![]() | Translating Beowulf has been listed as one of the
Language and literature good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 12, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the LEAD there is the line It is impossible to use all the same effects in the same places as the Beowulf poet did, but it is feasible, though difficult, to give something of the feeling of the original, and for the translation to work as poetry.
which doesn't seem to be supported by the text enough to put it in Wiki voice. In general I'm not sure how well that statement is supported but to the extent it is I think it needs to be attributed to Liuzza. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
16:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I've been revisiting this article now and again since its creation. It's a head scratcher as there's some interesting and good stuff here, but it reads very much more like an essay than an encyclopedic entry. I wondered what other people thought. The original research is so tightly woven with other materials that it does make it difficult to start weeding out. Thoughts? Medievalfran ( talk) 18:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
There is no editorial opinion here. The statements in the article are all carefully cited and written to state plainly what the scholars thought. If they sometimes had strong views, that is their prerogative Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for replying Chiswick Chap. I was hoping that some other folks might give their opinion too. Just looking through the first few sections, for instance, there are quite a few 'statements of fact' that don't have any citations. I'm just concerned that if anyone wanted to follow up quite a few of these claims they wouldn't know where to go. At least one ref to what appears to be an undergraduate essay too. Again, curious to hear other opinions. Medievalfran ( talk) 11:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
It seems that
Translation of Beowulf would be a more normative title, per
WP:NOUN:
Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech; such a title can be the subject of the first sentence. One major exception is for titles that are quotations or titles of works: A rolling stone gathers no moss, or "Try to Remember". Adjective and verb forms (e.g. elegant) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun (Elegance) or disambiguation pages, like Organic and Talk. Sometimes the noun corresponding to a verb is the gerund (-ing form), as in Swimming.
Obviously, "translating" is the gerund form, but it's functioning as a verb here, not a noun. —
Remsense
诉
23:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Translating Beowulf has been listed as one of the
Language and literature good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 12, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the LEAD there is the line It is impossible to use all the same effects in the same places as the Beowulf poet did, but it is feasible, though difficult, to give something of the feeling of the original, and for the translation to work as poetry.
which doesn't seem to be supported by the text enough to put it in Wiki voice. In general I'm not sure how well that statement is supported but to the extent it is I think it needs to be attributed to Liuzza. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
16:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I've been revisiting this article now and again since its creation. It's a head scratcher as there's some interesting and good stuff here, but it reads very much more like an essay than an encyclopedic entry. I wondered what other people thought. The original research is so tightly woven with other materials that it does make it difficult to start weeding out. Thoughts? Medievalfran ( talk) 18:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
There is no editorial opinion here. The statements in the article are all carefully cited and written to state plainly what the scholars thought. If they sometimes had strong views, that is their prerogative Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for replying Chiswick Chap. I was hoping that some other folks might give their opinion too. Just looking through the first few sections, for instance, there are quite a few 'statements of fact' that don't have any citations. I'm just concerned that if anyone wanted to follow up quite a few of these claims they wouldn't know where to go. At least one ref to what appears to be an undergraduate essay too. Again, curious to hear other opinions. Medievalfran ( talk) 11:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
It seems that
Translation of Beowulf would be a more normative title, per
WP:NOUN:
Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech; such a title can be the subject of the first sentence. One major exception is for titles that are quotations or titles of works: A rolling stone gathers no moss, or "Try to Remember". Adjective and verb forms (e.g. elegant) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun (Elegance) or disambiguation pages, like Organic and Talk. Sometimes the noun corresponding to a verb is the gerund (-ing form), as in Swimming.
Obviously, "translating" is the gerund form, but it's functioning as a verb here, not a noun. —
Remsense
诉
23:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)