Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Peer review/2008
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page. |
Contents |
Louis Lambert (novel)
I'm hoping to send this article to FAC soon. I've remedied the only concern raised during the GA process, and I stand ready to receive other feedback. Thanks in advance for your comments. – Scartol • Tok 17:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Scartol--thanks for the invitation to review this. Now, I've only been through two pages so far, but I'll mention what I have mainly to beat Awadewit here. :)
- The article often refers to "metaphysics" and "philosophy" together. In general, is there any way to clarify meaning here? Can metaphysics as used in the article be glossed for the reader? And one is a subset of the other—is the article implying a historical difference in the meaning of "metaphysics" when the book was written? Either way, would anything be lost by writing just "metaphysics
and philosophy"—or alternately, explaining the "other" philosophy. It's probably there later, I just haven't gotten that far. :)
- In the lead, I wasn't sure what "These details" referred to. The prior paragraph is not so different in content from this paragraph, so to me, "These details combine with events from the author's life..." becomes "Events from the author's life combine with events from the author's life...". :)
- Also in this paragraph, you talk about a work within a work, and I found it a little unclear at times which work you were talking about. The sentence "It examines the philosophy of Swedenborg and others, although the author did not explore many of the metaphysical elements in the story until much later in his life" is the trouble. "It" is the essay, but we get to "in the story" and we've changed gears back to the novel; I don't know, then, what contrast the "although" provides. This sentence would make more sense to me if you meant "[the essay] examines the philosophy of Swedenborg and others, although the author did not explore many of the metaphysical elements in [the essay] until much later in his life".
- I will make a few ce tweaks. I'd like to put birth–death dates after Swedenborg (like Balzac has now) as a little hint to the uninformed that the character in the novel is fascinated with a real philosopher.
–Outriggr § 06:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for these, Outr. I'll make some replies and repairs later today or tomorrow. Just FYI: I put the mention of the Études philosophiques section back into the first lead ¶, since that's the standard we've agreed upon at WP:BALZAC. Most folks who study Balzac look for that info straightaway. – Scartol • Tok 14:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- That was a little bold of me, but I decided the opening sentence was a little packed with French titles and we'd be back to discuss Études philosophiques later (indeed, in the fourth para of the lead still). I didn't realize there was a WP:BALZAC! (Has anyone informed User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back?) I'll finish reading the last two thirds at my own, horribly slow pace, by which time you and Awadewit will have honed to perfection everything I could possibly have commented on. Cheers! –Outriggr § 21:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- "The actual events of Louis Lambert are minor..." Is minor the right word here? Are you suggesting that, again, there is not much plot, or that the events are minor as in unimportant? Or minor in comparison to the novel's philosophical discussions?
- "the painful application of the strap"—"painful" is POV. Kidding! A joke! Hit me on the head if I become that type of wikipedian.
- "like (in some ways) the title character's eventual madness"—this thought seems too brief. Could we get a little background on how Balzac considered himself to be somewhat "mad" by the time of the novel, or am I misconstruing? Are the critics saying that Balzac may not have intended this autobiographical similarity? ... Later... I see this is treated in "Genius and madness". A little stealing from that section, perhaps?
- I missed this earlier. "Madame de Staël" is a real person, which me not know. Can this be hinted at in "Plot", with a re-introduction in "Swedenborg and metaphysics", where she is mentioned again?
- With "These concepts are explored with relation to...", I have the same difficulty I had with "these details". Strictly, I am not able to relate the dream example to anything mentioned in the prior paragraph. Even "Swedenborg's concepts" would be an easy way out. "These concepts" appears again in the last paragraph of the sectoin. Finally, in "a force flowing between and among humans", are "between" and "among" both needed? Suggesting between two humans and among humanity, I suppose.
- Something I just thought of: if "Traité de la Volonté" is an essay, should it be in quotes rather than italicized? Do your references do otherwise? If so, they win!
