Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Structure of Literature/archive1

The Structure of Literature

 * Nominator(s): czar  18:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

One of my favorite quotes is from the philosopher John Searle speaking in 2010 on French philosophy, in which he says that two famous French philosophers had confided to him that, in France, philosophical writing has to be at least 10 or 20 percent incomprehensible to be perceived as deep and to be taken seriously. I've yet to read a monograph that tackles obscurantism in academia but until then, we have this article.

I started out writing this article about Paul Goodman's disseration as part of a project to document his works. And Goodman's academic career is such a small, passed-over pocket of the very wide range of topics he covered (spanning 21 sections of the New York Public Library), that I had not seen previously written, with such singular clarity, a group of writers converging to say about his academic debut what could largely be said of his larger career, that this book was full of psychological insight and incisive asides, but he eclipsed his argument with impenetrable style issues and jargon.

I've been working on this Goodman project for nearly a decade now because sometimes incomprehensible sociological works have real-world impact, and writing clearly about unclear texts can be hard, interesting, and sometimes rewarding. Please have a look and let me know if the same applies to readers. czar 18:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.


 * Cite 35 has a p/pp error.
 * Cite 39: no publisher location?
 * Could we have the year of publication in the first sentence please.
 * "were of mixed favor". What does mixed favor mean? And in the main article.
 * "belles lettres". Foreign language words, other than proper nouns, should be in lang templates rather than italics.
 * "The author Paul Goodman developed from this tradition". I am struggling to work out what this is trying to communicate.
 * "In the type of writing practiced by Goodman—formal literary analysis—the author breaks". By "the author" do you mean Goodman, or any writer? If the former, perhaps 'he'; if the latter, perhaps 'an author'.
 * "he author breaks the work into parts and describes how those parts interrelate to form a whole and create meaning." Suggest that one "and" is preceded by a serial comma.
 * I didn't add the serial comma between "parts and" because I thought it would be awkward. czar  19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it actually possible to find a "work's formal structure in ... external factors alone"?
 * It may be worth specifying in "Background" which type[s] of literature are considered susceptible to literary criticism.
 * The Structure of Literature is a work of literary criticism." Is it? It seems to be a book about literary criticism. What do the sources actually say?
 * The reviews all cover Goodman's original literary analysis of over a dozen works as he attempts to introduce a form of analysis called "inductive formal analysis". The phrase "literary criticism" appears to be in wider circualtion now than it was at the time but that's definitely how it's categorized today. czar  19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Goodman's performs a close analysis of ..." Is the 's a typo? If not, what is he possessive of?
 * "elements like word sound, weight, syntax, tone, and metaphor". Does this article use serial commas or not?
 * I'm not sure what gives the impression that it doesn't? czar  19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just looking at the lead, "and" occurs six times, none of them with a serial comma.
 * If serial commas are commas that precede the last item in a list of at least three, none of those "ands" involve lists of three. Otherwise the "ands" only have commas if they're connecting two independent clauses, which they're not here. czar  23:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * "to highlight its psychology of war". Suggest "its" → 'the plays'.


 * "Goodman's early 1934 article". I am not sure that it is necessary to be told that the article was published in early 1934.
 * Why does "Reception" start with an orphaned single sentence paragraph?
 * The other paragraphs are thematically organized, so I felt it more appropriate to have the sentence stand alone than attached to a different set of ideas. czar  19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Goodman engaged some reviewers with psychological insight". Goodman or the book engaged? If the former, perhaps 'his psychological insight'; if the latter, perhaps 'its psychological insight'.


