This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John Keats article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
| ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 31, 2017, and October 31, 2021. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The epitaph on the gravestone was purposely laid out by Brown and Severn as a poem (they were poets. Keats was a poet). Please respect the poems lineation and line breaks for this reason. Every week at the moment someone changes it back to a prose format. Yes, there is a one day difference between the headstone's given date of death and the official date. Thanks Spanglej ( talk) 13:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
As part of a year's ongoing adding of content to this article you'll notice that Bright star is the only poem quoted in its entirety. This is because it is a sonnet (a short 14 lines), it is well known, it has demonstrable links through Keats's letters to Isabella Jones and Fanny Brawne, it highlights his conflicted state and was one of the last poems that Keats revised before he died. This is why it is emphasised as an image as much as a poem. If anyone feels this is adding undue emphasis, please discuss. Thanks Spanglej ( talk) 12:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
In the name of accuracy, I have changed the sentence that begins this page, "John Keats was the last born of the English Romantic poets and, at 25, the youngest to die" to "John Keats was an English Romantic poet." While the former statement is nicely poetic, it is simply not true. Keats was the last born of the Big Six (Blake, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Byron, Shelley, Keats), but he was not the last born of all English Romantic poets, of whom there were dozens. Thomas Lovell Beddoes, for instance, was born in 1803--eight years after Keats.
67.194.200.2 ( talk) 02:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
"had made several large loans that he could ill afford." begs the question, Who was he loaning money to and what were the consequences? In the context it might also be worth checking the sources in case this should actually have been " had taken on several large loans that he could ill afford to repay". Ϣere SpielChequers 06:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
He had a significant influence on a diverse range of later poets and writers. Implies to me that he influenced subsequent but not current generations of writers. If he is still influencing writers today then perhaps He has had a significant influence on a diverse range of later poets and writers. would be more apt. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
"Keats' letters were first published in 1848 and 1878." This reads oddly to me, and could perhaps be rephrased as "Some of Keats' letters were first published in 1848, with his letters to Fanny Brawne added in 1878. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
This page previously read "His last request was to be placed under an unnamed tombstone which contained only the words (in pentameter), 'Here lies one whose name was writ in water.'" The problem here is not the highlighted word Pentameter (all that is seen on the page), but the link to the article on Iambic pentameter.
The most straightforward scansion of the intended epitaph as one line of pentameter is trochaic: "HERE lies ONE whose NAME was WRIT in WAter." It would be completely unnatural to try to pronounce it as a regular iambic line: "Here LIES one WHOSE name IS writ IN waTER." True, true, if we found this line at the beginning of an otherwise iambic poem, we could rationalize it by scanning it as a headless first foot (the missing unstressed first syllable) on a line with a feminine ending (the extra unstressed syllable at the end). But we have no reason to shoehorn the line into an iambic pattern because Keats gave us only one line. And it consists of five trochaic feet.
Although I have corrected "iambic" with "trochaic," other corrections are possible. We could leave it described only as pentameter, with no hyperlink. We could leave out "pentameter" (since Severn and Brown have broken the line) and use some other formula, such as "an unnamed tombstone marked only with the following metric line, 'Here lies one whose name was writ in water'", etc. But please don't revert it to "iambic pentameter," which simply makes no sense, at least not without discussing it here first. Thanks. Mandrakos ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't know much about Keats, but I was reading this, and the following sentence seemed to me to not use the word "encroached" correctly:
However, Keats increasingly encroached on his writing time, and he grew ambivalent about his medical career.
I think it should maybe be changed to something like the following:
However, Keats increasingly felt that his study of medicine encroached on his writing time, and he grew ambivalent about his medical career.
Thank you.
