Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Ej1957am.jpg
  • Book cover was uploaded to commons as "ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship." I'm not clear if Image copyright (Germany) applies. How do we know this image is in the public domain? Viriditas (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Sindinero has followed up with this.[1] The image appears to be acceptable and meets the criteria. Viriditas (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead section summarizes everything except for the historical context section. Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• the novel is set in a fictional world, similar in many ways to our own
  • It's a bit redundant to say that a science fiction novel is set in a fictional world, and it is both cliché and expected by the reader that the world of the novel would be similar to ours in some way. It might be best to remove this or replace it with a specific description of the setting. Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • McAllister (2001) refers to the setting as an "unspecified future".[2] Viriditas (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • changed the wording to "a dystopic alternate world similar in many ways to our own" Sindinero (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite early dismissal by critics upon its first English publication in 1960, recent writers and critics have hailed the novel's "speculations on technology and industry as so prescient as to be uncanny."
  • This is a nice summary but as a reader, I wanted to know why it was first dismissed in 1960, so it would help to briefly explain in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Couldn't find source for this claim, so I removed it. Sindinero (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Lead mentions "theme of technology", but a bit more should be said about this. For example, Stableford (2004) calls it a "powerful antitechnological allegory" which is essentially technophobia, whereas Goudreau (2010) says the novel "foretells much of what today is the reality of life in a technological society". It's surprising to find that the lead doesn't mention the most important element, the cybernetic/robotic bees. Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, and done. Sindinero (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viriditas - do you have more information on the 2004 Stableford text you mention? I can't seem to find it - do you have a title, or even a first name? Thanks, Sindinero (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead should mention Jünger as a veteran of WWI. Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree. He certainly was a veteran of WWI, but also of WWII; besides this, he was a prominent radical conservative, internationally known amateur entomologist, proto-fascist, and a host of other things. Picking any one of these (beyond "German author") as his one salient characteristic may be a fraught choice, especially since his own posturing (not intended negatively) at various points in his career, as well as the extreme right-wing embrace of his work, relied upon foregrounding this one aspect. The fact that he was a WWI veteran is often problematically used to grant him a halo of authority or authenticity in questions of technology, politics, or war - and prominent critics, such as Walter Benjamin (in "Theories of German Fascism") have taken issue with the sort of chivalric self-promotion that attended Jünger's early work and reception. For these reasons, I think it would be in the interest of both informative value and NPOV to simply describe him as a German author in the lead. Does that make sense? Sindinero (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. There was a significant reason I raised this point, but I've forgotten it for the moment. If it comes back to me, I'll revisit it, however, if I had to guess at why I said that, it's probably because I ran across literary criticism that linked his WWI experience with the novel. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found it: Retica, Aaron (2001). "Marathon Man". Lingua Franca. 11 (1): 17:

In the course of his long life (he died at the age of 102 in 1998), Junger shifted restlessly from one intellectual phase to the next: from aristocratic-minded foe of the Weimar Republic to "national Bolshevik" reactionary, from "inner emigrant" during World War II to science-fiction novelist, from psychedelic-drug enthusiast to nonagenarian diarist--all the while conducting research as an amateur entomologist. In nearly all these incarnations, Junger's defining experience was his tenure as a commander of shock troops during World War I. According to Thomas Nevin, a professor of Greek and Latin at John Carroll University, in Ohio, and the author of Ernst Junger and Germany: Into the Abyss, 1914-1945 (Duke), in his early years Junger had a "chivalric perspective on war, almost an anachronistic position." He was, Nevin explains, "not directly a part of the Prussian tradition, but he represents the Old Germany, the old martial values. Schoolboys in his day looked to the military as we look to Bill Gates and Steve Jobs." But Junger, who was wounded thirteen times in the war and earned Germany's highest honor for bravery, came to feel that preserving premodern codes of soldierly conduct was impossible in the face of the mechanization and mass mobilization used to carry out the war's carnage...After the war, [WWII] Junger was "gray-listed" by fellow Germans as a suspect author. For many postwar Germans, Nevin explains, "Junger's Dionysian views of the First World War were unsettling, because they thought it led to Hitler's warfare state." It was during the postwar period that Junger began to write science fiction to address his long-standing concerns about technology. The Glass Bees, originally published in 1957, is an example of this approach, an allegorical novel that can be read--depending on one's perspective--either as a remorseful meditation on Junger's role in developing Nazi culture or as a surreptitious plea to resist technological barbarism by returning to the goals and methods of the old German right.

