Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Peer review/2008

At Swim-Two-Birds

I want to know what this article is supposed to need. Lexo (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Review by the_ed17

• First thing is that I don't know if this is comprehensive enough; no, I'm not criticizing the article, but I have no idea if it is. =) I'm just going to review what I can see. Here goes:
• Watch for WP:INUNIVERSE throughout, this can be a major problem with fictional articles...the Plot summary is a major siicking point there. Make sure that someone who has not read the book knows whats going on.
• Lead
  • The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD.
  • Should Shannon be linked to the River Shannon?
• Plot Summary
  • Why is it autobiographical? I thought that it was fictional!
  • Explain what a Pooka and a frame story is in the article...just a little explanation.
    • Why? Well, I know that you've got links to them, but why would you want people leaving your article?
    • Also, I don't know if Pooka=Púca...? Are you sure?
• Genesis and Composition
  • Generally, block quotes should be at least three lines long...on my screen, it's about 1^1/8.
  • What is a Menippean satire? Explain that in the article.
  • Please add reference(s) for this paragraph:

O'Nolan composed the novel on an Underwood portable typewriter in the bedroom he shared with his younger brother Micheál. The typewriter rested on a table constructed by O'Nolan from the offcuts of a modified trellis that had stood in the O'Nolan family's back garden. O'Brien's biographer believes that it was the unusual material that the writing table was made of that inspired the name of the character "Dermot Trellis".

• Publication History
  • This sentence seems out of order:

At Swim-Two-Birds was published under the pseudonym of Flann O'Brien, a name O'Nolan had already used to write hoax letters to the Irish Times.[15] The book was accepted for publication by Longman's on the recommendation of Graham Greene, who was a reader for them at the time.[16] During negotiations with Longman's, O'Nolan suggested using "Flann O'Brien" as a pen-name:

• • Did sales ever pick up for this novel? How many copies did the U.S. version sell?
• Literary significance & criticism
  • Both of the sentences need to be referenced:

However, most of the support for At Swim-Two-Birds came not from newspaper reviewers but from writers. Dylan Thomas, in a remark that would be quoted on dust-jackets in later editions of the book, said "This is just the book to give your sister – if she's a loud, dirty, boozy girl". Anthony Burgess considered it one of the ninety-nine greatest novels written between 1939 and 1984.

• • Otherwise, very nicely done.
  • Translations and adaptations into other media
  • Good, put consider moving this to the "Publication history" section?
• Epigraph
  • Fine
• Notes/References
  • Rename "References" to "Sources" or "Bibliography"
  • Rename "Notes" to "References"...not required, but as you can have separate 'Notes' sections now...
  • Make sure that you have access dates for the web references...consider using {{cite web}}.

Anyway, pretty decent article, and an interesting read. Cheers! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 00:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The Emberverse series

This article is one of the first major articles I have ever created and would like some help and suggestions in improving it. Any comments or criticisms you have would be greatly appreciated. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Review from the_ed17

A quick run-through, as this needs a lot.

• As with many article pertaining to fictional novels, watch for WP:INUNIVERSE.
• Grammar. You need to find a copy-editor to go through this, because some of the prose is confusing simply because of the poor diction. =)
• See WP:OVERLINK. Some common terms are linked within the article.
  • I.e. cowboys for knights, sherrifs (spelled wrong!) for barons, etc.). Memory of the United States continues to affect the culure (sp.) of these nations. Many of these nations fly the US flag...
  • All of those links could be un-linked.
• Reorganize the "List of Nations" section...Everything in and after the 'other nations' part seems cluttered and garbled.
• Watch for original research throughout the article...
  • ...but especially in the "Connections to the Nantucket series" section...is all of that OR? (besides the cited section).
  • same here: "It should be noted that Dies the Fire, despite its trappings of swords, witches and armor, is not a fantasy. Nothing happens that is not explainable in mundane terms (except for the Change itself). However, Juniper (and, as the story progresses, more and more of her followers) explicitly believes in magic and attributes many happenings to magic and/or divine intervention. Whether or not she is correct is up to the reader to decide; as the series progresses events become harder and harder to explain without recourse to some supernatural agency but die-hard rationalists will find nothing that is impossible."
• use {{cite web}} with your web references and {{cite book}} with your book references...

There you are, at long last. If you fix most of these issues, I will go through and do a more thorough review...Cheers! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 01:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Candide

This article, which I've been working on for quite some time, finally passed GAC. Candide is on its way to FAC, and I'd like your input before I nominate it. I imagine a significant part of this review will be directed at the synopsis. Please see Talk:Candide for the arguments on this matter before criticising this section. Thanks! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

La Peau de chagrin

I've recently reconstructed this article, about the first book to establish Honoré de Balzac as a writer of substance. I'm going to take it to FAC, so thanks in advance for your comments! – Scartol • Tok 20:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit

• Caption: 1897 title page image of La Peau de chagrin - Is the illustration from the title page or is it the frontispiece opposite the title page?

• I'm not sure. It's one of a series of illustrations in the Commons Balzac category. The description on the image's description page is all I have. – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• You might try to find out. Those descriptions are not always reliable. Awadewit (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• True indeed. I tried looking around, but couldn't find anything definitive. I changed it to simply "illustration". – Scartol • Tok 13:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• He shared some of his income from these with his parents, but by 1828 he still owed them fifty thousand francs. - It is not clear earlier in the paragraph that he borrowed the money from his parents.

• Fixed. (It says earlier that he "moved back to his family in the suburb of Villeparisis and borrowed money from his parents to further pursue his literary ambitions"; I added "from his parents" to indicate who he borrowed it from. – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Literary tastes in France at the time were varied - This statement seems like it could be made of any nation at any time - perhaps something a tad more specific?

