Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Kurt Vonnegut/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kurt Vonnegut

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to get this to FAC. I've been working with Wehwalt to get this article improved. Started work in the userspace (see here) I think it covers all the paces that an article of this calibre should, and I would like for it to become the best possible article.

Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to let Brian take first whack, since I"ve had some involvement and some forth.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

[edit]

This is my first set of comments – other instalments will follow:

Lead
  • The quote marks around "14 novels, three short story collections..." etc are entirely unnecessary. This is simply a summary of Vonnegut's output, not a critical comment.
    • done
  • You should mix numerals and text for numbers, as you do in the "14 novels, three short story..." sentence. Thus "fourteen novels..." etc
    • I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Could you clarify please?
  • Actual quotes in the lead, as in the third paragraph should normally be cited in the usual way. However, I see that you have used the same direct quotation in the main text. Once is enough; I suggest you find a paraphrase for use in the lead.
    • done
Family and early life
  • "quite successful" – a little vague, unencyclopedic. I'd leave this out, thus: "the architecture firm under Kurt, Sr. designed such buildings as..." etc
    • done
  • What does "impeccably prosperous" mean? Too idiosyncratic, I feel, for an encyclopedia!
    • done
  • "Kurt, Sr. married Edith Lieber on November 22, 1913." This is unnecessary detail, not relevant at this point.
    • done
  • "He was not begrudged at this" – to begrudge is to envy someone something, or to act unwillingly, e.g. "begrudgingly". It is not possible to be begrudged. You might say "He did not begrudge this", or otherwise rephrase.
    • done
  • "both of his parents" → "both his parents"
    • done
  • Whose description is "dreamy artist", and whose quotation is "as corrosive as hydrochloric acid"?
    • done
Second World War
  • You should spell out ROTC – it's not a known acronym outside the US, and readers shouldn't be dependent on links for basic information
    • done
  • "...a satirical article in Cornell's newspaper and poor grades cost him his place there". Do you mean "put his place in jeopardy", as you go on to say "should he leave", and later that he was on "academic probation", and that he dropped out months later?
    • What was meant was that a the satirical article and poor grades cost him his place with the ROTC, not Cornell.
  • I think he would have received instruction at, rather than from, the institutions that you name, since he presumably went there rather than the other way round.
    • done
  • Uncited quotation at the end of the first paragraph.
    • done
  • "Vonnegut had little time to grieve" – editorial commentary should be avoided
    • done
  • You could just say that he was captured, avoiding the rather awkward construction "the German (Wehrmacht) army"
    • done
  • "on-foot" is not a hyphenated term
    • done
Marriage and early employment
  • "Neither of them would finish their degrees" → "Neither of them finished their degrees" (simple past tense). And the following "however" is unnecessary.
    • done
  • "Jane dropped out of the school after becoming pregnant with the couple's first son, Mark (born May 1947), and after Kurt's master's thesis, titled "Fluctuations Between Good and Evil in Simple Tales," which analyzed the "Ghost Dance" religious movement among Native Americans and an 1890 war associated with it, was unanimously rejected by the University of Chicago, he left the university without his degree." This is a monstrously long sentence. You don't need the words by the University of Chicago, for a start, and you don't need the thesis title and a summary of its content. Something like: "Jane dropped out of the school after becoming pregnant with the couple's first son, Mark (born May 1947), and after Kurt's master's thesis, which analyzed the "Ghost Dance" religious movement among Native Americans t, was unanimously rejected, he left the university without his degree" would be acceptable.
    • done
  • In this section, Vonnegut becomes "Kurt", and then "Vonnegut" again. I don't see any reason for this variation
    • done
  • What is the source for your equivalent present-day values? Personally, I don't find these figures useful or necessary, and would drop them altogether, but if you do keep them they should be cited to a source.
    • Well, it used {{Inflation}}. In any event, I've removed it.
Vonnegut's first novel
  • Title does not conform to MOS, and should be adjusted to "First novel"
    • done
  • "The novel is set after a third world war, where factory workers have been replaced in favor of automated machines". Needs some polishing. Something like: "The novel has a post-third world war setting, in which factory workers have been replaced by machines".
    • done
  • You should use the literary present tense when discussing the book, e.g. "Player Piano draws upon Vonnegut's experience...He satirizes..."etc
    • done
  • "Several editions were printed—one by Bantam with the title Utopia 14, and another by the Doubleday Science Fiction Book Club—Vonnegut gained the repute of a science fiction writer, a genre resented by literature contemporaries". Something missing here. When dashes are used to enclose an inserted clause, the rest of the sentense should parse properly without the insertion. "Several editions were printed Vonnegut gained the repute of a science fiction writer, a genre resented by literature contemporaries" does not. Adding the word "whereby" after the closing dash might do the trick.
    • done

