Wikipedia:Peer review/Henry James/archive1

Henry James
Partial self-nom. This article has been building for a while. It managed to get through the good article process without many problems. I'd really appreciate feedback for further improvement. The main problem I see is the rather general nature of the article. Despite some references to individual works by James, the entry remains mostly an overview. The forty-some referenced articles do the heavy lifting in the analysis of each work. This may be unavoidable with James. He wrote so much discussable stuff in so many genres that the entry would get impossibly long if reasonable discussions of individual works were included. And if you get too brief with each work, you end up with something like Edel's oversimplified article in the Britannica. Oh well, have a look and please make suggestions. Thanks! Casey Abell 19:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

All in all, excellent article. There's a little bit of work left to do, but its more mechanistic than stylistic, and the article should be ready before too long. Good work. --RobthTalk 07:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look through it. The prose is excellent, and I feel that it gives a good sense of who he was and what he did.  I made a couple of minor wording changes, which are yours to keep or revert as you choose.  Here are the suggestions I'd make for the rest, based in part on my developing experience on FAC:
 * The lead needs to be a little longer. Something like two paragraphs might be in order.
 * There are a few points where the language is a little too informal, such as the "(and very ineptly)" aside early on. Try to make it strictly encyclopedic--this would probably also include changing things like the "almost comically large" in the last paragraph.
 * The section on his life seems sort of disjointed. It does a good job getting the facts across, but I don't know how well the order they're given in works.  I've put together a possible reordering at User:Robth/sandbox; its not perfect, but I think something like that would probably be a little better.
 * There are a few awkward or overly passive phrases, such as
 * "passages that defer the verb for a longer space than is usual"
 * "While not really one of them, James had grown up in a wealthy family and was able to observe them at close range and to sympathize with their problems."
 * "He was a man whose sexuality was indefinite..."
 * A few of the technical terms are a little confusing. A short note on what it means that he was considered a realist probably wouldn't hurt.  I was also confused by the "amanuensis" bit for a while, although I eventually understood it.
 * And last but certainly not least, footnotes, sources, and value terms. This is the one big thing I wish I'd been better prepared with before taking my article to FAC.  The references section is excellent and extensive, but there need to be more footnote citations.  And although it took me a while to figure out what "weasel words" meant, I eventually got it.  It refers to saying things like "it has been suggested" or "some scholars have said" without naming a source.  Definitely have a footnote for those things, and avoid saying them if possible, since they're likely to draw criticism on FAC.  In general, I'd try to cite wherever you're stating an analysis or opinion of his work, to make it clear that it isn't original research.  Don't take it to the point that it interferes with the flow of the article, but some won't hurt.

First, thanks for all the suggestions. I was starting to wonder if anybody was going to comment on the article. On each of your points:
 * I added a second paragraph to the lead that expands on the variety and content of James' writings.
 * Aw shucks, I chipped in both of those phrases to make things a little less dry. But I agree, they gotta go. Both are factual statements--James heartily agreed with the first in his autobiography--but I toned them down.
 * I made the changes to the "Life" section you suggested: moving the sentence about his study of various literatures, combining the last two paragraphs, and a few other tweaks. It's still a pretty dry and functional section, but that's probably unavoidable. As James himself admitted, the facts of his life aren't very thrilling.
 * I can plead not guilty to these passages. The third was the result of a long discussion, which is still on the article's Talk page. It's compromise wording on a controversial subject, so I'm a little afraid to tinker with it. I reworked the first two passages to try to make them more intelligible. Don't know if I succeeded.
 * I put in a quick explanation of realism and noted the shift in James' fiction to more symbolic and metaphorical narrative in his later years. I also got rid of "amanuensis" (a clunker, no doubt) in favor of the much simpler "secretary."
 * Yep, I know about the footnotes. I hate 'em myself--I think they're distracting, nitpicking, and almost always unnecessary. Web links are the way to go because they're so much easier and less intrusive for the reader, and the article already has plenty of them. To tell the truth, I didn't like adding the four footnotes that are already in there. I've rarely if ever seen footnotes in the print Britannica or other print encyclopedias. But I agree, some more footnotes will be demanded, so I'll add them over the next few days.

Again, thanks for the detailed and helpful suggestions. Casey Abell 17:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The footnote count is now up to twelve, and some of them are more than simple cites. If reviewers note a particular passage that might deserve another footnote, I'll consider it. But I think we've already got too many of the little critters (wink). Casey Abell 19:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Fear of FAC has pushed the footnote count to twenty sometimes extensive notes. In fact, the "Notes" section has become one of the major parts of the article, much to my dismay. Oh well, if I gotta do it... Casey Abell 00:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked through it, and I think you've done a good job with them. As far as readability, I don't think they're hurting you--when I read an article for pleasure I usually just read the text and ignore the footnotes, and I suspect most other readers do the same.  --RobthTalk 01:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)