Talk:W. H. Auden/Archive 7

GAR review for August 2015, last reviewed in 2009/2007

A number of issues have appeared in the GA article for Auden which appear to warrant attention and an update review from experienced Wikipedia editors. This article for Auden has not been reviewed for Good Article status since 2009 and appears to have suffered from some editorial drift over the years. Wikipedia standards for GA articles have also been strengthened since 2009 and although the article may have been peer acceptable according to 2009 standards in the first decade of Wikipedia, it does have several issues to look at enumerated below according to udpadted 2015 standards for peer review at Wikipedia. Among the issues in the current version of the article is that of hagiographic and demi-hagiographic issues (WP:Puffery) related to phrases resembling "Auden was the greatest author of the 20th century" and similar formulation throughout the article. Also, for a GA article, the article seems to have comparatively very few references compared to articles for other well known poets such as Emily Dickinson and Walt Whitman. The list of issues to check is as follows;

(1) Is the article well written. Although the article appears to have been once well-written by 2009 standards, there has now accumulated a good deal of editing "drift" which has weakened the article. The hagiographic references need to be substantially tempered as mentioned above. Although some of these may be easy fixes, for example, "Auden was the greatest author of the 20th century" to "Auden was among the finest poets of the 20th century", the other issues of WP:Puffery need to be addressed. No one needs to claim that Auden was superior to Robert Frost, or that Auden was inferior to Wallace Stevens. It is sufficient to identify him as among the accomplished poets of the 20th century.

(2) Factuality and accuracy. For a GA article there appear to be comparatively few references for justify the very "high" reading of Auden that is presented in the article. Many major essays about Auden over the years normally covered in the biographies written about Auden are ignored completely. Christopher Isherwood from 1937, John Hollander's fine essay from 1967, Harold Bloom's 1968 essays, etc. These appear to be completely elided and missing. In addition, the current article appears to be highly selective in only choosing to cover references that are complimentary to Auden throughout, with only one bare sentence at the end of the article which makes a vague reference to some critics of Auden (this seems related to the Hagiography issue and WP:Puffery already mentioned). The extensive literature over the years of Auden criticism appears to be largely unaddressed in the article because of its limited selection of reliable sources.

(3) The important issue of comparing the quality and originality of Auden's early poetry and writings to his later poetry and writings has been largely ignored. The current format of the article distinguishes chronologically the different decades of Auden's writings, but does not address the important issues of multiple critics and even friends who saw much unevenness in the high quality of his early writings in comparison to the general perception of a weaker quality associated with his later writings (see Harold Bloom 1968 article among others).

(4) The comparison of Auden and Yeats needs to be revisited substantially. The current article does not appear to be in a format which would allow an unbiased reading of this issue which by general consensus in academia appears to move more in the direction of Yeats's centrality as opposed to Auden's centrality. The more apt comparison is usually made between Auden and Hardy, in dealing with precursors to Auden's poetic skills and talent, however the article appears to lack in either of these important discussions. The Yeats-Auden comparison is an important one to cover in a GA article which represents itself as being comprehensive and encyclopedic. Perhaps even more central to Auden himself, however, is the importance which Hardy's poetry had for him both at the aesthetic level and at the level of his poetic accomplishment.

(5) Is it broad in its coverage. The current article is not broad in its coverage. The current article appears to be highly selective in the sources it uses, apparently closely related to the current article's issues with Auden hagiography and WP:Puffery.

(6) Aside from the important Isherwood essay on early Auden, there is also the important Auden essay by Frederick Buell titled "Auden after the Thirties", which does not receive attention in the current article. The transitions of Auden quality and creativity in writing shifted significantly during the progressing decades of his life, and this shift in quality and creativity has very slight coverage in the current article. The current article seems to lack the references and reliable sources needed to accomplish this type of encyclopedic coverage of this important topic to Auden scholarship.

(7) Another important comparison of Auden poetry which is not covered adequately in this current article is that of the comparison of Auden with Hopkins. This important comparison has been studied by such scholars as Wendell Stacy Johnson in his notable essay titled "Auden, Hopkins, and the Poetry of Reticence". This is an important topic and comparison in Auden studies which is all but ignored in the current article as it stands at this moment.

(8) Does it follows a Neutral point of view. The current article, although once fairly well written, does not make a fair presentation without bias but instead presents a hagiographic view (WP:Puffery) of Auden as if only of his finest attributes selectively collected together. The current article does not adequately cover the important comparison to Yeats (by general consensus Auden seems to fall somewhat short of this), nor to contemporary comparisons of Auden as to either Wallace Stevens, or Robert Frost, or other Auden "contemporary" poets of accomplishment, where Auden sometimes does better and sometimes not as well.

(9) The long list of unaddressed major essays and books on Auden not covered in this GA article warrants some concern in its own right. To start such a list would include the following significant contributions to Auden scholarship which are not covered in the current article: (1) "The Pattern of Personae" by Justin Replogle; (2) "Only Critics Can't Play" by John Bayley; (3) "Artifice and Self-Consciousness" in the book The Sea and the Mirror by Lucy S. McDiarmid and John McDiarmid; (4) "An Oracle Turned Jester" by David Bromwich; (5) "The Rake's Progress: An Operatic Version of Pastoral" by William Spiegelman; (6) "Auden's Revision of Modernism" by Edward Mendelson; (7) "The Orator:Portraits of the Artist in the Thirties" by John Boly; and (8) "Disenchantment with Yeats: From Singing Master to Ogre" by Edward Cullen. This is a short list of the many important items of Auden scholarship over the years not covered in the current article.

(10) Is the article stable. The current article appears to be stable in terms of a absence of recent edit controversy or edit disputes at Wikipedia.

(11) It is suggested that someone with experience in editing GA articles for Wikipedia assess the current merits of this Auden article based on various concerns listed in the above references.

If any clarification of any of the items above is needed please mention them in the space below or during the regular review process. MusicAngels (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for these extensive observations, which I hope to consider making use of in the future. In the meantime, I would have no objection if the "good article" rating were removed if there should be a general consensus (not merely the view of one editor) in that direction. Macspaunday (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Interested in the change made under (1) above as the previous wording was supposed to be referenced. Did you check the wording in the reference before changing it? Whatever we should use the wording given in the reference. Keith D (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I've included some observations in the GA reassessment page and hope the discussion (if any) might continue there. - Macspaunday (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is a sentence like this "The comparison of Auden and Yeats needs to be revisited substantially." part of a Wikipedia page? It was recommended to me that I visit this page and several other pages. Who is MusicAngels and why are these debates being played out in this arena? Students come to Wikipedia for facts and my sense is that facts are what Wikipedia does well. To "revisit the comparison of Auden and Yeats" ought not to be part of WIkipedia's purview. In my opinion of course. Signed, TVW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.251.88 (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

First sentence in lead

I saw the request for reassessment, then re-read the article. A few days later I saw the exchanges on the reassessment page and realized a few things: one, that the level of expertise in the subject matter among the editors is above mine, so I would leave that kind of reassessment and any possible revisions or additions to others, two, that the reassessment doesn't seem to be going anywhere at present, and three, that the things I notice when reading articles and often fix are places where the prose doesn't sound quite right. On the other hand, I realize that anyone with expertise in literature knows what good writing looks and sounds like. So, tentatively, meekly, in front of all you literature experts, I'd like to suggest a small change in the wording of the first sentence of the lead. Right now, the first sentence reads:

• Wystan Hugh Auden[1] (/ˈwɪstən ˈhjuː ˈɔːdən/;[2] 21 February 1907 – 29 September 1973) was an Anglo-American poet,[3][4] born in England, an American citizen (from 1946), and often regarded as being among the greatest poets of the 20th century.

