Talk:The Turn of the Screw/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 13:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Announcing my intent to review this article throughout the week. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Eddie! Looking forward to it. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * All sources seem reliable
 * Thank you


 * FN 79 has 'archived copy' as its title, which is presumably not correct
 * Fixed!


 * Some of your books don't have specific page numbers (eg. FN's 14, 18, 29, 73 74 probably some more)-- see pn
 * Fixed all that I could find!


 * you have two sources with the Harvard anchor of Beidler 1995-- there are several ways to resolve this, including appending  and 1995b to the cite book
 * Also fixed.


 * images seem appropriately licensed.
 * Very true


 * FNs 73 +4 are the same
 * Je l'ai réparé! ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing " one of literature's most debated works of fiction." mentioned or cited in the article's body
 * Because it isn't there. I'm an idiot. I spent like an hour reworking this with Primordial Chaos, and I got so caught up on making it catchy that I just... didn't source that. I'm removing it for now, but will be putting it back in when I find a citation to that effect (I'm sure it’s in any one of my books on it). Where it goes in the article? I'd love your feedback on that.


 * ", along with some other unnamed characters, " is this really relevant to the article?
 * I'm going to have to argue in favour of this one. I intend to expand the article, and when I do, I'll include references which justify it. In short, the opening (people gathering around a fire in an old house) invokes the tradition of telling ghost stories. I've reworded it a bit (would appreciate feedback). I do think there's outstanding issues with the plot. They give credence to some theories rather than fact. But it’s pretty reflective and I'll work on that soon. ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think your rewording is better


 * " does not have a predecessor in Gothic fantasy is Miles' expulsion from school." I think this is a little different from what the source says, it merely says that it "is the only definite event which does not belong to the world of Gothic fantasy" -- implying there 1) may be other, not definite, events and 2) not explicitly stating that every other event has a predecessor
 * I've added 'definite' and 'fantasy' given that they're pretty crucial to what Pittock argued! Thanks.


 * "as in Matthew Lewis' The Monk (1796), Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1818), and Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897)," is this necessary in the article? what value does it add?
 * I've cut The Monk, and the author's name. But Gothic fiction is highly intertextual; that's how critics treat it, by discussing them in concert with one another. I do genuinely believe that it’s hard to describe its Gothicity without mentioning the texts it’s discussed with. Happy to hear feedback on this, but I can provide additional citations to demonstrate that—when talking about genre—critics talk about other books. You know I'm new, so if you think this makes the article worse I will remove it... but I think it would stop being as comprehensive.
 * Yeah, makes sense to me


 * "In his nonfiction survey of the horror genre," I think you should date this survey so people know where the 'century' starts and ends.
 * Makes sense!


 * people such as ' Gillian Flynn' and 'Stephen King' may benefit from qualifiers (presumably: Author or something similar)
 * Done!


 * "and finally the likely suicide of novelist " questions: what year? YOu don't give the cause of death for others, why is this different? I don't think 'finally' is needed
 * Fennimore was a very close friend of James'. Her suicide badly affected him, and he wrote that he felt he could have done something to help her. I've cut the years, but I think that Fennimore died is significant. ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "Towards the end of 1897," can you be any more specific?
 * I looked through the sources; unfortunately, I can't. That's all they give me. I did, however, remove one of the citations, because it’s a primary source and directly mentioned by one of the others, so not sure why it was there. My bad. Does it need to be removed?
 * No, that's fine


 * "influence of spiritualism" feels a bit out of place in background to me-- might it fit better with the stuff under 'genre'?
 * Good suggestion! I've removed the subheading and shoved it under the ghost story part.


 * "he had a strong dislike serial form." missing word?
 * You got this one for me.


 * Working through the prose, it seems pretty close to the Ga level for the most part. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This stung hehe.

Thanks for the review so far! Looking forward to the rest. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at Biedler, and I think you may have the page backing up "Early reviews solely emphasised the novella's power to frighten, and most saw the tale simply as a ghost story." wrong, because I'm not seeing it on p. 131. Could you double check?
 * Just double checked. What Beidler says is "virtually all of James' contemporaries read it as a spine-chilling ghost story" (130). This was my bad. I'm going to change the wording a bit, too. Some people did think it was something other than a ghost story, but I'm being unnecessarily hyperbolic in my reading of Beidler's words. Great catch!


 * can FN 34 back up that it was "The first published review"? This seems unlikely to me (the review itself probably doesn't say "this is the first review", though it's possible it does
 * ❌ Argh, a life-long problem. I've obviously read that it was the first published somewhere, but where? I wouldn't have said it if I hadn't read it. Leave this one with me; I'm gonna have to pour over my books.


 * Did early reviewers have positive or negative impressions?
 * It’s really hard to find the early reviews, unfortunately. Critical histories pretty much always start with Wilson (then mention Kenton). Some bring up Goddard, who wrote an essay about the psychoanalytic theory but it wasn't published until the 50s (it was discovered posthumously; I think it’s cited on the article somewhere).