Julia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.138.212 ( talk) 15:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
"On 11 April 1818, Keats and Coleridge had a long walk together on Hampstead Heath. In a letter to his brother George, Keats wrote that they talked about 'a thousand things,... nightingales, poetry, poetical sensation, metaphysics.' " This report is inaccurate. The letter it is cited from was a long one, more like a set of diary entries, written to George and Georgiana Keats (not just George), covering the period 14 Feb. to 3 May 1819 (not 1818). The quotation comes from the section covering 15 April 1819, and in the original letter it's quite clear that the two did not have a long walk together. Keats bumped into Coleridge and his companion, Joseph Green, the latter of whom he knew from Guy's Hospital (Green was a demonstrator there), and the three of them walked together for about two miles. Coleridge and Green then peeled off, and Keats continued on his way. The letter makes it quite clear that it was not a conversation. Coleridge, as was his wont, simply monologued, and neither expected nor really solicited any response from Keats or Green; the letter strongly implies that Coleridge didn't let either of them get a word in edgewise. Calling it a conversation, then, is somewhat misleading. They neither met nor talked as equals, that is, as both poets. Coleridge discoursed, the others listened, fascinated, no doubt by the range of his interests, but regarding him with some amusement and distance. Theonemacduff ( talk) 22:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I have heard someone on the radio mention that Keats had a "last will and testament", including an instruction to divide his books among his friends. I think it would be good if the article included mention of this document, which I could not find in the article or on Wikisource. Unfortunately, I have no good source at hand, so I am recording the need here. Ijon ( talk) 20:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
This is a question on possible inaccuracy, but I don't know the answer. John Keats's page says his alma mater was Kings College London, but the linked Wikipedia page for that college says it was founded in 1829, eight years after Keats died. I don't see anything on the Kings College page that suggests an explanation for this discrepancy in timing. Does the Keats page give an incorrect college name, and/or is the college's name linked to the wrong Wiki page? -- 100.14.64.200 ( talk) 18:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Lisa Lapp, 08 August 2016
Where exactly was Keats born and why can't it be linked? The plaque commemorating his birth place is at the site of the "Swan & Hoop" here, in front of The Globe pub on Moorgate? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Despite Keats' own wishes, his gravestone bears the date "Feb 24 1821". I removed the previous observation "There is a discrepancy of one day between the official date of death and that on the gravestone", and the explanation added by User:Alfion, as it was all unsourced (although the simple observation seems to be correct). Also, we currently don't know when the headstone was installed, which might or might not make things clearer? Happy to re-add if there are good sources for this (or any) explanation. Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 10:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
It does often happen with historical notables, along with uncertain/differing birth/baptism records. I would say the Keats discrepancy is interesting rather than terribly important. If you have access to the various good biographies, I would check what they say. I suspect most of Keats mates were off their tits a lot of the time. All the more so in grief. 🌱 Anna ( talk)
Following on from the previous discussion I propose that the ambiguity over the date of Keats death & burial should be acknowledged in the article body. Whether in the existing sections or a new one, to be supported by WP:RS. An example, from 'Undefinitive Keats' by Nicholas Roe in 'Literature and Authenticity, 1780–1900: Essays in Honour of Vincent Newey'. Edited by Michael Davies, published by Routledge, 6 May 2016, page 43 [1]: follows:
"Comparable ambiguities gather around the moment of Keats death. From Joseph Severn's contemporary letters and later reminiscences it seems clear that Keats dies at around 11.00 p.m. on friday 23 February 1821. However, the register of burials for the Non-Catholic cemetery at Rome tells a different story:
John Keats, English Poet.
Died the 24th of February, 1821.
Buried the 25th ditto in the
Morning at 15 o'clock. Aged 26.
24 February? Aged 26? Much later in the nineteenth century, these details were repeated on the white marble slab placed on the wall of the house where Keats died at 26 Piazza di Spagna, where they can still be seen with the age altered by some later hand to read '25'. the peculiar hour of the burial, 'in the morning at 15 o'clock', is based on the Roman way of reckoning the hours of the day from six o'clock the preceding evening. At 6.00 p.m. English time, 24 April became 25 April in Rome, so the burial that took place on the 25th at '15 o'clock' Roman time was 9.00 a.m when reckoned on the English system".