If we remove the somewhat distracting pronunciation guide, superscript numbers and birth and death dates, the sentence reads:

• Wystan Hugh Auden was an Anglo-American poet, born in England, an American citizen (from 1946), and often regarded as being among the greatest poets of the 20th century.

I think the sentence is trying to cram in too much information, and it reads like an old Model T trying to get started.

Because it says he was an Anglo-American poet, I think "born in England, an American citizen (from 1946)" can be left out. The details that explain "Anglo-American" will be given later in the article. I think the first sentence, already containing some distracting material, should read as smoothly as possible to make it easy for a reader to get into the article. I suggest the following:

• Wystan Hugh Auden was an Anglo-American poet who was often regarded as being among the greatest poets of the 20th century.

I even wonder why past tense is used. Present perfect tense would sound correct:

• Wystan Hugh Auden was an Anglo-American poet who has often been regarded as being among the greatest poets of the 20th century.

The word "being" could be left out:

• Wystan Hugh Auden was an Anglo-American poet who has often been regarded as among the greatest poets of the 20th century.

Corinne (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions; thank you. I've adapted the last and simplest version, but the dates (and pronunciation in doubtful cases) seem to be Wikipedia standard and ought to be left in. The detail about being born in England and an American citizen after 1946 is there in the infobox and the main text and needn't be in the first sentence. All the footnote numbers are distracting, but they're the result of years of wrangling over "Anglo-American," "English," "American," etc., arguments that finally stopped after the footnotes got added. So, distracting as they are, they probably do more harm than good. I've always been slightly bothered by that over-packed first sentence. Thank you for taking the trouble to sort it out! - Macspaunday (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I added a parenthesis about his American citizenship to a later paragraph that began with his growing up in Birmingham. Now the English-then-American trajectory is in the opening section, but doesn't clutter up the opening paragraph. Thank you again, Corinne! - Macspaunday (talk) 08:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I found the lead terribly misleading and believe that the "greatest" line isn't really necessary. The poet's work and the length of the biography and work speaks to the issue of "greatest" so such adjectives aren't really necessary. Poetic1920 (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Poetic1920 I think you're right about removing the "greatest" line. Why not remove "esteemed" also (or maybe replace with the less emphatic "widely esteemed")? - Macspaunday (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Macspaunday Thank you I did. I read it again this morning and there was too much "grad student thesis" in the lead--scholarly critique rather than solely introductory material. The body of the article is the place to offer critical views.Poetic1920 (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Poetic1920 - I hope you'll continue this process of tightening and tautening, which certainly improves the page. I hope you might open a talk page for yourself as a place for future discussions (or at least to avoid those red links here). - Macspaunday (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Macspaunday -- good idea. Away today but will pick up editing this week.Poetic1920 (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:W. H. Auden/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

• GAR review for August 2015, last reviewed in 2009/2007

• Result: Keep. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

A number of issues have appeared in the GA article for Auden which appear to warrant attention and an update review from experienced Wikipedia editors. This article for Auden has not been reviewed for Good Article status since 2009 and appears to have suffered from some editorial drift over the years. Wikipedia standards for GA articles have also been strengthened since 2009 and although the article may have been peer acceptable according to 2009 standards in the first decade of Wikipedia, it does have several issues to look at enumerated below according to udpadted 2015 standards for peer review at Wikipedia. Among the issues in the current version of the article is that of hagiographic and demi-hagiographic issues (WP:Puffery) related to phrases resembling "Auden was the greatest author of the 20th century" and similar formulation throughout the article. Also, for a GA article, the article seems to have comparatively very few references compared to articles for other well known poets such as Emily Dickinson and Walt Whitman. The list of issues to check is as follows;

(1) Is the article well written. Although the article appears to have been once well-written by 2009 standards, there has now accumulated a good deal of editing "drift" which has weakened the article. The hagiographic references need to be substantially tempered as mentioned above. Although some of these may be easy fixes, for example, "Auden was the greatest author of the 20th century" to "Auden was among the finest poets of the 20th century", the other issues of WP:Puffery need to be addressed. No one needs to claim that Auden was superior to Robert Frost, or that Auden was inferior to Wallace Stevens. It is sufficient to identify him as among the accomplished poets of the 20th century.

(2) Factuality and accuracy. For a GA article there appear to be comparatively few references for justify the very "high" reading of Auden that is presented in the article. Many major essays about Auden over the years normally covered in the biographies written about Auden are ignored completely. Christopher Isherwood from 1937, John Hollander's fine essay from 1967, Harold Bloom's 1968 essays, etc. These appear to be completely elided and missing. In addition, the current article appears to be highly selective in only choosing to cover references that are complimentary to Auden throughout, with only one bare sentence at the end of the article which makes a vague reference to some critics of Auden (this seems related to the Hagiography issue and WP:Puffery already mentioned). The extensive literature over the years of Auden criticism appears to be largely unaddressed in the article because of its limited selection of reliable sources.

(3) The important issue of comparing the quality and originality of Auden's early poetry and writings to his later poetry and writings has been largely ignored. The current format of the article distinguishes chronologically the different decades of Auden's writings, but does not address the important issues of multiple critics and even friends who saw much unevenness in the high quality of his early writings in comparison to the general perception of a weaker quality associated with his later writings (see Harold Bloom 1968 article among others).

(4) The comparison of Auden and Yeats needs to be revisited substantially. The current article does not appear to be in a format which would allow an unbiased reading of this issue which by general consensus in academia appears to move more in the direction of Yeats's centrality as opposed to Auden's centrality. The more apt comparison is usually made between Auden and Hardy, in dealing with precursors to Auden's poetic skills and talent, however the article appears to lack in either of these important discussions. The Yeats-Auden comparison is an important one to cover in a GA article which represents itself as being comprehensive and encyclopedic. Perhaps even more central to Auden himself, however, is the importance which Hardy's poetry had for him both at the aesthetic level and at the level of his poetic accomplishment.

(5) Is it broad in its coverage. The current article is not broad in its coverage. The current article appears to be highly selective in the sources it uses, apparently closely related to the current article's issues with Auden hagiography and WP:Puffery.

(6) Aside from the important Isherwood essay on early Auden, there is also the important Auden essay by Frederick Buell titled "Auden after the Thirties", which does not receive attention in the current article. The transitions of Auden quality and creativity in writing shifted significantly during the progressing decades of his life, and this shift in quality and creativity has very slight coverage in the current article. The current article seems to lack the references and reliable sources needed to accomplish this type of encyclopedic coverage of this important topic to Auden scholarship.