I think that explains the importance of his WWI career, as his "long-standing concerns about technology" are rooted in his WWI experience. Viriditas (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if this and the next two sections, "The Glass Bees and the Third Reich" and "Contemporary authors" would read better as one section titled "background and publication" with a bit of rearranging? I don't see a need for two different sections here. Viriditas (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• While some consider him to have been pro-Nazi, others do not, and at least one writer considers The Glass Bees to be a "rejection of Nazi state power."
  • I would recommend using a better set of sources that Slate here so as not to lose the nuance. Sure, it saves a lot of space to call Jünger "pro-Nazi", but it avoids discussing his penchant for fascism and authoritarianism, the influence his work had on the Nazis, his refusal to join the party, the nature of hidden evil in his work, his alleged criticism of the Nazis in On the Marble Cliffs (1939) and the claim that he helped plan to kill Hitler, etc. (Retica 2001) There's a lot here, and simply calling him "pro-Nazi" and leaving it at that is fine if we aren't going to talk about the relationship between the Nazis and the novel, but I think we should. For example, instead of just saying "pro-Nazi" (which is seriously debated) why not state the facts as we know them? We know that Hitler and Goebbels were fans of Jünger, and that he was in charge of a firing squad during the French occupation. I hope you see what I'm getting at. Viriditas (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• More than 1000 words. Too long. Please eliminate the subsections, merge all of the content into one section, and bring it down to ~600 words. Viriditas (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Sindinero (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In progress

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Minor fixes to lead suggested

   Plot summary is too long fixed

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   OR concerns with the theme section.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Important elements missing from lead.

   Is it possible to add more information about the initial writing and publication process to the historical context section, and change this to "Background and publication"?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Checking on Image copyright (Germany)...

   License checks out.

   Would the article benefit from an additional free image of Ernst Jünger?