• Yeah, but re-reading the original source, I can't really determine how better to classify this. I just went straight to a discussion of the public's appetite for fantastic stories. – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• in a May 1830 article, Balzac used the phrase "literary weathervane" to describe the trends he foresaw in the coming years - "literary weathervane" isn't very clear to me

• Removed per above. I liked the phrase, but I don't think it's actually very useful. =) I think it had to do with him looking at four very different directions of literary approaches (the romanticism of Scott; the fantastic stuff mentioned in the article, etc). Like I said, more complex than we need to get into here, I think. – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Balzac had used supernatural elements in the potboiler novels he published under noms de plume, but their presence in Peau de chagrin signaled a turning point in his approach to the use of allegory. - I think this turning point needs to be explained more clearly.

• Fair enough. I added two sentences to try to clear this up: "Whereas he had previously used fantastic objects and events in earlier works, they were mostly simple plot points or uncomplicated devices for suspense. With La Peau de chagrin, on the other hand, the talisman becomes a method of analyzing the real world." – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• How is this related to allegory? (Sorry to be so picky!) Awadewit (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Don't be silly; I would not have asked you to review the article if I didn't want you to be picky. =) I feel like this story is a superb example of the statement at the end of the lead in allegory:

  the characters in a "naive" allegory are not fully three-dimensional, for each aspect of their individual personalities and the events that befall them embodies some moral quality or other abstraction; the allegory has been selected first, and the details merely flesh it out.

• I changed the sentence in the article for Pdc: "With La Peau de chagrin, on the other hand, the talisman is a symbol of Valentin's soul; at the same time, his demise is representative of a greater social decline." Hopefully this is more on the mark? – Scartol • Tok 13:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Interestingly, the sentence now seems to suggest "symbolism" and "allusion" rather than allegory. Admittedly, whether something is a symbol or an allegory can often be difficult to determine, but if you are making the case for allegory - often an extended series of representations - I think something more than simply "symbol" has to be said. However, this could just be the picky literary scholar in me. I doubt anyone else will care about this distinction! Awadewit (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I do. Suppose I removed a mention of allegory and discussed symbolism. Would that be fair? (It better be, because I'm doin' it!) – Scartol • Tok 18:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• French writer and critic Félicien Marceau even suggests that the symbolism in the novel allows a purer analysis than the individual case studies of other Balzac novels. - Why?

• Added: "...by removing the analysis to an abstract level, it becomes less complicated by variations of individual personality. As an everyman, Valentin displays the essential characteristics of human nature, not a particular person's approach to the dilemma offered by the skin." – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• The confluence of realist detail with allegorical emphasis continues when Valentin enters the antique shop. - This needs to be better explained, particularly the allegory part.

• I added "...the store represents the planet itself". Maybe I'm too close to the article, but I tried to explain the connection in the rest of the paragraph – how the objects in the store each present some fact of human experience. – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Allegory can be defined in several different ways, as you know. This would all be clearer if "allegory" were more precisely defined in the article. Awadewit (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• You may be giving me too much credit as a literary scholar. =) I read Northrop Frye many years ago, and have obliterated much of it with public school curriculum and grammar specificities. I've always considered allegory in literature to be as described in the article: "sustained longer and more fully in its details than a metaphor, and appeals to imagination, while an analogy appeals to reason or logic". Perhaps you can clarify the different kinds for me? – Scartol • Tok 14:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm looking in my dictionary of literary terms and I get this: "a story or visual image with a second distinct meaning partially hidden behind its literal or visible meaning. The principal technique of allegory is personification, whereby abstract qualities are given human shape--as in public statues of Liberty or Justice". It goes on to explain that an allegory can be an extended metaphorical system with two or more levels of meaning (e.g. Pilgrim's Progress), or it can be satire, or it can be a method of biblical exegesis (e.g. typology). Modern critical interpretation can be seen as an outgrowth of the typology tradition. I hope this helps! Awadewit (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Even the story's minor characters represent types of individuals who, presumably, are recognizable to the reader. - How are these types realist? Usually types are not seen as part of realist writing.

• Yeah, this was the one thing I wasn't too sure about. I don't really get what Millott's point was, but I wanted some way to complete that paragraph. I suppose I'll have to find something else, heh. – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Details recounted by Valentin of his living quarters and the frustrations of living in poverty are considered examples of autobiography from Balzac's earliest days as an author - a little wordy or stilted or something

• Agreed. Changed to: "Details recounted by Valentin of his impoverished living quarters are autobiographical allusions to Balzac's earliest days as an author:" – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• The novel extrapolates this message from the individual to a general analysis of society: Balzac feared that the world was losing its way due to material excess and misguided priorities. - Is "this message" the one after the colon? If so, that is not entirely clear.

• I added the phrase "like Valentin" to try and clarify: "Balzac feared that the world, like Valentin, was losing its way due to material excess and misguided priorities." Hopefully this helps? – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I was wondering of "this message" might refer to a previous sentence or whether it referred to the idea after the colon. Awadewit (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• A classic example of me being out of it. "This message" had referred to the previous section about will and desire. I tried to clarify, and shrank the colon into half of its original stature (made it a semicolon). Ah, punctuation jokes. – Scartol • Tok 18:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• The corruption of excess is related to social disorganization in a description at the start of the final act. - "act"?

• Yeah, I should just use "section". Critics often write about it as a classic three-act tragedy, but I think that just muddies the waters. – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• The publicity generated by the fragments released before the book's publication ensured that it sold out immediately after going on sale. Balzac used his connections in the world of journalism to have his books reviewed in every major Parisian newspaper and magazine. - I feel like this information is repeated too often in the article - the lead, writing and publication, and the reception.

• Fair enough. I've trimmed the first paragraph to remedy this and the next point. – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• He was so well connected, in fact, that he was allowed to write his own review in some instances. - This was not uncommon in Britain - was it uncommon in France?

• I can't really say, since I don't feel I have the knowledge of how it all worked. It certainly struck me as surprising, but if it was common in Britain, it makes sense that it would also be common in France. I took out the context and just mentioned that he wrote some reviews himself. – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Is there a way to integrate the material in the "Contes philosophiques" section more seamlessly into the article? Right now, it is just kind of sitting there. I wonder if it would fit better in the "Writing and publication" section or perhaps as a fourth paragraph in the first part of "Reception and legacy"?

