I wanted to talk about changes to TFA as an introduction to something that is a major problem with Wikipedia - letting people mob articles that already have long standing consensus and the result is the destruction of an article.
Correct version and the Horribly bad version.
If you look at the two, you will see a few things:
1. The word "colonialist", pulled directly from a source by a major critic in an article later included in a book about Romantic Colonialism is removed. Instead, an imaginary connection to Byron that is not in any sources nor logically true is added.
2. The summary of the work from highly notable sources is removed and replaced with just a copy and paste from Wikipedia. No summary, no guidance, nothing "critical".
3. The themes section went from tightly organized and concise to a bunch of tiny and scattered paragraphs with no unity.
4. Material from Walter Jackson Bate, the most famous Keats's critic and winner of a Pulitzer for his Keats biography, was removed because the editor disagreed with it. The reason why Bate points this out is in its uniqueness in poetry as a whole. Keats was a sound based poet and the various techniques are very important when writing about the poem.
5. Removing a description of an image for the reason that the drawing isn't what his real hair color is, but the description is about the image and not reality.
5. Dumbing down the work in general by removing "deals more with sensual observations" because the editor believes this to be nonsense. Mind you, one of the most famous literary critics Harold Bloom was the one who said it was a "sensuous observation of he consequences of that [Autumn's] process" while the first is "aureate".
6. Removing stuff without care. He says there are no "individuals", but Bloom refers to the various singers as entities even if they are animal. But even if you want to say "individual", he removes the idea of motionlessness, which is essential to critical interpretations of the poem and have been deemed a fundamental part of Keats's poetry.
7. Moving the structure to the bottom. The structure is essential to understand what you would even be reading. It is the mechanics, the background to the format. In critical works structure and mechanics always come first and it is standard on Wikipedia.
8. Lack of understanding what is attributed or not. Fringe opinion is attributed, but Helen Vendler is one of dozens of critics saying the same thing there.
Was there discussion? No. Were there phrases changed to the point that they contradict what the sources? Yes.
The point - if this stuff happens on a small FA about poetry, what about incredibly technical and complex FAs? Why do they allow -any- changes during TFA instead of forcing everyone straight to the talk page? It seems as if Wikipedia -encourages- disruptive changes when the work is most prominent, making them magnets for embarrassing Wikipedia instead of showing off what is good.