Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Peer review/2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.
WikiProject Novels
The WikiProject
Project page
+ talk
Members talk
Guestbook talk
Coordinators talk
→ Current Elections
+ talk
JobCentre talk
→ Announcements (template) talk
Literature Portal talk
Article information
Resources talk
Style guidelines talk
→ Article (pattern template) talk
→ Char. Article (pattern template) talk
→ Book infobox (pattern) talk
→ Short story infobox (pattern) talk
Current discussions
General discussion forum (+)
 talk
Novel categorization talk
Work in progress
Main work list talk
Maintenance lists talk
Disputed novel articles talk
Disputed book cover images talk
Articles needed talk
Infobox needed talk
Infobox Incomplete talk
New articles talk
Auto-generated Worklists
Book → Novels talk
Novels without Infobox talk
Novels with InComplete Infobox talk
Missing "YYYY novels" category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
→ Assessment Top priority talk
Collaboration talk
Outreach talk
Peer review talk
Task forces
Crime task force talk
Fantasy task force talk
Science fiction task force talk
Short story task force talk
19th century task force talk
Australian task force talk
Shannara task force talk
Chronicles of Narnia task force talk
Lemony Snicket task force talk
Templates
Main Article Template talk
Infobox Book (protected) talk
Infobox short story talk
Infobox character talk
Userbox
WPNOVELS Userbox talk
 This box: view • talk • edit • changes

Contents

The Dark Age (series)

I'm new to this and have been working on this article since it was added to the WikiProjectNovels, following the guidelines. I would appreciate an opinion on it, in order to get it rated higher than start class. Many thanks Disrepdog 21:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

First look

Response depends on how many are scanning this page for changes.
First reaction, is a nice article; although it appears to me to be largely an article about the individual stories put together. As the article is titled "series" I would expect a bit more about the series as a whole and particularly more third party reviews, comment, reaction, notability, success etc; and as much as possible verifiable. Having said that a good start has been made with the groundwork being made to plit off the individual title element to their own articles should the content grow.
Also the infobox should go! as it is designed to be for individual title articles and this is arather forced use to make it work for a series. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Maybe "trilogy" would be better than "series" If I take the info box out do I put the publishing info further down then? And do the images need to go too? Disrepdog 15:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
the norm is to use the "commonly" used term for the series. Trilogy is only going work though if the author sticks the count of three. On the covers, yes they should go, however the list of novels should be prominent perhaps even in list format as part of the lead. The publication details can appear lower down as part of a "Publication history" section later in the article. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added some more info and references and would really appreciate your opinion now please. It is a trilogy so how do I change the article title if indeed I can? Also how do I get the rating changed if you agree it has moved above start class? Many thanks Disrepdog 19:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I have change the rating - I don't believe the name change is necessary. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The Darkest Hour (Warriors)

This is a kind of low-scale article on the last book of the Warriors series. I'd like to see it up at GA, but I'm concerned that there isn't enough info. Some review on the writing quality and suggestions to bring it to GA would be greatly appreciated. Inkpelt 15:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Article has a good start the writing style is ok to me although what is there is very "In-Universe". It would be better to have more publication relevant information, reviews, reception, critical comment, assessments of "success", publication history etc. All in all more "real-world" material. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes the other thing I wouldn't put the plot section headings in as such. At most "embolden" them and then they don't appear in the contents list at the top. Overkill!. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll bold the headings and remove the sections. I'm having trouble finding "publication relevant" info because the books are such... low-scale. Well, they're popular among eight to twelve year olds mostly, so there haven't been many reviews and such. Inkpelt 00:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inkpelt (talk • contribs)
Found and added some significance info, reference and independent review- trust that helps. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Edible Woman

This article has been greatly expanded in the last six months. Can someone take a look and let me know what still should be done? Thanks, Kweeket 01:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

some minor observations.
what are the }} at the end of the article.
the characters could be fleshed out more with more description.
The two quotations (I take it that is what they are) should be marked by double quotes " and pairs of single quotes. That would mean they are in italics and also surrounded by the double quotes. This makes it plain they are quotes. The references are good, more of these is always better.
Hope that helps some. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the input. I deleted the }} (typo in a citation) and italicized the quotes. Kweeket 16:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Adventures of Mao on the Long March