 * "wrong judgments about "form" and "structure" into uncorrectable "abstracted schematisms". Have you missed the closing quote marks?
 * Yes, thank you czar  19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "with "a certain aridity and addiction to jargon",[3] and "dizzying and not always grammatical shifts from the gnomic to the off-hand"". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original. Also elsewhere; in several it may be better to paraphrase into Wikipedia's voice. Eg " the author's tone frequently swaps between "high-falutin' critical terminology" and "quite excessively American colloquialisms"."
 * The spirit of that section it to make sure opinion is attributed, which it is with footnotes. It's paraphrasing from a parent guideline that asks for in-text attribution when the statement would come across in encyclopedic voice as biased. In this case, the quotation is clearly credited to the reviewers cited in that sentence and adds color that paraphrase would not. I could just cut the quote as the paragraph later covers his use of jargon and swings between highbrow and lowbrow, but I think that would make the paragraph weaker. czar  19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the paragraph reads well as it is, but the first sentence of WP:SUBSTANTIATE is "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution." Sorry, but I think it needs tweaking.
 * , would you be able to weigh in with a third opinion here with respect to Copyediting reception sections? The quotes in the cited instance here add variety and, in my opinion, do not express bias or mislead, as they are clearly put as the range of reviewer opinion. Alternatively, they would be paraphrased here as it wouldn't make sense to add in-text attribution for asides. czar  23:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I should be able to, perhaps tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They are opinions. The MoS, which is policy, says "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original. "Copyediting reception sections", for all its merits, is an essay. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * "Goodman's case for formalism, wrote Poetry, required better rhetoric." Why is this not attributed to the writer?
 * In articles on creative works, I use author names when they're independently notable and the publication's name when the reviewer is not independently notable. This helps the reader associate the opinion with the entity they're most likely to remember. This helps avoid distracting readers by introducing a half-dozen non-notable surnames only to never mention them again. czar  19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "In split opinion". I don't think this is grammatically correct.
 * Why not? It's like "split decision". czar  19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I meant, shouldn't it be 'In a split opinion'? :-)
 * Well it isn't a singular opinion being split, though. If you think it's confusing I could recast the sentence? czar  03:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If that could readily be done, I think it would be best.
 * Rephrased without recasting czar  03:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That's the first quick read through completed. It is probably just me, but Goodman's book brings to mind a sentence from one of Peter Medawar's more aggresive reviews: (from memory) "In spite of all the obstecles the author perhaps wisely places in our way, it is possible to discern a chain of thought in the work." Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Some of Goodman's plot definitions did not hold". Which citation supports this?
 * The latter part of the sentence cites multiple examples of reviewers showing what didn't hold: applied inconsitently, circularly defined, imprecise, etc. czar  19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! Appreciate the edits and have addressed all in the prose. Is there a script you use to find the p/pp errors? I've clarified "mixed favor" as "mixed favor and disfavor" as that's as far as Book Review Digest goes: "The plus and minus signs preceding the name of the magazine indicate the degree of favor or disfavor of the entire review." In this case, most of the reviews had both plus and minus signs, indicating both favor and disfavor in the same review, for which I think the general term is "mixed". czar  19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It's looking good. A few comebacks above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments on in-text attribution
Pulling out a section for the conversation started above since this would overwhelm the bullet point in question.


 * WP:V (which is policy) says "Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible; when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source, use an inline citation, and in-text attribution where appropriate."
 * WP:NONFREE (also policy) says "use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline)"
 * WP:CITE (a guideline) says in-text attribution "may" be needed for various cases but "should always be used for biased statements of opinion".

Full disclosure: CITE used to argue more strongly than this for in-text attribution, but per this discussion (which I started) that was weakened to be inline with the two policies.

I would take the sum of these to mean that only "biased statements of opinion" need to be attributed inline. I think of biased statements of opinion as something more than just a professional reviewer expressing an opinion of a book. An academic criticizing a rival theory would probably come under this heading.

Gog, you mentioned the MOS statement that "the source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". I think this is out of sync with the three I quote above, but that's perhaps only because CITE was changed to weaken the in-text guidance. Anyway, we have to deal with it as it is. It points in turn to WP:SUBSTANTIATE, though, which once again talks about "biased statements of opinion".

There's no doubt from the above that "biased statements of opinion" have to have intext attribution. Simple statements of opinion, I would argue, do not have to -- that is, statements from sources that have no apparent axe to grind.