More soon. Brianboulton (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

Struggling writer
  • "...a second daughter and third child was born to Kurt and Jane Vonnegut, whom they named Nanette" → "a second daughter and third child was born to the couple, whom they named Nanette".
    • done
  • "The Sirens of Titan (1959) which features a Martian invasion of Earth, as arranged by a bored millionaire, Malachi Constant, who desires to build a new religion." Delete "which" to correct the syntax.
    • done
  • The plot summaries are considerably overdetailed. I would reduce each of them to a brief couple of sentences, at most. This is the "life" section of th article, not the lit. crit
    • done
Release of Slaughterhouse-Five
  • "By the time he won it" → "At the time he won it"
    • done
  • Citation needed at end of first paragraph
    • done
  • Despite the section title you don't mention the "release" of this novel. A little more background, e.g.when he wrote the novel, and more precise details of its publication, would be useful
    • He had been trying to write it ever since 1945, when he returned for the war, but could never get anything he was happy with. I could add details about the various drafts. I've added the year the book was published and that it was published amidst the Vietnam War. Good?
Later career and life
  • Is this title apt? In 1969 Vonnegut was 47 and had 38 years of life left – can we really describe all this period as his "later life"?
    • Changed to "Later career and events"
  • "lolled about" – not encylopedic
    • No it is not. Changed to "embraced"
  • converted to Christianity suggests previous adherence to another faith, which is not suggested by the earlier text. Perhaps "embraced Christianity"?
    • done
  • "orthogonal" – better to use a simpler term. I'm not sure, anyway, that "orthogonal" (at right angles) is appropriate. Perhaps "opposite" or "contrary"
    • done
  • "when five of their six children were out of the house" – what does this mean? Is it: "with five of their six children having left home..."?
    • done
  • Whose is being quoted in "other sorts of seemingly important work to do." ?
    • Vonnegut. Added.
  • "Afterwards though, the two remained friends until Jane Vonnegut's death". Delete "though", and add a date for Jane's death
    • done
  • Chronology awry. Having dealt with the marital separation in 1971, and Mark's breakdown in 1972, we are suddenly back in October 1970, for the play. As the play was clearly written well before either of these disruptive events, it's not convincing to present it as the product of "painfully slow progress" with his new novel.
    • Rearranged it a bit.
  • "Vonnegut was disgruntled by how personal his detractors's complaints were" → "Vonnegut was disgruntled by the personal nature of his detractors' complaints".
    • done

I hope to conclude with a final set of comments, shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are my final words of wisdom:

