Talk:Winesburg, Ohio/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: James26 (talk · contribs · count) 09:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

Minor

Might be a personal preference, but I thought that the article could've briefly noted who Irving Howe and Forrest L. Ingram are ("According to author", etc), sort of like it does with Barry D. Bort later.

Done.

Study of his manuscripts show that. . . — Shouldn't this be "studies"?

I can understand why "studies" would sound better but the reason it's the singular here is because the primary source of this information is William Phillips' study of the manuscript of Winesburg, Ohio which led to his very important 1951 article: "How Sherwood Anderson Wrote Winesburg, Ohio". This is an article that is constantly referred to in the literature. It is acknowledged as THE study of how Winesburg was written.

demonstrate the pervasiveness of the formal innovations. . . — This might read better as something more concise, like "influence." Just a take-it-or-leave-it suggestion.

Though kind-of a mouthful, "pervasiveness of formal innovations" is more specific than "influence" and so I'd rather keep it. If you can think of a paraphrase that would maintain the meaning, I'm open to it.

Why are the entries in "The stories" section not placed in quotation marks? Is this a Manual of Style issue I've overlooked?

It's not a Manual of Style issue. The reason is in Note 1. Simply put, it's because that's the specific way it's often (though not always) written in print. Only the story "Queer" has quotes in the print versions of the book. See my examples in the note.

Major

I felt that the "Genre" section would make for a better opening than "Setting". I didn't feel as though "Setting" gave me a clear enough introduction to what the book is about. This is partly because "Setting" reads somewhat like a continuation of the lead—and the article's body should feel separate from the lead.

Agreed. Done.

It was not until Francis Hackett, "then editor of The New Republic, who showed the manuscript to Ben Huebsch, owner and editor of a small publishing house in New York," that the stories (Huebsch suggested calling them "Winesburg, Ohio") were brought together and published.

I'd like to see this rewritten for a few reasons.

Without the quotation between the commas, the sentence reads, "It was not until Francis Hackett that the stories (Huebsch suggested calling them "Winesburg, Ohio") were brought together and published."

It feels like a verb should be inserted with regard to Hackett's actions (perhaps "intervened").

I also think that it may read more smoothly without the quotation at all; the information could simply be paraphrased. Finally, I also found the lack of attribution for the quote to be a bit awkward (I think the article could say who the quote is attributed to), though this may be a personal issue.

Easiest version I came up with: "It was not until editor Francis Hackett showed the manuscript to Huebsch that the stories were brought together and published."

I've simplified the admittedly poor sentence. See if you like the current slightly simpler version better.

The most prevalent theme in Winesburg, Ohio is the interplay between how the Winesburg citizen's. . .expresses itself in the loneliness and isolation that makes their various adventures noteworthy.

You use "citizen's" here, which refers to an individual, but finish the sentence with "their". Did you mean "citizens' "?

You're right, I was guilty of apostrophe crime but now it's fixed.

. . .whereas the simple, stripped-down vernacular that Gertrude Stein found so appealing in Anderson's writing of the time became an exemplar of quintessential American style most famously associated with Ernest Hemingway, the expressionistic portrayal of emotional states in Winesburg, Ohio was later, by some critics, considered "undisciplined" and "vague".

Is all of this really necessary in one sentence? From what I gather, the gist of it is, "Though the vernacular was praised by Stein, and later made famous by Hemingway, some critics have labeled it 'undisciplined' and 'vague'. "

While I don't think a rewrite is needed in this case, I do question whether the Hemingway part could be left out.

My instinct is to leave it as is again due to specificity. The sentence refers to Hemingway in particular because it was he who became the first of the young writers who blossomed under Anderson's influence and then basically dropped the older author. It is written "most famously associated with Ernest Hemingway" because it was indeed made famous by Anderson, but (a few years) later furthered and today associated with Hemingway who overshadowed Anderson. I agree that it's a complicated sentence -- if it's not a GA because of it, I'll change it -- otherwise, if possible, I'd like it leave it.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Response

Hi, James26, thanks for taking the time to review Winesburg, Ohio. From a quick read, I think that fixing the article based on your largely spot-on comments shouldn't be a problem. If I can, I'll do it this evening. Otherwise, tomorrow. Till then, --Olegkagan (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My responses are in-line above. --Olegkagan (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]