(7) Another important comparison of Auden poetry which is not covered adequately in this current article is that of the comparison of Auden with Hopkins. This important comparison has been studied by such scholars as Wendell Stacy Johnson in his notable essay titled "Auden, Hopkins, and the Poetry of Reticence". This is an important topic and comparison in Auden studies which is all but ignored in the current article as it stands at this moment.

(8) Does it follows a Neutral point of view. The current article, although once fairly well written, does not make a fair presentation without bias but instead presents a hagiographic view (WP:Puffery) of Auden as if only of his finest attributes selectively collected together. The current article does not adequately cover the important comparison to Yeats (by general consensus Auden seems to fall somewhat short of this), nor to contemporary comparisons of Auden as to either Wallace Stevens, or Robert Frost, or other Auden "contemporary" poets of accomplishment, where Auden sometimes does better and sometimes not as well.

(9) The long list of unaddressed major essays and books on Auden not covered in this GA article warrants some concern in its own right. To start such a list would include the following significant contributions to Auden scholarship which are not covered in the current article: (1) "The Pattern of Personae" by Justin Replogle; (2) "Only Critics Can't Play" by John Bayley; (3) "Artifice and Self-Consciousness" in the book The Sea and the Mirror by Lucy S. McDiarmid and John McDiarmid; (4) "An Oracle Turned Jester" by David Bromwich; (5) "The Rake's Progress: An Operatic Version of Pastoral" by William Spiegelman; (6) "Auden's Revision of Modernism" by Edward Mendelson; (7) "The Orator:Portraits of the Artist in the Thirties" by John Boly; and (8) "Disenchantment with Yeats: From Singing Master to Ogre" by Edward Cullen. This is a short list of the many important items of Auden scholarship over the years not covered in the current article.

(10) Is the article stable. The current article appears to be stable in terms of a absence of recent edit controversy or edit disputes at Wikipedia.

(11) It is suggested that someone with experience in editing GA articles for Wikipedia assess the current merits of this Auden article based on various concerns listed in the above references.

(12) In addition, there is the issue of WP:Bias in the current Wikipedia Auden article which appears to predominantly orient itself to Auden supporters and inadequately represent the substantial scholarship on Auden criticism. The current Wikipedia Auden article in not neutral in its lacking perspective concerning Auden and his critics.

(13) The current author(s) of the page appear to have no background in the Yeats relation to Auden in contemporary scholarship which raises the issue of finding someone with the competence (WP:Competence) at Wikipedia who can address this significant issue in Auden scholarship presently absent from the Wikipedia article, and who understands the Yeats material sufficiently well to do this.

(14) Since the current Wikipedia Auden article appears to be strongly oriented toward the adulatory view of Auden and not a neutral and encyclopedic version of Auden's biography, then some consideration should be given to whether it is encyclopedic in its basic form to continue to qualify as a peer reviewed article representing the best articles at Wikipedia.

If any clarification of any of the items above is needed please mention them in the space below or during the regular review process. MusicAngels (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for these extensive observations, which I hope to consider making use of in the future. In the meantime, I would have no objection if the "good article" rating were removed if there should be a general consensus (not merely the view of one editor) in that direction. Macspaunday (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Interested in the change made under (1) above as the previous wording was supposed to be referenced. Did you check the wording in the reference before changing it? Whatever we should use the wording given in the reference. Keith D (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I was slightly puzzled by the list of essays in item (9) which seemed very arbitrary (with many titles and authors mistyped). Then I remembered that all the essays were in Harold Bloom's idiosyncratic 1986 collection W. H. Auden in his Modern Critical Views series (Chelsea House). It seems that the list is not the product of the editor's own scholarship but is simply taken directly from Bloom's table of contents; this seems to be confirmed by the fact that some titles listed in item (9) are not the actual titles of the original essays, but merely the titles that Bloom's selection uses for excerpts from the essays. I doubt anyone other than Harold Bloom (and perhaps not even Harold Bloom) would regard that 1986 selection as representing a significant authority that an encyclopedia needs to take into account lost thirty years later, and with thirty years of later scholarship that has largely supplanted that 1986 selection. But maybe I'm mistaken about that.

I'm also slightly puzzled by item (2) and some others that seem to ask for editorializing comparisons between Auden and Yeats, in the style (again) of Harold Bloom. I'm not sure Harold Bloom's views should shape a Wikipedia entry, but I know that other people may have different opinions. In any event, the general thrust of these comments seems to be that the page is not good enough because it doesn't express points of view that have been championed by Harold Bloom.

I'm also puzzled by the description of changes in the essay; it's not at all clear how it got less well-written since the last review. If anything, the prose seems to be tighter and more coherent. - Macspaunday (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Eureka! I just realized that the editor who initiated this reassessment is the same editor who created a few dozen inappropriate hatnotes pointing to the editor's own pages that I removed in July (see my contributions list for details). It may merely be a coincidence that this editor has now come back with a reassessment (apparently the first reassessment that this editor has requested) based largely on the assertion (not entirely correct) that the page ignores most of the contents of a 1986 critical anthology by Harold Bloom, but it does at least seem to suggest that a new kind of edit war is being conducted here - revenge by reassessment, something I haven't seen before. This is something that the admins will find interesting, I think, and it perhaps explains some of the rather puzzling comments in the reassessment request (like the supposed decline in prose style) that seem to have a tenuous relation to reality. The editor clearly went to a lot of trouble to write up that request, which makes it all the more strange that the only actual information in the request seems to derive from the introduction and table of contents of Harold Bloom's 1986 collection of critical essays. - Macspaunday (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC) N.B. The strikeout in this paragraph was applied by user MusicAngels, not by me. - Macspaunday (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)}

Ludicrous. And if you do not remove your personal attack against both Harold Bloom and upon myself it goes straight to ANI. Harold Bloom is a distinguished professor at Yale University and fully recognized by the University as a distinguished scholar. Your personal invective about him appears related to the current difficulties which have been listed in this GAR with full citations and bibliography given. There are also comparable anthologies on Auden from Cambridge University Press and from Prentice Hall Pulishing which further support and document the difficulties with the Auden page in its current state. You appear to be backpedaling against the statement you made originally in your recognition of the inadequacies with the current Auden page in which you stated that you would be attending to and repairing the defects (as you stated in your original form on the Auden Talk page). Now that the formal GAR has started you appear to have done a complete turnaround in your attitude, apparently to avoid the responsibility entailed in repairing the issues requiring attention in the article and which have been carefully enumerated and documented in the GAR list above. Your edit conduct at the other pages which you refer to above I shall need to investigate as you have now informed me of them and since you have not sent me any previous indication or notifications. MusicAngels (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's appropriate to strikethrough someone else's comments, but that's a matter for the admins to judge. Also I didn't notice any personal invective in my comments (certainly not about Harold Bloom), and yes, I have most certainly "backpedaled" on my earlier comments on the reassessment - as will be obvious to anyone who looks at the edit history. Also, anyone who looks at the edit history can see that I never "promised" to make revisions, but only expressed a hope to make use of your extensive comments. At that time I didn't realize that the content of the request was based largely on the titles of the essays in Harold Bloom's 1986 selection (in some cases not the original titles of the essays themselves) and realized that the request had some doubtful aspects. I don't think anything further needs to be said about this issue, and I suppose the admins can draw their own conclusions. Incidentally, I'm extremely well aware of the contents of anthologies you mention, and I do mean extremely well aware. And of course I have the deepest respect for the work of Harold Bloom, with whom I've been on first-name basis for many decades; that doesn't mean that he and I agree on all points. - Macspaunday (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way, one clear sign that the reassessment request is questionable is the fact that one of the essays listed in item (9) as "not covered" on the page is in fact explicitly described and summarized in the text and cited in the footnotes. That essay appears in Harold Bloom's 1986 collection under a different title chosen by Harold Bloom, which is presumably why the reassessment request absurdly claims that this exact same essay was "not covered" on the page. Again, I hope the admins will draw their own conclusions here. - Macspaunday (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

And some brief comments on specific points in this very odd request:

(1) Please provide examples of "editing drift" that make the article less well-written than in 2009. I've been keeping careful watch on the prose style, and this statement seems to have no basis in fact.

