Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Peer review/To Kill a Mockingbird

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[edit] 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!

[edit] 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?
I'd write the end of the sentence like so: "...must also fight against the town's racism without help from other white citizens." Thus the "loner" theme is preserved, without making it sound like he's the only person interested in the issue. – Scartol • Tok 01:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
DONE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moni3 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 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.
DONE --Moni3 (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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.
I did my best to stick to information that involved how the movie tied in with the book. I can transfer some of this information to the film, though. --Moni3 (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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)
Ok. I still have to do a few more things before I try to *gulp* nominate it for anything... Gah! --Moni3 (talk) 20:47, 13 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)