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I recognize that editors have worked hard to improve this article, but I have major concerns with the size of the plot section and original research in the themes section. Cutting down the size of the plot section and making secondary sources explicit in the theme section (or adding more) will go a long way towards alleviating these concerns. Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I've made some changes, but there is still original research in the article. Viriditas (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious how this review is going, and its current status? I could do a tad bit of copyediting here and there, if that would help out, but probably defer to the major stuff to the nominator(s). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copyediting would be very welcome, thanks for being willing to help. I'll be working on the major stuff (lede, plot summary, critical reception) over the next week or so, but feel free to play around with anything in the article that strikes you as being in need of improvement, especially if you're familiar with the novel. Sindinero (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a lot of serious work that needs to be done here, and unless you have a lot of time and sources available, I don't see how this article can pass. The OR is a pretty serious problem; the length of the plot is secondary. Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have the sources, and I'll be getting back to this article later this week. You're talking about OR in the themes & motifs section? Can you be more specific about what you feel is OR? Is any citation of the novel in this section OR? Sindinero (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When we write about themes and motifs, we do so based on secondary sources that have already discussed these things. The only reason we would cite the novel here is to provide a footnote for the reader. In this case, it looks like the novel is being used as a reference to support the claims made about the themes. If you have secondary sources that discuss these themes, then simply add them in place of the citations to the novel. The plot section generally doesn't require sources because a brief summary of the novel is usually widely sourced and available. The characters section is a bit more tricky. Take some time to review GA and FA novel articles to see how this works. Themes and motifs refers to commentary about the novel, in which case we need to make the secondary sources explicit. Viriditas (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sindinero, why did you add for the second time that the novel is set "in an alternate world similar in many ways to our own". I previously removed that wording as problematic, and I explained that McAllister in The Times Literary Supplement (2001) refers to the setting as an "unspecified future". All fiction requires that the author create a world that is similar in many ways to our own, otherwise the reader won't be able to identify with it. Perhaps you could be more specific in your wording? Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just saw this note. "Unspecified future" isn't entirely accurate, since the novel's setting is more in line with a parallel universe than some general future. I go into some detail at the beginning of the plot summary, but essentially the novel's setting both has recognizable referents with real-world equivalents (Treptow, mechanization of warfare, booming culture industry) that would seem to tie it to the 20th-century Europe we know, and yet other aspects (the "Asturian civil war", the compressed transition within a single career from traditional cavalry to advanced nanotechnology and suggestions of drone warfare) make it impossible to fully calibrate with the real world, either in any past or imaginable future moment. Jünger uses "Asturia" as an idiosyncratic, imaginative geography in other novels as well, so it's clearly a fixture in a narrative world he develops. The historical, technological, and social compression (seen also in On the Marble Cliffs and Storms of Steel) is also particular to Jünger, and arguably stems from a conservative imaginary that draws from technological modernity (among other things) a decadent narrative and nostalgic valuation of the past. Long story short, I think something more specific than "unspecified future" is needed, since the particular historical and technological configuration of the novel's future wouldn't really fit into any real-world future (because the novel world's past is also "alternate"). What would you suggest? "Parallel universe" seems too, I don't know, quantum-mechanics-y, and might imply that the novel really foregrounds this aspect, when in fact it's just there, but not really made a huge deal of. Sindinero (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before I make a suggestion, I would like to know why you think it is important to say that the novel takes place in a "world similar in many ways to our own". As I said, this is true for almost every science fiction novel and it does not need to be said. Now, you have made it clear in your response, that this is not what you intended; this ambiguity is even more reason to remove it. Your response indicates you are attempting to point to the prescience of the author, which has nothing to do with its setting. You're talking about hindsight and you are making a comparison between our society in the real world and that of the novel. That has no business being in a description of the setting. Having just read the novel several times, and keeping it fresh in my mind as I write this response, I would say that the description of an "unspecified future" is accurate, but not necessarily ideal. Is there solid evidence of a parallel universe or alternate history? I was looking for it as I read it, and couldn't find one on par, with say, The Man in the High Castle (1962). I think you should try looking at this from a different angle. Instead of telling the reader what the world is or isn't, show it to them with a brief description. This is actually house style. That's what I attempted to do, but you added back "Set in a dystopic alternate world similar in many ways to our own". I'm not convinced this is a dystopia nor even an "alternate world". I realize you might have found a single critic who describes it that way, but that's like writing film articles based on Armond White reviews. Just describe the setting and the plot without commenting on it. Viriditas (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on this. Not sure yet what pithy description of the setting would work well for the lead, but I'll try to come up with something. You're right that it's nothing like The Man in the High Castle (since there's no one unambiguous branching that shunted the novel's world off from our own), and that's why I'm not satisfied with "parallel universe," as I mentioned, but I'll think of something. For me, it's really the "Asturian Civil War" as the major global conflict that drew a line between good-past and bad-present (is this supposed to be WWI? WWII? an amalgamation of both? neither?) that makes "unspecified future" untenable. Sindinero (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how an "unspecified future" is untenable, nor do I see how the novel is a good example of a dystopia or an "alternate world" as we use the term in science fiction. While it is acceptable to use these terms in sections devoted to discussing opinions of critics, I'm not happy with this appearing in the lead. Sindinero, without divulging any private information, can you confirm that you are not the author of any sources being used in the current article? Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not the author of any of the sources being used in the article? Why do you ask? The reason I still find "unspecified future" to be untenable is because the novel, while maintaining certain real-world referents of 19th and 20th century Europe, has a different past as well as a different future. In other words, where a novel like Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is set in an alternate future (because the social, geopolitical, technological, etc. conditions of the novel's setting rely on fictional events posterior to the novel's production, publication, reception, etc.), The Glass Bees necessitates an alternate history; fictional events anterior to the novel's context of the 1950s, the shift to mechanization, the demise of cavalry, etc., while matching somewhat to actual historical referents, are temporally compressed and set during events, such as the "Asturian Civil War," that didn't actually happen in our world. In this sense it's more like Man in the High Castle than DADoES?, because the novel's narrative setting implies a radical historical difference not after the novel's release (this would work with an "unspecified future") but rather before. Does this make sense?