Brand spanking new article; eager to hear your impressions.AshcroftIleum 23:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Past Continuous (novel)

I've added significant amount of material to this article, specifically in themes, extensive quotes and criticisms.AshcroftIleum 23:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  • There's probably no need for two different versions of the non-free book cover. Would it be reasonable to pick one to better satisfy "minimal use" of non-free content? (ESkog)(Talk) 17:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I would rather have the first edition cover, either in Hebrew or English, instead of the two we have now. I guess we could drop the Overlook edition cover, it's not that important or interesting.AshcroftIleum 23:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Redwall

Redwall is one of the most well-known fantasy series of the past 20 years, attracting fans of all ages. This is the page for the overall series, not one individual novel. The article has improved quite a bit over the past year or so, but it still lacks content, editing, and refinement before it can trult be considered a "Good" article. I think it could benefit from a quality peer review. - Runch 18:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! I was a fan of these books when I was younger. Glad to see people are working on this article. One big thing I see is that a lot of the summary section could be moved to the characters and locations sections. Most of this section is well written, I just think a summary section should include more of the basic plot of the stories and less of commentary and heavy universe description. Wrad 21:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I loved these books as a kid. I agree with Wrad regarding the summary section. Also, the Characters and Locations sections should be expanded, which should be simple considering that there are already articles on those subjects(although the List of species in Redwall article says that rabbits are "neutral"-what about the Long Patrol?). Cheers, Jude. 01:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Starry Nights

I have beefed this article up some, but it needs a review I think to help me to improve the quality of the writing. Pumpernickel pickle 12:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of work is required to further improve the article. for example, There are no citations in the article. Moreover, you might want to add a section as a background on the synopsis of real life story which really made Shobha write the novel. The sections on literary significance, impacts (if any) and responses can be added and finally Trivia section can be appended to account for trivial details. You can see more on WP:NV for the general guidelines and layout of the article. DSachan 01:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Master of the Game

I've done a considerable amount of work on this article, and felt that it was ready for a review. I am sure that after a few more weeks, it'll be ready for a GA or an FA. --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 23:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Some basic suggestions

First I would say this is an article that is showing a lot of improvements, so good work here. For further work I would suggest looking at our article template and then having a go at the following.

  • Adding anything you can find more to demonstate notability
  • Put in a section on any form of critical comment, reviews etc.
  • separate out the "historical" and "cultural" references.
  • the image used should ideally be of "slightly" better quality and also ideally a "first edition" I know of no reason why a later edition would be more notable, unless you do.
  • remove the blurb (likely copyright voilation).
  • add a "Plot introduction" which introduce the basics of the Plot but without any spoiler material.

How about those for a start. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the image to a first edition one, removed the blurb, deleted the cultural reference as there is hardly any, and added a short plot introduction into the lead. As for the critical reviews, I am pretty sure that NYT has some, as it is a reasonably well known book... --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 09:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What Dreams May Come

I have done considerable work on this article, because not many people have read this novel; most have only seen the 1998 film adaptation. I provided a detailed plot summary, an infobox, some information about the novel's religious background, and information regarding the differences between the film and the novel. I later condensed the plot summary in accordance with Wikipedia standards not to be too detailed about summaries. I tried to provide a general outline of the events. marbeh raglaim 06:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Further ideas you might like to consider