Those are my comments. I did some tweaking in the article, however much of it is personal taste I leave for others to judge. I would support this at FAC. Again, thanks for the invitation–one of the rare pleasures on wp is to be asked to be involved in some small way in the few articles that have some real thought and research going into them. Cheers, –Outriggr § 06:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Awadewit
I have very few comments - I ended up just reading the article and had to start over again to look for things to comment about! I think that is a good sign!
- Published under a variety of titles, Louis Lambert contains a minimal plot, focusing mostly on the metaphysical ideas of its boy-genius protagonist and his only friend (eventually revealed to be Balzac himself). - What is the connection between the title information and the plot information? Perhaps two sentences?
- Although it is not considered an important example of the realist style for which Balzac became famous, the novel is cited frequently as providing insight into the author's own childhood. - a little wordy
- An important essay referenced in the novel, Traité de la Volonté ("Treatise on the Will"), was in fact composed by Balzac as a student. - I feel like the important information is buried in this sentence.
-
- Not sure what you mean. Do I need to clarify something, or include some info from the section later on? – Scartol • Tok 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I took another look at this comment and I think I see what you mean; sorry for the confusion. I changed it to: While he was a student at Vendôme, Balzac wrote an essay called Traité de la Volonté ("Treatise on the Will"); it is described in the novel as being written by Louis Lambert. – Scartol • Tok 16:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- The novel emphasizes thought, particularly its expression among young thinkers and in written forms - a little awkward
- Not long after finishing the first version of the book, while infatuated with the Marquise de Castries, Balzac sent to her a fragmented love letter, as Lambert sends one to his paramour Pauline - a bit wordy
- Could you say a little more about the reception? Who reviewed the book poorly? What publications? What did they say exactly?
- Did this book not influence any other writers? (Just checking!)
One down, 99 to go! :) Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
To Kill a Mockingbird
Prior peer reviews can be found here
I'm submitting a peer review on this book again. There have been had multiple peer reviews and an FAC that I withdrew. It is parked at the League of Copy Editors awaiting cleanup. Good article status was granted, but the article has changed considerably since then. From my reading on the book, I have found the following:
- It has few articles or books in journals about its literary components, particularly in light of how much of an impact the book has had. The majority of sources that address the novel come from legal journals or teaching aids.
- Due to its popularity and because it has been the only novel by the enigmatic Harper Lee, there is a lore surrounding the book, so there is an extra component beyond the novel by itself.
I'm trying to determine what more can be improved. I appreciate your comments and time. --Moni3 (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Because I think this is such an important page (and I offered at some point in the past to help out), I'll be doing a review in a few days. Sorry I can't jump to it immediately, but I'll get to it as soon as I can. – Scartol • Tok 20:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
My review is below. Hope it helps!
Review from Scartol
This article is very detailed and comprehensive – well done! I enjoyed reading it; I think you've done a great job finding some very nice elements, and woven them together skillfully. I've made some copyedits along the way; feel free to adjust these as you see fit.
With regard to images: Remember that the pages you link to can sometimes be useful sources; although not a very significant connection, the image from Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego could spice that section up a bit. Perhaps an image of Charles Lamb would be useful? And of course you should include a picture of a mockingbird. =)
Also, I found in my digging that the 1962 Gregory Peck movie was not copyrighted, which means that it's in the public domain (and so are screenshots from it)! So although you don't want to overload the page with images from the movie, you have the legal freedom to capture any images you want from that film and add them to the page. (If you're not sure how to do this, I might be able to help.)
Here are some assorted comments I've made while reading. Please don't feel the need to respond to each one (but you may if you wish).
Lead
- The lead should reflect the general structure of the article. Thus, I'd recommend leaving the first paragraph as is (it's a good general overview of the subject), and writing one paragraph about themes, one about reception and controversy, and one about adaptations. If you haven't already, read WP:LEAD.
Background
- I've retitled this section "Background and composition", since it encompasses both aspects.
- Harper Lee approached a literary agent referred by her childhood friend Truman Capote. Why did she approach him? This sentence would be better with a brief mention of what she had in mind.