(2) Of course many essays are ignored; this is an article about Auden, not about the way in which he has been written about by hundreds of academic critics; there are over 2000 books and essays listed in the MLA bibliography. This point seems mostly irrelevant to an encyclopedia article.

(3) The issue of quality is too subjective to be the subject of much detail in an encyclopedia entry. Harold Bloom doesn't admire Auden's poetry, and much of this reassessment seems to be based on the notion that Harold Bloom's views should be brought to the foreground. Harold Bloom is a very great critic, of course, and I would like to point out in advance that this is not "personal invective" against someone who is a longtime friend.

(4) This seems to request that Yeats and Auden be compared in terms of which one is better or worse. This seems hardly relevant to an encyclopedia article, although, again, Harold Bloom has made much of this subject.

(5) The article covers every major and minor element in Auden's work. The complaint about coverage seems to apply to the fact that the page (entirely properly and correctly) does not cover a lot of critical essays about Auden (especially those listed in item 9 from Harold Bloom's 1986 anthology). Again, this is an encyclopedia entry on Auden, not on Auden's critical reception.

(6) This one is extremely strange. Buell's essay is cited three times in Google Scholar (once in a journal published in Hungary, another in what seems to be a PDF of a student paper, another in a journal published in Estonia). The idea that this is an "important" article that belongs in the entry is very, very odd indeed. But the article is in Harold Bloom's 1986 collection, and that seems to be why the request points to it as an example of a major omission. I think it would astonish anyone active in Auden scholarship to hear that this is an important work in the field. (Also, another strange thing about this item is that what the request calls Buell's "essay" is in fact an excerpt in Harold Bloom's 1986 anthology from an earlier book by Buell; the title of the "important essay" in the request is in fact the title of the excerpt in the anthology. Anyone even minimally familiar with Auden scholarship would recognize Buell as the author of a book, now long superseded, but useful when first published.)

(7) Another very strange item. Johnson's article (originally published in 1974) gets six citations in Google Scholar, and Hopkins' influence on Auden occurs in only a few of his poems; the page would become wildly disproportional if it were to include descriptions of all of Auden's many influences. Again, the reason this item is in the request seems to be that the essay is in Harold Bloom's 1986 collection. Again, I think it would astonish anyone active in Auden scholarship to hear that this is an important work in the field.

(8) Again, please supply examples of things that were "once fairly well written" but aren't well-written now. I've kept a close eye on the prose style of the page, and this claim about it seems to be pure fantasy. I hope that reassessments are not based on fact-free assertions like this one, but on the actual evidence of the page history.

(9) All the essays listed as not covered are from Bloom's 1986 collection, and there's no reason why they (and not any of the dozens of the far more influential works on Auden) ought to be covered in an encyclopedia entry on Auden. Also - and this is the absurdity I cited earlier - the essay by Mendelson is in fact summarized and cited on the page itself, though under its original title as the introduction to Auden's Selected Poems. The author of the request seems to be unaware of the contents of this highly influential essay and wasn't aware of its prominent place in the page. (Also, the request cites the essay by the title of the excerpt in Bloom's 1986 anthology, not as the widely-known introduction to Auden's Selected Poems.) Also, some of the "essays" listed here are in fact excerpts from books, listed under the titles given to the excerpts in Harold Bloom's 1986 collection; and "Edward Cullen" is "Edward Callan."

(10) Yes, the article is indeed stable, and has changed little since the last assessment.

(11) I completely agree. I hope someone with expertise in these matters would take a look at the article, the reassessment request, and the comments here about the request.

There may very well be many things wrong with the Auden page, but this request doesn't name them. I hope than any reply to these comments will include actual information and not vague bluster about other sources that confirm the request or complaints about non-existent "personal invective" against Harold Bloom or anyone else. A review of actual problems and omissions will of course be welcome, but the points made in this request seems to have literally no basis in reality. And every actual reference to critical material (which probably does not belong in the essay anyway) derives from the introduction and contents page of Harold Bloom's 1986 collection, not from any of the many thousands of later books and essays in the field.

It would also be helpful if the author of the request would refrain from striking through other people's comments as he did to an earlier comment above. - Macspaunday (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I am new to editing these larger pages but I agree that the article does not need expanding, certainly not to include more twentieth-century scholarship. Scholarship has fashion trends (as the divergent opinions about Harold Bloom's criticism suggest) and it is best that Wikipedia not enter the fray. Let's keep to the facts. The essay should be perhaps crisper and shorter, not longer.Poetic1920 (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Need to expand original list of items for GAR review not reviewed since 2009

The comments of User:Macs in the above appear to be argumentative at best and numerous inaccuracies need to be listed and corrected. For the record, this is his comment made on first reading this review which was immediately rescinded upon the formal GAR being started: :Thank you for these very useful and learned observations, which I hope to make use of in the near future. Macspaunday (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC). I shall return to this in a moment as but one of several inaccuracies.

Your comment on Harold Bloom and various other essays listed above was that the mere association with Bloom should discount their usefulness to the Wikipedia editors reviewing the article and seeking to improve it. This is plainly misinformed. The essays about Auden which you wish to dismiss merely because they are associated with Bloom were written over a 50 year period, the first ones when Bloom was a mere toddler. In fact, all of the essays you refer to remain pertinent to Auden scholarship and should be used in a responsible article about Auden. Your review of the article fails to do this or account for it.

I am adding several new items to the GAR review list above as a result of your continuing invective (yes, invective) against Bloom which is now outright false. Bloom was and continues to be an admirer of the originality and creativity of the early Auden. He is not alone among commentators in seeing this in contrast to the later Auden who is seen by them as lacking some of his earlier strengths. Several of the authors I have listed are of this same orientation, which you appear opposed to representing in the article. Your not knowing this fact brings up the further issue of WP:Competence related to your defending the current version of the Auden article which does not cover this important issue for Auden scholarship. Similarly, your claim of a personal relationship with Bloom appears offensive and out of place in an encyclopedia presenting neutral articles and biographies about authors and poets. Will you next be claiming to be rubbing elbows with him at faculty meetings and faculty parties in the hope that this makes you appear more authoritative. Edits at Wikipedia are supposed to stand on their own merits, and not on your mere claims to having knowledge about Bloom which are clearly in error.