Nice start, I have three comments at present
Your suggestion to add a "section listing the various paranormal phenomena that the book mentions" would perhaps be better as prose rather than a list. Perhaps part of a "Major themes" section.
There could do with more referencing and in-line citations (see you have some).
More on the reception the novel had before and after the film version if you can find such a source.
The "Character" section could do with more descriptions, I myself think a list format is fine here; "but" there should be more to it, something describing the characters and there basic position in the narrative and roles they fulfill.
Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I will try working on a major themes section.
I'm not sure what parts you think need more citations. Could you be specific?
I have been unable to find much information on the reception of the novel. Amazon provides no external reviews, and in fact the "Product Description" seems to be written by someone who only saw the film. I have looked through journal and newspaper archives from my old university and found hardly anything.
What I do need to work on is information on the different versions. The only version I have read (and which I now own) is the one published after the movie, where the cover is based on the film, and it also contains an afterword by producer Stephen Simon (aka Stephen Deutsch) explaining how he came across the book and what it means to him and how it has changed many people's lives.
I will also work on the Characters. marbeh raglaim 17:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I have now updated the Character section, created a Major Themes Section, added some info about the different editions of the book, and modified some other info. What remains is to make the infobox reflect the first edition, add a cover image, and include technical info about the other editions. Any other suggestions? marbeh raglaim 21:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
All right, now I have a real question. I have put up information about all three editions, and I think the article looks about complete now. The only thing needed is a picture of the cover. Here is a URL with a pretty good picture:
http://eloise.vox.com/library/book/6a00c2251c536cf21900ccff86550f985d.html
My only question is I'm not sure how to upload this in compliance with copyright restrictions. marbeh raglaim 09:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I have added a cover from the first edition. It is generally the prefer edition to use unless there are any other notable literary events in the life of the novel. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

So You Want to Be a Wizard

I've just added a section about major characters and the theme to this article, and I figured I need some more opinions besides just my own. Personally, I'm not sure if the theme section is appropriate to keep in or not. Also, what do you think about the length of the summary. I wasn't sure whether I should of cut it down a bit or not, so I just left it alone. But any suggestions for improvement are appreciated. Nazgul533 talk 23:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Kevinalewis

Two major observations. Only one source - article is desperate need of inline citations and other referencing. Notability - nothing as far as I can see that speaks verifiablity to subject of why or how this novel is notable.

  • Another comment - yes the Plot summary is a bit overblown. Quite out of scale to the other elements that should make up a good article. Basically the other elements almost don't exist yet. Nice start but the Plot summary tends to be considered far too important. A Good article can be good even with one. Thanks. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

User:IvoShandor

  • Make sure the lead conforms to all guidelines at WP:LEAD.
  • The plot summary needs work, see WP:WAF, it is mostly written in an in universie style, not too mention a bit too much, length wise.
  • Lack of inline citations makes it hard to discern source material, more important as you add more sources, which you should. See WP:RS.
  • The release details section shouldn't be presented as a list, also, not very detailed.
  • Work on these points and I can provide a more proper analysis.

IvoShandor 10:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally see no reason why "release details" shouldn't be a list. Does need more to it though. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:EMBED. IvoShandor 17:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

For most things the "Indented List with content" style would work well, however this "Release" type inormation doesn't lend itself to anything other than a list. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

automated peer review suggestions

Master and Commander

This is an article I wrote early on in my life here on Wikipedia and is a fairly full as novel articles go here so I thought I would put it forward as the first "Novels WikiProject" Peer review. Have a look at it guys and see what you think. Also you can start to enter your favourite articles for further peer reviews. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yllosubmarine

I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly, but seeing as how this is a new project, and I'm quite giddy with the idea of it, I thought I'd have a go. Aside from the stub sections, which definitely need more meat on them, I'm confused by the "Film, TV or theatrical adaptations" section. It's rather ambiguous, and it would be nice to have something along the lines of what Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World has; a slightly indepth explanation of the differences between Master and Far Side, and how both fit into the other books. Also, this may seem slightly picky, but I've noticed that Lord Keith is a character in the book, but I don't see a note as to the fact that the guy actually existed. I like little tidbits like that in articles, and as I haven't read the books, I'm wondering if there are other characters based off of fact? Perhaps that can fit into "Allusions/references to actual history, geography and current science." I'm also curious about the red-linked HMS Sophie and the significance between that. Hope this helps! María: (habla ~ cosas) 18:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents

First of all, for a novel article this is quite good, certainly considering it was one of your first attempts. It could use some work though. Here are my thoughts:

  • Fair use images should have a rationale why fair use is allowed on the pages they are used. I have added a rationale, take a look at it. (Unfortunately, it seems that fair use pictures will not be allowed anymore).
  • The plot summary is fine as it is, unless this is not the end of the novel. Larger plot summaries tend to discourage reading the article. I recommend removing the stub notice.
  • The characters section should be reworked as prose; it should not be a list. See WP:EMBED for more details on this MoS guideline. It should state what role the character plays, what development he goes through, etc.
  • Same goes for ships. Their role and fate should be explained.
  • The list of reviews should go. Every respectable newspaper has a book review section; this book is probably reviewed thousands of times all over the world. And just a quote for literary significance is not enough. This should also be rewritten as prose, possibly incorporating the quote into the text.
  • I think release details should be an article itself; this section can then be transformed into a (short) paragraph about the number of releases, the number of languages it is translated into and so on.
  • The references could be used for adding in-line references.

Just my 2 cents. As I haven't read the novel nor seen the film, I cannot help more than this. Errabee 11:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Article lead

At first glance, the lead needs expansion per WP:LEAD. CloudNine 18:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Er.

Hello, people. I too am relatively new to Wikipedia. However, I have read Master and Commander.

For one, the plot summary is incomplete. No offense, but you've left out more than half the novel. Even a basic mini-synopsis is better than something that implies that the book simply ends with Aubrey's visit with Lord Keith. Dread Pirate Felix 23:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

To Kill a Mockingbird

Prior peer review can be found here:[1]

I'd like to get some feedback on the article as I've been trying to work on it. I've looked at the old peer review, but I'm still pretty unsure about what really needs doing as I'm new to this sort of thing. Any feedback at all would be extremely helpful. Shrub of power 15:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit

  • Right off, I can tell that you need to do some research. The "Themes" section should be written in prose (no lists) and based on the work of literary scholars. A lot has been written on this book, so obtaining reliable, scholarly sources will not be a problem (WP:RS). Right now, it is hard to tell whether the "Themes" section represents your intepretation of the book or what; that is why you need inline citations (WP:CITE. Wikipedia should represent the scholarly consensus in each of its articles.
  • Watch out for POV in statements like this: Lee weaves together a story that has remained relevant and interesting over the years.
  • You should condense the "Plot summary" - not every detail has to make it into the summary (that's why it is a summary, right?). I would also cut down on the list of characters, if possible. We are not sparknotes. The page should be dominated by an explanation of the various interpretations of the text (taken from scholarly sources), not a rehashing of the plot.
  • The "Literary significance" goes beyond the banning of books. Again, research will help you out here. I would replace this heading with something like "Reception and legacy" considering what information you already have and work on finding out more about how the book was initially received by critics and the public and trace its reception history.
  • The "Allusions/References from other works" needs to be radically revised so that is not a list or it needs to be deleted. There does not seem to be a reason for its inclusion right now other than trivia.
  • The "Allusions/references to reality" section should be renamed and placed earlier in the article; perhaps something like "Historical context"? Also, it needs to be expanded, researched and cited as well.
  • It is not a good idea to list the different editions of a book unless you are citing the list from a scholarly bibliography. Scholars spend a great deal of time searching out every edition and noting their differences. Your page makes it seem like the book was released twice.
  • Cut down on the external links. For example, why are you linking to sparknotes? Why are we advertising for them or promoting their way of reading? In no way does a link to sparknotes help a reader understand this book. Link only to pages that will offer the reader significantly more information than the article has.

