- "Imprint" is problematic. Even after following the link I read that as the first edition had be reprinted in each of those years. The misleading copyrights should probably not be raised until the section on publication history.
- extrinsic, relating to factors outside a work, and intrinsic, relating to factors within. Examples of extrinsic and intrinsic factors would be helpful here.
 Y GaramondLethe 21:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm silently changing the occasional semicolon to a full stop and hyphens to —s.
- I think there are a few places where it does get in the way of readability. It's not an issue that will fail the article here, of course. I'll just remind you that most of your audience is having to digest a dense presentation of new material that makes use of a highly specialized vocabulary. Breaking up a few of the longer sentence gives the reader (well, me, anyway) a bit of breathing room. GaramondLethe 21:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- read through Roman Ingarden's work. That's ambiguous to my ear: did he study Ingarden or did he study Husserel through Ingarden? If its the former then dropping the "through" will disambiguate.
- Y GaramondLethe 21:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a cite handy for the Rockefeller Foundation stipend?
- Y If the MOS allows you might want to go ahead and add the cite to that sentence as well. Yes, it's redundant, but you've done such a complete job with inline citations elsewhere that I drew the mistaken conclusion that you didn't have a cite for that sentence. But I'll leave that up to you. GaramondLethe 21:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps begin with an overall description, "The book is divided into x sections and y chapters..."?
- The paragraph beginning "The original publication of Theory of Literature consists of twenty chapters set in five sections based on thematic similarities" was meant to give that. I originally had it in Contents, but moved it to writing. I don't mind moving it and the unified voice back. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definitions and Distinctions[edit]- It wasn't clear to me that "Definitions and Distinctions" was a section title. If the MOS allows, perhaps change the headings here to "Section 1: Definitions and Distinctions", etc.?
-
- Perhaps "gives an understanding of" => "detail"?
- "refute" is a very strong word. If you have a source that uses it you should defintely drop a cite in here. If this is your paraphrase then I think your use of "contrast" gets the point across that there is some disagreement.
- by its scientific I'm not sure where the "its" is pointing to.
- All but the first sentence of the second paragraph works really well because you've got very concrete words explaining rather abstract literary terminology. Could you do the same to the first sentence by adding a vivid example of what "connotative" means in practice?
- The first and third paragraphs ground the reader into the book with The first section and They note, respectively. Perhaps something similar for the second paragraph?
- "on the terms" => "of the terms"? Not sure which would have been used in your sources.
- "own period and all" => "own period as well as all"? (Again, depends on what the sources use.)
Preliminary Operations[edit]- "other materials" and "numerous ways": examples? The methods of forgery detection might be worth its own paragraph.
- I'm not sure the word "treatment" in the first paragraph does justice to the rest of the sentence. This sounds like classic bibliographic study (and happens to be what I'm most interested in). I guess I'm asking for a punchier first sentence, but beyond that I can't give you much help.
The Extrinsic Approach to the Study of Literature[edit]- Second paragraph: "They refute that authors" Not sure if you want to keep "refute", but if you do perhaps "refute the idea" or "refute the hypothesis"?
- Third paragraph: "aspects of it created through social convention" => "are created"?
The Intrinsic Study of Literature[edit]- The previous heading reads "The Extrinsic Approach to...". Should this header match that?
- Perhaps give an example of a "norm" in the first paragraph?
- "Wellek and Warren sound systems as inherent to the text" If "sound systems" are a term of art, perhaps italicize them or put them in quotes? As the sentence stands I had read "sound" as verb as was thinking there must be typo somewhere.
- The first two sentences of the paragraph are about sound and the last two are about language; I'm not seeing the relationship indicated by their being in the same paragraph.
- The semicolon in the third paragraph is perfect. (Just so you know that I do appreicate them occasionally.)
- "ties literary theory with literary history" Perhaps "to" instead of "with"? (Not to say "with" doesn't work, but it's a very different image.)
- Sixth paragraph: "highly difficult". Difficult to construct? Difficult to read or think about?
- An example in the sixth paragraph would really help me understand what the authors are getting at.
The Academic Situation[edit]Theoretical borrowings[edit]- Second paragraph: "between the strata" => "among the strata"? (Use whichever the sources indicate.)
- I haven't looked at the sources yet and so you may be faithfully representing what I find to be a confusing image. As I understand this paragraph, there is a strata composed of (from bottom to top) "sound", "meaning" and "world", and the "world" has "substrata" (indicating they're underneath?) of "paradigms" and "metaphysical qualities", and this substrata is where the reader "contemplates". You have all of that (and the technical terms) in one sentence. That makes it harder to pick apart. Hmmmm.... ok, I'm just lost here.
- Amazon lists a "New Revised Edition" with a publication date of 1984. Do you know if this is a reprint of an earlier edition?
- This one? It says "three edition" (sic) which suggests it is the third edition. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Critical reception ... has been" => was.
- "he found that no such work existed in English" => no other
- "Kemp Malone, reviewing for Linguistics, reviewed" Change one "review".
- Overall, this section is particularly well done. I appreciate the effort you made tracking down and summarizing all of those reviews.
- Again, good work in summarizing many disparate sources.
- There's lots of good information here about the effect the book had on Welleck's career. Is there anything out there about Warren?
- I figured out how to get the full stop to appear at the end of note 107. Granted, not the most pressing issue, but still.... ;-)
- Appropriate and helpful. I added a bit of verbiage.
- Someone else might want to weigh in on the categories; they look fine to me.
|
