Talk:Theory of Literature/GA1

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

Reviewer: Garamond Lethe (talk · contribs) 03:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

This my first GA review. As such I will definitely be asking for a second set of eyes once I've finished and I'm open to discussing whether or not specific changes need to be made. I'm planning on doing three full passes through the article.
 * Alright, I'll let you go through the article at least once before addressing your comments (avoid edit conflicts) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to break for dinner so have at it! Garamond Lethe  04:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, enjoy your dinner! Lunch for me now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Picking up where I left off. Will address you're comments once I've finished this pass.  Overall it looks fine.  Garamond Lethe  05:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And that should do it for tonight. I'm planning on responding to your comments tomorrow as well as heading down the university library to get a handle on converage as well as spot-check sources and close paraphrasing.  There are a few spots where I think you've correctly represented the authors' ideas but there's not enough in the article for me to know what those ideas mean.  Those should be fixable.  Beyond that I haven't found any serious issues and don't expect to.  Good stuff.   Garamond Lethe  07:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. I'll get some examples from the text when I get home. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead

 * "Imprint" is problematic. Even after following the link I read that as the first edition had be reprinted in each of those years.  The misleading copyrights should probably not be raised until the section on publication history.
 * extrinsic, relating to factors outside a work, and intrinsic, relating to factors within. Examples of extrinsic and intrinsic factors would be helpful here.
 * Done both. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Garamond Lethe  21:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Background

 * I'm silently changing the occasional semicolon to a full stop and hyphens to &amp;mdash;s.
 * It's not necessary per the MOS. Semicolons are acceptable, and per WP:MDASH a space ndash is an acceptable alternative to an mdash. It's stylistic, not an MOS issue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there are a few places where it does get in the way of readability. It's not an issue that will fail the article here, of course.  I'll just remind you that most of your audience is having to digest a dense presentation of new material that makes use of a highly specialized vocabulary.  Breaking up a few of the longer sentence gives the reader (well, me, anyway) a bit of breathing room.  Garamond Lethe  21:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * read through Roman Ingarden's work. That's ambiguous to my ear: did he study Ingarden or did he study Husserel through Ingarden?  If its the former then dropping the "through" will disambiguate.
 * I think this is clearer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Garamond Lethe 21:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Writing

 * Do you have a cite handy for the Rockefeller Foundation stipend?
 * Same as the rest of that sentence. I can send the source via email if you want it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ If the MOS allows you might want to go ahead and add the cite to that sentence as well. Yes, it's redundant, but you've done such a complete job with inline citations elsewhere that I drew the mistaken conclusion that you didn't have a cite for that sentence.  But I'll leave that up to you.  Garamond Lethe  21:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Contents

 * Perhaps begin with an overall description, "The book is divided into x sections and y chapters..."?
 * The paragraph beginning "The original publication of Theory of Literature consists of twenty chapters set in five sections based on thematic similarities" was meant to give that. I originally had it in Contents, but moved it to writing. I don't mind moving it and the unified voice back. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Definitions and Distinctions

 * It wasn't clear to me that "Definitions and Distinctions" was a section title. If the MOS allows, perhaps change the headings here to "Section 1:  Definitions and Distinctions", etc.?
 * I'd have to ping there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps "gives an understanding of" => "detail"?
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "refute" is a very strong word. If you have a source that uses it you should defintely drop a cite in here.  If this is your paraphrase then I think your use of "contrast" gets the point across that there is some disagreement.
 * Tried rephrasing — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * by its scientific I'm not sure where the "its" is pointing to.
 * Hopefully fixed by adding "and" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * All but the first sentence of the second paragraph works really well because you've got very concrete words explaining rather abstract literary terminology. Could you do the same to the first sentence by adding a vivid example of what "connotative" means in practice?
 * Thanks. I've added "non-literal" in parentheses. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The first and third paragraphs ground the reader into the book with The first section and They note, respectively. Perhaps something similar for the second paragraph?
 * Done. I think this works better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "on the terms" => "of the terms"? Not sure which would have been used in your sources.
 * Erg. Yeah, you're right. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "own period and all" => "own period as well as all"? (Again, depends on what the sources use.)
 * How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Preliminary Operations

