WikiProject Novels The WikiProject Project page talk Members talk Guestbook talk Coordinators talk → Current or Recent Elections + talk JobCentre talk Announcements (template) talk Literature Portal talk Article information Popular Pages talk Resources talk Style guidelines talk → Article (pattern template) talk → Char. Article (pattern template) talk → Book infobox (pattern) talk → Short Story infobox (pattern) talk → NovelSeries infobox (pattern) talk → Character infobox (pattern) talk Current discussions General discussion forum (+) talk Novel categorization talk Work in progress Main work list talk Maintenance lists talk Disputed novel articles talk Disputed book cover images talk Articles needed talk Infobox needed talk Infobox Incomplete talk New articles talk Departments Assessment talk → Assessment Top priority talk Collaboration talk Outreach talk Peer review talk Task forces 19th century task force talk 39 Clues task force talk Australian task force talk CHERUB and Henderson's Boys task force talk Chronicles of Narnia task force talk Crime task force talk Fantasy task force talk Harry Potter task force talk His Dark Materials task force talk Lemony Snicket task force talk Military fiction task force talk Napoleonic fiction work group (military) talk Rick Riordan task force talk Science fiction task force talk Shannara task force talk Short story task force talk Sword of Truth task force talk Twilight task force talk Roald Dahl task force talk Diary of a Wimpy Kid task force talk Templates Project banner talk Infobox Book (protected) talk Infobox Short story talk Infobox character talk Infobox Novel series talk Userboxes talk .mw-parser-output .hlist dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul{margin:0;padding:0}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt,.mw-parser-output .hlist li{margin:0;display:inline}.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul ul{display:inline}.mw-parser-output .hlist .mw-empty-li{display:none}.mw-parser-output .hlist dt::after{content:": "}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li::after{content:" · ";font-weight:bold}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li:last-child::after{content:none}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li li:first-child::before{content:" (";font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd li:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt li:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li li:last-child::after{content:")";font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol{counter-reset:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li{counter-increment:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li::before{content:" "counter(listitem)"\a0 "}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li ol>li:first-child::before{content:" ("counter(listitem)"\a0 "}.mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}This box: viewtalkedit• changes

At Swim-Two-Birds

I want to know what this article is supposed to need. Lexo (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Review by the_ed17

O'Nolan composed the novel on an Underwood portable typewriter in the bedroom he shared with his younger brother Micheál. The typewriter rested on a table constructed by O'Nolan from the offcuts of a modified trellis that had stood in the O'Nolan family's back garden. O'Brien's biographer believes that it was the unusual material that the writing table was made of that inspired the name of the character "Dermot Trellis".

At Swim-Two-Birds was published under the pseudonym of Flann O'Brien, a name O'Nolan had already used to write hoax letters to the Irish Times.[15] The book was accepted for publication by Longman's on the recommendation of Graham Greene, who was a reader for them at the time.[16] During negotiations with Longman's, O'Nolan suggested using "Flann O'Brien" as a pen-name:

However, most of the support for At Swim-Two-Birds came not from newspaper reviewers but from writers. Dylan Thomas, in a remark that would be quoted on dust-jackets in later editions of the book, said "This is just the book to give your sister – if she's a loud, dirty, boozy girl". Anthony Burgess considered it one of the ninety-nine greatest novels written between 1939 and 1984.

Anyway, pretty decent article, and an interesting read. Cheers! -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 00:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The Emberverse series

This article is one of the first major articles I have ever created and would like some help and suggestions in improving it. Any comments or criticisms you have would be greatly appreciated. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Review from the_ed17

A quick run-through, as this needs a lot.

There you are, at long last. If you fix most of these issues, I will go through and do a more thorough review...Cheers! -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 01:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Candide

This article, which I've been working on for quite some time, finally passed GAC. Candide is on its way to FAC, and I'd like your input before I nominate it. I imagine a significant part of this review will be directed at the synopsis. Please see Talk:Candide for the arguments on this matter before criticising this section. Thanks! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

La Peau de chagrin

I've recently reconstructed this article, about the first book to establish Honoré de Balzac as a writer of substance. I'm going to take it to FAC, so thanks in advance for your comments! – Scartol • Tok 20:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit

  • You might try to find out. Those descriptions are not always reliable. Awadewit (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • True indeed. I tried looking around, but couldn't find anything definitive. I changed it to simply "illustration". – Scartol • Tok 13:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed. (It says earlier that he "moved back to his family in the suburb of Villeparisis and borrowed money from his parents to further pursue his literary ambitions"; I added "from his parents" to indicate who he borrowed it from. – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but re-reading the original source, I can't really determine how better to classify this. I just went straight to a discussion of the public's appetite for fantastic stories. – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Removed per above. I liked the phrase, but I don't think it's actually very useful. =) I think it had to do with him looking at four very different directions of literary approaches (the romanticism of Scott; the fantastic stuff mentioned in the article, etc). Like I said, more complex than we need to get into here, I think. – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I added two sentences to try to clear this up: "Whereas he had previously used fantastic objects and events in earlier works, they were mostly simple plot points or uncomplicated devices for suspense. With La Peau de chagrin, on the other hand, the talisman becomes a method of analyzing the real world." – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • How is this related to allegory? (Sorry to be so picky!) Awadewit (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't be silly; I would not have asked you to review the article if I didn't want you to be picky. =) I feel like this story is a superb example of the statement at the end of the lead in allegory:

    the characters in a "naive" allegory are not fully three-dimensional, for each aspect of their individual personalities and the events that befall them embodies some moral quality or other abstraction; the allegory has been selected first, and the details merely flesh it out.

  • I changed the sentence in the article for Pdc: "With La Peau de chagrin, on the other hand, the talisman is a symbol of Valentin's soul; at the same time, his demise is representative of a greater social decline." Hopefully this is more on the mark? – Scartol • Tok 13:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, the sentence now seems to suggest "symbolism" and "allusion" rather than allegory. Admittedly, whether something is a symbol or an allegory can often be difficult to determine, but if you are making the case for allegory - often an extended series of representations - I think something more than simply "symbol" has to be said. However, this could just be the picky literary scholar in me. I doubt anyone else will care about this distinction! Awadewit (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I do. Suppose I removed a mention of allegory and discussed symbolism. Would that be fair? (It better be, because I'm doin' it!) – Scartol • Tok 18:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Added: "...by removing the analysis to an abstract level, it becomes less complicated by variations of individual personality. As an everyman, Valentin displays the essential characteristics of human nature, not a particular person's approach to the dilemma offered by the skin." – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I added "...the store represents the planet itself". Maybe I'm too close to the article, but I tried to explain the connection in the rest of the paragraph – how the objects in the store each present some fact of human experience. – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Allegory can be defined in several different ways, as you know. This would all be clearer if "allegory" were more precisely defined in the article. Awadewit (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You may be giving me too much credit as a literary scholar. =) I read Northrop Frye many years ago, and have obliterated much of it with public school curriculum and grammar specificities. I've always considered allegory in literature to be as described in the article: "sustained longer and more fully in its details than a metaphor, and appeals to imagination, while an analogy appeals to reason or logic". Perhaps you can clarify the different kinds for me? – Scartol • Tok 14:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm looking in my dictionary of literary terms and I get this: "a story or visual image with a second distinct meaning partially hidden behind its literal or visible meaning. The principal technique of allegory is personification, whereby abstract qualities are given human shape--as in public statues of Liberty or Justice". It goes on to explain that an allegory can be an extended metaphorical system with two or more levels of meaning (e.g. Pilgrim's Progress), or it can be satire, or it can be a method of biblical exegesis (e.g. typology). Modern critical interpretation can be seen as an outgrowth of the typology tradition. I hope this helps! Awadewit (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this was the one thing I wasn't too sure about. I don't really get what Millott's point was, but I wanted some way to complete that paragraph. I suppose I'll have to find something else, heh. – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Changed to: "Details recounted by Valentin of his impoverished living quarters are autobiographical allusions to Balzac's earliest days as an author:" – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I added the phrase "like Valentin" to try and clarify: "Balzac feared that the world, like Valentin, was losing its way due to material excess and misguided priorities." Hopefully this helps? – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I was wondering of "this message" might refer to a previous sentence or whether it referred to the idea after the colon. Awadewit (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • A classic example of me being out of it. "This message" had referred to the previous section about will and desire. I tried to clarify, and shrank the colon into half of its original stature (made it a semicolon). Ah, punctuation jokes. – Scartol • Tok 18:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I should just use "section". Critics often write about it as a classic three-act tragedy, but I think that just muddies the waters. – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I've trimmed the first paragraph to remedy this and the next point. – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't really say, since I don't feel I have the knowledge of how it all worked. It certainly struck me as surprising, but if it was common in Britain, it makes sense that it would also be common in France. I took out the context and just mentioned that he wrote some reviews himself. – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I like the latter suggestion best. Moved. More to come! – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The opera is more of an adaptation, so I revised the description to make this clear. I added a sentence about Wilde's book. – Scartol • Tok 17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Really? I never thought of this as a problem, but okay. I'm taken a whack at them. (Hopefully you don't mean that every caption should have completely new info?) – Scartol • Tok 17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I haven't reread the article to see if stuff repeats - I trust you! Awadewit (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Y'know, there's some – but most of it appears to suffer from the "Everything truly worthwhile has already been said" disease. The book of modern criticism I read for Le Père Goriot was all about the homoerotic tension between Vautrin and Rastignac (which I feel is a stretch) and these insanely close readings of minor bits of dialogue and all the postmodern interpretations of how The Word manifests itself as Society and so on. It would appear that the golden age of Balzac criticism in the US peaked in the 1970s, at the University of Chicago (they put out four books which are really good). Since then it appears to be scattered ideas, and not very compelling ones at that. – Scartol • Tok 17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope this review was helpful! Awadewit (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thanks again for your careful consideration. – Scartol • Tok 17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Louis Lambert (novel)