Death
  • "He did finally meet his end" → "He died..."
  • Why do we summarise Vonnegut's output "according to TIME"? Just summarise it, and cite to TIME
  • In the final paragraph delete unnecessary "as well", and also "According to The Atlantic" (not needed)
  • Why did the Island Trees Union Free School District ban Vonnegut's books?
  • "When a Republic, Missouri-based school board..." – that's awfully hard for a non-American to read. Suggest switch: "When a school board in Republic, Missouri..."
Religion
  • Last sentence of first para: this needs to be past tense, as Vonnegut is no longer with us. "Vonnegut did not disdain..." etc
  • "Religion has also played a role in Vonengut's personal life. He went to a Unitarian church for a time, was the honorary president of the American Humanist Association..." – the latter is by no means a religious organisation!
Politics
  • I can't answer for the US perspective, but in many societies socialism is a "conventional political ideology". I'd replace "conventional" with "mainstream"
  • Brit spelling of "favour"
Writing influences
  • The quote: "a lot of pulp fiction..." etc needs attribution
  • I'd split the sentence at the end of this quotation, and continue: "He also read the Classics, particularly Aristophanes, who, like Vonnegut..." etc
  • "In regards to" is frowned on by stylists. "With regard to" would be better, but personally I would simplify to "As to...".
  • Delete the "even" in "even admitted"
  • "Early on, Vonnegut decided to model his style after Henry David Thoreau, who wrote from the perspective of a child, which allowed his works to be more widely comprehensible." Does the last clause ("which allowed his works..." etc) relate to Vonnegut or Thoreau? Also, the judgement that Thoreau wrote from the perspective of a child should be attributed.
  • "Finally, Vonnegut cites learning of newspaper magnate H. L. Mencken persuaded him to become a journalist." Not a grammatical sentence as it stands. I can't actually work out what it means.
Style and technique
  • "remarkably" → WP:WEASEL
  • "Among Vonnegut's most prominent and well-known techniques is humor". Sounds a bit promotional, that. I would replace with: "On Vonnegut's uses of humor, in the introduction to..." etc
  • Delete "it's said".
  • "the average science fiction" → "conventional science fiction"
  • "Postmodernism often entails a response to the theory that "science can reveal the truth about the world." Attribute.
  • "They contend that..." There is no "they" in sight that I can see.
Themes
  • I'm not sure what you mean, in the first line, by "man's societies". Why not: "Several key social themes recur in Vonnegut's works..." etc?
  • "among a society's members" is redundant
  • "...one is hard-pressed to decipher which set of character's circumstances are worse". This is lit crit writing. To neutralize it you could say; "...the issue is to dtermine which..." etc
  • Sentences should not begin with "And..."
  • " Marvin states further that when a "hereditary aristocracy" develops, where wealth is inherited along familial lines, it "depriv[es] other Americans of the opportunity to rise out of poverty." This statement of Marvin's needs to be specifically related to Vonnegut's writing, rather than as a summary of Marvin's beliefs.
  • "all Americans are apart of a large extended families" – can you disentangle?
  • "Great Depression" should be wikilinked, not here but in he Early life section where the wording first occurs.
  • "terrible devastation" – again mindful of the weasel, I'd drop the adjective
  • "when they loss their jobs" ??
  • Best remind us what "GE" is. And why the switch to present tense {"Vonnegut witnesses..."?
  • "He confronts these things in his works through the burgeoning use of automation and its effects". Something missing, perhaps: " He confronts these things in his works through references to the burgeoning use of automation and its effects"
  • "an architect kills himself after a software that can replace him is made". Clumsy – "a software" is wrong, and we don't normally refer to software as being "made". Try: "an architect kills himself when his functions are replaced by computer software".
  • "Trout's theory is incomplete..." Not incomplete. Perhaps "curious" or "paradoxical"

I found the article generally most instructive about a writer whom previously I have known only by reputation. With a little polishing, this should make a fine FA. Brianboulton (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: I wen through the article and corrected the points you brought up. Thank you very much for your review. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 22:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Quick comment: go through your references. There are several harv errors (i.e. your short footnotes don't match anything in your reference list) and several references which have an accessdate but no URL; you'll need to add a URL or nix the access date to fix those. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing to that tool. Very useful. All the HARV errors have been fixed. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

[edit]

I know little of Vonnegut's work, so can't comment on the specifics of his life in terms of omissions etc, but you seem to have covered him admirably well, as far as I can see. Once general comment: there are five uses of "however" in the text, which tends to act as a red flag to some reviewers (especially when it appears at the beginning of a sentence), so go through and make sure you actually need all of them.

Second World War

  • You refer in the text to "World War I" and "World War II", but then have a section title of "Second World War"
    • done
  • As it's only used once, I'm not sure you need to use "(ROTC)" after the full name.
    • done

Struggling writer

  • "reflected family and emotional stresses Vonnegut was going through at the time": what stresses?
    • I honestly have no idea. I don't have access to that source. Wehwalt says he'll be back in a few days, I guess he'll handle that then. My sources aren't helping.

Slaughterhouse-Five

  • "March 1967, Vonnegut" -> "he"
    • done

Refs

  • You mostly use the format "pp. 123–124", but on occasion drop to "pp. 123–24". While both are correct, you should be consistent on whether to use 2 or 3 digits in the second figure.
    • done
  • FN 84 needs a pp., not p.
    • done

Done to the end of Slaughterhouse-Five: more to follow anon. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing....