As you have now had 4 full days to reflect on the issue of Yeats and Auden, the issue of your WP:Competence to write an encyclopedic article which summarizes this important issue in literary scholarship is again put into question. There have been book length studies written on this subject of the relation of Auden to Yeats which you appear to have no knowledge about. Doubtless you now can go to Amazon or Google to find them once you have been told of them, though I find very odd that after 4 days you have as yet not mentioned a single one of them. Very odd.

From a general standpoint, it is well-known to editors that virtually all famous authors and poets shall have supporters and shall have critics. In the case of the Wikipedia article for Auden, it appears that the author (I assume this to be User:Macs) has simply placed the Auden support authors in one stack of articles, and the Auden critic authors in another stack of articles, and then simply chosen to ignore or discard the critic authors in order to write an adulatory article about Auden based only on his supporters. As I previously stated, the only critical comment on Auden presented in the current Wikipedia article appears as a short one line comment towards the end of the article which indicates that there exists criticism of Auden. This is woefully inadequate, and not neutral in presentation for the purposes of an unbiased encyclopedia. The issue of WP:Bias in the current Wikipedia article is a significant issue since its author, User:Macs, has now rescinded his previous promise to incorporate these missing elements.

The drift in the article I refer to you appear to completely misunderstand. In the presence of increasing standards for peer review articles at Wikipedia since 2009 six years ago, which have been constantly improving, it appears that the old 2009 Auden article has not kept up and has, because of the issues raised in this GAR, appeared to have drifted away from the current higher standards for GA articles supported by Wikipedia in 2015. The single issue of WP:Bias in the current Wikipedia Auden article, which appears to highlight only the adulatory side of Auden scholarship, strongly indicates that the current status of the GA rating requires assistance and reassessment. MusicAngels (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I've said my say about this matter, and will leave it for admins and other experienced users to consider the merits of the case and to judge my competence to write about Auden. The admins ruled a few hours ago on another issue that you raised about my edits: "Administrators' noticeboard". - Macspaunday (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Review

I've been asked to review this article against current GA criteria. This may take a while depending on what needs to be done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Article is stable. There have been some unhelpful IP edits, but these have been quickly reverted, and there have been, over time, more helpful IP edits than unhelpful, so semi-protecting wouldn't be appropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Images are OK. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Broad coverage. I have checked various short guides to Auden, and all the main details they mention are included in this article. While there isn't a specific section for discussion of his writing style, his writing style and themes are dealt with in the long section on Work. For ongoing development of the article, and especially if going for FA status which has a comprehensive criteria, editors could consider and discuss having a section dedicated to looking in detail at writing style and another on themes. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, those sections would be an interesting challenge to write in a way that relies fully on sources, not on any editor's own idea. Since FA status is something that would be good (or "fine") to have, I'll definitely propose this in the talk section after this review is done. - Macspaunday (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Macspaunday and SilkTork: I am going to plus one this concern: I actually think its a significant barrier even at the level of GA: there is not real summary of the landscape of critical opinions about Auden's work as a Corpus. By falling into the "timeline of works" model of article, we the critical significance, and the strategies for interpreting his works as a group get lost. Moreover, the Reputation and Influence section is really superficial: its more "hagiography" per the above commentary, than a substantial reflection on the legacy of the work (does his work get referenced? do we have an understanding of which major authors model their writing off him? Do critics use it to define a field of student? etc.). He is one of the more commented on 20th century poets, we need to talk about his work as a critical object, not just something praiseworthy. Sadads (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This is entirely reasonable. Will go to work on it when I get back to the page in a day or two. - Macspaunday (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@SilkTork and Sadads: Here's another plus one to the concerns. Broad coverage should include at least some small section on the books that have been written about Auden's realtionship to Yeats which includes:

• Saving Civilization: Yeats, Eliot, and Auden Between the Wars (Nov 30, 1984) by Lucy McDiarmid

• Eminent Domain: Yeats among Wilde Joyce Pound Eliot and Auden (1967) by Richard Ellmann

The comparison to Yeats remains significant to include in this article as a short subsection in order to avoid an adulatory review of Auden; a review about Auden without the significant issue of his critical reception would ellide half of the literature written about Auden which would be non-encyclopedic. Maintain a neutral encyclopedic style which respects both adulation and critique together. MusicAngels (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sadads: Could you have a look at the first three (only the first three) paragraphs of the Reputation section, which I rewrote to add details and in a way that balances blame and praise, deliberately giving the emphasis to blame, because that seems to be the more common critical view (as opposed to my own POV). Thanks for any suggestions. And I know I promised not to touch the page today, but this reminded me that that section has always needed some extensive reworking. - Macspaunday (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I take on board the concerns raised, and have looked again at the article. While there is plenty of room for development, the article does deal with what are the main aspects of Auden's life and work, and does not omit the main points raised by other relevant guides such as Britannica. It is important when reviewing for GA to apply Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria and not Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. There is not an expectation in GA that an article is comprehensive, merely that it covers the main aspects. The points raised above, along with some of my own points concerning ongoing development, will assist editors in progressing the article toward FA status, and further if desired. As the article stands now I am satisfied it does meet the lesser GA demands for coverage of the main aspects of Auden's life and work, and while I would welcome a section devoted to critical examination and overview of Auden's work as being helpful to the general reader, I am satisfied that the timeline adopted in the article does adequately cover Auden's writing style and themes sufficient to meet the basic demands of the GA criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@SilkTork and Macspaunday: The new section definitely reads much more comprehensive as to the why of his influence, and the legacy of literary elements. In part my critique rises from a frustration with the how literary topics are represented on Wikipedia: the main expert discourse is on critical perspectives and styles/themes, but the main topics in our articles tend to be the popular stories: heroic author, narrative of favourite works, etc. The changes have been a good step forward, Sadads (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sadads and SilkTork: Agreed. The page as it stands is fairly closely modeled on other GA articles about books and writers. When I write about such matters for print, the approach is very different, but the amount of suitable space is also different, typically a minimum of four to eight thousand words for a single topic, often much more. In response to your earlier comment, I've begun drafting a section on Styles and Themes, but it's not ready for public consumption, and I don't want to introduce a whole new section immediately after a GA review. When I have a reasonable draft, possibly next week, I'll post it on the article talk page for other editors can comment on, so that it can be in fairly good shape by the time it gets added to the page itself. I hope you'll take a look when the time comes. - Macspaunday (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Macspaunday: Sounds great! Happy to review, do a closer read pass at some point: next couple weeks are quite busy. Sadads (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Ref section is OK, though as part of ongoing development, consideration could be given to either incorporating views and opinions from the major texts listed in Further reading or removing those texts as not being essential. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Focus. Article doesn't go into unnecessary detail in any section. The list of published works is quite long, but it is noted in the brief introduction to that section, that this is the works he published during his lifetime. And the list is not overly long. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought about making that long list into something selective, but concluded that an encyclopedia ought to list all the many books of a prolific author, rather than taking an individual POV about which books were more important than others. Different readers have different points of view about whether early or late works matter more, etc. - Macspaunday (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• My concerns about prose clarity and flow have been addressed. The article is clear and readable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Lead is solid, giving a helpful overview of the subject. Other MoS issues are also met. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Article is neutral in tone, and balanced in commentary. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Sources check out that what is said in the article is what is said in the sources. Where statements were not cited, the statements check out when researched (where needed I have added a couple of cites). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Query

