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

The article was removed 11:56, 26 January 2007.

Messages left at Filiocht, Seglea and Poetry. Sandy (Talk) 22:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm listing this article for review because I don't believe it satisfies the following criteria of WP:WIAFA:

• 1a. The prose is too choppy and listy to be considered as "compelling" or "brilliant". Short paragraphs ruin flow.
• 1c. There are no inline citations and only one book is referenced; English poetry must be the single easiest topic to reference in the world.

Seegoon 21:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.The article should use summary style for many of the sections. It starts off doing that with its first section and then it's not used again. Much more can be written on many of these sections such as the Metaphysical poets. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Help! - I've started making some changes, and while there is much good here, and I think the stylistic issues will not be too difficult to solve, this isn't my area of expertise and some help would be appreciated. Sam 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some edits, but honestly think less of this article the more I work on it. It's not bad, but not something I would push for FA in its current state. Many of the later sections have very little substance, other than to cite to various schools active in a period and list many of the poets from the time. A number of places display rather strong POV as to the relative merit of different poets, without giving sufficient insight into why the favored poets are important (the POV likely is not far from the prevailing POV generally, but it is still POV). I plan to keep chugging away, little by little, to improve it, but will not be committing sufficient time of my own to salvage it's FA status over the next couple of weeks. Sam 02:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are writing (1a) and citations (1c). Marskell 21:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove; in addition to those concerns cited above, it's also extremely vague, and the rapid-fire approach to literary history is both stylistically unsatisfying and results in lack of accuracy (Shepheardes Calender the first English pastoral? no, but to adequately explain the status of the genre in the 16th century would take, oh, its own article). It is of course almost impossible to write a decent article on a subject this broad; poetry was removed from FA for similar reasons a while back. This should probably be a summary-style article with {{main}}-article links, modeled on history of science. Chick Bowen 03:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove Insufficient inline citations. LuciferMorgan 02:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove per Chick Bowen, Seegoon and Ganymead - unfortunately, no one is working on correcting the deficiencies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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