Later career and events

  • "the two remained friends until Jane Vonnegut's death": you can remove "Vonnegut's" and refer to her as Jane
    • done
  • "Soon, Vonnegut stopped writing the novel altogether.[50] When the darkly comical Breakfast of Champions was finally released": I'd add a date or two, or a timeframe of how long between stopping writing and re-starting, and possibly a word or two of background as to how he can to re-start. (It jars a little to be told he stopped writing, and then it being published). You should also add a publishing date too.
    • done

Death and legacy

  • "The fall of 2011..." Per WP:SEASON you should avoid referring to a particular season: if a month is available, that's preferable, if not, then "Late 2011…" should suffice.
    • done
  • Slaughterhouse-Five, has been "banned or challenged on at least 18 occasions." I'm not sure there is any need for a quote on this – you can re-word fairly easily.
    • done

Influences

  • "pulp fiction is a disambig
    • done
  • "enemy in the first and second World Wars": I think the capitals here are slightly out: World War is only capitalised when used as a title, not as a descriptive term
    • done
  • "Early on" is a little vague (i.e. in his life, his career...?) It's sort of self-explanatory in the section, but still worth a tweak to clarify
    • done

Style and technique

  • "...offer that Kurt Vonnegut was not ...": drop the Kurt
    • done

Done down to "Themes": the rest to follow this evening. - SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now finishing...

Themes

  • The false titles will be adversely commented on at FAC. Either have them as sub-titles or get rid of them altogether.
    • removed completely
  • "in Hocus Pocus, the protagonist is named Eugene Debs Hartke, a homage to Vonnegut's socialist views." This reads as if the name is the homage: is that the case? If so, I'm not sure what the connection is; is the protagonist himself the homage? If so, then this needs a tweak
    • added a reference to Eugene V. Debs the socialist. The name itself is the homage.
  • "The meaning of life"; titles shouldn't really have links, especially if the link is only part of the title
    • done

That's it from me: a very interesting read. Please drop me a note when you go to FAC. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]

I'll start with an image review:

More to come on other bits. Seems pretty well sourced from a glance..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure thing. After making a couple of adjustments myself, here's more input:
Infobox
  • It doesn't help to list "Lily Vonnegut" and not mention this name within article body (this doesn't include footnotes)
Lead
  • Since "Vonnegut" redirects to this article, I'd include {{redirect|Vonnegut}} at the top of the article
    • done
  • Link Mark Vonnegut
    • done
Biography
Family and early life
  • Link Bernard Vonnegut
    • done
  • "his father before him" should be mentioned by name
    • done
World War II
  • Let's alternate the alignment of his WWII picture; it doesn't look very good to have pictures stacked on top of one another
    • done
  • "This meant that should he leave Cornell, he would most likely be drafted into the army"..... if this was something Vonnegut himself sensed or knew, I would say so
    • Sources don't say.
  • What wounds led to his Purple heart? Unless I'm missing something (frost-bite not counting), it isn't mentioned
    • Apparently, it was frostbite that led to his Purple Heart. I can paraphrase that to make it seem more "serious" if you like.
Marriage and early employment
  • "with the couple's first son, Mark"..... it would be better to use "first child, Mark" or "son, Mark"
    • done
  • "Vonnegut and his wife had their second child, a daughter named Edith"..... I'd use Jane or Cox, and go with "their second child, Edith" or "a daughter named Edith"
    • done
First novel
Struggling writer
  • "In 1954 the couple had a second daughter and third child, whom they named Nanette"..... just use "second daughter, Nanette" or "third child, Nanette"
    • done
  • "Vonnegut adopted Alice's three young children"..... let's be more specific and say sons since all three were boys
    • done
Later career and events
  • "Afterwards, the two remained friends until Jane's death"..... when did Jane die?
    • done
  • "it was panned critically"..... can we have a sample of negative input?
    • done
  • "met a similar fate"..... same as before
    • done
Death and legacy
  • "(Add information about funeral, burial, cremation, etc.)" shouldn't just be in article text like that; include something about where he was buried
    • Neither I nor Wehwalt have been able to unearth information on Vonnegut's death, burial, etc. and we have a pretty wide range of sources. I've removed that comment as well.
Views
War
  • "Daily Mail" isn't exactly a reliable source, so remove the commentary from that
    • done
Religion
  • You mention Vonnegut was an atheist, but then say he was once part of a Unitarian Church. Where's the transition for when his religious beliefs (or lack thereof) changed?
    • Added a bit more meat to that.
  • "in his 1991 Fates Worse than Death"..... looks like there's a word missing between "1991" and Fates Worse than Death
    • done
Writing
Influences
  • "numerous literary greats" comes off as puffery, try using a more neutral description
    • done
  • "striking" in "share striking similarities" is unnecessary
    • done
Style and technique
  • Is "Vonnegut's linguistic style is straightforward" really encyclopedic?
    • Attributed it to Michael D. Sharp.
Selected bibliography
  • "Selected" lists aren't exactly neutral since they're based on an unknown (and potentially biased) criterion. I'd establish some sort of criterion for the listings, and "bibliography" is discouraged as a section title per WP:LAYOUT; something like "works" or "written works" would probably be better.
    • done