AnonNep (
talk) 19:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
King's College, London wasn't established until 1829, several years after the death of Keats. Citing it as his Alma Mater is therefore ridiculous. He enrolled at Guys Hospital as a medical student, and Guys has since been absorbed by Kings, but that's not the same thing - and that should be made clear. Hanoi Road ( talk) 15:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The phrase "about £50,000 in today's money" is pretty meaningless, if we don't know when "today" was. Wikipedia articles are supposed to remain correct into the future. Inflation will render this statement false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.24.35 ( talk • contribs) 11:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
His parents were unable to afford Eton or Harrow...
I have added in the detail to clarify the situ, checked and added the sources. Valetude, Keats had a large and complicated family. Some members had signifiant property and were much wealthier than others. Some acted as 'benefactors' to others. Deaths, re-marriages, guardianship, legacies, wills and possible embezzlement, added drama to how the wealth was used, who was sponsored by it and where it ended up. The article does describe some of these dynamics. Anna ( talk) 03:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Today is the bicentenary of Keats' death: [4] Perhaps the events organised to mark the anniversary should be added? Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
"On 23 February 2021, to mark the 200th anniversary of Keats' death, the play Writ in Water, by playwright and academic Angus Graham-Campbell, was broadcast by BBC Radio 4"? But there is no "Legacy" section, so not sure where to place anything. [5] Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
In April 1804, when Keats was eight, his father died from a skull fracture, when he fell from his horse while returning from a visit to John and his brother George at school. Thomas Keats died intestate and his mother remarried two months later.
I'm sure we can see how confusion creeps in here. There are three men mentioned in the two lines - John, George and their father Thomas. Pronouns are only useful if it's clear who they are referring to. Thomas Keats' mother did not remarry in 1804.
It's been many years since I have been a regular, full time editor. A great big barrel of thank yous to all those who have been stewarding the poetry articles and doing a tremendous job. All best wishes. Anna ( talk) 15:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
To clarify, the above is the version that was reverted for being unclear. Anna ( talk) 16:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
He want to show that young generation author can also do such improvement. He was the famous author and writer of the young generation. We should try to become like John keat He is inspiration for young authors . So all young authors best of luck! 2409:4042:2813:4FA8:0:0:26:40AC ( talk) 13:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
The guidance on including 'popular culture' or trivia in an article reads the "source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source about the cultural item which merely mentions the subject." This first reversion mentions a film that features a few lines of a Keats poem. The subject of the second reversion isn't about Keats either. They are 'passing mentions'. The guidance also says "Cultural references about a subject... should not be included simply because they exist." Keats is a globally known poet. There are thousands of songs, plays, films, films etc that make mentions of him and his work. Biographies get swamped but tangential bits and pieces and make the articles weaker for it. Anna ( talk) 13:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
This is not really apropos of anything, it's just a really interesting, academic but arresting article on the details of Keats' descent into TB and the findings of the autopsy on his body two days after his death. Our WP article is long as it is and I don't think it's necessary to add in more detail, but good to know the research is out there for anyone wanting to explore further. Best wishes. Anna ( talk) 22:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I am wanting to add a link in External links to the article on John Keats in the 1911 edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica but am encountering some resistance. This is the article: Swinburne, Algernon Charles; Bryant, Margaret Bryant (1911). . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 15 (11th ed.). pp. 708–710.. Any views, one way or the other? ArbieP ( talk) 10:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I find the career section is too long and should be broken up further. The current 2 subsections (Wadsworth andBrawne) are a beginning. I dont feel comfortable doing this and hence placed too long|section flag. What do you think, Anna Roy? Seems like a perfect task for you, in my opinion. Thanks. Wuerzele ( talk) 08:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Maybe I’m reading this wrong but on the article the is a picture with the text being : Relief on the wall nearHIS grave. (Or something like that) Maybe I read it wrong but I feel that it’s wrong. I just do. InfernaIBaze ( talk) 03:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