• I like the latter suggestion best. Moved. More to come! – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• The novel has been cited as a possible influence on Oscar Wilde for his novel The Picture of Dorian Gray.[73] It also served as the basis for the libretto of Giselher Klebe's 1959 opera Die tödlichen Wünsche. - Briefly explaining the plots of these might help readers unfamiliar with the works to see the influence.

• The opera is more of an adaptation, so I revised the description to make this clear. I added a sentence about Wilde's book. – Scartol • Tok 17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Many of the captions repeat information in the main body of the article - it is better when they don't do that.

• Really? I never thought of this as a problem, but okay. I'm taken a whack at them. (Hopefully you don't mean that every caption should have completely new info?) – Scartol • Tok 17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't reread the article to see if stuff repeats - I trust you! Awadewit (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• There is a lot of older criticism in the reference list - not many people writing on this novel nowadays?

• Y'know, there's some – but most of it appears to suffer from the "Everything truly worthwhile has already been said" disease. The book of modern criticism I read for Le Père Goriot was all about the homoerotic tension between Vautrin and Rastignac (which I feel is a stretch) and these insanely close readings of minor bits of dialogue and all the postmodern interpretations of how The Word manifests itself as Society and so on. It would appear that the golden age of Balzac criticism in the US peaked in the 1970s, at the University of Chicago (they put out four books which are really good). Since then it appears to be scattered ideas, and not very compelling ones at that. – Scartol • Tok 17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope this review was helpful! Awadewit (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thanks again for your careful consideration. – Scartol • Tok 17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Louis Lambert (novel)

I'm hoping to send this article to FAC soon. I've remedied the only concern raised during the GA process, and I stand ready to receive other feedback. Thanks in advance for your comments. – Scartol • Tok 17:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Scartol--thanks for the invitation to review this. Now, I've only been through two pages so far, but I'll mention what I have mainly to beat Awadewit here. :)

• The article often refers to "metaphysics" and "philosophy" together. In general, is there any way to clarify meaning here? Can metaphysics as used in the article be glossed for the reader? And one is a subset of the other—is the article implying a historical difference in the meaning of "metaphysics" when the book was written? Either way, would anything be lost by writing just "metaphysics and philosophy"—or alternately, explaining the "other" philosophy. It's probably there later, I just haven't gotten that far. :)

• Yes, good point. I've differentiated and/or eliminated extra wordiness as necessary throughout the article. Let me know if you find any that I've missed. – Scartol • Tok 17:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• In the lead, I wasn't sure what "These details" referred to. The prior paragraph is not so different in content from this paragraph, so to me, "These details combine with events from the author's life..." becomes "Events from the author's life combine with events from the author's life...". :)

• I can see how this is confusing to you. I've revised the prose to resolve this and the following point. – Scartol • Tok 17:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Also in this paragraph, you talk about a work within a work, and I found it a little unclear at times which work you were talking about. The sentence "It examines the philosophy of Swedenborg and others, although the author did not explore many of the metaphysical elements in the story until much later in his life" is the trouble. "It" is the essay, but we get to "in the story" and we've changed gears back to the novel; I don't know, then, what contrast the "although" provides. This sentence would make more sense to me if you meant "[the essay] examines the philosophy of Swedenborg and others, although the author did not explore many of the metaphysical elements in [the essay] until much later in his life".
• I will make a few ce tweaks. I'd like to put birth–death dates after Swedenborg (like Balzac has now) as a little hint to the uninformed that the character in the novel is fascinated with a real philosopher.

–Outriggr § 06:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these, Outr. I'll make some replies and repairs later today or tomorrow. Just FYI: I put the mention of the Études philosophiques section back into the first lead ¶, since that's the standard we've agreed upon at WP:BALZAC. Most folks who study Balzac look for that info straightaway. – Scartol • Tok 14:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That was a little bold of me, but I decided the opening sentence was a little packed with French titles and we'd be back to discuss Études philosophiques later (indeed, in the fourth para of the lead still). I didn't realize there was a WP:BALZAC! (Has anyone informed User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back?) I'll finish reading the last two thirds at my own, horribly slow pace, by which time you and Awadewit will have honed to perfection everything I could possibly have commented on. Cheers! –Outriggr § 21:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• First round finished. Thanks again! – Scartol • Tok 17:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• "The actual events of Louis Lambert are minor..." Is minor the right word here? Are you suggesting that, again, there is not much plot, or that the events are minor as in unimportant? Or minor in comparison to the novel's philosophical discussions?

• Good point. Changed to "...are secondary to extended discussions...". – Scartol • Tok 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• "the painful application of the strap"—"painful" is POV. Kidding! A joke! Hit me on the head if I become that type of wikipedian.

• Heh. Don't worry, I've got a drawer full of them. =) – Scartol • Tok 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• "like (in some ways) the title character's eventual madness"—this thought seems too brief. Could we get a little background on how Balzac considered himself to be somewhat "mad" by the time of the novel, or am I misconstruing? Are the critics saying that Balzac may not have intended this autobiographical similarity? ... Later... I see this is treated in "Genius and madness". A little stealing from that section, perhaps?

• I've tried to clarify this. I hate "see below" comments in WP articles, so I've tried to avoid it. Hopefully I've made things more clear. – Scartol • Tok 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I missed this earlier. "Madame de Staël" is a real person, which me not know. Can this be hinted at in "Plot", with a re-introduction in "Swedenborg and metaphysics", where she is mentioned again?

• Done and done. – Scartol • Tok 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• With "These concepts are explored with relation to...", I have the same difficulty I had with "these details". Strictly, I am not able to relate the dream example to anything mentioned in the prior paragraph. Even "Swedenborg's concepts" would be an easy way out. "These concepts" appears again in the last paragraph of the sectoin. Finally, in "a force flowing between and among humans", are "between" and "among" both needed? Suggesting between two humans and among humanity, I suppose.

• Okay, I've tried to clarify all of this. I personally think the "these concepts" wording is okay, but I'll defer to the reader, since I'm obviously not an objective party. =) – Scartol • Tok 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Something I just thought of: if "Traité de la Volonté" is an essay, should it be in quotes rather than italicized? Do your references do otherwise? If so, they win!

