Talk:The Distrest Poet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article The Distrest Poet has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on January 14, 2008.
March 25, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

I think you will have some problems with references when this is reviewed.--andreasegde (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Care to explain what you are talking about? Yomanganitalk 23:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can (references):

  • "a comic scene of a violinist driven to distraction by the noise from the street outside his practice room". Reference needed.
  • "and in which Pope confirmed his authorship of the original". Reference needed.
  • ""His Holiness Pope Alexander", depicted as an ape wearing a papal tiara with an ass as his Prime Minister". Reference needed.
  • "clashing with Edmund Curll over the unauthorized publication of the poet's correspondence." Reference needed.
  • "How far Hogarth sympathized with Pope is..." This paragraph needs a lot of references.
  • "At the same time, within the satire of the painting, the poet who is distressed is going to be one of Pope's dunces". This sounds like POV, and needs a reference.

I have had a lot of experience with the new stance on GA articles, and I know people have worked on this a lot, but it will never pass without relevant references. Sorry, :)--212.241.67.98 (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, your "Care to explain what you are talking about?" comment is interesting because when a reviewer finally reviews this article he might be offended by your attitude. (It sounds a bit aggressive). :)--212.241.67.98 (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

See, that kind of attitude is what drives people away from Wikipedia. Every statement—even if it states the obvious—has an editor behind it, demanding a ref. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, here comes another one. A bit of friendly advice, and one gets accused of driving people away from Wikipedia, and demanding a ref. The squeaky wheel does not always get the grease. Take care now... --212.241.67.98 (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, just remarking on my incredulity at the lines you picked that needed references. This is an artwork here. People who read about art want to have an accurate, artistic analysis of the piece they are reading on. Some details can't be referenced, because the material is too sketchy and scarce. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be included, especially seeing how obvious details in paintings often are. if you want to confirm the truthfulness of the analysis of a painting, the only thing you need is a pair of working retinas. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, deary me, you have just shot yourself in the foot. "People who read about art", (obviously without "a pair of working retinas" - your words, but it would seem to be difficult) need "an accurate, artistic analysis of the piece". How do you equate your idea that something is to be looked at, but has to be explained? This was confirmed by someone saying, "without the addition of citations for the bleeding obvious". Why not just post the painting? Why do we need, "an accurate, artistic analysis of the piece", by someone (you are both included) who is not an established/well-known art critic? You are pushing POV, but expect us all to believe that your opinion is worth more. Wikipedia does not sanction opinions by its editors - it needs outside references, by respected sources. We are merely clerks, who push our keyboard pens. If you think you are above that, then maybe you should join the hordes that are being driven away. I am doing this for free, as you are.--andreasegde (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I admit it, that someone was me, though I didn't italicise "bleeding obvious". Truth be told, you've caught me out. I have a hidden agenda. The musician was actually driven to distraction by Marxist revolutionaries, but in support of their cause I blamed his annoyance on the noise outside the window. I don't think you should count on getting a post in the new revolutionary government (though if you retroactively change all your sigs to your IP address there's a chance you'll escape the purges). Yomanganitalk 00:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Jolly good. Now that's sorted out, I can go do something worthwhile. Good luck with the review.--212.241.67.98 (talk) 12:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Passed

This article has passed the GA noms. A few further suggestions for improvement would be to aim for at least one citation for each paragraph, and wherever possible expand the article. If you feel that this review was in error feel free to take this article to WP:GA/R. Thanks. Tarret talk 14:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)