Talk:Syrian literature/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Munfarid1 (talk · contribs) 16:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 00:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

• I'm looking forward to this review! You've tackled a large subject but at first glance the article looks thorough and polished. As I review, I'll generally address small changes myself, and make larger suggestions below. (Though if you disagree with any of my small changes, of course you should feel free to revise them yourself too.) I'm excited to get started! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hello and thank you for your first comments. I am thrilled that somebody with your background and expertise in literature and WP editing has taken up the task. I will try and make the changes you recommended and am certainly fine with any changes you will make yourself. This will be a great cooperation to make this article even more usefull for interested readers. - Enjoy your weekend, even with such diligent work! ;) Munfarid1 (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  Munfarid1, I've had a chance to finish my source review and look over the prose again and I think there are just two small-ish things left! I will place the GA review on hold for them to be addressed. To summarize what is below, my two remaining concerns are 1, improving clarity in the section headers (just let me know if you are OK with the suggesion I put in the article, or we can workshop) and 2, sourcing or removing the sentence about the 1959 National Theatre Company. It's very close now! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have just added this source to the sentence about the National Theatre Company: Modern Syrian theatre became popular after 1959, when the National Theatre Company was created. Munfarid1 (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  With these last edits, I am happy to pass the article! Thank you for your hard work and your valuable contributions. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Prose

• Thus, Syrian literature in the late 20th and early 21st centuries displays characteristics of more than four decades of authoritarian rule. is a bit too close a paraphrase of Contemporary Syrian literature bears unmistakable traces of more than four decades of authoritarian rule.[1] See WP:CLOP ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• The plot focuses on two left-wing Iraqi intellectuals who fled the injustice of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in the late 1970s. In the novel, they blame dictatorships and conservative movements for the political oppression in the Arab world, and in one of the most controversial passages, God is described as a "failed artist". is definitely too close a paraphrase of The plot centres on two leftist Iraqi intellectuals who fled the injustice of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in the late 1970s. The characters blame political oppression in the Arab world on dictatorships and conservative movements. In one of the most controversial extracts, God is described as a failed artist.[2] Also, I am concerned that the wikivoice version adds quotations around "failed artist", implying a direct quote from the novel, especially since presumably the novel was not in English. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• (Other than those two, the article is looking good for copyvio per Earwig.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  I just split the long sentence in the lead into two and rephrased the close paraphrases. I hope this is okay now, even though I could not find a better synonym for oppression. - To make your checking easier, I have saved these changes, giving explanation in the short summary. Munfarid1 (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Oh I meant to say when I added my other comments, thanks for these changes! All of these concerns look better now. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• In the lead, I find this sentence kind of confusing since it appears to reverse its meaning twice with an "although" and then a "notwithstanding": The individual areas of this region have close historical, geographical and cultural similarities, although during the Ottoman Empire there were only administrative divisions, notwithstanding active regional cultural exchange, especially between the larger cities. Could you maybe break this into two simpler sentences? ~ L 🌸 (talk)
• Thinking about the organization of the article, "Arabic literature in Syria" and "Arabic versus Syrian literature" sound like they are going to be about the same thing. But they are actually quite different, the first is more like "Pre-modern literature in Syria" and the second is more like "Defining Syrian literature". I think clarity would be improved if the titles of these two sections were more distinct from each other, and possibly a 'topic sentence' was added at the start of each one to reinforce what questions they answer. I also wonder if they should appear in the opposite order. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• Both Note 1 and Note 2 feel like they belong in the article itself, rather than as notes. They are very useful information! (The other three make sense to me as notes.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for these helpful suggestions, I have incorporated the first two notes, changed the titles of the sections and rephrased some of the sentences to make the argument clearer. I still think, however, the definitions should come before the next section dealing with the developments since the late 19th century. - In general, it is extremely helpful to learn about your views on the text. As you certainly know, it is sometimes difficult to take a step back and read your own work from the perspective of an interested first-time reader. - Looking forward to your next comments, I hope you have had a good weekend. Munfarid1 (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Both of the new section titles are much clearer now, thank you! But can you clarify what you mean about wanting the definitions to come before the 19thC developments? My suggestion was to consider ordering them as, 1, definitions of syrian literature; 2, pre-modern literature in syria; 3, post-19thC syrian literature. In other words, start by clarifying how the field is defined, and then begin a chronological account. The problem I'm responding to as a "newcomer" to the article is that it feels like the 'definitions' section is there to tell me about things that happened in the 2000s, which gives the article the feeling that it goes chronologically out of order (pre-modern, then the 2000s, then the 19thC). I think the current version can work too, though! There is probably a good way to introducing that section that will make it clearer that after the pre-modern period, the next thing that happens is that a distinctively "syrian" literature observed, as retroactively defined by scholars beginning in the 2000s. What's your preference for changing the order vs changing the framing of that section? Does the problem I'm responding to make sense? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  I have had a second look at this sequence and even tried out the strictly chronological order in the German version. On the one hand, I understand the expectation to follow the arguments of the article in a chronological way, with the definitions coming first. On the other, scholars have only started to talk about a distinctly Syrian national literature at the beginning of the 21st century and then did not look back to any lit written before the Nahda. So it seems to me somewhat more logical to separate the pre-modern literature from the definition and the following chronological developments. - But if you think this could go against readers' expectations and raise questions about the chronology, we certainly could change the order accordingly. - Do you see any other reasons for either option? Munfarid1 (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Leaning more and more towards the chronological order, let me just think about this during the upcoming weekend. Munfarid1 (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  After having consulted with a friend, who is also a literary scholar, I have just placed the section "Definitions of Syrian national literature" before "Pre-modern literature in Syria". - Hope this makes a logical sequence of descriptions without any furter changes or additions. If, however, you think we need an introductory sentence to the definitions, I'd be happy for you to make a suggestion. Munfarid1 (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry it took me a little while to get back to this review! Some things got busier than I expected. Thanks for your continued work and thoughtfulness on this article. I think the new ordering works. If I can think of a good 'framing' sentence to add I might add one myself, but I also think the section headers clearly demarcate the topics. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• From a similar point of view of the concern discussed above, I found that there were a number of section headings which didn't feel to me like they clearly indicated what the section would contain. Relatedly, I felt like the chronological flow wasn't very consistent (since many section headers emphasized themes over time periods). Based on my understanding of the material, I tried out a re-organization of the sections which I hope clarifies the chronological logic. My edit to the article is just a suggestion for one way to make the section headers & contents more aligned and with a more clearly-structured chronological flow, but of course they may be other, better ways to accomplish the same thing. Let me know if you have concerns about the structural edit I made and perhaps we can keep workshopping it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, I appreciate your edits, as it is always better to include the views of a sympathetic and knowledgable editor. :) Munfarid1 (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Images