I deliberately wrote the above without looking to see what specific statements Gog is asking for attribution for. Looking at the sentences in question now, I think the attribution provided is enough, and in-text attribution is not needed. They certainly are "opinions" but I wouldn't call them biased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Gog the Mild? czar  03:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the delayed response. I am unconvinced by the above, but rather than shoot from the hip I wanted to think on it. (If I remain unconvinced I shall (attempt to) explain why then.) I considered IARing the usage to duck the whole issue, but as the second paragraph of the Reception paragraph contains lots of opinions, including two directly quoted ones, this begs the question of why if one paragraph can be felicitously phrased to meet all possible interpretations of the MoS, the other needs IARing. I shall continue pondering, and researching. Feel free to pester me if I do not get back in what you consider a reasonable timescale - although it is not as if the nomination is about to time out. Bar a further nit pick mentioned above I am otherwise happy with the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Right. The FAC criterion in question is "It follows the style guidelines". Stripping the code gives It follows the style guidelines . So it is what the MoS says that matters, not what any other Wikipedia policy says, even if it seems to contradict, or does contradict, the MoS. It would make things easier if this were not the case, but after two weeks I can't see a way round it.
 * I would like to minimise the extent to which well written prose is messed around to satisfy the MoS, and so would be prepared to countenance some use of IAR. But would like to minimise this. As noted above, the majority of quotations are attributed in line, so there is not an issue in principle.
 * All of that said, this is a good, well written article and I want to see it promoted. So are the cases where the 'in line attribution really, really wrecks the prose' cases right down to an irreducible minimum?


 * While pondering this, I was struck by "Reviewers remarked on glaring style issues in Goodman's own text: with "a certain aridity and addiction to jargon", and "dizzying and not always grammatical shifts from the gnomic to the off-hand", lacking both in grace and basic clarity." I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Splitting the sentence into four parts - Introduction, Quote A, Quote B, and Statement C - it seems to be that Quote A and and Quote B establish that Goodman's own text is lacking both in grace and basic clarity. So 1. have I understood that correctly, and - if so - 2. is that really what Aiken (1955) and Rodway (1955) are saying?
 * Separately, does 'and in Moore's opinion the author's tone frequently swaps between "high-falutin' critical terminology" and "quite excessively American colloquialisms"' really wreck the prose? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The first clause ("reviewers remarked") has a group citation showing the reviewers who remarked. To add color to that statement without following the "A said B, X said Y" format (that WP:CRS derides), I used examples of those remarks without using Wikipedia voice to portray it as truth—two quotes and one more group citation (Aiken and Rodway). They're written to show as opinions that are clearly refering to the reviewers in the first clause. A rephrase of these quotes, i.e., to use synonyms for "aridity", "addiction to jargon", "shifts between the gnomic to the off-hand", would in my opinion be a greater artistic liberty than using the sufficiently colorful quote. We can remove everything after the first clause and it would still say the same thing, since everything else is just to reinforce the first clause, but my case is that it's then a weaker sentence that says the same thing. Nevermind the fact that breaking it into three sentences is bore to read in a Reception section ("A said B"). This version is certainly more engaging and, in my humble opinion, does not pass off opinion in Wikipedia's voice, which is the spirit of what the MoS wants to avoid. czar  03:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, you have convinced me on that one. It does flow very nicely - always a joy to see poetic prose at Wikipedia - and one can at least make a case, as you do, that it is in the spirit of the MoS. Apologies if it took me a while to get there.
 * So, what do you think about inserting "in Moore's opinion"? You do similar elsewhere while ensuring the "prose is engaging and of a professional standard" and it seems to me you could do here. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * (Here) I generally try not to namedrop a reviewer unless they have been made into a character the reader can remember ("who is Moore?" said anyone reading to this point in the article) but it's straightforward to credit the publication and I have less qualms about attributing this direct opinion. This said, I do think it makes the sentence clunkier and that the reader isn't necessarily richer for knowing the name of the publication/person who said the quote. czar  03:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That does the trick. A fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Image review