• The reference section needs tidying up and organising to current layout standards. Am working on this - not a significant issue, should be finished cleaning up by today. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I did a bit of this today; I think the lists are down to the absolutely essential works, the ones that everyone who writes on the subject refers to. At least this is a start. - Macspaunday (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Where I was planning to work on those, is to differentiate between those texts used as sources in the article (which would then be placed in the references section as "Sources"), and those which are not used, but are regarded as essential which would be kept in the Further reading section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see what you're saying. I'll try to make a start on this, but may not be able to finish right away. - Macspaunday (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC) -- Later: I did make a start on this, but it may need further adjustment. I'll be grateful for any adjustments. - Macspaunday (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@SilkTork - a question: the list of external links includes the standard WP links to WorldCat, etc. I've assumed that these are appropriate here; is that correct? The Auden at Swarthmore page is full of valuable, accurate material, and it doesn't seem useful to reduce it to a footnote where it won't be seen, so I hope that's OK here. Also, I've linked to the only external page I know of that (1) has copyright permission and (2) includes a large selection of Auden's poems. This seems to follow the guidelines exactly, but I'm not sure about the others. - Macspaunday (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The links seem to be appropriate, and are now manageable. I have swapped a link to the LGBT portal for one to the Poetry portal as that seemed more fitting. I am passing the long Further reading list, though for ongoing development the texts in that list if they are felt to be important, should be used as sources to build the article. Any reader might ask the reasonable question: "If this is such a "Good" article and those sources are regarded as essential, why aren't they being used as sources for the article?" Certainly if going forward to FA, there would be an expectation that a greater range of major sources would be used - only five authors consulted for such a major literary figure seems too few, especially when views and comments from over ten listed writers, including Katherine Bucknell and Stephen Spender, have apparently not been used. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I see the point of this - why list sources that you don't use? I suppose the point is that those other sources go into depths beyond appropriate levels for an encyclopedia, but are the ones that interested people might want to look at, but, in that case, why list them here? I'll do some more work on this, but some of it might wait until the more urgent issues are settled.

• Use of copyrighted image File:NightMailCrewe.jpg seems dubious. I'm not sure the claim of fair use is justified. An expert on copyright in images should be consulted if continued use of the image in this article is desired, or the image simply removed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the image as doubtful. If its use is required, the fair use claim needs to be validated by someone familiar with image copyrights. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Similar images were removed from the Night Mail page, and there's no special need to keep this one. - Macspaunday (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Clarity: "Poems (1930), was accepted by T. S. Eliot for Faber and Faber; the firm also published all his later books" - does this mean Faber and Faber were his sole (or main) publisher, or that they published Poems, but didn't publish any more early or middle period works, but did publish later works? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Done! - Macspaunday (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Clarity: Auden's poetry engages with "the relationship between particular human beings and the anonymous, impersonal world of nature." Why "particular"? Also, this summary of his poetry themes does not appear in the main body of the article, and is unsourced. There are places in the main body where nature and humans are mentioned, such as "he also wrote a sequence of seven poems about man's relation to nature", but I don't see that summary in the main body - the closest is ""Dame Kind", about the anonymous impersonal reproductive instinct", which is about one poem, and that statement does not mirror the one in the lead, so a reader might not make the connection between Dame Kind and nature. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, I hope. - Macspaunday (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Prose is decent enough, but there are moments where the meaning is not clear, as indicated above. Toward the end of the United States and Europe, 1939–73 section there are short paragraph which present as lists of information, which inhibit flow of reading. This style of writing - facts which are loosely related, appears in other places, such as in Later works. This is not a significant issue, but the article would benefit from a decent and sympathetic copy-edit - not to correct spelling, but to ensure that the text always has relevance and meaning, to avoid a tendency to slip into listings. Put events, such as being asked to write lyrics, in context and explain them. If these events are not important, then perhaps an editorial judgement made to not mention them. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Made some changes here; a lot of accumulated cruft removed. - Macspaunday (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

...including the specific one you mentioned. - Macspaunday (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Have now gone back and made similar fixes in Later Works. Apologies again for continuing to work on this after promising not to, but these comments are energizing. - Macspaunday (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Prose is now fine. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Fail

• Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Will try to work on this later today; the current lead is an agglomeration of a lot of edits from a lot of editors over many years and needs far better focus. - Macspaunday (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Have started work on the lead, trying to follow the example of other GA pages such as Dylan Thomas. Probably there's more to do here, but maybe this is enough for one day; observations for further work will be welcome when you get back to this. - Macspaunday (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I went back and did some more after looking closely at other GA articles on writers. The lead should now be in fairly decent shape, I hope, but I'm probably too close to it to see what else needs to be done. And this time, I really will shut down operations for the day. - Macspaunday (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead is now fine. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Neutrality. Being neutral is very important to an encyclopedic article on a poet such as Auden. Critique on both sides of Auden reception needs to be given comparable weight to the literature on Auden, and not on presenting only positive reviews of him as a poet. Refusing to include any reference to Harold Bloom is odd, since Bloom admired the younger Auden, even though he had reservations about Auden in the middle years and the late years. The current Wikipedia article on Auden in its current state ignores Harold Bloom and it should not. Bloom has spoken eloquently about the strength of the early Auden, and Bloom has spoken eloquently about comparison of the later Auden with leading poets such as Stevens where Auden does not fare quite so well. Both viewpoints should be included in an encyclopedic article on Auden, the current Wikipedia article does not do this. MusicAngels (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

These concerns are valid, and the article has been adjusted to give balance to the variety of critical opinion on Auden. I am satisfied that the article as it currently stands does give the general reader a good flavour of how Auden has been regarded over time. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