In the phrase "In October 1815, having finished his five year apprenticeship with Hammond", "five year" apparently is intended to be a compound adjective. Thus, it should be hyphenated (see MOS:HYPHEN). I tried to correct it, but got reverted. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 19:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John Keats article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
| ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 31, 2017, and October 31, 2021. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The epitaph on the gravestone was purposely laid out by Brown and Severn as a poem (they were poets. Keats was a poet). Please respect the poems lineation and line breaks for this reason. Every week at the moment someone changes it back to a prose format. Yes, there is a one day difference between the headstone's given date of death and the official date. Thanks Spanglej ( talk) 13:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
As part of a year's ongoing adding of content to this article you'll notice that Bright star is the only poem quoted in its entirety. This is because it is a sonnet (a short 14 lines), it is well known, it has demonstrable links through Keats's letters to Isabella Jones and Fanny Brawne, it highlights his conflicted state and was one of the last poems that Keats revised before he died. This is why it is emphasised as an image as much as a poem. If anyone feels this is adding undue emphasis, please discuss. Thanks Spanglej ( talk) 12:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
In the name of accuracy, I have changed the sentence that begins this page, "John Keats was the last born of the English Romantic poets and, at 25, the youngest to die" to "John Keats was an English Romantic poet." While the former statement is nicely poetic, it is simply not true. Keats was the last born of the Big Six (Blake, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Byron, Shelley, Keats), but he was not the last born of all English Romantic poets, of whom there were dozens. Thomas Lovell Beddoes, for instance, was born in 1803--eight years after Keats.
67.194.200.2 ( talk) 02:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
"had made several large loans that he could ill afford." begs the question, Who was he loaning money to and what were the consequences? In the context it might also be worth checking the sources in case this should actually have been " had taken on several large loans that he could ill afford to repay". Ϣere SpielChequers 06:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
He had a significant influence on a diverse range of later poets and writers. Implies to me that he influenced subsequent but not current generations of writers. If he is still influencing writers today then perhaps He has had a significant influence on a diverse range of later poets and writers. would be more apt. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
"Keats' letters were first published in 1848 and 1878." This reads oddly to me, and could perhaps be rephrased as "Some of Keats' letters were first published in 1848, with his letters to Fanny Brawne added in 1878. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
This page previously read "His last request was to be placed under an unnamed tombstone which contained only the words (in pentameter), 'Here lies one whose name was writ in water.'" The problem here is not the highlighted word Pentameter (all that is seen on the page), but the link to the article on Iambic pentameter.
The most straightforward scansion of the intended epitaph as one line of pentameter is trochaic: "HERE lies ONE whose NAME was WRIT in WAter." It would be completely unnatural to try to pronounce it as a regular iambic line: "Here LIES one WHOSE name IS writ IN waTER." True, true, if we found this line at the beginning of an otherwise iambic poem, we could rationalize it by scanning it as a headless first foot (the missing unstressed first syllable) on a line with a feminine ending (the extra unstressed syllable at the end). But we have no reason to shoehorn the line into an iambic pattern because Keats gave us only one line. And it consists of five trochaic feet.
Although I have corrected "iambic" with "trochaic," other corrections are possible. We could leave it described only as pentameter, with no hyperlink. We could leave out "pentameter" (since Severn and Brown have broken the line) and use some other formula, such as "an unnamed tombstone marked only with the following metric line, 'Here lies one whose name was writ in water'", etc. But please don't revert it to "iambic pentameter," which simply makes no sense, at least not without discussing it here first. Thanks. Mandrakos ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't know much about Keats, but I was reading this, and the following sentence seemed to me to not use the word "encroached" correctly:
However, Keats increasingly encroached on his writing time, and he grew ambivalent about his medical career.
I think it should maybe be changed to something like the following:
However, Keats increasingly felt that his study of medicine encroached on his writing time, and he grew ambivalent about his medical career.
Thank you.