Mary: A Fiction

Mary is Mary Wollstonecraft's first novel. I would like for this article to reach GA and, eventually, FA. (I am slowly working on a Wollstonecraft featured topic.) Awadewit | talk 10:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman

The Wrongs of Woman is one of Mary Wollstonecraft's two novels. I would like to spruce up this article and make it GA and, eventually, FA. Please critique accordingly. Awadewit | talk 11:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit, just a few stray thoughts from reading the article:
  • Lead: "uses the story ... to criticize" could probably be put more elegantly. The "uses" jars a bit, I think.
  • Reordered sentence to remove "uses". Awadewit | talk 04:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Plot summary: I'm a bit taken aback that "protagonist" and "bastard" are linked. Do they need to be? On the other hand, "bound out as an apprentice", which I think should be linked, should probably be linked not to Apprentice but to bonded labour or something like that. And does "Abortion" need to be linked - do you expect anyone to read the article who doesn't know that word? Also, I think sections should be balanced - if there's a subsection "Manuscript fragments", then the first part should probably also be a subsection, namely "Published version" or something like that.
  • I think that "protagonist" and "bastard" have to be linked, unfortunately. I was actually asked to link "bastard" on another article. I have linked "apprentice" to "indentured servant". I have de-linked "abortion". Awadewit | talk
  • I have clarified that all parts of the manuscript were published. I am willing to give the other subsection a name, if we can think of one. The distinction between the "plot" and the "endings" is along the lines of "More polished parts of the manuscript" and "Less polished parts of the manuscript", but I have not come up with a good way to say that yet. Do you have any ideas? Awadewit | talk 04:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hm. First of all, re-reading this section, I think the difficulty should be mentioned right away, before you even start to tell "the" plot, i.e. I think you should move the account at the beginning of "Manuscript fragments" to the top. The what you're now telling as "the plot" is presumably "Godwin's published version"; the alternative endings are, well, "Alternative endings". I think the final paragraph on how difficult W found it to write the novel doesn't belong into the "plot summary". They would probably belong into a "Genesis of the novel" (working section title) section, perhaps along with the influences (Jacobin novel) that are now in other sections? --Markus Poessel 17:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I have taken your excellent suggestion of mentioning MW's struggles to write the novel first under a "Manuscript drafts" subsection. Then follow "Plot summary" and "Fragmentary endings" (the entire section has now been renamed "Composition, publication, and plot summary"). The endings aren't really "alternative endings" because there is no ending to the book as it stands - the story just stops. What follows the last sentence of MW"s manuscript is a "Conclusion" with a list of MW's jottings on possible endings. Awadewit | talk 03:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that's a definite improvement, and would even be in favour of expanding "Manuscript drafts" into a proper "Genesis" (or whatever the appropriate literary term is) section. --Markus Poessel 20:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think a "Genesis" section would actually be too broad for the article, as it would encompass too much Wollstonecraft biography. Awadewit | talk 05:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The way you have re-structured the first section ("Composition...") is perfectly sufficient to address my concerns - there doesn't have to be a larger "Genesis" section, in my view. Markus Poessel 14:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I have no idea whether or not this Wikiproject has a preferred order of sections; personally, I would prefer "Themes" to come before "Style" - in order of importance (for me, at least).
  • I have placed "Style" first because it has some general background knowledge that I think would be helpful for the reader, such as what Wollstonecraft thought a good novel should be. Was this kind of information not helpful to you? Order of importance would put "Plot summary" at the end, wouldn't it? :) Awadewit | talk 04:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • To me, it was a bit odd. I think what you call the "helpful background information", if by that you mean that she was working as an editor etc. at the time, should really go into a section about how the novel was written (proposed as "Genesis of the novel" in my previous remark). First the genesis, then a plot summary, then the themes, then style; that would be my personal preference. --Markus Poessel 17:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • My purpose in mentioning the editorialship, for example, was not primarily to say that she was an editor but rather to introduce the quotation on what MW thought a novel should be. Her ideas regarding the novel belong in the "Style" section, I think. Are you saying that the tidbit about her as an editor would best be removed from the "Style" section? I'm not sure that I want to decouple all biographical information from the discussion of the book... Awadewit | talk 03:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, I definitely understood that in this section, the fact that she was an editor was meant to introduce something else. I just think that this fact is important enough to deserve mention in its own right. In what I'm still calling a "Genesis" section, for want of a better word, for instance. --Markus Poessel 20:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • OK - I think it's more readable that way. Markus Poessel 14:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Style: for Free_indirect_discourse, I would hope for a brief definition in the text, so the reader doesn't have to click the Wikilink.