• Yeah, it's always italicized. – Scartol • Tok 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are my comments. I did some tweaking in the article, however much of it is personal taste I leave for others to judge. I would support this at FAC. Again, thanks for the invitation–one of the rare pleasures on wp is to be asked to be involved in some small way in the few articles that have some real thought and research going into them. Cheers, –Outriggr § 06:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your careful and thoughtful comments. Cheers right back at ya. – Scartol • Tok 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit

I have very few comments - I ended up just reading the article and had to start over again to look for things to comment about! I think that is a good sign!

• Aw, shucks. Thanks! (I learned from the best, heh.) – Scartol • Tok 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Published under a variety of titles, Louis Lambert contains a minimal plot, focusing mostly on the metaphysical ideas of its boy-genius protagonist and his only friend (eventually revealed to be Balzac himself). - What is the connection between the title information and the plot information? Perhaps two sentences?

• Yes, indeed. Fixed. – Scartol • Tok 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Although it is not considered an important example of the realist style for which Balzac became famous, the novel is cited frequently as providing insight into the author's own childhood. - a little wordy

• True. I done cleaned it up. – Scartol • Tok 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• An important essay referenced in the novel, Traité de la Volonté ("Treatise on the Will"), was in fact composed by Balzac as a student. - I feel like the important information is buried in this sentence.

• Not sure what you mean. Do I need to clarify something, or include some info from the section later on? – Scartol • Tok 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I took another look at this comment and I think I see what you mean; sorry for the confusion. I changed it to: While he was a student at Vendôme, Balzac wrote an essay called Traité de la Volonté ("Treatise on the Will"); it is described in the novel as being written by Louis Lambert. – Scartol • Tok 16:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• The novel emphasizes thought, particularly its expression among young thinkers and in written forms - a little awkward

• Agreed. Clarified. It also seemed to stand out in the paragraph, so I tried to integrate it more smoothly. – Scartol • Tok 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not long after finishing the first version of the book, while infatuated with the Marquise de Castries, Balzac sent to her a fragmented love letter, as Lambert sends one to his paramour Pauline - a bit wordy

• True. Remedied. – Scartol • Tok 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Could you say a little more about the reception? Who reviewed the book poorly? What publications? What did they say exactly?

• Not really. I haven't been able to find much actual criticism, but there may be info in a book which I got recently. I'll see what I can add, but I doubt it will be much. – Scartol • Tok 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, I found a specific detail – it was about how HdB was being godless and anti-family, so it feels weird to add it without anything concrete about (what sources say is) the major problem of thin plot. But it's interesting, at least. – Scartol • Tok 01:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Did this book not influence any other writers? (Just checking!)

• If it did, no one ever admitted it. =) None of the sources mentioned anything about anyone (aside from his paramours, quoted in the article) citing it as an influence. – Scartol • Tok 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Again, you were right and I was wrong. Apparently Flaubert was influenced enough to duplicate parts of the plot in his story "La Spirale". (Alas, I can't seem to find a copy online.) I added a few sentences about it. – Scartol • Tok 01:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

One down, 99 to go! :) Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks again for your feedback and commentary. I owe you one. – Scartol • Tok 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

To Kill a Mockingbird

Prior peer reviews can be found here

• Wikiproject Novels first peer review
• Second WP:Novels peer review
• Wikipedia wide peer review

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!

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)

Pattern Recognition (novel)

Science fiction novel published in 2003. Is it comprehensive? The writing involved a lot of synthesis from many sources, so I have the fear that some points get lost or mashed up with others. Please see if everything makes sense, that the points are complete and understandable. I've kept track of what came from where by using ample footnotes, so I can backtrack. Also, check if the writing flows well, or where the problematic areas are. --maclean 07:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Great start; lots of good info! Kudos on the research! I only have a few basic suggestions:

• Move the second paragraph in the lead down into the Background section; it clutters up the lead, and seems to fit better below.
• Some of the info in the Background section seems unrelated. I'd remove the parts about Gibson's other novels unless they are directly related to Pattern Recognition, and maybe the sentence explaining who Gibson is. These are better explained in their respective articles.
• There are a few items in the lead which should be sourced, or re-written to avoid weasel-words. I've marked these in the article with citation tags.

FusionKnight (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks. The lead section is supposed to be an overview of the article, so I will go through and ensure it adequately reflects it. I will add some citations to the lead to back up some of those claims. In the "Background" I'm trying to provide context for how/when the book was written, so I'll try to relate it all to this novel. --maclean 05:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Le Père Goriot

Insofar as it's usually described as Balzac's most important novel, this article is on its way to FA status. I've received invaluable assistance from Awadewit, and I think it's nearly ready for FAC. In her GA review, she suggested more information about the publication and revision history, which I have been unable to locate in the 10+ books I've consulted. I would also point out that both she and I are generally opposed to cluttering up the top of articles with infoboxes, which tend to repeat details already in the lead.

Thanks in advance for your feedback! – Scartol • Tok 21:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Great article, good read and well put together. I have a few (non-infobox related) comments, but they probably won't help you at an FAC.

• The caption on the image Image:Vidocq.jpg is ambiguous. Is the man in the drawing(drawing?) Eugène François Vidocq or the character Vautrin? Currently the caption uses Vautrin as the subject, implying it is an image of him. But I think it's really Vidocq, how about "French criminal Eugène François Vidocq was the basis for the charatcter..."?

• Good call. Changed. – Scartol • Tok 03:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Consider using a "Further reading" section to list some of those books/papers that addressed the novel but didn't make it into the references, like Approaches to Teaching Balzac's Old Goriot (you mentioned on the talk page) and "Predators and Parasites in Le Père Goriot" (Symposium; Spring93, p3-33).

• Mayyyybe. I generally don't care much for "Further reading" sections, but I don't suppose it can really hurt. Maybe I'll just throw 'em into the bibliography.

• If you come across any further information on the publication history over the centuries, it would be good to add to the article. For example, Burton Raffel appears to have made a recent (1990s) translation. Or even its translation into other media. I like mentioning audiobook versions. Oh look, it has an imdb entry heh heh heh.