Julia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.138.212 ( talk) 15:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
"On 11 April 1818, Keats and Coleridge had a long walk together on Hampstead Heath. In a letter to his brother George, Keats wrote that they talked about 'a thousand things,... nightingales, poetry, poetical sensation, metaphysics.' " This report is inaccurate. The letter it is cited from was a long one, more like a set of diary entries, written to George and Georgiana Keats (not just George), covering the period 14 Feb. to 3 May 1819 (not 1818). The quotation comes from the section covering 15 April 1819, and in the original letter it's quite clear that the two did not have a long walk together. Keats bumped into Coleridge and his companion, Joseph Green, the latter of whom he knew from Guy's Hospital (Green was a demonstrator there), and the three of them walked together for about two miles. Coleridge and Green then peeled off, and Keats continued on his way. The letter makes it quite clear that it was not a conversation. Coleridge, as was his wont, simply monologued, and neither expected nor really solicited any response from Keats or Green; the letter strongly implies that Coleridge didn't let either of them get a word in edgewise. Calling it a conversation, then, is somewhat misleading. They neither met nor talked as equals, that is, as both poets. Coleridge discoursed, the others listened, fascinated, no doubt by the range of his interests, but regarding him with some amusement and distance. Theonemacduff ( talk) 22:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I have heard someone on the radio mention that Keats had a "last will and testament", including an instruction to divide his books among his friends. I think it would be good if the article included mention of this document, which I could not find in the article or on Wikisource. Unfortunately, I have no good source at hand, so I am recording the need here. Ijon ( talk) 20:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
This is a question on possible inaccuracy, but I don't know the answer. John Keats's page says his alma mater was Kings College London, but the linked Wikipedia page for that college says it was founded in 1829, eight years after Keats died. I don't see anything on the Kings College page that suggests an explanation for this discrepancy in timing. Does the Keats page give an incorrect college name, and/or is the college's name linked to the wrong Wiki page? -- 100.14.64.200 ( talk) 18:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Lisa Lapp, 08 August 2016
Where exactly was Keats born and why can't it be linked? The plaque commemorating his birth place is at the site of the "Swan & Hoop" here, in front of The Globe pub on Moorgate? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Despite Keats' own wishes, his gravestone bears the date "Feb 24 1821". I removed the previous observation "There is a discrepancy of one day between the official date of death and that on the gravestone", and the explanation added by User:Alfion, as it was all unsourced (although the simple observation seems to be correct). Also, we currently don't know when the headstone was installed, which might or might not make things clearer? Happy to re-add if there are good sources for this (or any) explanation. Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 10:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
It does often happen with historical notables, along with uncertain/differing birth/baptism records. I would say the Keats discrepancy is interesting rather than terribly important. If you have access to the various good biographies, I would check what they say. I suspect most of Keats mates were off their tits a lot of the time. All the more so in grief. 🌱 Anna ( talk)
Following on from the previous discussion I propose that the ambiguity over the date of Keats death & burial should be acknowledged in the article body. Whether in the existing sections or a new one, to be supported by WP:RS. An example, from 'Undefinitive Keats' by Nicholas Roe in 'Literature and Authenticity, 1780–1900: Essays in Honour of Vincent Newey'. Edited by Michael Davies, published by Routledge, 6 May 2016, page 43 [1]: follows:
"Comparable ambiguities gather around the moment of Keats death. From Joseph Severn's contemporary letters and later reminiscences it seems clear that Keats dies at around 11.00 p.m. on friday 23 February 1821. However, the register of burials for the Non-Catholic cemetery at Rome tells a different story:
John Keats, English Poet.
Died the 24th of February, 1821.
Buried the 25th ditto in the
Morning at 15 o'clock. Aged 26.
24 February? Aged 26? Much later in the nineteenth century, these details were repeated on the white marble slab placed on the wall of the house where Keats died at 26 Piazza di Spagna, where they can still be seen with the age altered by some later hand to read '25'. the peculiar hour of the burial, 'in the morning at 15 o'clock', is based on the Roman way of reckoning the hours of the day from six o'clock the preceding evening. At 6.00 p.m. English time, 24 April became 25 April in Rome, so the burial that took place on the 25th at '15 o'clock' Roman time was 9.00 a.m when reckoned on the English system".