  • Themes: I still think that, in a section with so many subsections, the first paragraphs (those not part of their own titled subsection) should at least hint at the subsection to come, e.g. mention slavery, sisterhood etc.
  • First attempt completed. Awadewit | talk 03:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • You mentioned that you were worried about too many "Scholar XY says this" and "Scholar YZ wrote this" (my clumsy simplification). I agree that, starting in the Themes section, this becomes somewhat noticeable. Unless you're quoting a piece of scholarly work that is in itself a classic, or contains an especially pithy formulation it would be a pity to omit, I would simply suggest to paraphrase - not only the articular sentence you're now quoting, but also a bit of the context in which it appears in that scholar's work. In some cases, a "it has been claimed that" or "it has been argued that" might do instead of citing the scholar's full name in the text (you are citing it in the footnote, of course). If you don't want to leave names out, it would be good to have some more original text in between the different quotations, summarizing, for instance, what is about to be quoted and the context of the quotes.
  • I also thought the problem arose in the "Themes" section. Unfortunately, passive constructions are really frowned on in literature articles, since it is not the authoritative voice of a discipline speaking (as it is in science). I can see the FAC comments now...."Who claimed?" "Who argued?"
  • I have already paraphrased a number of quotations - I will work on doing more of them. Awadewit | talk 04:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • See if it is improved at all. Awadewit | talk 05:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think there definitely has been improvement. In passing, I noticed that Mitzi Myers is placed a bit problematically; the quote immediately preceding your introduction of her name apparently comes from her work, too, so the phrase about what she noted should probably come at the beginning. --Markus Poessel 17:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that would be misleading because Myers uses those words to describe how others view MW, not how she herself views MW. It is one of the rare instances when I have an actual quote for the "people usually think this" statement. Awadewit | talk 03:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Probably depends on how you put it. I was thinking something like "As Mitzi Myers has noted, while MW is usually described as "XY", her works do not actually support YZ...". Otherwise, the first quotation really does dangle a bit out in the open. --Markus Poessel 20:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. I used "observed". Awadewit | talk 05:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Marriage and slavery -> the bit about "bourgeois institutions" sounds as if it should go into the "class" subsection, and might not the "breathtaking" aspect in the final paragraph be better placed in the "Reception" section?
  • I debated where to put the "bourgeois institutions" quotation. I think it really does belong in the "Marriage" section, though, since it says that marriage is the principal instrument by which women are controlled. Awadewit | talk 04:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hm. I would have thought that, in that case, it should be listed in class, with an additional reference in the marriage section. --Markus Poessel 17:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't mention it twice - "people" will complain about repetition. Since marriage is the specific institution that is controlling middle-class women, I decided to put it under marriage. If I were to put it under "Class", I'm not sure where it would go. That whole section is really about Jemima-related issues. Awadewit | talk 03:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I have moved the "breathtaking" quotation to the "Reception" - excellent suggestion! Awadewit | talk 04:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • In the Sentimentalism and Sensibility section, I first had to read up on those two terms. I know you're argued elsewhere that, just as there are technical science articles, there are also unavoidably technical lit-crit subjects; however, if you want this particular article to be generally accessible, it would be good if a brief and unobtrusive explanation of these two terms could be included in the section that bears their name.
  • I defined "sensibility" in my article on A Vindication of the Rights of Woman article because I thought more people might read that who had no familiarity with eighteenth-century literature. This page is a little more obscure, I think, and I would assume that anyone bothering to read it would already have a passing familiarity with the term. "Sensibility" is actually a very difficult term to define. I'm not entirely happy with what I have at Rights of Woman, but do you think I should copy it over? Awadewit | talk 04:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • May be a slightly briefer version of what you wrote there, yes. --Markus Poessel 17:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • First attempt has been added. Awadewit | talk 03:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it's nice - and not too long, so hopefully those in the know won't be bothered by it. --Markus Poessel 20:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "who are dependent on men and demonstrates" -> "who are dependent on men, and demonstrates"