I'm hoping to send this article to FAC soon. I've remedied the only concern raised during the GA process, and I stand ready to receive other feedback. Thanks in advance for your comments. – Scartol • Tok 17:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Scartol--thanks for the invitation to review this. Now, I've only been through two pages so far, but I'll mention what I have mainly to beat Awadewit here. :)
  • Yes, good point. I've differentiated and/or eliminated extra wordiness as necessary throughout the article. Let me know if you find any that I've missed. – Scartol • Tok 17:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I can see how this is confusing to you. I've revised the prose to resolve this and the following point. – Scartol • Tok 17:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

–Outriggr § 06:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these, Outr. I'll make some replies and repairs later today or tomorrow. Just FYI: I put the mention of the Études philosophiques section back into the first lead ¶, since that's the standard we've agreed upon at WP:BALZAC. Most folks who study Balzac look for that info straightaway. – Scartol • Tok 14:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
That was a little bold of me, but I decided the opening sentence was a little packed with French titles and we'd be back to discuss Études philosophiques later (indeed, in the fourth para of the lead still). I didn't realize there was a WP:BALZAC! (Has anyone informed User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back?) I'll finish reading the last two thirds at my own, horribly slow pace, by which time you and Awadewit will have honed to perfection everything I could possibly have commented on. Cheers! –Outriggr § 21:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • First round finished. Thanks again! – Scartol • Tok 17:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Good point. Changed to "...are secondary to extended discussions...". – Scartol • Tok 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Heh. Don't worry, I've got a drawer full of them. =) – Scartol • Tok 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've tried to clarify this. I hate "see below" comments in WP articles, so I've tried to avoid it. Hopefully I've made things more clear. – Scartol • Tok 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Done and done. – Scartol • Tok 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've tried to clarify all of this. I personally think the "these concepts" wording is okay, but I'll defer to the reader, since I'm obviously not an objective party. =) – Scartol • Tok 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's always italicized. – Scartol • Tok 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are my comments. I did some tweaking in the article, however much of it is personal taste I leave for others to judge. I would support this at FAC. Again, thanks for the invitation–one of the rare pleasures on wp is to be asked to be involved in some small way in the few articles that have some real thought and research going into them. Cheers, –Outriggr § 06:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your careful and thoughtful comments. Cheers right back at ya. – Scartol • Tok 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit

I have very few comments - I ended up just reading the article and had to start over again to look for things to comment about! I think that is a good sign!

  • Aw, shucks. Thanks! (I learned from the best, heh.) – Scartol • Tok 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, indeed. Fixed. – Scartol • Tok 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • True. I done cleaned it up. – Scartol • Tok 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sure what you mean. Do I need to clarify something, or include some info from the section later on? – Scartol • Tok 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I took another look at this comment and I think I see what you mean; sorry for the confusion. I changed it to: While he was a student at Vendôme, Balzac wrote an essay called Traité de la Volonté ("Treatise on the Will"); it is described in the novel as being written by Louis Lambert. – Scartol • Tok 16:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Clarified. It also seemed to stand out in the paragraph, so I tried to integrate it more smoothly. – Scartol • Tok 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • True. Remedied. – Scartol • Tok 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Not really. I haven't been able to find much actual criticism, but there may be info in a book which I got recently. I'll see what I can add, but I doubt it will be much. – Scartol • Tok 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey, I found a specific detail – it was about how HdB was being godless and anti-family, so it feels weird to add it without anything concrete about (what sources say is) the major problem of thin plot. But it's interesting, at least. – Scartol • Tok 01:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If it did, no one ever admitted it. =) None of the sources mentioned anything about anyone (aside from his paramours, quoted in the article) citing it as an influence. – Scartol • Tok 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, you were right and I was wrong. Apparently Flaubert was influenced enough to duplicate parts of the plot in his story "La Spirale". (Alas, I can't seem to find a copy online.) I added a few sentences about it. – Scartol • Tok 01:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