That's about all from me. Not ready yet for an FAC, but looks pretty good overall. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: thank you for your comments. You may want to review some of the changes and the comments I've left. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 02:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome, Ceradon. Looking through again, why is it that New York City listed as his death place in the infobox, but the prose says nothing about where he died? Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS, added that he died in Manhattan. --ceradon (talk • edits) 03:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS, I'll ping you when we go to FAC (still got one more review from Iridescent coming). Thank you again for your review. --ceradon (talk • edits) 03:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was my pleasure :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey

[edit]

MM's comments

[edit]

The second para in the lede needs to be expanded, it's rather difficult to understand why he would be bombed in the Army. It's also somewhat odd that the interesting bits of that why aren't explained...

"He was deployed to Europe to fight in World War II, and was captured by the Germans during the Battle of the Bulge. He was sent to prison in Dresden and survived the Allied bombing of city by taking refuge in a meat locker. After the war..."

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: done. Thank you for your comment. --ceradon (talk • edits) 02:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Iridescent

[edit]

Bear in mind that other than being forced to read Slaughterhouse Five at school, I know nothing about the man. Intentionally commenting without having read any of the comments above or the talkpage, so some of this may be duplication.

  • "He did find success in other areas at Cornell. He became a member of the Delta Upsilon fraternity, and volunteered for the university's daily newspaper, The Cornell Daily Sun, first serving as a staff writer, then as an editor"—this reads to me like a pair of non sequiturs. Were either the fraternity, or the newspaper, particularly hard to get into? I know nothing about the frat, but in my experience most student papers will take anyone who walks in the door. If these were particularly difficult achievements, it should probably be spelled out.
The fraternity he got an automatic bid to as his father was a member at MIT. As for the paper, this one was different according to Shields (p. 41). He was one of 27 candidates for a handful of openings.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably ought to be spelled out, as I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that most people's reaction would be "so what"
  • <nerd mode>"Vonnegut was taught how to operate the 240-millimetre (9.4 in) howitzer"—do we know which one? The US Army had two in operation in 1943, as they still had the M1918 240 mm howitzer but also had its replacement, the 240 mm howitzer M1, coming off the production lines.</nerd mode>
His training took place in 1944 as he was among the 50,000 men who were added on to support D-Day. So I'd imagine the latter. But I can't be certain as I'm not a military nerd :) Do you think I should link it?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would drop "240mm" and just say "artillery", since I can't imagine any sane reader actually caring which piece of equipment he used. ‑ iridescent 17:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he was trained as a heavy artilleryman and didn't speak German, do we have any idea how he ended up as an intelligence scout?
He received additional training in his time "at home" in Indiana. I've clarified this, and deleted the bit about having little infantry training. Shields feels he got quite a lot.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The offensive subsided on February 15, with tens of thousands of people dead" is technically correct, but misleading, and "the death toll of some 135,000" is flat-out untrue; the generally-accepted casualty figure is about 25,000, with the highest estimates at around 40,000. Vonnegut took the 135,000 figure from the completely discredited The Destruction of Dresden by the British neo-fascist David Irving, which deliberately hugely inflated the numbers in support of Irving's claim that more people were killed by Allied bombing than in the Holocaust. (This isn't a criticism of Vonnegut—Irving wasn't exposed as a fraud until long after Slaughterhouse-Five was published—but we can't use his figures in Wikipedia's voice.)
  • Ritalin isn't an antidepressant, although it's sometimes used in addition to antidepressants.
  • "[Mark] Twain fought with the Confederate States Army during the American Civil War" is stretching the truth to breaking point. He enlisted in the Missouri State Guard at the start of the war, resigned two weeks later, and spent the rest of the war in Nevada and California.
  • "He uses this as an explanation for why humans have so severely damaged their environments, and created devices such as nuclear weapons that can extinguish themselves"—this is unclear, is it saying that humans have created nuclear weapons as some kind of collective suicide pact, or designed nuclear weapons to intentionally create a weapon which has a single brief moment of effect and then ceases to operate (as opposed to a firebomb, where the fire keeps burning until someone puts it out)?
  • What has his legacy been? Have any other writers either imitated his style, or disliked him so much they actively tried to differentiate themselves from him? For someone so controversial, he seems to have created surprisingly little controversy. – iridescent 21:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the biographical questions, I'll have to go back to the library and get that source, regrettably it is not online. On the Dresden figures. Obviously Vonnegut believed them, so I'd like to keep those figures in there (while of course informing the reader of the more accurate estimates).--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sure, the 135,000 figure has to stay—the whole premise of S-5 doesn't make sense except in the context of the bombing of Dresden being a particular atrocity rather than comparable to the casualties of other WW2 bombings—but it needs at the very least a footnote to explain that it was based on fabricated figures. (Even Irving had retracted the claim by the time Slaughterhouse-Five was published.) – iridescent 21:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source you can recommend? I don't keep much in my library on WWII, my interests lie earlier.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I would just cut-and-paste this footnote from [[Slaughterhouse-Five]], rather than reinventing the wheel. Because the trial was so widely documented, calling Irving a liar isn't contentious despite being a BLP issue (this was the verdict of the English courts on him). – iridescent 07:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we can find a more dignified way of putting it, if we have to put it as well. It may be enough to say that the figure is discredited and let the reader follow Irving's link if he is not already aware of his history. I agree with you on Vonnegut's words from S5, let them speak for him.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. I'm just aware that there has been a lot of controversy in the past in relation to how Wikipedia handles Irving (see Talk:David Irving and its archives), and presumably none of the authors of this article have a blinding desire to have assorted cranks and crazies duking it out on the talkpage. The basic premise isn't affected—coming out of a meat-locker to be confronted with a pile of 25,000 corpses is qualitatively no different to coming out of a meat-locker to be confronted with a pile of 135,000 corpses—but I think there needs to be some kind of disclaimer ‑ iridescent 17:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent, I added some of the controversy that was stirred up by Shields's bio. Does this fix the legacy issue. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the legacy bit, you're probably better off getting the opinion of a literature specialist. I'm not well placed to judge what his long-term impact was, I just felt fairly certain that someone like Vonnegut is significant enough that something will have been written about his legacy (even if it's just a "He went out of fashion and had surprisingly little impact on future generations" type of thing). ‑ iridescent 17:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can dig up.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I found enough to make it work. I'm still looking for something on his affect on writers, but I think we're in business here.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wehwalt: What about the Dresden casualty numbers? I think that's the final point to check off the list. I thought you were going to handle it. I think I can probably do it, but I don't have the sources you do, so... --ceradon (talk • edits) 22:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Iridescent suggested copying the footnote from the Slaughterhouse-Five article. Perhaps use this as a basis and cut some:

