Talk:The Distrest Poet

Untitled

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? Yomangani^talk 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 Dissident^Talk 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 Dissident^Talk 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). Yomangani^talk 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)

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Distrest Poet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110209045218/http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/hogarth/rooms/room5.shtm to http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/hogarth/rooms/room5.shtm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)