And I agree, "dystopia" is a stretch - it has been argued by some of the sources, but I'm not committed to it, and think that the novel's actually more interesting than that. "Parallel universe" is strong, because it foregrounds a narrative strategy that's only backgrounded in GB, but I don't think it's technically incorrect. Sindinero (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best to stick with what most sources say about the setting and genre. What do the vast majority agree on? Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Horses" and "Meaning of words" sections appear to be original research. Are there any secondary sources that support it? Viriditas (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not super committed to those sections, and I haven't found any substantial discussion of them in the sources yet, so I've deleted them. Salient, relevant, and sourced aspects of those sections (like the lack of a difference bt. war and peace, e.g.) can be incorporated into other themes. I'm still sourcing and reworking the other themes, which will take me a few more days. Sindinero (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a general wikipedia question, though, I'm wondering about OR for a case like this. I see how OR relating to themes is undesirable in a novel like, say, Absalom, Absalom, since describing the themes for the article without other sources would require the editor/novel reader to first figure out what they are. But the category - OR - doesn't seem quite as applicable to an essayistic novel like GB, since tracing out the major themes requires no more digging on the editor's part than writing the plot summary. The narrator speculates openly and extensively on the changed nature of war, the relationship between technology and morality, etc., for large sections of the book. If GB were an essay on these topics, presumably no outside sources would be needed to briefly summarize what this essay were saying. If editors are permitted to write "what happens" in the novel for the summary without outside sources, then it seems arbitrary in the case of novels like GB to declare themes categorically distinct, when themes are a major part of "what happens" here. Again, I'll be sourcing all claims for this particular article, but this is a larger wikipedia question that's been bugging me, since it seems like an instance where the (normally incredibly useful) categories of WP don't tally so well with the categories of its objects, in this case, literature. Sindinero (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understood, and you've made a good argument. The problem is, a discussion of themes is essentially interpretation, and a discussion of plot is not. The distinction is important, and that's why we rely on secondary sources when we cross the line. However, you have raised important points that should be brought to the attention of WikiProject Novels for further discussion. Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that's an important distinction to maintain, to be sure, and I will be providing the rest of the claims in 'themes' with RSs. Thanks for your suggestion to raise this issue at WikiProject Novels, I think I'll do that. I would (gently) push back, though, at the hard-and-fast distinction between discussion of themes and discussion of plot. To my knowledge, this distinction, relying on a presumed neutrality or legibility of plot on the one hand and necessary interpretability of themes on the other, doesn't fully correspond to the state of literary scholarship - perhaps especially not for SF literature. Jameson has argued that this genre continues (and modifies) the project of high modernism by working through formal problems on the level of plot, a compelling argument that would give reason to hesitate before assigning to plot automatic transparency. If you've ever had twenty people summarize the same novel, let alone short story, you quickly see how much interpretation a plot summary actually involves: deciding what's salient, and why, already constitutes a particular "reading" of a text. I'm not trying to carp or split hairs here, and I agree that the distinction generally has a useful heuristic function. But it interests me in cases when it seems not to hold up perfectly, since it suggests a disjoint between wikipedia's, well, "epistemology," I suppose, and that of the specific field of knowledge, in this case literary scholarship. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this, as a literary question and as a wikipedia question. Sindinero (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I apologize for not being clear. The point is that on Wikipedia, plot summaries are exempt from secondary source requirements. If a dispute arises, then they are required, otherwise, one can write plot sections without encountering much of a problem. Now, with that said, I can tell you that the problem that does come up in this regard, is the matter of inclusion and exclusion; in other words, disputes will arise over whether it is important to include a trivial plot point, or something outside of the plot itself. We often get disputes where an editor will attempt to include a theme in a plot section, or mention criticism. And yes, Wikipedia does do things differently than academia, and the NOR policy is a good example of this difference. We are a tertiary source, after all. Academia, on the other hand, is focused on publishing original research. If an editor composes a theme section based on an interpretation of a primary source, then that is considered OR by Wikipedia's standards. However, when we compose a plot summary, we are not engaging in interpretation but rather summarizing the story as described by the primary, secondary, and tertiary literature. Yes, you tried to make the point that this summary is sometimes an interpretation, and when it is, we generally have a dispute. When it isn't, however, we can look at the secondary sources and see that the summary is accurate and without errors of inclusion or exclusion. Essentially, plot sections can be sourced to secondary sources, but we are not required to do so. Theme sections, on the other hand, are not summaries, but interpretations of what is or is not important. Editors can't make that determination based on the primary source alone. When we are talking about themes, we are discussing critical commentary. Editors can't engage in this kind of writing without good sources. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, perhaps either a decision should be made by the reviewer or a second opinion requested, since there seems to be a deadlock on the plot issue above. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