Vonnegut says the firebombing killed 135,000 German civilians, citing ''[[The Destruction of Dresden]]'', by [[David Irving]]. The consensus among historians is that the number killed was between slightly under 25,000 to a few thousand over 35,000. See: * Evans, Richard J. [http://hdot.org/en/trial/defense/evans/520di.html#notelink-evans_520di7p512n52 ''David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: Electronic Edition''], [(i) Introduction. * Addison (2006), p. 75. * Taylor, Bloomsbury 2005, p. 508. * http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,581992,00.html * All three historians, Addison, Evans and Taylor, refer to: ** Bergander, Götz (1977). ''Dresden im Luftkrieg: Vorgeschichte-Zerstörung-Folgen''. Munich: Wilhelm Heyne Verlag, who estimated a few thousand over 35,000. ** Reichert, Friedrich. "Verbrannt bis zur Unkenntlichkeit," in [[Dresden City Museum]] (ed.). ''Verbrannt bis zur Unkenntlichkeit. Die Zerstörung Dresdens 1945''. Altenburg, 1994, pp. 40–62, p. 58. Richard Evans regards Reichert's figures as definitive. [http://hdot.org/en/trial/defense/evans/520di.html#notelink-evans_520di7p512n52]. For comparison, in the 9–10 March 1945 [[Bombing of Tokyo in World War II|Tokyo raid]] by the [[USAAF]], the most destructive firebombing raid in WWII, 16 square miles (41 km<sup>2</sup>) of the city were destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the [[conflagration]]. [http://www.usaaf.net/ww2/hittinghome/hittinghomepg9.htm]</ref>--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need all of that. Just pick a couple of good sources and drop a footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Kurt_Vonnegut/archive1&oldid=1136085083"