 * Suggest adding alt text


 * File:The_Structure_of_Literature.jpg needs a more expansive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I've uploaded a PD replacement for the cover and fixed the alts. czar  19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I think that version is not original enough to warrant copyright protection. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added pd-textlogo too czar  00:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Shapeyness
A few comments below - theories of literary criticism are completely outside my area of knowledge but hopefully these are some useful points. Shapeyness (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the term "literary criticism" is probably more well known to most readers than belles lettres, so it might be worth removing that aside. If not, I think splitting this up into two sentences might help make it a bit easier to read. Also, not sure what you think, but do you think the concept of dialectics is necessary for understanding the context of the work here? Just wondering if there is room for some of the more jargon-y terms to be cut out.
 * Recast—let me know what you think
 * Maybe it's worth introducing relevant influences from gestalt psychology and Aristotelianism/neo-Aristotelianism and a description of what they are in the background section as they are introduced without much discussion in the Contents section. This would possibly help to set the stage for the focus of Goodman's arguments as well.
 * Good idea
 * I think it's very obvious from context what this means, but it could be confused by the fact that inductive formal analysis is actually the first approach mentioned in the paragraph. Maybe it is better to just state "inductive formal analysis" directly.
 * I find the following passage a bit hard to follow Possibly there just needs to be a bit more explanation on why Goodman claims this and that would be enough to make it clearer. Or maybe the previous point about introducing Aristotelianism in the background section might help.
 * It's hard to gauge the significance of this - is this the conclusion that Goodman is working to with this chapter? If so, why is it important? In general, I find it hard to identify which parts of the Contents section are Goodman's most important conclusions / the driving force behind his analysis, and which are the little details.
 * Agreed on both points and I've cleaned up the detail. On second read, there were a handful of elements that read as minutiae when a general audience just wants the big picture.
 * Publication section: does it make sense to move this above the Contents section?
 * Normally it wouldn't (since book article introduce the book first) but I can appreciate how it makes sense here
 * No comments on the Reception or Legacy sections, they are both very clear and interesting!
 * Great points all around, . Appreciate the review and ready for another peek when you have a chance. czar  02:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the content section is looking a lot more focused now! There are a few more small comments below. Shapeyness (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the content section is looking a lot more focused now! There are a few more small comments below. Shapeyness (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a cite to that article? It wouldn't technically be acting as a source for the sentence but might be helpful for anyone who wants to dig down and find the paper nonetheless.
 * It's not being cited in the sentence so I've instead added it to Further reading, if that works
 * I reworded this slightly - hopefully that is ok!
 * Should this be in Wikipedia's voice? Also there is a typo there
 * Where's the typo? It's generalities without basis, or unbased generalities. This is sourced to two reviewers describing the mechanics of the arugment, so I take it as a matter of fact and not their opinion.