-
- DONE
- Lee was a relatively unpublished author up to that time. I'd put this information first. Maybe: "In 1957, Harper Lee had only published small opinion pieces in campus literary magazines."
-
- DONE
- at both schools the themes of her pieces were extraordinarily rare I've reworded this as: "rare topics on these campuses at the time". If this is inaccurate, please revise as necessary.
-
- DONE
- For future reference: unless it's part of the quotation itself, punctuation should go outside of the quote marks. ("quick and merciful death,") I've fixed it where I've found it in the article, but you should do another pass.
- We should have a source for the "wide readership" provided by the Reader's Digest and Condensed Books editions.
Plot summary
- I've rewritten parts of this section. Please feel free to revert or alter further as you see fit.
- Scout and Jem see their neighbors through the eyes of children. Having learnt from Atticus not to judge another until they have walked around in that person's skin, the children discover many instances of quiet strength and dignity in the most unlikely people. These sentences feel awkward. I think they'd fit better in the "Southern life through a child's eyes" section. Let's stick to the plain events of the story here.
-
- DONE
- this danger is averted with the unwitting help of Scout, Jem, and Dill. This is unclear. Can we be more specific about what actually happens?
-
- DONE
- The serial comma appears in some spots and is absent in others. Best to go through and make it consistent one way or another.
Autobiographical elements
- You say that both Capote and Lee were "atypical children", but we only have examples about Lee. Anything we could add about Capote?
-
- DONE
Style
- The quote from Jacqueline Tavernier-Courbin moves between singular and plural: "is one of those rare books that expose some of ... but also provides some insights...". Is this an oversight on her part, or a mistake in duplication?
-
- DONE
- Scout's foil as a girl who beats up multiple boys... As I understand it, a foil is a character used to contrast another character. Maybe a different word is called for here?
-
- DONE
- ...the juxtaposition of Scout's childish comprehension of complex traditions also feels sketchy. (I usually expect to see "with" after "juxtaposition".) Also, can we get an example of this from the book?
-
- DONE
- Lee also drives the plot in entertaining ways. As universal as this sentiment may be, it feels POV here. Can we say: "Critics also note the entertaining methods used to drive the plot." or such such?
-
- DONE
- I'd like to see an example or two of what the legal scholars say about Atticus. Why is he revered so?
-
- DONE
- I'd incorporate the info from "Genres" into the "Style" section.
Themes
- As time progresses and more scholars view the impact the novel has had, as well as the time in which it was written, more thematic elements are recognized. I don't know if this sentence really adds anything. I'd be in favor of removing it.
-
- DONE
- I'm not sure that "Southern life..." and "Racial injustice..." should be two separate subsections. I'd support combining them.
-
- DONE
- Remember to use the literary present ("So-and-so notes that...") when referring to literary criticism.
- Harper Lee sent $10 US to The Richmond News Leader suggesting it to be used toward the enrollment of "the Hanover County School Board in any first grade of its choice". The connection isn't clear here. Was she responding to a particular letter? Please clarify what point she was trying to make.
-
- DONE
- Atticus must also rid the disease of racism from the town by himself. Surely the black folks in town were also trying to do this? Perhaps the review is using the white man's burden a touch liberally?
-
- I couldn't say. The book tends to make people go off with praise sometimes. What do you recommend?
- The statement that seemed to make the most negative impact in Tom Robinson's testimony was that he felt sorry for Mayella. This is confusing. Is it according to a source? Your reading of the novel? The phrase "seemed to make the most negative impact" feels like original research, unless we attribute it in some way. You might also want to make clear that the examples in the middle of the paragraph are representative of the compassion theme. (Readers can get easily lost in a sea of examples, without some analytical string to tie it all together.)
-
- DONE
- You may not need to include all of the "Critic X notes..." attributions. In many cases, the footnotes can take care of this. So long as you're citing mainstream opinion (and there are several ways to approach such a thing; multiple citations are best), you don't have to overburden the reader with critics' names. (I generally save them for unique points of view or superlatives, or direct quotations. See Le Père Goriot.)