• Sadly it looks to me like the photo of Ghada al-Samman is copyrighted and needs to be removed. (I also nominated it for deletion.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• Same for the Tufwla Nahd book cover :( It is public domain in Egypt, but not in the US, off by just two years :( I nominated it too. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• The other images look good and add some nice variety to the page. It is a hard topic to illustrate well, since it is not very visual in the first place and most things will be copyrighted! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oh but just to clarify, you took this photo yourself, right, of the hakawati book? It looks like everything is OK copyright-wise on that one but I want to make sure I understand where it came from. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I took the picture of the hakawati book myself. The original is an old handwritten book by an anonymous writer I got in Damascus from a friend who said it was written before 1950 or even earlier. - As you say, it's unfortunate that there are not enough usable images. Munfarid1 (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for contributing that image! It's a great addition to the article, and sounds like a very cool find for your personal collection as well. Overall the images are looking good! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Should we add one of the first two images from the article on Hanna Diyab here? For example the view of Aleppo or the oldest manuscript of Arabian Nights, that was found in a library in the same city? (Even though this famous work is not Syrian lit...) Munfarid1 (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Good creativity thinking of these, but on reflection, I don't think either one has a good place to go where they would contribute to the article. As you say the Arabian Nights is not Syrian lit, and there isn't an unillustrated part of the article that talks about 18thC Aleppo for that view to fit in. So, I am happy with the current images in the article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Source check

