Wikipedia:Peer review/The Tell-Tale Heart/archive1

The Tell-Tale Heart
Looking for feedback on this well-known short story by Poe, possibly to reach Good Article status. The strongest section is, clearly, the Analysis section - but I'm curious if readers feel something is missing. Also, please review the lead and, if possible, style of referencing. Really, any feedback is welcome and appreciated!! Thanks in advance! --Midnightdreary 23:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The narrator is described both as 'genderless', but also as 'he'? -Malkinann 22:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, that's a difficult one. Both "genderless" and "he" are assumptions. If we choose to keep "genderless," however, should we use "it" instead of "he"? I wonder, though, if pointing out that the gender is not pointed out is worth the effort. I feel like this is a catch-22 here, but I'm okay with removing the term genderless entirely. --Midnightdreary 01:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What do scholars commenting on The Tell Tale Heart call the narrator? -Malkinann 04:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never seen "she" but assuming it's male is more revealing of male-centricism than of scholarly interpretation. Granted, there's no textual evidence that it's a female, but neither is there evidence that it's a male. Even so, I've changed "genderless" to "nameless." I think that skirts the issue entirely, but it's more in keeping with Poe's typical nameless narrator motif. --Midnightdreary 01:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The "indefinite masculine" is entirely appropriate in a literary context. For the sake of clarity, you can mention that the narrator's gender is never explicitly stated, but it's grammatically okay to refer to someone as "he". A lot of people don't like it, but it's the literary / scholarly custom. (And every piece on this story I've ever seen calls the narrator "he".) - Revolving Bugbear  (formerly Che Nuevara) 17:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I did a little bit of a copyedit. I agree that your analysis section is very good, but there a couple of points where it might be pulled back to appear less like original research. (Specifically, you mention that the reader is "convinced that he is truly mad.") That is to say, you admit that there is great ambiguity in the story, but seem to be advancing a specific viewpoint in spite of that ambiguity. I think you've done a good job here, though. - Revolving Bugbear  (formerly Che Nuevara) 17:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the copy edit! It looks great! I see your point about the Analysis; I'll get back to it in a day or two. Also, I like your suggestion for dealing with the gender, and it was well-stated. Thanks for dropping in! --Midnightdreary 00:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)