-
- DONE
- Bob Ewell, it is hinted, has a sexual relationship with his daughter... This feels like sugar-coating. Can we just say "molested"?
-
- DONE
- ...she is so starved for a compassionate human relationship that she saves seven nickels over the course of a year to be alone with Tom Robinson. The connection isn't clear here.
-
- DONE (deleted)
- ...it is suggested that men like them as well as the traditionally feminine hypocrites at the Missionary Society can lead society astray. Again, unclear.
-
- DONE
Genres
- See note above about suggested merging of this section with "Style".
- The LGBTQ commentary feels tacked-on. Maybe this would be better fit under "Reception" or the gender discussion in "Themes"?
- Lee, furthermore, wrote about her small town with an admirable honesty... (I rewrote the first part of this sentence.) I don't really get the connection between this and Southern Gothic.
- Does the novel really have to be either a bildungsroman or a Southern Gothic? Can't both apply?
- Novels in the bildungsroman genre grew in popularity in Victorian England Is this essential? Given the length of the article, I'd advocate for removing extraneous information whenever possible.
-
- To clarify: your suggestion is to have a Style and genres section? I think both genre's do apply, but the references I used don't. They describe them in terms of Southern gothic or bildungsroman. Can I describe the book as both if my sources don't connect them? Lee writing about her town with honesty was included as one writer's way of saying the book is kind of a Southern gothic, but an atypical one. Whereas Faulkner or Capote may have reveled in the depravity of their characters, Lee seems to describe them as more realistic. Awadewit suggested I describe what Southern gothic and bildungsroman mean. But I can take that out, too. --Moni3 (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Explaining what a genre is without going into extraneous detail on its history can be tricky (especially with regard to something like Southern Gothic, which evolved in a particular context). To combine information with flow, I think it's best to insert a brief description of the genre into a sentence about the text being discussed. The key is to keep the focus closely tied to the novel itself, with straying into the realm of general background as controlled as possible.
- In the case of bildungsroman here, here's how I'd reword it:
- The presence of children facing a cruel world leads critics to cite the novel less as an example of Southern Gothic, and more as a bildungsroman. The latter typically features a character discontented by witnessing a shocking event, who develops through the novel to make sense of the event. In the case of To Kill a Mockingbird, both Scout and Jem exist in this role.
- Note that we can explain (and generally should) that we're reflecting the consensus of critical opinion, rather than some generic and objectively-true perspective. With respect to the realism of Lee vs. other Southern Gothics, it's probably best to state such a thing explicitly in such a section.
- As for combining: I'd recommend making a subsection of Style called "Genre", and giving the discussion about it there. This is more or less what I did in Le Père Goriot#Style, and (without trying to be immodest) I think it worked fairly well. – Scartol • Tok 01:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
-
Reception
- ...the novel was well-received in her hometown and throughout Alabama. Is this discussed in the Johnson source? If not, we should get a citation for it.
- I think someone earlier made a comment which I'll echo: The reader is bogged down in references to lists of Greatest Books. Pick 3-4 and focus on them (and then, if you really feel the need, include the others in a footnote). It's also a good idea to organize the positive reviews together, and the negative reviews together. A little narration is also useful. ("Not every critic was enthusiastic, however..." or some such.)
-
- DONE
- ...citing several cases from that period and earlier of the book being challenged or banned. This phrase doesn't really add much to the sentence. I didn't want to remove it since it had a footnote, but I don't know that it's needed.
-
- DONE
- Response to these attempts to remove the book from standard teaching was vehement... "Vehement" is usually attached to another adjective, so I'd suggest using "passionate" here.
-
- DONE
- If we quote "benign censors" we should provide a source.
-
- DONE
- The quote from Saney feels adrift. Part of this is because it's suddenly a comment on the media's coverage of the discussion, rather than a point being made about the book itself. If he supported the ban, the article should say so. Best to provide a transition ("On the other side of the debate, Isaac Saney...") before the discussion of his perspective.
