Wikipedia:Peer review/The Open Boat/archive1

The Open Boat
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take it to FAC in the near future. "The Open Boat" is highly notable and fascinating American short story by Stephen Crane; the article was recently promoted to Good Article-status and alt text has been added. Any and all comments would be appreciated, although I'm of course most interested in whether or not it stands a chance against the FA-criteria. Thanks! María ( habla con migo ) 02:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(Note: several un-actionable comments have been moved to the talk page here. María ( habla con migo ) 19:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC))


 * Agree that plot sections do not need references. The article looks like it is in good shape; the prose is well written and the paragraphs flow nicely. Quotes in the lead are all intergrated into the body; references are properly formatted. There is nothing that I can see that would hold this back from FA accreditation. Good luck! ✽ Juniper§ Liege   (TALK)  06:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Junipers Liege, I really appreciate the positive feedback! :) María ( habla con migo ) 12:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is very good, professionally written, interesting throughout. I have a few minor prose and style suggestions and one more serious concern (or question, at least) about Crane criticism that might have examined gender-specific identity in this story. I haven't read the criticism, so I'm only guessing at what might be out there. The question of whether the full spectrum of critical opinion is fairly represented in the article is sure to come up at FAC.

Lead Background
 * "The story is told from the point of view of an anonymous correspondent, Crane's fictional doppelganger... ". - Link doppelgänger and add the umlaut?
 * "the story, which is considered an exemplary work of literary Naturalism... " - Lowercase "naturalism"?
 * "one of the men, an oiler named Billie Higgins" - Link oiler here on first use?
 * "On the St. Johns River, less than 2 miles (3.2 km)... " - Since 2 miles is an approximation, I'd round the kilometer figure to an even 3 by adding the parameter |0 to the conversion template; i.e., 2 mi.
 * "He and three other men (including the ship's Captain)... " - Lowercase "captain"?
 * "When Crane asked the other man how it was... " - Maybe alter to "how good the story was"? "It" is a bit ambiguous.
 * All of these (save changing "Naturalism") have been addressed. María ( habla con migo ) 12:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Publication history
 * "Crane only dedicates roughly two paragraphs... " - Tighten "Crane dedicates merely two paragraphs"?

Plot summary
 * The Manual of Style advises against using bolding to highlight words in the text and suggests italics instead. I'd suggest italics for correspondent and the other characters. WP:MOSBOLD has details.
 * Cool, changed. María ( habla con migo ) 12:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Style and genre
 * I'm used to seeing "naturalism" and the others without the initial capital letter, and my dictionary agrees. This is not a big issue but might come up again at FAC.
 * Because "Naturalism" is a proper noun, I think it should be capitalized so that the movement itself is evoked, rather than just run-of-the-mill naturalism. This was brought up several times when I was writing Stephen Crane, and I'm still stubborn about it. :) María ( habla  con migo ) 12:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Furthermore, "The Open Boat" distances itself from Romantic optimism common in works of literature at the time, reaffirming man's place in the world by concentrating on the characters' isolation." - I don't think it will be quite clear to readers what this sentence means. It might be better not to mention the romantic movement or, if you mention it, to make more clear how "reaffirming man's place in the world" was naturalistic rather than romantic. I think Wordsworth and Coleridge, for example, might take issue with the idea that they were not "reaffirming man's place in the world". The phrase is so vague, it's open to varied interpretations.
 * Great point, I agree it's a little confusing. I've removed the reference to Romanticism. María ( habla  con migo ) 12:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "man's place" - I know what is intended by "man"; nevertheless I flinch at this construction here and in the lead ("man and nature"), and elsewhere. I'd consider replacing it as smoothly as possible. I would consider, for example, whether the subhead, "Man vs. nature" could be reasonably replaced by "Men vs. nature" and altering the first sentence of the subsection to read, "Similar to other naturalistic works, "The Open Boat" scrutinizes the position of men who have been isolated not only from society but also from God and nature, and the struggle between men and the natural world is the most apparent theme in the work." These are guys on their way to a 19th century war, and no women are on board. The only woman seems to be Nature, who is "indifferent, flatly indifferent". Ouch! Haven't any of the Crane critics said anything about the question of gender? Do any of the critics see the story as sentimental?
 * I can definitely add a little info about woman as wild, unreliable, untamed, indifferent nature (I wrote an essay about that once!), so great idea. As for the "man/men vs. nature", I'll have to think about this for a bit.  "Man vs. nature", in the singular, is how the conflict is commonly referred to in criticism; although of course there are four men in the boat, it's traditional to refer to the theme of "man vs. nature".  I'll give the structure some thought. María ( habla  con migo ) 12:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

''
 * "Bender wrote that Crane "emphasizes that Bille's steady, simple labor... " - Billie's is misspelled here, probably not in the original, but I can't be sure.
 * Whoops, typo. Thanks for catching that! María ( habla con migo ) 12:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Other
 * No problems with dead links, dabs, or alt text.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. We always have a wealth of articles and a dearth of editors; you'd be a great reviewer. Finetooth (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, Finetooth! You've given me some great suggestions, and a few helpful things to think about.  I've already reviewed two PRs, and I may get around to doing another before I bring this to FAC. :) María ( habla  con migo ) 12:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)