Wikipedia:Peer review/Jacques Derrida/archive1

Jacques Derrida[edit]

This article has been stable for a while, but I'm curious to see how it reads to a general audience. I'm sure improvements can be made based on peer review feedback, so this is the place to ask. Buffyg 22:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm maybe not the 'general audience' you refer to since I study philosophy, but I must say that the section on deconstruction (the absolute kernel of Derrida's thought) needs expansion, as this is integral to understanding Derrida, and it is also a contentious issue amongst philosophers.--Knucmo2 00:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've laid out a general plan for a complete rewrite of the deconstruction entry (see Talk:Deconstruction), which is in a deplorable state. I wanted to get some general feedback about the Derrida article before undertaking that, as I'd reckon a peer review ought to provide suggestions on how to improve the entry that's been previously overhauled before we use it as a point of reference for the one that needs to be. The more specific your feedback on the work that has been done, the better to prepare for what remains to be done. Buffyg 00:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone, just letting you know that I've started to get to work on the deconstruction page recently Seferin 13:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two other points. The article size is a little two long, and you could include "quotations" of his.--Knucmo2 00:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some remarks on reading through the article (which I think is very good):

That final paragraph on Marcus I couldn't parse properly; I imagine it could be removed totally, as it's a bit gossipy anyway.
It might be nice to include Searle's response to the whole Limited Inc. (which I remember as colorful, as far as analytic philosophers go.)

I believe I've got on hand all of the core texts for the Derrida-Searle debate, so I'm game for updating this. I had thought to do a full article on the Derrida-Searle debate and present a summary here. Buffyg 13:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some stuff on the reception of Derrida in the USA versus Europe might be of interest. A widely made remark on his death was that Derrida's influence was greater, and lasted longer, in the lit departments in the United States than anywhere else; some went so far as to say that Derrida's influence in France was much less than in the US.

I believe Derrida has supported this characterisation himself. Buffyg 13:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Deconstruction and literary criticism" section is the weakest, and needs expansion (or at least to be redone.)

Acknowledged. Let me see what I can do to fix this. Buffyg 13:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, that is one mighty flamewar going on in the discussion page.

Eh? You mean the archive? Buffyg 13:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Organizationally, I think you should move sections 1-3 and 5 to later in the article: i.e., cover his bio first, his works next, interpretations of his works next, etc. But definitely, the brief bio should appear first.

As I've said, I think this is a very well-done article, and if things get fixed up a little, I'd definitely support it for FA status. Drop me a line. Sdedeo 21:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a thought to see if it can be overhauled with the possibility of pushing it for the first anniversary of his death, although that's almost certainly far too ambitious. In any case I'm not sure how self-sufficient the article is and would prefer to do the rewrite of the deconstruction entry before putting this article up for FA. Along the way we might end up with reasonable entries for de Man, Lyotard, and .