-
- DONE
- The use of ellipses throughout is sketchy; I've fixed them where I can, but you might want to have a look at WP:ELLIPSIS and go through the article to check them another time.
- I recommend changing "After publication" to "Honors". As it is, some readers might assume that "After publication" is a subsection of "Controversy" relating to later such dust-ups.
Adaptations
- I recommend shortening the title of this section to simply "Adaptations".
-
- DONE
- I recommend renaming "Film's connection to the novel" as "1962 film".
-
- DONE
- For future reference: Using a comma to lead into a quote works only when it's a shorter quotation, and when a word like "said" precedes it. (Bob said to Sue, "Hello".) In a sentence like Pakula remembered hearing from Peck when he was first approached with the role: "He called back immediately....", a colon is better.
- I wonder if some of the information from the movie section should be in the page for the movie itself. Info here (in my opinion) should stick to the adaptation process, connections between Lee and the actors, and a brief summary of the film's success. Given that the page is 67 kb right now – and FAC reviewers start to get skittish at around 60 – I'd propose this section as ripe for pruning.
Well, that's my take on it. I hope my suggestions don't feel overwhelming – it's a very thorough article and I believe it's on the way to featured status. Good luck and please let me know if you have any questions. – Scartol • Tok 13:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Scartol. It may take me a week or so to get through these, as I'm sure you know I'm paying attention to a couple of FACs. I'll leave a note on your talk page when I think I've covered everything. Thanks so much! --Moni3 (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- It's looking much better – kudos for all your hard work. I'd recommend spacing out the images a bit more if possible (or adding more; there are big swaths of text with no images at all). I'd also suggest getting another set of eyes on it before nominating it; perhaps WillowW or JayHenry? – Scartol • Tok 00:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Ok, I think I just might be somewhat at the end of addressing your points. I just added a couple of images to spruce it up. I hope they're appropriate in licensing and purpose. I just asked Maralia to clean up all 120 freakin' citations. And I have no problem asking WillowW or JayHenry to give it another look. Thanks again, Scartol, for all your help! --Moni3 (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
Pattern Recognition (novel)
Science fiction novel published in 2003. Is it comprehensive? The writing involved a lot of synthesis from many sources, so I have the fear that some points get lost or mashed up with others. Please see if everything makes sense, that the points are complete and understandable. I've kept track of what came from where by using ample footnotes, so I can backtrack. Also, check if the writing flows well, or where the problematic areas are. --maclean 07:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Great start; lots of good info! Kudos on the research! I only have a few basic suggestions:
- Move the second paragraph in the lead down into the Background section; it clutters up the lead, and seems to fit better below.
- Some of the info in the Background section seems unrelated. I'd remove the parts about Gibson's other novels unless they are directly related to Pattern Recognition, and maybe the sentence explaining who Gibson is. These are better explained in their respective articles.
- There are a few items in the lead which should be sourced, or re-written to avoid weasel-words. I've marked these in the article with citation tags.
- FusionKnight (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Alright, thanks. The lead section is supposed to be an overview of the article, so I will go through and ensure it adequately reflects it. I will add some citations to the lead to back up some of those claims. In the "Background" I'm trying to provide context for how/when the book was written, so I'll try to relate it all to this novel. --maclean 05:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
Le Père Goriot
Insofar as it's usually described as Balzac's most important novel, this article is on its way to FA status. I've received invaluable assistance from Awadewit, and I think it's nearly ready for FAC. In her GA review, she suggested more information about the publication and revision history, which I have been unable to locate in the 10+ books I've consulted. I would also point out that both she and I are generally opposed to cluttering up the top of articles with infoboxes, which tend to repeat details already in the lead.
Thanks in advance for your feedback! – Scartol • Tok 21:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Great article, good read and well put together. I have a few (non-infobox related) comments, but they probably won't help you at an FAC.
- The caption on the image Image:Vidocq.jpg is ambiguous. Is the man in the drawing(drawing?) Eugène François Vidocq or the character Vautrin? Currently the caption uses Vautrin as the subject, implying it is an image of him. But I think it's really Vidocq, how about "French criminal Eugène François Vidocq was the basis for the charatcter..."?