 * "other materials" and "numerous ways": examples?  The methods of forgery detection might be worth its own paragraph.
 * Expanded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the word "treatment" in the first paragraph does justice to the rest of the sentence. This sounds like classic bibliographic study (and happens to be what I'm most interested in).  I guess I'm asking for a punchier first sentence, but beyond that I can't give you much help.
 * Added a little. For the extra information on detection of forgeries and whatnot I'll have to wait until I get home. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The Extrinsic Approach to the Study of Literature

 * Second paragraph: "They refute that authors" Not sure if you want to keep "refute", but if you do perhaps "refute the idea" or "refute the hypothesis"?
 * Idea. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Third paragraph: "aspects of it created through social convention" => "are created"?
 * Dur. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The Intrinsic Study of Literature

 * The previous heading reads "The Extrinsic Approach to...". Should this header match that?
 * As you noted earlier, these section titles are those used in the book. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps give an example of a "norm" in the first paragraph?
 * As this page discussing norms leads into their discussion of the strata, it appears these are the norms meant. Clarified a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Wellek and Warren sound systems as inherent to the text" If "sound systems" are a term of art, perhaps italicize them or put them in quotes? As the sentence stands I had read "sound" as verb as was thinking there must be typo somewhere.
 * There was :-( — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The first two sentences of the paragraph are about sound and the last two are about language; I'm not seeing the relationship indicated by their being in the same paragraph.
 * Split. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The semicolon in the third paragraph is perfect. (Just so you know that I do appreicate them occasionally.)
 * * smile* — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "ties literary theory with literary history" Perhaps "to" instead of "with"? (Not to say "with" doesn't work, but it's a very different image.)
 * Sounds fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sixth paragraph: "highly difficult".  Difficult to construct?  Difficult to read or think about?
 * Construct, write. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * An example in the sixth paragraph would really help me understand what the authors are getting at.
 * Just for an idea where to go with this, are you thinking around "appear unable to write history" (i.e. an example of a literary history they criticise?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The Academic Situation

 * Looks good.

Theoretical borrowings

 * Second paragraph: "between the strata" => "among the strata"?  (Use whichever the sources indicate.)
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked at the sources yet and so you may be faithfully representing what I find to be a confusing image. As I understand this paragraph, there is a strata composed of (from bottom to top) "sound", "meaning" and "world", and the "world" has "substrata" (indicating they're underneath?) of "paradigms" and "metaphysical qualities", and this substrata is where the reader "contemplates".  You have all of that (and the technical terms) in one sentence.  That makes it harder to pick apart.  Hmmmm.... ok, I'm just lost here.
 * Alright, I'll try to work through this one (I'm aiming for fairly universal comprehension, so if someone with a background in literature is having problems I've done badly). Substrata here is meant as a subdivision, will rephrase. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I got that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Publication

 * Amazon lists a "New Revised Edition" with a publication date of 1984. Do you know if this is a reprint of an earlier edition?
 * This one? It says "three edition" (sic) which suggests it is the third edition. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Reception

 * "Critical reception ... has been" => was.
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "he found that no such work existed in English" => no other
 * Added other. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Kemp Malone, reviewing for Linguistics, reviewed" Change one "review".
 * One to "discussed" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Overall, this section is particularly well done. I appreciate the effort you made tracking down and summarizing all of those reviews.
 * Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Legacy

 * Again, good work in summarizing many disparate sources.
 * Thanks. Somehow writing film articles and this article was not too different. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There's lots of good information here about the effect the book had on Welleck's career. Is there anything out there about Warren?
 * I've yet to find any, but I'll take another look. I think people have focused on Wellek as he ended up writing most of it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)