General comments

• I do like feedback, and I like the positive and immediate work on the article. However, I've had three edit conflicts on the review, and I'm not opening the article to work on it in case the same happens there. I'll pause the review for today to allow feedback and work to continue, then I'll resume tomorrow. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It was bad luck that we were both at work at the same time. I've made a few changes today, and will now let things stand for a couple of days to avoid edit conflicts. In the meantime, User:Poetic1920 is making valuable edits, and brings a fresh eye to a page that had accumulated a lot of miscellaneous details that were added in good faith, sometimes in response to events in the news, but which don't belong in an encyclopedic survey. - Macspaunday (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Very grateful to all the admins and editors (and also one bot) who contributed to this page today. It's seen more improvement in the past twelve hours than in the past five years. - Macspaunday (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• I've got some other work to do now. I'll hopefully be back later today. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again for this. I'll try to keep my promise not to edit the article or talk pages for a day or two to avoid edit conflicts. Meanwhile, the most pressing issue seems to be the lead, and if you have any suggestions on it, I'll be grateful. I've tried to make the current version summarize in a smooth (not mechanical) way the contents of all the later sections, but there's always room for improvement. - Also, about the overall balance of the page: Along with Poetic1920 I've tried to remove value judgments from the prose, and deliberately opened the Reputation section with a crashingly negative judgment rather than anything positive, in the hope of offsetting the implicitly positive attention paid to detail elsewhere on the page. - Macspaunday (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again for the comments above about focus, clarity, and broad coverage. I almost certainly won't be able to work on this again (except for tiny details) until Wednesday, and any suggestions about what might need further work will be very welcome. This whole process has been extremely helpful, and it's gratifying to see the improvements made on the page by other editors during the past few days. - Macspaunday (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Please do continue to edit the article and this review page, though it would be helpful to check if I'm actively editing either page before doing so. I'll let you know when I am pausing so you can and others can jump in! The lead is looking much better. I think two or three sentences on his reputation would be helpful - something along the lines of the first paragraph of Reputation and influence. And usually it is expected that there should be a sentence or two about a person's personal life, especially to fill out the bare details in the infobox. The lead and infobox should be able to stand alone. At the moment we have nothing about Auden's close friendship with Isherwood (merely that he collaborated with him), nor about his "marriage" with Chester Kallman. I'm uncertain about the use of Erika Mann as spouse in the infobox. It is potentially misleading, even with the explanation in parenthesis. Essentially she was not his spouse. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll ping you before I start working again. Will modify the lead as you suggest (reputation and personal life), probably on Wednesday. I couldn't agree more about Erika Mann, but I don't know what to do about this beyond having added the parenthesis when her name got added to the infobox. It's legally accurate, but irrelevant and misleading in reality; if you would advise merely dropping it, that's certainly what I would prefer. - Until Wednesday. - 21:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• "he became widely known as a political poet although his work was more politically ambivalent than many reviewers recognised". I don't have the source used to support that statement. I'm not sure this statement is clear enough as regards what is generally accepted as Auden's own attitude towards his political poetry. My understanding is that Auden changed his political views and revised his early poetry, feeling that he wasn't being politically honest at the time. Also, as it's a statement that is essentially challenging what other reviews have said, I would feel more comfortable if this was clearly a widely accepted view or if not it were given to Mendelson as "According to Mendelson his work was more politically ambivalent...." SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is too compressed as it stands. The point made in 1981 both by Carpenter (biographically) and by Mendelson (critically) was that in the 1930s Auden made himself sound more politically committed than he was, and that he did this both because he felt a moral obligation to serve the anti-fascist cause and also because it enhanced his public reputation; later he doubted whether he was actually doing anything useful by writing political poems and also felt guilty about having won admiration for expounding views that he didn't actually hold. This reading of Auden's politics does seem to be widely accepted (I've never seen anyone argue against it), but it's probably safest to attribute it to Carpenter and Mendelson. - Macspaunday (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I found some time to see to these details, and pinged you before editing; will do the same next time. I made the two substantial changes that you suggested: (a) in the lead, adding the personal history and critical summary, and (b) clarifying the political issues. I think that covers everything that you've suggested so far, but of course I'll continue to make other improvements, briefly now, and then again probably on Wednesday. - Macspaunday (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC) - Later: have also briefly described the first three books on Auden, one of them extremely critical. - Macspaunday (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC) - Sorry: to help assure that the "balance" issue is not in doubt, I went back and increased the details on two of the most influential arguments against Auden (by Randall Jarrell and Philip Larkin); these set the done for much later criticism. - Macspaunday (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC) - And I remembered something missing from the influence section - Auden's influence on younger American poets, recently the subject of a book. - Macspaunday (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Who is saying that "Nones (1951), had a Mediterranean atmosphere"? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep

This GAR was set up due to some valid concerns regarding tone and balance of the article. While the GAR has been open those concerns have been addressed, and the article has benefited from the attention of several editors. It now meets GA criteria, and areas have been highlighted for further development. Thanks to everyone involved. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your work on this page, @SilkTork:, and of course for the Keep rating, and also for the encouragement in your comments to start the long process of moving forward to an FA rating in the future. (And I'll source that comment on the Mediterranean atmosphere of Nones in the next few days.) This has all been helpful and gratifying, Wikipedia at its very best. Thank you again, and I hope we'll meet again somewhere in the project before too long. - Macspaunday (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

FA is a tough route, but I think you have in within you to take this article there. Good luck! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Harold Bloom and Helen Vendler

(Moved here from my Talk Page: Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC))

Your edit at Auden I have had to undo since you are attributing Harold Bloom's words to me. Though flattering, this is not any credit that I can take, so I need to do a friendly undo to restore proper attribution to Bloom. If you have any questions about the edit please bring them up here and I'll try to get make. Cheers. MusicAngels (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

But there is no need to revert the links I added, is there? I've restored the quote, although it's still very unclear to me who's quoting whom, and why. Poems, like songs, are generally given in quotes, not in italics, unless published as books in their own right. A better place for discussion might be at the article Talk Page. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You are again attributing the Bloom material to me which I have quoted correctly and which you are attributing as my words. Please return the quotes where I put them to properly attribute what Bloom has written. Regarding your comment about poems in Italic that is true in general, but that is not how Bloom wrote it in his quote, and the Bloom version is how he wanted it written.

Occassionally, a poem's name will also appear as the name of a book of poems, and in those cases when the book of poems is being referred to, then the Italic version is to be preferred. Please return the quote to the way Bloom wrote since that was and is his preference. Your added link are a benefit and you can certainly return them, I did the undo because your edit was not attributing Bloom's words to Bloom. Please return the quote marks, etc, as I requested, thanks. MusicAngels (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe it's necessary to preserve text italicization in quotes, unless the meaning depends on it. It's just a style choice. But I am quite happy to take advice from other editors. As I said above, it's very unclear to me who is quoting who and why. Please go ahead and make this clearer, if you can, by restoring your original punctuation if necessary. Perhaps part of the problem (for me, at least) is the mixture of single and double quote marks. But I'm also still unclear what point is being made and why. Perhaps you could elucidate? If you have a source for a book, or books, with those names, by all means add them. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This should be simple. I will try to put it into blockquote format on the page so that you see it clearly. You are of course a gentleman and a scholar for putting this on the Talk page here. Please look at the blockquote when I post it, this is a friendly blockquote only so that you see what I am talking about. MusicAngels (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Alas, being a Wikipedia editor, I count myself as neither. I copied here in the hope that other editors. for more expert than I, could contribute. A blockquote makes it much clearer (although a block quite does not need itself quote makes) apart from the truncated and embedded poem lines - well that's Bloom's decision so we can't change that I guess. In Praise of Limestone is given already as a poem title, with quote marks - and that fits with its article. But if you think this is so important to Bloom, so be it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm still pondering the change of tense to present in this paragraph, after the previous introductory paragraph closed in past perfect tense. And that work by Bloom was 35 years ago? - I have restored the author link and year of publication that, for some reason, you reverted for a second time, and I've also added the publisher. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Bloom and Vendler deserve any more pride of place than the score of other important critics. I think leaving in such a long quote is subjective. Bloom is particularly a matter of debate among scholars and I don't think Wikipedia needs to enter the fray. He is just one of many many others, as is Vendler. Poetic1920 (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• If I may: I don't think Bloom is "just one of many others", and neither is Vendler--their reputations are among the highest. But that doesn't mean we need this long, convoluted quote just to say that "Bloom likes the earlier stuff better". In addition, and this makes me question the GA status a bit, the Bloom book, Wallace Stevens: The Poems of our Climate, is not given a full bibliographical entry. It says 1980, so it must be the Cornell edition. Finally, the paragraph starts rather abruptly, "Two of these exceptions"--the phrase itself refers to the first part of the last sentence of the preceding paragraph, and that's quite awkward. (And of course the title of the poem should not be in italics.) Ah, I see now that Poetic1920 has taken care of these matters elegantly: thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: That paragraph with the long quotation was added after User:SilkTork confirmed the GA rating, and was not added by me (I'm the editor who has done much of the recent work on the site). As you say, Poetic1920 has fixed the problem, though it still might be possible to improve the flow of the sentences slightly. - Macspaunday (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: I was also a bit wary of such an addition so soon after GA had been concluded. The year of publication and publisher of that Bloom book were simply my guesses, based on a quick web search. I do not have that book and so cannot confirm that the quote was accurate. The OP did revert that date twice, as part of larger reverts, but did not explicitly challenge it. But as you say, it’s gone now anyway. I thought the Bloom book would be a useful addition in any case. But I see that he already appears earlier in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