- Consider using a "Further reading" section to list some of those books/papers that addressed the novel but didn't make it into the references, like Approaches to Teaching Balzac's Old Goriot (you mentioned on the talk page) and "Predators and Parasites in Le Père Goriot" (Symposium; Spring93, p3-33).
-
- Mayyyybe. I generally don't care much for "Further reading" sections, but I don't suppose it can really hurt. Maybe I'll just throw 'em into the bibliography.
- If you come across any further information on the publication history over the centuries, it would be good to add to the article. For example, Burton Raffel appears to have made a recent (1990s) translation. Or even its translation into other media. I like mentioning audiobook versions. Oh look, it has an imdb entry heh heh heh.
-
- Yeah, I kinda feel like at this point it's been published and republished so often that unless a particular edition is notable in itself (read by Patrick Stewart or some such), listing them all gets tedious.
--maclean 02:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Comments from User:Qp10qp
I found this an excellent, comprehensive and clean article. I've never read the book, but I've seen it analysed often enough (Percy Lubbock is good on Balzac), and so I have an awareness of it. I don't have any serious criticisms of the article, but I noticed a few spots where I felt the language could be more precise:
- makes La Comédie humaine a singular collection of writing. A little loose?
- The novel is also cited as a noteworthy example of his realist style, using minute details to expose character and subtext. If it's cited, it's noteworthy, so perhaps the latter word is redundant. I'm not sure if "expose" is the mot juste here—subtext, for example, is by definition unexposed.
- This new detail sheds considerable light on the actions of all three characters within the pages of Le Père Goriot, even as their stories evolve and expand in the later novel. Not quite sure what "even as" indicates here.
- the details employed – and their reflection of the realities of life in Paris at the time – create a faithful rendering of the world of the Maison Vauquer. Can you create a rendering? What about "faithfully render"?
- One of the main themes in Le Père Goriot is the quest to understand and conquer society's strata. Can you conquer strata?
- serve as microcosms which Rastignac seeks to ascend. Can you ascend microcosms?
- His urban exodus is like that of many people who moved into the French capital. Can one person have an exodus?
- The shifting sands of the events in France provide Vautrin with a playground for an ideology devoid of any value aside from personal advancement; he guides Rastignac in the same direction. ¶ Still, it is the larger social structure that overwhelms Rastignac's soul—Vautrin merely explains the methods and causes. Although he rejects Vautrin's offer of murder, Rastignac succumbs to the principles of brutality upon which high society is built. "Still" signals an antithesis, but I can't find one. I suspect the overall point of the above could be made more succinctly.
-
- Agree with the last part. Reworded that sentence to: "France's social upheaval provides Vautrin with a playground for an ideology based solely on personal advancement; he encourages Rastignac to follow suit." The "Still" leads into the contrast between society and Vautrin as the ultimate corrupting force. I added a "finally" which should help clarify. – Scartol • Tok 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- suggesting an irreconcilable split between society and the family. Can you reconcile a split? Is not the family a unit of society? Perhaps a little more is needed to make the point clear.
- The novel is set during the years after the 1814 Bourbon Restoration, which brought profound changes in society and Le Père Goriot begins in 1819, following Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo, after the House of Bourbon had been restored to the throne of France. Speaking with my historian's hat on, I wonder if it might be best to choose one of these dates, even if both are broadly applicable. For me, the marker for a change of era would be the final defeat of Napoleon.
- During this tumultuous era, France saw a tightening of social structures. I agree about the tightening of social structures during this period, but I'm not sure that tumultuousness was the cause. Usually social structures become loosened during a tumult, as happened during the revolution.
- Anyway, you almost make me want to read the novel, depressing though it sounds. qp10qp (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, but it's so beautifully written! Like The God of Small Things, it graciously combines beauty with the rain. Thanks so much for your detailed review. – Scartol • Tok 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
