Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Peer review/The Secret Agent

The Secret Agent
I am working extensively on this article due to its High importance level, and because I think I have quite a detailed knowledge of the text. I'm looking for opinions on where/how to exapand areas. Obviously, it is lacking everything that would make it an FA, or even a GA, however objective advice would be good, and would facilitate my efforts. Thanks. -- Adasta     16:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Yllosubmarine
I think this could very well be promoted to Good Article status in the near future with a little tweaking, but Featured status may take a substantial amount of work. Here are some suggestions for improvement:


 * Several of the references need to be formatted correctly, including 13 and 14.
 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead section is meant to be a summary of the entire article. That it was 'one of the three works of literature most cited in the American media' post September 11" is not mentioned in the body of the article, which it should be as it seems to be an important point.  There is no mention of its adaptations in the lead, nor the fact that it initially sold poorly.
 * I noticed this while reassessing it, and it seems that another user has fixed a majority of the spelling errors, but the prose remains confusing and/or poor in places. For example, "a spy in the London of 1886" is needlessly wordy; it could simply be "a spy in late 19th-century London".  This sentence, also from the lead, combines two separate and barely related ideas: "Terrorism is cited as one of the major themes, with the book later inspiring the Unabomber."  The book is infamous for inspiring the Unabomber, but this should be mentioned separately from the inherent major themes.  In short, it could use a copy-edit throughout.  You may wish to engage someone from WP:LOCE for assistance.
 * It is typically understood that plot summaries are self-referencing, meaning that the source is the book itself. The "Characters" section, however, could potentially use a few independent sources.  The section should also be made a separate heading ( ==Characters== and not ===Characters=== ).
 * The use of the colon in the "Major themes" section makes the prose disjointed, another reason why a copy-edit would help greatly.  For example, "Conrad also drew upon two persons specifically: Mikhail Bakunin and Prince Peter Kropotkin. Conrad used these two men in his 'portrayal of the novel's anarchists'" is easily re-written as "Conrad drew upon Mikhail Bakunin and Prince Peter Kropotkin specifically, using them in his 'portrayal...'" etc.
 * What does "In modern times" denote? Contemporary views?
 * I suggest splitting the "Literary significance and reception" section into two parts; how the article was received a century ago and how it is received now. In the latter section you can include the infamy surrounding the Unabomber and the influence the book had on him and his actions, and how events related to him changed how we view the book today.  This entire section needs to be expanded, as well, with additional references.
 * The uncertainty in the first sentence regarding the Unabomber needs to be remedied: "The Secret Agent is said to have influenced The Unabomber." Said to have makes the entire section sound like a rumor, but the following information makes it clear, without any doubt, that the novel greatly influenced Kaczynski.  This therefore needs to be made explicit.
 * The "Adaptations" section should be converted to prose. The section can begin with a blanket summary statement similar to "The Secret Agent has been adapted into various mediums throughout the years.  Beginning in 1923..." etc.

I hope this helped. Let me know if you have any questions. María ( habla con migo ) 13:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Junius49 (talk)
I agree with María -- the article looks great. It's definitely on its way to good article status. I tried to clean up a few of the sentences and those compound citations. Here's my major concern:
 * I think that the Unabomber should be entirely left out of the introduction -- it seems to be an interesting connection, but I'm not sure it deserves intro status. The reference to post-9/11 media makes it explicit that the book has received recent attention because it centers on an act of terrorism.  I think that's more important in the intro.  Let me know if you want help revising the article.  I'd be happy to help some more. --Junius49 (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)