AnonNep (
talk) 19:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
King's College, London wasn't established until 1829, several years after the death of Keats. Citing it as his Alma Mater is therefore ridiculous. He enrolled at Guys Hospital as a medical student, and Guys has since been absorbed by Kings, but that's not the same thing - and that should be made clear. Hanoi Road ( talk) 15:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The phrase "about £50,000 in today's money" is pretty meaningless, if we don't know when "today" was. Wikipedia articles are supposed to remain correct into the future. Inflation will render this statement false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.24.35 ( talk • contribs) 11:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
His parents were unable to afford Eton or Harrow...
I have added in the detail to clarify the situ, checked and added the sources. Valetude, Keats had a large and complicated family. Some members had signifiant property and were much wealthier than others. Some acted as 'benefactors' to others. Deaths, re-marriages, guardianship, legacies, wills and possible embezzlement, added drama to how the wealth was used, who was sponsored by it and where it ended up. The article does describe some of these dynamics. Anna ( talk) 03:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Today is the bicentenary of Keats' death: [4] Perhaps the events organised to mark the anniversary should be added? Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
"On 23 February 2021, to mark the 200th anniversary of Keats' death, the play Writ in Water, by playwright and academic Angus Graham-Campbell, was broadcast by BBC Radio 4"? But there is no "Legacy" section, so not sure where to place anything. [5] Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
In April 1804, when Keats was eight, his father died from a skull fracture, when he fell from his horse while returning from a visit to John and his brother George at school. Thomas Keats died intestate and his mother remarried two months later.
I'm sure we can see how confusion creeps in here. There are three men mentioned in the two lines - John, George and their father Thomas. Pronouns are only useful if it's clear who they are referring to. Thomas Keats' mother did not remarry in 1804.
It's been many years since I have been a regular, full time editor. A great big barrel of thank yous to all those who have been stewarding the poetry articles and doing a tremendous job. All best wishes. Anna ( talk) 15:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
To clarify, the above is the version that was reverted for being unclear. Anna ( talk) 16:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
He want to show that young generation author can also do such improvement. He was the famous author and writer of the young generation. We should try to become like John keat He is inspiration for young authors . So all young authors best of luck! 2409:4042:2813:4FA8:0:0:26:40AC ( talk) 13:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
The guidance on including 'popular culture' or trivia in an article reads the "source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source about the cultural item which merely mentions the subject." This first reversion mentions a film that features a few lines of a Keats poem. The subject of the second reversion isn't about Keats either. They are 'passing mentions'. The guidance also says "Cultural references about a subject... should not be included simply because they exist." Keats is a globally known poet. There are thousands of songs, plays, films, films etc that make mentions of him and his work. Biographies get swamped but tangential bits and pieces and make the articles weaker for it. Anna ( talk) 13:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
This is not really apropos of anything, it's just a really interesting, academic but arresting article on the details of Keats' descent into TB and the findings of the autopsy on his body two days after his death. Our WP article is long as it is and I don't think it's necessary to add in more detail, but good to know the research is out there for anyone wanting to explore further. Best wishes. Anna ( talk) 22:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I am wanting to add a link in External links to the article on John Keats in the 1911 edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica but am encountering some resistance. This is the article: Swinburne, Algernon Charles; Bryant, Margaret Bryant (1911). . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 15 (11th ed.). pp. 708–710.. Any views, one way or the other? ArbieP ( talk) 10:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I find the career section is too long and should be broken up further. The current 2 subsections (Wadsworth andBrawne) are a beginning. I dont feel comfortable doing this and hence placed too long|section flag. What do you think, Anna Roy? Seems like a perfect task for you, in my opinion. Thanks. Wuerzele ( talk) 08:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Maybe I’m reading this wrong but on the article the is a picture with the text being : Relief on the wall nearHIS grave. (Or something like that) Maybe I read it wrong but I feel that it’s wrong. I just do. InfernaIBaze ( talk) 03:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
In the phrase "In October 1815, having finished his five year apprenticeship with Hammond", "five year" apparently is intended to be a compound adjective. Thus, it should be hyphenated (see MOS:HYPHEN). I tried to correct it, but got reverted. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 19:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)