 * I fixed the typo - is the idea that his analysis is "generalities without basis" an uncontroversial fact? E.g. is this just a technical detail about his approach? Shapeyness (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yikes—didn't see that. Thank you! Yes, I read this as a logical conclusion about his approach: that abstracting structures in the work lead to highly technical explanations of connections and generalities extrapolated but not directly evidenced from the text. Would it be helpful to provide a quote in the citation? czar  03:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think so, maybe a bit more explanation too (even if just in a footnote) if there is a good source for it. Shapeyness (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , recast czar  02:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry I think I'm missing something here. Doesn't this contradict the whole idea behind the approach . Plus I can't see how the quotes support that last part of the sentence either - maybe a slight reword just for that last bit? Shapeyness (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Shapeyness, I've recast using a better source (and pretty apropos that Goodman wasn't clear about something as simple as the definition of his method) czar  01:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Once again, not sure this should be in WP voice
 * It's followed by four sentences of how it's true. Does it need to repeat "Reviewers wrote that..."?
 * The only worry I have is that this is a statement of opinion rather than an objective fact. Wording like below retains the meaning and isn't overly repetitive - what do you think? Shapeyness (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * (Here) It's not a hill for me to die on but what I'm defending here is that when four reviewers write in isolation about the same subjective thought (Goodman's plot definitions not holding) and I juxtapose those next to each other, "Some of Goodman's plot definitions did not hold either" has the same validity to a reader with those four citations with or without the preface that Reviewers said so. I could add "Reviewers said/thought/criticized" before most sentences in this section to clarify the subject but would any reader reading to this point not know that "unfitting, imprecise, circularly defined, or lacking consistency or rigor in their application" are summaries of reviewer opinions and not Wikipedia's? This also has the benefit of not appearing as cherry picking: "Reviewers said [words with negative valence]? So what nice things did they say about his plot definitions too?" vs. matter-of-factly grouping four similar citations together as supporting the assertion that some of his plot definitions did not hold. czar  03:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Similar comment here, probably best to attribute to Borklund
 * Added
 * On second reading I'm finding this a bit hard to understand
 * Rephrased
 * Also, just wondered if there is a reason why sfn templates are used for most citations but not Buchanan 1996, James & Brown 1955, Hejinian & Watten 2013, and Rosenthal 1971?
 * Those latter citations are used to source single sentences, mostly background, and aren't what I'd include in the subject's "Bibliography"
 * Thanks, that makes sense! Shapeyness (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Will try to have a look over some sources just as a final check for comprehensiveness soon
 * Thanks, . Edited and commented. czar  14:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Some replies above. Shapeyness (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , replied above :) Thank you czar  03:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now ready to support
 * Last optional comment: is a bit repetitious "by the field" followed by "in the field".
 * —Shapeyness (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Rephrased. Thank you! czar  03:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Dcdiehardfan
I was a bit bold and did a little copyedit to just clarify some stuff, streamline some sentences, and clarify some typos on the Background and publication section. I'll try to organize my criticism as well and go in a top-down manner. Note that this should all be taken with a grain of salt as I'm not an experienced FAC editor and I will do my best to provide my two-cents/review of the article as it stands |as of now. These will mostly include stuff like prose, grammar stuff, etc and mainly asking for clarification I suppose. Feel free to ask any questions or express any views you may have. And this is just a preference of mine, but if you choose to consider this in a Checklist-type manner, could you please use the visual identifiers of, , ✅, , , ❌, , or anything else of the like since this just makes it easier for me to tell what stuff is resolved as my eyes tend to just glaze over the text in these types of situations.
 * The WP:FAC intro rules request sparing use of templates to reduce page load times but I'll use text replies czar  02:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies, that sounds good and I think strike-through works. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead

 * Pretty solid prose, I'd recommend splitting into 3 paras for a holistic summary. The first is fine as is, the second should contain the content regarding its inception, so include a bit more from the Background para I think so that way it can stand on its own as a para. The third para I envision serving as the Reception overview, meaning it'll include the microcosm of the Reception. I also envision it getting content from the Legacy section to fully pad it out and be a holistic lead. Also, if I ask questions, these are genuine questions that I have or clarifications that I need, so it's not necessarily me trying to critique it; it's genuine but I'm also doing it to express my concern that others may read it awkwardly, misunderstand it, or be confused by it, if you get me.
 * Usually an article of this length doesn't warrant an expanded lede for its own sake—are there any important details that you feel are missing from the current version? For instance, I think the Legacy section (one paragraph) is sufficiently summarized with the one sentence represented. For the Background section, I consider that helpful context for someone reading the whole article but I wouldn't necessarily define Aristotelian in the lede just so that they understand its whole context there (they have links for that or can read on). c

Background and publication

 * Just CE'd, don't see any major problems

Contents

 * I'd prefer to specify the "it" so it's clearly the method and not the book c
 * Just out of curiosity, is there any reason the term "close analysis" is used? Does it have a different connotation from "analysis" or is this word choice specific on your part?
 * It's just another term for close reading—I'll use that one
 * is a word salad, maybe or  or something to that effect
 * Could you perhaps elaborate on what you mean by elaborate plot?
 * Assuming that's "hidden plot"—added
 * → OR, it's simpler and less awkward that way
 * Further simplified at the risk of over-reduction
 * Wikilink diction
 * What does "special problems of unity" mean?
 * It's described further down
 * could be rearranged to be
 * Preferably the word before the colon (plot types) describes the plot type words after the colon
 * He is using them as examples here, not just citing
 * Since it's opening a paragraph, "his" wouldn't clearly refer to the author
 * → . I think more precision would help.
 * Rephrased
 * Can't you enumerate Aeneid as simply to maintain consistency with how Richard II is cited or is this apposition an MOS thing or smth?
 * It's "the Aeneid" so it needs the comma, which I don't think breaks the sentence's parallelism
 * Have some transition word/phrase when going from talking about Serious to Comic plots, such as
 * I clarified that it's Goodman's typology but some FAC reviewers frown on these types of transition words (e.g., However); also it should be straightforward that this paragraph is describing the three plot types in that order
 * could be misconstrued in some funny ways and is grammatically awkward, so for more direct language, I'd perhaps recommend something like or  or something to that effect
 * ✓ (but deconstruction is something else in literary theory)
 * Ahh, maybe or something of the like could work better to avoid the conflation
 * I think →  works better
 * I can go either way but I have a slight preference for "subordinate ... in" vs. "subordinate ... for"
 * Reiterating the "close analysis" thing, any specific reason or?
 * Recommend wikilinking syntax, also what does inferential thought mean?
 * Rephrased
 * I could just be a bit confused by the "problems of unity" thing, but idk if it was actually explained somewhere or if I'm missing it. I also think it's not explained in its corresponding para like specifically, it mainly focuses on the analysis of the book's Chapter 6.
 * Reframed
 * Reiterating the "close analysis" thing, any specific reason or?
 * Recommend wikilinking syntax, also what does inferential thought mean?
 * Rephrased
 * I could just be a bit confused by the "problems of unity" thing, but idk if it was actually explained somewhere or if I'm missing it. I also think it's not explained in its corresponding para like specifically, it mainly focuses on the analysis of the book's Chapter 6.
 * Reframed