could you be more specific? I don't think there's a deadlock - I haven't made the suggested changes yet since I haven't had time, but hope to in the next day or two. Sorry for the hold-up, that's my fault - as far as content goes, I don't have any objections to V's suggestions. Sindinero (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to wrap this up tonight. Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Set in an unspecified future" - This is McAllister's (2001) wording. Either paraphrase or quote. In this instance, paraphrasing is preferred.
  • This needs to be addressed. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleted. Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "bizarre job interview" - That kind of wording is bit POV. That some critics might consider the job interview bizarre is one thing, but because the story is considered science fiction/fantasy, the words "unusual" or "strange" might be better.
  • done Sindinero (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "In recent years, Jünger's pessimistic prognostications on the future of technology, variously interpreted as technophobic allegory or insightful critique into the altered relationship between technology, nature, and the human, have received renewed enthusiasm." This might work better as two separate sentences.
• There's no need to keep refs 4-7 separate if you are only going to use them once. See WP:CITEBUNDLE and WP:CITECLUTTER. Try "James 2007, p. 2; Nevin 1996, p. 6; Featherstone 2005, p. 311; Simkin."
  • done Sindinero (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Glass Bees, with its simultaneous nostalgia for militaristic order and deep suspicion of technocratic modernity, is exemplary of this ambiguity in Jünger's work." Needs ref.
• "The Glass Bees, like another of Jünger's novels, Heliopolis, thematizes the altered relationship between technology, society, and nature which was central to many of Jünger's contemporaries such as Theodor Adorno and Walter Benjamin;" Is this supported by Nevin 1996?
• "However, despite the pointed differences between Jünger and the theorists of the Frankfurt School, at least one critic has pointed out commonalities the The Glass Bees' critique of technological modernity shares with both the enlightenment critique of Adorno and Horkheimer, and Benjamin's critique in "Theories of German Fascism" (1930) of Jünger's earlier work." Please rewrite or split this into two sentences. It doesn't make sense.
• ""the most notable of which are perhaps". Omit needless words. Clearly, it is notable if we are talking about it. That's the basis of inclusion.
  • done Sindinero (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The plot section needs to be synchronized with the character section. You mention Richard's wife Teresa at the end of the plot ("On the way home, Richard buys Teresa a red dress") but you never introduce her as the sole reason Richard considers taking the interview in the first place. In the character section you say, "Richard makes every decision mindful of the effect it will have on Teresa." For this reason, I think much of the character section should be merged into the plot section, or the plot section should be cut down to a simple synopsis and the character section expanded. It doesn't matter how you do it, but each section needs to stand on its own. Reading the current plot while pretending I know nothing about the story, I'm surprised to find Teresa mentioned once, at the end.
• "The Glass Bees combines the semi-autobiographical narrative and essayistic reflections of the narrator, explicitly thematizing such topics as war, technological and historical change, morality, authenticity, and semantic change." If that is indeed supported by Fore 2008, that's the kind of tight sentence I would prefer to see in the lead.
• "Many of Richard’s flashbacks and musings concern war." When you make a statement like this, be sure that the reference supporting it is a secondary or tertiary source. You've used a primary here. You did the same thing with "It is through the concept of war that Richard delineates the past and present - the past has cavalry, the present tanks." Both need secondary sources. Otherwise, rewrite it to conform to the sources that you have at hand.
• Ref 35 and 36 could be grouped into one citation.
  • done Sindinero (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Marcus Bullock sees the novel..." First thing I want to know as a reader is, who is Marcus Bullock?[3][4] He is English Professor Emeritus at University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee.
  • done Sindinero (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "He often directly states that the past - when horses were used in battle and men saw who they were fighting - is better than the present, where one cannot see one's opponents. He sees happiness..." It isn't clear what "he" refers to here. Is it Bullock, Junger, or the character of Richard?
• Are the examples offered in refs 39-41 supported by secondary sources? The use of Bullock 1992, p. 167-71, implies that it is.
• "Scenes in The Glass Bees such as the discovery of the severed ears..." You are missing a few commas.
• "the novel's focus on the nanoscale throws the very distinction between the organic and the mechanical into question, threatening to render it obsolete." This is a very common theme in science fiction. Surely, there must be more on this important point?