• Yeah, I kinda feel like at this point it's been published and republished so often that unless a particular edition is notable in itself (read by Patrick Stewart or some such), listing them all gets tedious.

--maclean 02:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! – Scartol • Tok 03:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments from User:Qp10qp

I found this an excellent, comprehensive and clean article. I've never read the book, but I've seen it analysed often enough (Percy Lubbock is good on Balzac), and so I have an awareness of it. I don't have any serious criticisms of the article, but I noticed a few spots where I felt the language could be more precise:

• makes La Comédie humaine a singular collection of writing. A little loose?

• I suppose. Changed to "unique among bodies of work"; I don't know if this is tighter, but it feels more straightforward. – Scartol • Tok 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• The novel is also cited as a noteworthy example of his realist style, using minute details to expose character and subtext. If it's cited, it's noteworthy, so perhaps the latter word is redundant. I'm not sure if "expose" is the mot juste here—subtext, for example, is by definition unexposed.

• True and true. Fixed. – Scartol • Tok 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• This new detail sheds considerable light on the actions of all three characters within the pages of Le Père Goriot, even as their stories evolve and expand in the later novel. Not quite sure what "even as" indicates here.

• It was meant to contrast the fact that we get new insight on the stories in LPG at the same time as we learn new info about their lives after the end of that novel. I changed it to: "complementing the evolution of their stories". – Scartol • Tok 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• the details employed – and their reflection of the realities of life in Paris at the time – create a faithful rendering of the world of the Maison Vauquer. Can you create a rendering? What about "faithfully render"?

• Much better. Changed. – Scartol • Tok 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• One of the main themes in Le Père Goriot is the quest to understand and conquer society's strata. Can you conquer strata?

• Argh, this sentence again! =) Changed to "ascend". – Scartol • Tok 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• serve as microcosms which Rastignac seeks to ascend. Can you ascend microcosms?

• Okay, okay. Changed to "master". – Scartol • Tok 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• His urban exodus is like that of many people who moved into the French capital. Can one person have an exodus?

• I think so; I've seen it used for individuals and small groups (like families) before. I hope you won't be offended if I hang onto this one. – Scartol • Tok 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• The shifting sands of the events in France provide Vautrin with a playground for an ideology devoid of any value aside from personal advancement; he guides Rastignac in the same direction. ¶ Still, it is the larger social structure that overwhelms Rastignac's soul—Vautrin merely explains the methods and causes. Although he rejects Vautrin's offer of murder, Rastignac succumbs to the principles of brutality upon which high society is built. "Still" signals an antithesis, but I can't find one. I suspect the overall point of the above could be made more succinctly.

• Agree with the last part. Reworded that sentence to: "France's social upheaval provides Vautrin with a playground for an ideology based solely on personal advancement; he encourages Rastignac to follow suit." The "Still" leads into the contrast between society and Vautrin as the ultimate corrupting force. I added a "finally" which should help clarify. – Scartol • Tok 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• suggesting an irreconcilable split between society and the family. Can you reconcile a split? Is not the family a unit of society? Perhaps a little more is needed to make the point clear.

• Fair enough. Changed to "a fundamental schism" and added a word about why his daughters abandon him. – Scartol • Tok 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• The novel is set during the years after the 1814 Bourbon Restoration, which brought profound changes in society and Le Père Goriot begins in 1819, following Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo, after the House of Bourbon had been restored to the throne of France. Speaking with my historian's hat on, I wonder if it might be best to choose one of these dates, even if both are broadly applicable. For me, the marker for a change of era would be the final defeat of Napoleon.

• Good point. Employed 1819 for both. – Scartol • Tok 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• During this tumultuous era, France saw a tightening of social structures. I agree about the tightening of social structures during this period, but I'm not sure that tumultuousness was the cause. Usually social structures become loosened during a tumult, as happened during the revolution.

• Yeah, I was a little uneasy about my own wording there, and I thank you for reminding me to fix it. Removed "tumultuous". – Scartol • Tok 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, you almost make me want to read the novel, depressing though it sounds. qp10qp (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but it's so beautifully written! Like The God of Small Things, it graciously combines beauty with the rain. Thanks so much for your detailed review. – Scartol • Tok 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't that detailed. I couldn't think of much to say, since the article was so well done. Give the cat another goldfish. qp10qp (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Aw shucks. (blush) The point is, you looked. And I'll bet the editors at FAC will prove you wrong! =) Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 22:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A Tale of Two Cities

I have been working consistently on this article, and I believe I have improved it a lot, but I'm sure it has much further to go. I'm aiming for GA status, which would be one step up from where it is now, if I understand the system.

One problem I have as an author is dividing interpretation from fact. I often feel that facts about literary works only make sense in the context of interpretations. (I'm one who believes that some interpretations of a work are invalid, even though there are probably infinitely many valid ones, and also that some are better than others — I can't really defend this, of course, it's just my belief.) But I nonetheless expect I need to do a better job of keeping my own readings out of the article (even though they are supported by citations of prominent scholars). In particular, I'm afraid I may need to take out the "doppelganger" point about Carton and Darnay, which to me is really the key to the novel, so I'd hate not to be able to find some way to reference it - opinions welcomed).

The version of the article I inherited very much needed to Omit Needless Words, and also never used a ten-cent word when a twenty-five-cent word would do worse. So I'm sure there's much pruning and rephrasing that remains to be done.

The last issue is probably just one that Wikipedia will have to live with, which is that since this is the novel of Dickens's most commonly taught in high schools (in the United States, at least) it is subject to vandalism. And more interestingly, since the audience for this article is younger than that for many of the articles on Dickens's other novels, should it aim at more of a high school reading level?

Finally, are there whole sections I should remove or should add?

Thank you for your time.