  • How embarrassing. Awadewit | talk 04:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Thus, rather than eliciting only pity and charity from Maria and the reader, Jemima forges a bond with them." - I don't quite get how this follows from what has been said before.
  • Tried to explain better. Awadewit | talk 04:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Makes more sense to me now. --Markus Poessel 20:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Feminism and sisterhood: The text in this subsection appears to me to be a bit thin on sisterhood - the tie of common motherhood is mentioned, but the cross-class aspect is explored not in this section, but a previous one; are the "revolutionary aspects" mentioned here briefly (and, to me, confusingly) those same cross-class aspects?
  • I have renamed the sections - see if the new names clarify. Do I need to rearrange material? Awadewit | talk 04:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the new names work; the "Motherhood..." now appears to represent better what's in there. Except that I would be glad if you could make a bit clearer what the "revolutionary aspects" in the last paragraph are - simply the kind of friendship? --Markus Poessel 17:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Now reads: the revolutionary aspects of the cross-class friendship between Jemima and Maria. Awadewit | talk 04:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That makes it clearer, in my view. --Markus Poessel 20:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Autobiographical elements: The judgement by Hannah More comes as a bit of a surprise, in between the statement that there are many autobiographical aspects, and a list of some of these, it seems to me a bit misplaced. Wouldn't More fit better into the Reception section?
  • Wollstonecraft feared her work would be read as a mirror of her life and it has, ever since its publication - The More statement was supposed to support this statement. I have added a "for example" to help make the connection. Awadewit | talk 04:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Not quite clear yet since, as far as I can see, we only later learn about the role adultery played in her life. At the moment, it reads like she feared autobiographical interpretation, and then comes a quote that, taken by itself, doesn't appear to make an autobiographical connection at all (rather a more general statement about morals). --Markus Poessel 17:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yes, now I see. Doesn't everyone know the story of MW's life? :) Fixed and moved to the "Reception" section. Awadewit | talk 04:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Makes much more sense that way, to me at least. As for everyone knowing the story of MW's life, you know how it is – once in high school, it might turns out that you cannot just take Wollstonecraft 101, The Riemann Tensor 101 and Simpsonology 101 in parallel – you have to choose... --Markus Poessel 20:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Too true. Too true. Awadewit | talk 05:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reception and Legacy: the start of this section is a bit confusing - right away, it focuses on one particular rather special aspect. I would have expected something more general - some more general statments that, say, when it was published, it was widely read/not read/widely commented upon/ignored (or whatever); only then should follow something on what the contemporaries saw in it, what they overlooked, and so on - more of a summary instead of the two long quotes from two specific reviews. Also, it seems to me a bit odd that the important information that the novel is "now read as the progenitor of many feminist texts and the inspiration for many feminist arguments and rhetorical styles" is tucked away into a "while" clause - it's an important statement about legacy in its own right, and should be presented as such.
  • First revision. See if I am heading in the right direction. Awadewit | talk 04:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Definitely the right direction, but at the moment it reads a bit cut-and-pasted. I suppose an overall arc from the personal (which makes for a good start in the present version) to the more political and the modern feminist connection might be a good way of structuring this section. At the moment, it still goes a bit back and forth between the two. --Markus Poessel 20:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I have reordered the final section - see what you think. The feminist clause is "tucked away" because, so far, that is all I could find - vague references to later inspirations. Awadewit | talk 05:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The section's fine now, from my point of view. Markus Poessel 14:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's it from a casual reading of the article. I've told you before I'm not an expert on this topic, but may be I should put it here, for the record, as well. --Markus Poessel 19:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Wonderful! Thanks so much! I will address these points over the course of the next few days. Awadewit | talk 01:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Great - from my point of view, you've now addressed all the objections I had. As far as I'm concerned, we can declare this review successfully closed! --Markus Poessel 14:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your invaluable help! Awadewit | talk 02:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)