Alright, thanks for the feedback. I'll work on these over the next week. Sindinero (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How's the progress coming on the reviewer's notes? This has been under review for nearly two months so hopefully everything can be wrapped up soon. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking in. I've been busy, but I'm planning on working on this over the next couple days. Sindinero (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going over the current version, but I'm seeing lots of problems. I'll have to make a decision in the next few hours. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead section. Problems as outlined above not fixed.
• Historical and literary context. My two comments in the above review about the proposed background and publication section and its broadness (see 2:22, 6 May 2011, and 04:44, 10 May 2011) have not been addressed. There is virtually no information about the publication and translation (except for what I've just added). For some reason, the "Historical and literary context" has morphed into repeating the theme section and duplicating elements of the lead. In other words, this has become an overview section instead of merging the relevant content into the lead and the theme section.
  • I merged the setting from the plot section into "Historical and literary context", even though this section needs to be rewritten. Viriditas (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Paraphrasing. Issues with citing sources throughout. When we cite sources, we either need to write the material in our own words or use quotes. Looking at the sources (for example Fore 2008), I'm seeing the same content here in the article—without quotes.
  • I removed the use of McAllister (2001) "unspecified future" from the lead and the use of "essayistic" by Fiore (2008). Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Plot. Moved setting. Still no mention of Teresa until the end. See above where I talk about this.
• Themes and motifs. I'm having trouble verifying the Bullock 1992 material. For example, where it says that Bullock "sees the novel as a reversal of Jünger's earlier technological optimism." Where does Bullock actually say that? Same thing with "The novel's portrayal of technology is closely tied to a nostalgic lament for the perceived loss of a natural, idyllic past, contrasted to a mechanistic, technologically-determined present." Please quote a passage that says this. A primary source is still being used to support material in this section, for example when it says "he sees happiness and technology as directly opposed". The following quote is supported by several secondary sources but they should be used. The subsection on The value of the minute is still original research. I'm also concerned about how the sources are being used. For example: "Devin Fore has read the prevalence of the nanoscale in the novel as a prescient shift of emphasis from an anthropocentric mesoscale to the a-human, microscopic scale of the insect, constituting a meditation upon "the cultural and anthropological challenges that would attend this process of technical recalibration." In order to make that statement, someone has combined two separate passages, one on p. 29 and another on p. 30, and left out important detail in between, such as the point Fore makes about metric reform.
• Critical reception. "On a similar note, much like Neaman, he [Cooley] mentions that Jünger seems to be on a warmer level with the fact that the individual's necessary compliance with the new dehumanized worlds of technology." That doesn't make sense. The word "praise" is repeated twice in reference to Loose. When talking about Zapparoni in this section, it sounds like material for the character and/or theme section (same thing with Kochhar-Lindgren). It also reminds me that there's nothing about the Disney comparison in the article. There's no need to say "Kochhar-Lindgren goes on to deal with the metaphysical questions Jünger addresses"; either address them in the relevant section or remove it. Viriditas (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, I didn't even see that first broken sentence. One of those sentences that changes horses mid-train. On a logistical note, V., since many editors cowrote this article, if you say "you" can you specify who you mean? Sindinero (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix it. Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]