DiderotWasRight (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Yllosubmarine

• First of all, more references and citations are a must. Quotes from the novel must be cited to a specific page number. The entire "Analysis" section contains only one citation, which runs the risk of others suspecting WP:OR. The "Themes" section has entire, chunky paragraphs without citations. As for the references, there must be more than six books to pull from? Just a quick search of the MLA database shows dozens of results of scholarly sources.
• The citation formatting is confusing; TOTC, I'm guessing, is the edition that is listed in "Bibliography"; this should be cited with "Dickens" to match the other surname refs. Also, what is the difference between "TOTC II.6" and "TOTC, Book 2, Chapter 8"? Is there a difference? In order to satisfy WP:CITE, specific page numbers should be used instead.
• I would remove "Relation to Dickens's personal life" and incorporate some of the more pertinent information into a "Background" section. The lead section touches upon the timeline and what makes this a historical novel, but it's not fully explained in the article. This info should be before the plot summary to better put things into context.
• What about a literary style section? Genre? How does this book define the historical fiction genre? What about Dickens' wordiness? What have critics said about these facets?
• The plot summary should definitely be parred down. I understand there's a ton to write about as far as plot details, but twenty separate paragraphs is overkill.
• If you're looking for more pics, I suggest using one of Dickens or even something about the French Revolution. There are tons available at the Commons.
• The opening – "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." – and closing – "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known." – of the book are among the most famous lines in English literature: true, but it has a citation tag. Unless it can be qualified, it really serves no purpose, especially not solely in the lead.
• Speaking of the lead, please keep WP:LEAD in mind. It states that the intro section should be treated as a summary of the entire article. Several tidbits, such as the number of chapters and its publication history, are not mentioned in the article itself. Perhaps create a "Publication history" section?
• There's nothing about the novel's legacy, which I think is a shame. As you mentioned above, this novel is taught at the high school level and is highly respected. What place does it have in English literature?
• The "Adaptations" section should be in prose, not list format. This would give you an opportunity to plump up the novel's importance level with something along the lines of "A Tale of Two Cities has been adapted for the film and stage numerous times..."

This was only a quick review, but I hope it helps point you in the right direction. The most important thing to keep in mind is sourcing, sourcing, sourcing. I would suggest finding more scholarly sources, ensuring that there is at least one ref in every paragraph (except for the plot section, which is typically self evident; aside from direct quotations, of course). The prose seems wordy, but you already knew that; work on cutting the plot section down and developing more sections that not only help readers understand the historical/publishing context but also what this book's legacy has to offer. Best of luck, María (habla conmigo) 12:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; this is very useful. When citing a work that exists in many editions (such as Hamlet), authors often refer to "Act x Scene y" rather than to a page number. Since Tale also exists in many editions, is there a way I can cite page numbers but also give Book and Chapter for use with other editions? DiderotWasRight (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Direct quotes from Shakespeare's plays are typically referred to by act, scene and line numbers; in fact, I see a few cited that way over at Hamlet. I haven't read Dickens in a while, but it's strictly prose, yes? :) The key is that referencing should be as specific as possible for our purposes. This requires page numbers leading to your specific text in the Bibliography (WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). I personally do not see much of a reason for listing the book or chapter with the page number, since one seemingly denotes the other, but you could play with the formatting to see what makes the most sense. I can't find anything that says it isn't allowed. María (habla conmigo) 02:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to give page numbers for every quote, but I would like to also include book and chapter numbers as well (Tale is in three "books," so a quotation might be from Book 2, Chapter 4). This would be so that a student who has the Dover edition of the text and wants to find a quote the Wikipedia article references will be able to find it at least roughly, even though I cite the Penguin edition. The book and chapter numbers are universal across all editions of the text; the page numbers are not. DiderotWasRight (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• good work
• I would like to see more citations on the literary criticism
• Add a section on influence on others 16:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Secret Agent

I am working extensively on this article due to its High importance level, and because I think I have quite a detailed knowledge of the text. I'm looking for opinions on where/how to exapand areas. Obviously, it is lacking everything that would make it an FA, or even a GA, however objective advice would be good, and would facilitate my efforts. Thanks. --Adasta 16:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Yllosubmarine

I think this could very well be promoted to Good Article status in the near future with a little tweaking, but Featured status may take a substantial amount of work. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• Several of the references need to be formatted correctly, including 13 and 14.
• Per WP:LEAD, the lead section is meant to be a summary of the entire article. That it was 'one of the three works of literature most cited in the American media' post September 11" is not mentioned in the body of the article, which it should be as it seems to be an important point. There is no mention of its adaptations in the lead, nor the fact that it initially sold poorly.
• I noticed this while reassessing it, and it seems that another user has fixed a majority of the spelling errors, but the prose remains confusing and/or poor in places. For example, "a spy in the London of 1886" is needlessly wordy; it could simply be "a spy in late 19th-century London". This sentence, also from the lead, combines two separate and barely related ideas: "Terrorism is cited as one of the major themes, with the book later inspiring the Unabomber." The book is infamous for inspiring the Unabomber, but this should be mentioned separately from the inherent major themes. In short, it could use a copy-edit throughout. You may wish to engage someone from WP:LOCE for assistance.
• It is typically understood that plot summaries are self-referencing, meaning that the source is the book itself. The "Characters" section, however, could potentially use a few independent sources. The section should also be made a separate heading (==Characters== and not ===Characters===).
• The use of the colon (:) in the "Major themes" section makes the prose disjointed, another reason why a copy-edit would help greatly. For example, "Conrad also drew upon two persons specifically: Mikhail Bakunin and Prince Peter Kropotkin. Conrad used these two men in his 'portrayal of the novel's anarchists'" is easily re-written as "Conrad drew upon Mikhail Bakunin and Prince Peter Kropotkin specifically, using them in his 'portrayal...'" etc.
• What does "In modern times" denote? Contemporary views?
• I suggest splitting the "Literary significance and reception" section into two parts; how the article was received a century ago and how it is received now. In the latter section you can include the infamy surrounding the Unabomber and the influence the book had on him and his actions, and how events related to him changed how we view the book today. This entire section needs to be expanded, as well, with additional references.
• The uncertainty in the first sentence regarding the Unabomber needs to be remedied: "The Secret Agent is said to have influenced The Unabomber." Said to have makes the entire section sound like a rumor, but the following information makes it clear, without any doubt, that the novel greatly influenced Kaczynski. This therefore needs to be made explicit.
• The "Adaptations" section should be converted to prose. The section can begin with a blanket summary statement similar to "The Secret Agent has been adapted into various mediums throughout the years. Beginning in 1923..." etc.