• Checking footnote 20, the article says On the one hand, Syrian literature is thus marked by national references, but on the other hand, modern Syrian literature may also be independent of its place of origin, as is the case with the works of the Syrian writers Saadallah Wannous, Nizar Qabbani or Adonis cited to Radwa Ashour; Ferial J. Ghazoul; Hasna Reda-Mekdashi, eds. (2008-11-01). "Syria". Arab Women Writers: A Critical Reference Guide, 1873-1999. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. pp. 60–97. Retrieved 2024-04-11.. But when I consult that source, I can't find that claim, nor any mention of Saadallah Wannous, Nizar Qabbani or Adonis -- maybe the wrong source got attached to this sentence? There is some discussion on p. 63 about the influence of sociopolitical context, but I think it ultimately emphasizes the importance of the national context: Syrian literature, both prose and poetry, was shaped by sociopolitical conditions, which had a profound impact on literary genres and forms.... I think it might be best to just cut this sentence. Though the source itself is very thorough and useful for the section on women's writing, so you may want to add it to the "Further reading". ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, you are absolutely right. This sentence correctly refers to the argument by Abdo Abboud mentioned before. (Do we need to insert the ref here again? - Also, I have added the book about Arab Women Writers under "Further reading", even though it actually also is quoted as source 75. (I sometimes have added useful titles that I used for ref a second time in "Further reading", as this might be more visible for interested readers.) Munfarid1 (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  I thought it had to be a wandering citation! Yes, if this is also from Abboud, that ref should be re-used for this sentence. (Technically if you have two sentences in a row that are from the same source, you can add the ref just once by sticking it at the send of the second sentence, which implies that the ref covers everything since the previous ref -- but I prefer to have a cite on every individual sentence in case people want to rearrange things later.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Done! Munfarid1 (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think this is really a fair summary of Lang: Further, he posits "the beginning of a truly Syrian literary tradition" around the 2011 uprising and the following war in Syria.. I think he's a lot more circumspect, since he says: It is conceivable that the literary production turning around the 2011 uprising and the ongoing war in Syria may come to be seen as the beginning of a truly Syrian literary tradition ... However, to this point these texts remain essentially transnational through their reference to notions of trauma, testimony and documentation. In other words, Lang thinks it's possible that other people will later see a distinct Syrian literature after 2011, but he himself more strongly agrees with the idea that As Mohja Kahf has pointed out, in a familiar move of criticizing a notion of national literatures transposed on the Arab World by Western academia, there is no such thing as Syrian literature. Looking at the article holistically, I don't think this blow-by-blow from Lang is actually needed. Rather, I think 'zooming out' to what wikivoice can say would be more useful. I have some ideas for how that might actually be written, so let me know if you'd like me to give it a try summarizing some of the ideas in this section more concisely. Or as the simplest fix, I think the second sentence about Lang (i.e., the one I quoted above) could just be cut. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think we can choose the simplest way, and have just deleted the argument by Lang. As you say, he is not very clear about this point, and does not really add much to this argument, as Kahf already had updated her earlier judgement about the existenc of Syrian lit. - As anyone who reads her article closely will see, her claim that there is no such thing as Syrian Lit was exaggerated, as she went on to write about just this field. - I had originally included Lang's arguments in my first article in German, as it might bear witness to scholarship in Germany, which is not as necessary in the English version. - Most of all, we want this long article to read as clear and comprehensible for the interested readers, so omitting a not really necessary argument can only be beneficial. ;) Munfarid1 (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• I also checked footnotes 8, 22, and 32; I made a few tweaks but generally they looked good. I'd like to check four more sources next time I sit down with this GA review, so I will have looked at 10% of the total sources -- you've really accumulated a wealth of scholarship here! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  The number of sources is a point in case: I might have a tendency to use too many sources, as in some of my earlier articles, users or reviewers have asked for sources on almost every statement. If you think, we don't need all of them, I would not mind at all, if you delete some of them. After all, I still have them in the German version, should anyone later ask for any of them, even if we both think that there is no need at a given instance. - What do you think about this? Munfarid1 (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Not at all! I think the thorough sourcing is a strength of the article, and a sign that this is a very rich topic. I was just making a note on my process so you'd know why I am a little slow, haha. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, thanks for your dedication to such details, that do add to the quality of the article. Actually, I was surprised that I could not find any similar comprehensive article by a Western scholar of Arabic lit so far. (I didn't check the relevant Arabic literature, but mentioned the Arab Encyclopedia further in the text.) - This is why I started this research and writing the article in German and English. With the large number of Syrian writers and Syrian refugees in Germany, I wanted to bear witness to this rich tradition. - I have actually sent the article to some of the Syrian and German academics in this field I know and they expressed no criticism, but even appreciated it. Munfarid1 (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• OK, checking footnote 32, I can access the cited p. 228, which is generally on the topic of Maryana Marrash's salons, but that page doesn't contain the cited information about Aleppo as an intellectual center or the languages the Marrash family had learned. Can you double-check if a different page should be cited here, or if this is another misplaced cite where another source belongs? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Just added source no. 9 from the article about Maryana Marrash for this claim as our source 32. Did'nt check it, however, as I hope we can trust the user who wrote that article. ;) Munfarid1 (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Footnotes 38 and 47 check out! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• With footnote 58, I noticed that this claim didn't have a source supporting it: Modern Syrian theatre became popular after 1959, when the government created the National Theatre Company. This statement also seemed to be out of chronological order, so I moved it, though now it's a bit lonely as a single sentence. Can you either source or remove this? And consider how it might fit with its surrounding paragraphs? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Just added source 59 and rephrased this sentence in a better context. Munfarid1 (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Footnote 77 also checks out! Having checked 10% of the sources, I'd say I feel comfortable saying that the article avoids OR and uses RS. I also didn't find anything that rang my alarm bells for NPOV. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  BTW: Do you have a suggestion for the Short description tag? - Initially, I had written "Oral and written literature by writers from Syria", but another editor deleted this and left it blank. Munfarid1 (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Socio-political conditions for literature: captions removed and text retained

Somehow, the captions and text for Socio-political conditions for literature in Syria and Literary censorship and inaccessiblity got misplaced towards the end, just before Syrian women writers. I have just placed them chronologically under the heading "Syrian national literature since the mid-20th century" and have omitted these two captions, as they now don't seem to be necessary. Munfarid1 (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.