Reception

 * I'm a bit iffy about 1st-sentence paras in general, and especially am not a fan of how it is rephrased from the Lead. I'd first definitely recommend rephrasing the sentence or providing more clarification that already isn't provided in the lead (ie introducing new content), and then seeing if it can be integrated into another paragraph.
 * This is covered in the review above but in short, it stands on its own and does not fit the content theme of other paragraphs. The lede is meant to summarize the article, hence why they're similar sentences.
 * Gotcha on the one-sentence para, I just think the sentences are a bit too similar, but I normally see Lede Reception summaries as being something like of mixed critical reception/reviews or something to that effect. May I perhaps suggest that to distinguish the sentences a bit more while retaining the original content?
 * The sentences are already slightly different but either way the reader isn't going to remember by the time they scroll down :) and in any event, I added a little color to this paragraph on the book overall c
 * The Books Abroad sentence is positioned such that there should be quoted content. I especially do not like how informal sounds, so I'd recommend either directly quoting content from the source to retain the sentence structure or alter it to read as being  or something like that
 * That sentence feels needless dry. Looking to avoid the "A said B" pitfalls common to Reception sections mentioned in Copyediting reception sections. The quote isn't about the merits of ideas but that the analysis had discrete moments of brilliance that were mired in his attempt to create a rigid method.
 * Right, hence the variation of verbiage and structure and reduction of quoted content, I'll retract most of the first part, but I still think a better word choice could be used instead "these flashes of brilliance", may I suggest merits of various ideas
 * Rephrased c
 * is weirdly worded, recommend:
 * I think this was clear but changed to "centerpiece"
 * Yea, it's just the wording I felt was a bit awkward, but "centerpiece" works perfectly so I appreciate you for that.
 * What's wrong with the former construction? It's concise and direct.
 * I just feel it's the syntax is a bit odd and don't traditionally see that type of structure in Wiki articles, but I may be wrong and you are right on brevity, perhaps may I suggest Levin elaborated Goodman appears to be ...?
 * Rephrased c
 * What does "approach novel" mean? Also, I'd recommend keeping ppl's quotes packaged together, so I'd say relocate the Widmer approach novel sentence so it's with the other Widmer content, such that the extended Levin commentary doesn't interrupt its flow
 * "Novel" as in "new" but reframed to avoid the confusion.
 * Ahh ok, I interpreted it as "book novel" haha, and was a bit confused there, but thank you.
 * These paragraph are organized by theme rather than by reviewer. If they were organized by reviewer, they'd hop between disconnected ideas, so the trade-off is that theme-organized paragraphs have a cavalcade of reviewer names (because Wikipedia norms lead to overattribution). In so far as is reasonable, I've tried to reduce or characterize reviewer names so that the reader can focus on the substance of the critic rather than their identity.
 * I see, that's another Reception technique I've used in terms of organizing by theme, I also like that too. I'm not sure if reducing the reviewer names is a good idea, but I'll trust that you're doing it well as I like to attribute reviewers, but that could be because I edit more film related articles, so my approach isn't always aligned to more formal literary works.
 * If it helps, I like to think about what's most useful to a general reader who doesn't know reviewer personalities and what will help the text flow without having to maintain a mental rolodex of names without meaning. Sometimes the reviewer is independently notable and I'll use their name and other times they're not and I use the periodical name or the name by which I'd expect the reader to refer to the reviewer. I've found this to work well across all media types with Reception sections. c
 * Rephrase to something more WP:NPOV, like
 * I think that would make the sentence considerably weaker. It is a strong, true statement with ample direct quotes in its footnote.
 * I'd recommend identifying the critic if possible, and revise the word choice of "impenetrable" if it's not quoted directly from the source since that doesn't seem encyclopedic, maybe something like or.
 * Per above, looking to avoid "A said B" monotony. In this case, the reviewer's name doesn't aid understanding of the sentence. "Impenetrable" is an accurate summary and I don't think "incomprehensible" would be much different (though it isn't the word I'd choose). Saying that they thought "some passages" are difficult would be an understatement of what these critics wrote.
 * I see, I just associate "impenetrable" in a different connotation, like that of science or going through something, like a forest, not necessarily used in a literary thing but of course, this may be just tenuous argumentation on my part, apologies. However, may I suggest "abstruse" instead, I think that might work better for this particular topic?
 * I don't think the statement is really needed, unless you have more content to sort of support that person's claim, such as like why that's the case or an example or smth
 * I think it's weaker without it: It is blunt and it is indeed the case.
 * Fair enough, I think it would work better if it was merged with the "impenetrable" sentence so that way it could be listed in an Oxford manner, like this One critic found some passages impenetrable due to style issues, bluntly stating it obscured his arguments, required the reader to mentally rewrite sentences to understand Goodman's intention, and made the reader doubt otherwise straightforward sentences. Feel free to amend as needed.
 * Sounds good and incorporated elsewhere
 * I'm assuming this is referring to the book, this should be made more explicitly. Something like should perfectly do the trick
 * Is it unclear? What else would it be referencing?
 * Makes sense in context, I just feel out of context the phrase "a text" might be a bit too broad, hence me suggesting "the book" or "the work" or something.
 * If is correctly quoted, I'd recommend putting a  [sic] template there since one could be forgiven for mistaking it as a typing error
 * What would be the typing error? I'd consider the quoted version to be an acceptable variation of the word for the era
 * I'd want to avoid the passive voice there
 * True. I think the original works better, I stand corrected.
 * Name the who praised his Baudelaire translations if possible
 * See above re: "one"
 * Discussed with reviewer above
 * Quote "hackneyed" if taken from the source directly, otherwise paraphrase by using a lighter-toned word like "outdated/insufficient/inadequate/antiquated/etc" seems more encyclopedic that way and not as a personal interpretation or smth
 * I don't see a neutrality issue with this word as a summary of the opinion
 * I usually see "hackneyed" associated in a negative connotation, hence my initial concerns, but of course, this could be a bit presumptuous on my part.
 * Discussed with reviewer above
 * Quote "hackneyed" if taken from the source directly, otherwise paraphrase by using a lighter-toned word like "outdated/insufficient/inadequate/antiquated/etc" seems more encyclopedic that way and not as a personal interpretation or smth
 * I don't see a neutrality issue with this word as a summary of the opinion
 * I usually see "hackneyed" associated in a negative connotation, hence my initial concerns, but of course, this could be a bit presumptuous on my part.