 * "he "evil" perceived in the text may also be read as an allegory, as with Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde." I'm struggling to understand what this means here-- maybe you could explain somewhere what the allegory is?-- perhaps using efn here?
 * ❌ I did think about this. I didn't know I was allowed to explain what a critic meant by their words; I thought that would be called out. Based on my reading of his words, what he means was that the ghosts symbolised the evil that's inside all of us. He doesn't say that explicitly, but that's what their consensus on DJ&MH was (and he makes that comparison). Thoughts?
 * If this is the best detail you got, that's fine


 * "As evidence, Wilson indicated that the governess is infatuated with her employer, and connects her sexual repression to her background as the daughter of a country parson" In reading this it's somewhat unclear what Wilson is 'indicating' and what is stated in the text, if that makes sense. For instance, does James write that she's infatuated with her employer and sexually repressed and the daughter of a country parson, or is Wilson arguing that she is some or any or all of these things?
 * I'll clear this up. Text makes it clear that she's the daughter of a country parson; Wilson is arguing that—because of that upbringing—she is sexually repressed.


 * Maybe say who Kenton was. Saying "Wilson's stature as a literary critic" could suggest that Kenton wasn't a critic, when what you're really trying to say is that she wasn't as prominent, I think
 * This is right; Kenton was an academic, but Wilson remains one of the most influential editors and critics of all time. He's widely credited with reviving the criticism of The Great Gatsby, for example. I'll clear this up!


 * FN 42 says ", only three persons had had the temerity to guess that it was something more than a ghost story." Why do you only mention Wilson and Kenton?
 * ❌ Honestly? Because I've no idea who he's talking about. Henry Beers wrote in the 1910s that he thought maybe she was crazy, but Beers doesn't develop it—it was an aside. Goddard, obviously, but he was dead... Yeah, sorry; don't know what to do with this one. No idea who person number 3 is. Full quote is: [...] only three persons had the temerity to guess that it was something more than a ghost story. The three attracted no attention, but Wilson stirred up an indignant and vociferous opposition [...]
 * Hmm that's an interesting one. I still think you should mention that there was another person, even if you can't name them and only list them as a stat or smth
 * ❌ Flagging this up so you see it. I can just mention Beers, and make the Goddard thing clear. Is it editorialising if I say: Three people temerity blah blah [...] (critic) does not name the third, but other critics to have suggested include blah blah Henry Beers, or blah blah with citations to places which mention the possibilities? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd have to see what you're suggesting actually written out, but it seems like that would work. along the lines of but other critics have noted that X was an early proponetn of the theory might be a possibility (not this phrasing, necessarily but I think it could help avoid fears editorializing).


 * "but applied explicitly Freudian terminology" I think you could add a brief gloss of what freudian means &mdash; his name is becoming increasingly less well-known, I feel
 * ❌ I thought that's what the next sentence did: For example, he pointed to Quint first being sighted by the governess on a phallic tower.
 * Quite right


 * "the reader's empathy may hesitate between the children or the governess" this phrasing strikes me as a little unclear as to what you're trying to say
 * ❌ It is really, really difficult for me to try and explain the application of Todorov. I do think it’s pretty literal, though. Todorov noted that supernatural stories contain hesitation between the real and the unreal. It’s a part of the Fantastic. The "hesitation" is applied by Siebers to the reader wondering who they should feel bad for – the children or the governess. Any advice? ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * On a second reading, I think it's probably fine as is


 * "On a first reading of the story, the reader will be drawn" it's hard to definatively say what a reader will or won't do, wouldn't you say?
 * ❌ Sure; I'm just reiterating that critic's take, though. I also note that there's no page number for that, so I'll track that down tomorrow! The tag is for me.


 * "After the debate over the reality of the ghosts quietened in literary criticism" maybe timeframe this?
 * This one's tough... I'll see what all of them reckon and probably have to EFN it.
 * Thanks, Eddie. I've flagged questions up with the not done template! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm satisfied with the prose. Now just sourcing things.
 * EfN notes should have citations at the end of them
 * I'll do this! Does (a) (attached to 14) need a citation, if it’s the same citation as what it’s attached to? I'll add citations to all of them tomorrow :] — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I've spotchecked a few sources, I'd like to check some more shortly. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * JSTOR and similar are throwing up quite a few journal articles that aren't incorporated here-- in fact, in one I'm seeing that there have been "well over one thousand publications concerning The Turn of the Screw, making it one of the most studied works of all time" I think that you're definitely at a GA level of comprehensiveness, but bear in mind that you may be expected to draw from an even wider range of sources if you take it towards FAC. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah! For sure. There's loads I missed out. My primary goal for GA was just to get the bones on it. If you have a look at what was there before I started, this is what I had to work with when I was researching the book last year for uni. I did so much reading that I felt I could transform the article into a good start without significant work, but in no way is it comprehensive enough for FA. My thought was: GA means a student can get a lot from this. I think I did that? But a lot more is needed for FA, absolutely. The question is: where do I draw the line? Does WP:FRINGE apply to literary theorists? Who knows! Looking forward to finding out, but that's a while off.
 * PS. I added another Not Done with a Q. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm almost done with the source check-- seems like there are still some page numbers needed (i.e. FN 28) and the efn notes still don't have cites-- (a) should still have one even if it's the same cite. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Footnote 29 didn't have a footnote because the link pointed directly to the page on Archive.org, but I've added it now! I couldn't find the page number for the other, so I replaced it. Anything else, just let me know :) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Alrighty, this meets the GA criteria after checking sourcing-- the only issues I found were flagged. Passing now. Well done-- Eddie891 Talk Work 01:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)