There's at least two editions; the earlier one is 1977--or 1976, I've seen both dates. Given how academic reprints are done it's likely the page numbers are the same; unfortunately my library doesn't have it or I would have checked. Thanks Martin, Drmies (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Now that the quote has gone, of course, I suspect that quoting any single page number is a bit misleading. I guess an entire chapter, if not the whole book, supports Bloom's argument that Stevens beats Auden? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies:, @Martinevans123:,@Poetic1920: The sentence about Vendler and Bloom has some problems that aren't entirely easy to solve, and any help and advice would be welcome. First, there is no source (and never was a source in any earlier edit) for Vendler's views on the matter; she may very well hold the view attributed to her here, but I don't remember seeing it in print, and, unless I've forgotten something, she hasn't written at any length about Auden.

Next, Bloom does hold the view attributed to him here, but the (deleted) quoted passage doesn't express it, so the footnote as it stands is no longer relevant. I'm fairly certain I can find a source for Bloom's view that early Auden is better than later (it's likely to be in the New Republic review that I cited elsewhere on the page, but I would have to look it up again to make sure; and that view is almost certainly in the introduction to his 1980s collection of critical essays, which I can also check).

What I propose doing is remove Vendler's name unless someone can find a suitable source, and change the footnote reference to one that matches Bloom's view on early and later Auden. I would also merge the content of the new sentence more smoothly into the existing text.

I'm going on and on about this one sentence because the editor who originally added the longer passage about Vendler and Bloom has a history of getting into disputes that only get settled when an admin intervenes. That editor has now been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for disruptive editing, but there's always a chance that they will be back, and it would help to have consensus (perhaps including an opinion from an admin) on anything that contradicts that editor's edits. Also that editor got into two disputes with me, and I don't want to take any action that might be interpreted as action taken for personal reasons, rather than action taken as the product of clear consensus. - Macspaunday (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Ha--I'm sorry to say that I think this was bound to happen. (I assume we're talking about MusicAngels, and that they added the disputed language? I never checked to see who added it.) Well, I don't think you're going on and on--it's fine with me, it's important. This article is one of the most important poets in the English language and we need to get it right. Moreover, Vendler's opinion carries a ton of weight, and we should not ascribe anything to her that isn't rigorously verified, out of respect to her and to the BLP. I don't think you need an admin (or me as an admin) to justify changes: WP:V ought to be enough. Thank you all: I appreciate all the work you're doing to get this right. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: Yep, you guessed the identity of the editor who got all this started. It's not exactly a surprise... I won't have access to Bloom's anthology until tomorrow, and will also see if I can find anything relevant from Helen Vendler; she generally writes almost entirely in praise of the poets she writes about, so I tend to doubt anything is out there that supports the problematic edit, but it's worth looking for. Will get this sorted by tomorrow, and meanwhile, thank you for the good words! - Macspaunday (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Vendler is the kind of scholar who makes you want to read someone you dislike, though I have yet to follow her to Eliot. Brr. Do I have to? I suppose I do. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
      • @Drmies: After the ferocious bullying I got farther up on this same page from an editor we've been alluding to, the absolute last thing I'm going to do on Wikipedia is tell anyone that they "have to" do anything...!! But Eliot really is even greater than his reputation. By the way, I'm reading Robert Crawford's new biography of him right now - Crawford is a very fine poet in his own right - and it's quite wonderful to watch him showing Eliot's verse emerging from personal experience in a way that no one had shown before - exactly what a literary biography ought to do. (Just remembered that this is getting off the topic, but it is a "talk" page.) - Macspaunday (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Whoa, I didn't see the earlier comments. If I had known about this earlier I might have acted on it then; you may know that I acted administratively, so to speak, on some of the editor's contributions. The strikethrough was wholly inappropriate. I'm glad, though, that normal editing procedures (and some patience) prevailed--with thanks to SilkTork and Sadads. I need you to know, though, that Sadads is all prose: he is a closeted admirer of Thackeray, and I wouldn't trust him near real verse. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
          • @Drmies: I'll pick this up at your talk page before someone complains that I'm getting completely off the topic...! - Macspaunday (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear User:Macspaunday -- thank you for the alert. I was going to weigh in to say that as important as Vendler and Bloom are (both carry "a ton of weight" as User:Drmies rightly says), neither is an important Auden scholar. Neither has authored an important work on Auden. Neither come up on lists of important Auden scholars. I would consider Vendler a scholar of Shakespeare or George Herbert or Keats or Yeats or Heaney or Dickinson or Stevens but not Auden particularly, except in passing. Bloom has even less to say particularly about Auden. Neither of them ought to be given special treatment here, despite their weight.Poetic1920 (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S. the "editor in question" seemed to have an emotional attachment to Bloom. His trail of abuse included accusing those of us who aren't Bloom fans (and Bloom is demonstrably controversial) in violation of Wikipedia's policy on living persons or WP:BLP, which seemed to be utterly insane. One can find Bloom's work tiresome and old fashioned without being in violation of policy, certainly. Poetic1920 (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Poetic1920: You won't get any argument from me on anything you just said. As you say, Helen Vendler has (as far as I know) never written more than a brief allusion to Auden (and without any specific content, she probably doesn't belong on this page), and Harold Bloom (who can be magnificently illuminating on poets whom he admires) never said much about Auden except that he was too religious-minded and that Stevens was better. There's already a quotation from Bloom earlier in this section as an example of critics (like F. R. Leavis) who thought Auden was no good. Unless anyone objects, the whole sentence might best be deleted, finally clearing up a disruption by the editor we've been writing about. The basic point that many readers prefer the earlier poetry was most famously made by Larkin in the UK and Jarrell in the US, and they're both cited in the existing text. - Macspaunday (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)