I hope this helped. Let me know if you have any questions. María (habla conmigo) 13:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Junius49 (talk)

I agree with María -- the article looks great. It's definitely on its way to good article status. I tried to clean up a few of the sentences and those compound citations. Here's my major concern:

• I think that the Unabomber should be entirely left out of the introduction -- it seems to be an interesting connection, but I'm not sure it deserves intro status. The reference to post-9/11 media makes it explicit that the book has received recent attention because it centers on an act of terrorism. I think that's more important in the intro. Let me know if you want help revising the article. I'd be happy to help some more. --Junius49 (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Grey Griffins (book series)

I am about to nominate this article for GA status and I want to know what i need to do to further improve before nomination. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 02:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from user:Yllosubmarine

First of all, this is a good start. The major problems I can see that would keep it from being promoted to Good Article status (as per the Good Article criteria) is its lack of both comprehensibility (3a) and verifiability (2). Here are some suggestions to help expand:

• The first sentence (Grey Griffins is a novel series written by American authors Derek Benz and J. S. Lewis) leaves a lot unsaid. What is the genre? Is it young adult as I'm guessing it is? Is it Sci-fi, fantasy? Also, the name of the series does not need a reference.
• The lead is choppy and fragmented. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should be an overview of the entire article. There is currently no publication history info in the body of the article, so you should either create a section that will describe who did the illustrations and what Orchard Books is, or just remove it from the lead entirely for now. Because it is important info, however, I suggest you do the former rather than the latter.
• The plot intro in the lead gives no context, and I see none in the body, either. What time does the story take place? Present day? Where? Who are the four members? Kids?
• I'm very confused re: the layout of the article itself. What is "Guardian of the Codex", "Society of the Black Wolfs", etc? I suggest you take a look at other novel series articles such as A Series of Unfortunate Events, which is GA, in order to get an idea of layout. A Series uses the following basic outline: "Origins", "Plot summary", "Setting", "Recurring themes and concepts", etc. This would be a good place for you to start.
• There is currently only one main reference: the Grey Griffins website. In order for the article to be verifiable, it must include reliable, secondary sources. For plot point details, you can use the books themselves; just cite them correctly using citation templates. Formatting is a big deal at for Good Articles. Do a Google search for reviews from reputable sources/websites about the series. What do critics think of the novels? How well do they sell? How popular are they?
• Speaking of popularity, there is no assertion of the series' importance. Is this just another Harry Potter ripoff, or is it notable in its own right? What makes this series different, according to reliable sources?

I hope these comments helped. Best of luck, María (habla conmigo) 12:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from user:Dozenthey

Similar to Maria's comments, a good start but it needs a lot of work.
-The plot summary dumps way too many names and details in (the THOR agency, the Codex, Morgan Le Fay... where do these things/people come from, why are they in this story?). I'm having trouble getting a clear, simple idea of what the story is about because in every sentence of the summary there seems to be something completely different going on. Flesh it out a bit more, try to take out details that aren't necessary for a brief overview, or explain them/give them context if they are necessary.
-Also, in the summary of book three, the tenses are a bit confusing, and not knowing the plot, I'm not entirely sure what it means. Does he find the spear during this book, did it happen before, is it a flashback? Make it so that I can follow whats going on from beginning to end of the book without too much confusion.
-The last paragraph of the summary I would recommend that you move into the section on characters, give a brief description of the power each one has, and whether he is a good guy or bad guy, something like that. That would be a good way of giving context without overloading the summary.
-I've also changed the internal links that refer to in-world artifacts attributed to mythological figures (ie the spear of Ragnarok), so that only the mythos, rather than the novel-specific aspect, is in hypertext. I think it was confusing to click on an artifact and be redirected to a page about a myth without specific reference to the artifact.
-The review section:
- Like maria asked, what significance do these books have in culture, is anyone reading them, etc.?
-I'm not sure that "The Children's Literature Review" is actually the reviewer, or at least I can't find any information about this group. I think its just a review from the Border's website under the heading "Children's Literature". You need to look into that, and make sure those reviews are from respected sources.
-I'm not sure I agree that the books were reviewed "fairly", as you state in the intro... the reviews don't trash the novels completely, but they are generally negative ("practically unreadable" stands out).
If you have particular questions about how to rewrite the page, let me know, I'll try to help as far as I can not knowing the stories. Dozenthey (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Earth Abides

I have made a lot of additions to this article, but am still learning Wikipedia conventions. I could use some pointers if I am making mistakes, and pointers to how I can improve this article. I received a comment that someone not familiar with the book should take a look at it. Thanks,Jacqke (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Review from Yllosubmarine

This is a fairly good start for an article, especially from someone who is relatively new around here, so congrats! Because I haven't read the book and cannot comment on the content of the article and how it relates to the work, most of my comments deal with MOS and formatting issues.

• Keep in mind WP:LEAD; that large block quote in the lead section is great, but the first part of the article is supposed to be an overview of the entire article, so large, clunky specifics are usually not a good idea. Also, only include facts in the lead that are mentioned in the body of the article -- James Sallis is not mentioned anywhere else. I would suggest moving the entire second to "Literary significance and reception" and saying something more broad about its reception in the lead.
• This could use a very strong copy-edit. The first sentence, for example, is not grammatically incorrect, but it is a little too detailed: "Earth Abides is a 1949 post-apocalyptic science fiction novel by American author George R. Stewart. Telling the story of the fall of civilization from deadly disease and its rebirth..." perhaps?
• Remember that all refs must go after punctuation or the end of the line, depending on what it refers to. Ref 3, for example, currently goes before the period, which is incorrect.
• I count 18 separate book covers. This is, to put it lightly, overkill. :) It also goes against fair use guidelines, which states that "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." I understand the desire to illustrate articles that are so prose-heavy, but the only cover image that is truly needed is the original cover, which is currently in the infobox. If there is one other that is notable in itself and/or mentioned in the article, then you can include that one, as well.

