morphology or instances of Old Norse, and, with Parkes, the debate on when and where it was written sort of ended (for the time being). We're at the mercy of the few scholars who wrote large works on Middle English and those preparing early Middle English anthologies. That, at this point, leaves us with Bennett. Bennett owned the field of early Middle English philology to a surprising degree. The other sources would be various other encyclopedias, and most of those are derivative of the sources already given. The fact that Ormulum doesn't light the fires of the imagination doesn't help, either. Geogre 12:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Simply marvelous and a wonderful read! This will be very nice beside the Peterborough Chronicle. You have just become my new Wikipedia hero! Well, next to Bishonen, that is. *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 06:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctantly object. I think that this is about as close as an article can get without receiving my support (which means not much work for you!!). There are a few instances of POV writing: "despite its lack of literary merit" -- according to whom? "although Orm's poetry is, at best, subliterary" -- again, who's to say? and so forth...these are easily fixed, though. Also, the lead needs to be a little more substantial. Two sentences is a bit light for an article with over 11,000 characters. I'm OK with one paragraph, but there needs to be a little more to chew on in the lead. But the prose is excellent, and I'm sure to support given these improvements. If I can help in any way, please let me know! PacknCanes | say something! 06:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  It's mentioned multiple times throughout the text; it was not intended to be great literature, but rather a biblical companion. The modern equivalent would be a study guide to course literature or something like it. Even Orm himself confessed that it wasn't high-standing prose. From the text:

  The work is unusual in that no critic has ever stepped forward to defend it on literary grounds. Indeed, Orm himself was aware of its flaws: he admits in the preface that he has frequently padded the lines to fill out the meter, "to help those who read it", and urges his brother Walter to edit the poetry to make it more meet.

  Peter ^Isotalo 10:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  I see where you're coming from; it still looks POV to me, but I did consider what was in the article and I can see where it can go either way. I'll withdraw that part of my objection altogether, and I'll go ahead and support the nomination even though I still think the lead can be expanded a little more. I don't, however, think that something that minor should be the only thing an objection stands on, so I'll support it. Thanks -- PacknCanes | say something! 12:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  It looks POV, I agree, but it's the standard description used in every textbook and course I've seen. Some more citations:

  "The modern-day critical response to the content of the Orrmulum is less than enthusiastic. It has been labelled 'soporific' and 'tedious'" - Treharne, p. 273 (although she's quoting Bennett there - that's how influential his opinions are.)

  "His lines are, however, monotonous to read, since they are absolutely regular in metre. Students of literature do not place Orm high on their list" - Dennis Freeborn, From Old English to Standard English (London 1992), p. 88

  And, as we say in the article, we have been able to find no instance in which any literary aspect of the work has been praised. It is difficult to prove a negative, but it's also decidedly unusual for an author not to have any prominent advocates. Compare the romances. — Haeleth Talk 14:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Mahvelous. Well-written, well-referenced, to the point and comprehensive enough without being overly excessive. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, great stuff from the Geogre workshop, that remarkable place, and congratulations to Haeleth, too. The author urged his brother to edit it to conform to a higher standard of quality? He listed it on Cleanup? Fantastic. :-) Bishonen | talk 11:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, wonderful article! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Object Support. This article has been making me uneasy for reasons I've had a hard time putting my finger on, but I think I've got two actionable things:
  • The lead leaves me very, very hungry for more, but then I have to wade through three sections before I find out what had me so intrigued: Just how does a 12th-century written manuscript provide pronounciation details? I'd suggest either adding a little more to the pretty-short-right-now lead, answering that question in brief, or moving the Orthography section up. I hope that one of these suggestions or the other is acceptable; maybe I'm just fixated on the pronounciation issue, but it seems like it is the most important thing about the manuscript, and deserves more prominince. (If neither of those works for the article, maybe consider renaming the Orthography section to something dullards like me would recognize as being about the pronounciation question?)
  • (Stupid detail, and maybe ignorance): In the Origins section, in the little tables showing source and translation, why is the source center-aligned? Is that a standard formatting decision? I find it unpleasing to the eye. This is fine, now that it's been explained to me.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

"Because of the unique phonetic orthography adopted by the author..." is about as clear as you can get, Grapes. I wikified both "phonetic" and "orthography" to make sure that people who aren't familiar with the linguistic jargon understand what they mean. I can't agree, though, that reading three paragraphs should be considered a chore. It's just not a big article.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Never say never; Geogre has expanded the lead beautifully to address my issue. And it's 15 paragraphs across three sections. If this is going to represent wikipedia's best work, it needs to acknowledge that a lot of people aren't going to read even that much of the article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Bunchofgrapes, I think you're right that the lead is stunted, and a couple of folks have mentioned it, so I'll attempt to make the lead slightly longer and more thesis-like. Thanks for the kind comments. Geogre 11:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps a lot. Objection struck. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• • For your second point, the source text isn't centre-aligned, but rather each second line is indented slightly. The effect is clearer in the longer quotation at the end of "contents and style". This is the way the text is formatted in Bennett & Smithers; it's intended to show that the indented lines are subordinate (i.e. to avoid people asking why what's printed as short lines of alternately 8 and 7 syllables is described as long lines of 15 syllables). At any rate, it's more aesthetic than semantic, so please feel free to remove it if you're not convinced it's worthwhile. — Haeleth Talk 13:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Just EXCELLENT!. Tony 07:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support: the kind of article that makes me jealous. Now why can't I write like that? Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

  That is entirely Haeleth's doing. My version was choppy and repetitive. Geogre 11:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)