Legacy

 * Too informal, try to identify the actual year, otherwise stick to more plain phrasing I'd say, like
 * I'll still stand by this statement, but assume this alludes to the beginning of the decade right? I think the timeframe can be better clarified with different diction.
 * It refers to the portion of time before and after 1940, so the transition from late 30s to early 40s. I think it's a straightforward definition and it's okay if it is a little imprecise because so is the source. c
 * Forgive me if I'm wrong, but is the Chicago School wikilink here not a WP:DUPLINK?
 * It is. Thank you!
 * Removed errant "and"
 * → or anything similar.
 * Reframed but I don't think "some" is correct here
 * Reframed but I don't think "some" is correct here

Nevertheless, congratulations on all the work you have done so far and I'm wishing the best of luck. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the in-depth review, . Thanks for making me your first FAC review. Hope you like it and decide to stay. :) Generally FAC is meant to be less like peer review so sometimes that style of edit checklists (especially when long) are either kept on the article's talk page or moved to the review's talk page when resolved. I made some edit edits to the article and otherwise left comments above. If I didn't comment, it was either addressed or I felt the current version was stronger.
 * On the style and neutrality points, Wikipedia articles err towards a relatively dry and formulaic style while FAs, at least historically, try to highlight "brilliant prose" with a little more color and holding more interest than general articles. Some of the critics writing about The Structure of Literature are certainly more colorful than the text of the book itself, and much of the content of the book is complex to the point of obfuscation, so this is my attempt to capture the clarity and personality that can be extracted without pummeling the article into monotony. It's a tricky balance. If you'd like any sources to check claims against the original texts, just let me know.  czar  21:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely This is indeed my first FAC review, so apologies if some of the points/criticism was flimsy, tenuous, or anything of the like, and I hope this helped improve the article. I do plan on doing more FACs if possible in the future and intend on becoming more familiarized with the experience haha. Again, hopefully you found the review helpful, and I've went ahead and responded to the arguments above. If there isn't a response to a comment, I deferred to your explanation, but for some, I offer my thoughts here and there, as again, some of my criticism may just be bad or erroneous, so apologies on that.  and I'll go ahead and respond to your comments from above. And yea, I understand the difficulties of writing a good and engaging Reception section all to well, I totally understand the monotony of the "A said B" thing, so normally, I vary the diction and syntax in order to freshen it usually. Of course, I understand that you have a better understanding of these concepts than I do so I'll AGF on the sources. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , thank you and replies above czar  02:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dcdiehardfan, anything else you need to close out your review? czar  22:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope, I think you have very effectively resolved all my concerns above. Thank you for all the work! -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dcdiehardfan, and thank you for the review! Are you supporting the nomination or abstaining? czar  14:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies @Czar, I intended to state that I support the nomination. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Source review
Did I miss something, or does this article not use its subject (the book) as a source period? Are Moore 1954 and The Nation single page sources? I would probably use a different format for the multi-source citations (22, 27 and 33) but I think that's a style question. Otherwise, source formatting is consistent and the sources seem OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Jo-Jo Eumerus, that's right. It cites secondary sources as preferable to itself (a primary source). Yes, Moore and The Nation are single-page sources. Re: multi-source citations, that's how I've always seen it done and I've always found it the most effective way to succinctly present quotations. Appreciate the review! czar  03:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that omitting the book entirely is compatible with the completeness requirement of Featured article criteria. Especially since on things like summary, secondary sources often add small errors. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Our MoS holds that secondary sources should rely on secondary sources for all evaluative claims and I trust professional publishers for having better evaluative practices than Wikipedia editors. (This also saves the Wikipedia editor from delving into elements of trivial detail that were not important enough to be picked up by a secondary source.) I've written many articles on creative works (books, games, etc.) and citing the work itself as a primary source is never raised as a criterion for completeness, especially when there is ample secondary source coverage for any necessary claims about the work. czar  16:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My impression is that creative works articles tend to self-source to a degree. It's a bit of a contentious practice because it's easy to accidentally WP:OR but I don't think that the reliability issue of secondhand information can be easily addressed w/o some degree of self-source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What reliability issue of secondhand information? Are you suggesting that this article is missing some critical detail for not citing itself as a primary source, and if so, what? If you're commenting on the general practice, I can unequivocably say that I've never seen this be an issue before. czar  17:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Secondhand information is less reliable than firsthand. It's not uncommon for secondary sources to misread a primary source, say by getting a number wrong. OR requires secondary sources for, not for everything, which is why many articles on works self-source e.g their plot summary. And yes, I wonder about completeness too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * is a bold contradiction of No original research. It is far more common for reliable, secondary sources to get it right, which is why the crux of the encyclopedia relies on them over primary sources. I'm not sure what you're advocating for here but it seems like a philosophical point to be taken up on another page.
 * Novels only self-source their plot under sparing conditions when there is an absence of secondary sources. Importantly, this is not a novel. Nonfiction synopsis should be sourced to secondary sources and here it is, with high-quality sources no less. czar  17:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No original research is not about reliability. It's about the fact that sourcing to a primary source is, essentially, doing your own interpretation. The non-fiction point I'll grant, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jo-Jo Eumerus, anything else you need to close out your review? czar  22:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, that thing about (not) using the work as a source itself is the only issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jo-Jo Eumerus, what's the best way to resolve that? Perhaps either (1) you could identify what general gaps of coverage/comprehensivenesss you see from not using the book as a primary source, and we can discuss, or (2) you or I could bring it to a wider forum for a third opinion? My take is that there's nothing noteworthy to add from self-citing the book itself. czar  14:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If there is nothing to add from the book then this passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jo-Jo Eumerus, yes, apologies if that wasn't clear but I see nothing to add from the book that wasn't already covered elsewhere czar  22:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Closing
I think this is ready for you czar  21:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)