DoneJacqke (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Although it's obvious to most that the source for the plot summary and introduction are the book itself, there are others who insist that every section is referenced. Even if it's just the book itself, one or two refs wouldn't hurt down the line.
• Some interlinking of less common terms would be helpful: "Golden Gate Bridge", "pandemic", city names, etc.
• The "Characters" section seems to fall into a list-like pitfall. To help this, combine smaller sentences into one paragraph on minor characters, or just remove the minor characters all together to concentrate on the main characters.
• Amazon is not where you should be getting your reception information for. Stick to scholarly and notable reviews from the media, not John and Jane Does from the internet. :) State the names of the reviewers and perhaps even quote them for proof; this is where James Sallis could come in handy.
• Do you have sources for the "Symbols" section? Interesting stuff, but you need something scholarly -- this does not include the book itself. Have critics remarked upon these symbols?

Done—eliminated as the symbols were original research. Will look for them if I can ever get to a decent university library.Jacqke (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly suggest merging the "Symbols" and "Themes" section and converting the material from list to prose formatting. That goes for "Details That Are Dated", as well. By the way, WP:HEAD: lowercase unless proper names!

converting from list to prose, Done.Jacqke (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

lowercase in headlines, Done.Jacqke (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Merging Symbols and Themes, DoneJacqke (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Merging Details that are dated, Still needs to be doneJacqke (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Other Wikipedia articles should never be used as source material. Replace the footnotes and rm them from the "References" section

Done, I removed these. --maclean 04:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Some footnotes, like "Stewart, George R. (1969). Earth Abides. Boston: Houghton Mifflin...", are already listed in the "References" section. Therefore, you can use truncated names in the footnotes. For example, <ref>Stewart (1969), 125</ref> That cuts down on the clutter, but still provides the reader with all of the information they need.

I hope this has been useful! If you have any questions or comments, just contact me on my talk page. María (habla conmigo) 17:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Three points

• (1) remove the block quote from the lead. I try to avoid any quote in the lead unless it is immediately identifiable with the subject. Quotes are too specific for the lead which is supposed to an overview of the article. Best to move it to the Reception section and paraphrase the intent it in the lead.
• (2) I would remove the sub-sub-headings "Chapters 1-5", etc. They don't seem to be necessary.
• (3) The Analysis section is not referenced to a secondary source. Unless this kind of analysis is done by a secondary source, I wouldn't go there. --maclean 04:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Naked Lunch

I've been working on cleaning this up recently and I want to get it to GA status. Any kind of comment or guidance would be great, I know that the Characters section needs some work so don't comment on that unless you have a specific point mucho thanks HangedJonny (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly ill-informed review

The lead section could definitely use some work, particularly the single sentence first paragraph. The phrase "it can be argued" in "Plot introduction" should be changed to either indicate that such an argument has been made and by whom or removed. "and his addiction to drugs (notably heroin and morphine)" in "Plot introduction" is a bit of a dangling clause, and should be altered to better integrate into the main sentence. The "he" in "as much as he wants to share" is vague and should be clarified. "taboo fantasties" should be elaborated one somewhere, as there is no clear indication as to what is being referred to. "have led to much controversy" is another phrase which could use clarification, regarding what controversy there has been. "Plot summary" has the phrase "decapitating people and imitating a pirate", which reads strangely phrased, as one would think the latter significantly less important. It should possibly be broken up or changed to indicate that it is describing things chronologically. "Hassan is not too pleased with this" indicates that Hassan is somewhat pleased with it. Is that true? If not, alter phrasing. Sentence structuring throughout could use some work. The sections on the parties could use sourcing to indicate that the statements there aren't OR. The last three paragraphs of "Literary significance and reception" could use at least one reference apiece. First paragraph of "Allusions in other works" could be broken into at least two, starting with "Several characters..." Trivia section should probably be sourced, author of "Move Under Ground" should be mentioned by name. Citations for the last two paragraphs of "Film adaptation" should be added as well. I know that looks like a lot, and it is, but most of it relates to comparatively minor points and can probably be fixed rather quickly. It probably wouldn't reach GA without several of those changes being made, though. John Carter (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Winston Science Fiction

My ultimate goal is to get this article to FA status. I'd appreciate any feedback at all. I know it's a little thin as far as references go, and the list of books in the set take up a lot of the article. The Winston Science Fiction set was an important one in the early development of science fiction literature, especially in the sub-genre of juvenile novels. The art is also particularly notable (i.e. collectible). Thanks! FusionKnight (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article soon. (I have a few other tasks to finish first, but since I'm requesting a review I'd like to provide one to make things fair.) – Scartol • Tok 21:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As promised, my review is below. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks! Looks like it's time to get to work!  ;) FusionKnight (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Review by Scartol

This article has some good information, but it really isn't very complete at all right now. The reader should get the following information:

• Background. What was the SF publishing climate like at the time? Where did the idea for the series come from? Who initated it? How did the Winston company become involved?
• History of the series. Which book was published first? Was it written specifically for the series? How were the sales figures? How did the series distinguish itself? Did certain authors make their name by publishing as part of the series? What were the ups and downs of the process? Did it go through different editions? When and why did the company stop publishing it? Et cetera. This should be a majority of the article, split into various sub-sections.
• Reception and legacy. I'd put this toward the end. In addition to the info you've got at the moment, discuss how it changed the world of SF publishing. How did it influence readers and writers? What innovation or improvement resulted from the series? Etc.
• Artwork. Clearly this is a core component of the series, so it should be a sizeable section. How did they find the artists involved? What mood/tone/image did the series try to project? Again, discuss the context of SF artwork at the time, and how this series made its mark.

It looks like a lot of this information will be tricky to find, since I doubt there are many books about the series itself. But you've found one text, and the bibliography of that one will (hopefully) point you toward others.

Good luck with this article, and when you have something more substantial, I'll be happy to copyedit or offer more comments. – Scartol • Tok 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)