One down, 99 to go! :) Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks again for your feedback and commentary. I owe you one. – Scartol • Tok 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

To Kill a Mockingbird

Prior peer reviews can be found here

I'm submitting a peer review on this book again. There have been had multiple peer reviews and an FAC that I withdrew. It is parked at the League of Copy Editors awaiting cleanup. Good article status was granted, but the article has changed considerably since then. From my reading on the book, I have found the following:

I'm trying to determine what more can be improved. I appreciate your comments and time. --Moni3 (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Because I think this is such an important page (and I offered at some point in the past to help out), I'll be doing a review in a few days. Sorry I can't jump to it immediately, but I'll get to it as soon as I can. – Scartol • Tok 20:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My review is below. Hope it helps!

Review from Scartol

This article is very detailed and comprehensive – well done! I enjoyed reading it; I think you've done a great job finding some very nice elements, and woven them together skillfully. I've made some copyedits along the way; feel free to adjust these as you see fit.

With regard to images: Remember that the pages you link to can sometimes be useful sources; although not a very significant connection, the image from Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego could spice that section up a bit. Perhaps an image of Charles Lamb would be useful? And of course you should include a picture of a mockingbird. =)

Also, I found in my digging that the 1962 Gregory Peck movie was not copyrighted, which means that it's in the public domain (and so are screenshots from it)! So although you don't want to overload the page with images from the movie, you have the legal freedom to capture any images you want from that film and add them to the page. (If you're not sure how to do this, I might be able to help.)

Here are some assorted comments I've made while reading. Please don't feel the need to respond to each one (but you may if you wish).

Lead

Background

DONE
DONE
DONE

Plot summary

DONE
DONE

Autobiographical elements

DONE

Style

DONE
DONE
DONE
DONE
DONE

Themes

DONE
DONE
DONE
I couldn't say. The book tends to make people go off with praise sometimes. What do you recommend?
I'd write the end of the sentence like so: "...must also fight against the town's racism without help from other white citizens." Thus the "loner" theme is preserved, without making it sound like he's the only person interested in the issue. – Scartol • Tok 01:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
DONE
DONE
DONE
DONE (deleted)
DONE

Genres

To clarify: your suggestion is to have a Style and genres section? I think both genre's do apply, but the references I used don't. They describe them in terms of Southern gothic or bildungsroman. Can I describe the book as both if my sources don't connect them? Lee writing about her town with honesty was included as one writer's way of saying the book is kind of a Southern gothic, but an atypical one. Whereas Faulkner or Capote may have reveled in the depravity of their characters, Lee seems to describe them as more realistic. Awadewit suggested I describe what Southern gothic and bildungsroman mean. But I can take that out, too. --Moni3 (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Explaining what a genre is without going into extraneous detail on its history can be tricky (especially with regard to something like Southern Gothic, which evolved in a particular context). To combine information with flow, I think it's best to insert a brief description of the genre into a sentence about the text being discussed. The key is to keep the focus closely tied to the novel itself, with straying into the realm of general background as controlled as possible.
In the case of bildungsroman here, here's how I'd reword it:
The presence of children facing a cruel world leads critics to cite the novel less as an example of Southern Gothic, and more as a bildungsroman. The latter typically features a character discontented by witnessing a shocking event, who develops through the novel to make sense of the event. In the case of To Kill a Mockingbird, both Scout and Jem exist in this role.
Note that we can explain (and generally should) that we're reflecting the consensus of critical opinion, rather than some generic and objectively-true perspective. With respect to the realism of Lee vs. other Southern Gothics, it's probably best to state such a thing explicitly in such a section.
As for combining: I'd recommend making a subsection of Style called "Genre", and giving the discussion about it there. This is more or less what I did in Le Père Goriot#Style, and (without trying to be immodest) I think it worked fairly well. – Scartol • Tok 01:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
DONE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moni3 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Reception

DONE
DONE
DONE
DONE
DONE
DONE --Moni3 (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Adaptations

DONE
DONE
I did my best to stick to information that involved how the movie tied in with the book. I can transfer some of this information to the film, though. --Moni3 (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's my take on it. I hope my suggestions don't feel overwhelming – it's a very thorough article and I believe it's on the way to featured status. Good luck and please let me know if you have any questions. – Scartol • Tok 13:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Scartol. It may take me a week or so to get through these, as I'm sure you know I'm paying attention to a couple of FACs. I'll leave a note on your talk page when I think I've covered everything. Thanks so much! --Moni3 (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I still have to do a few more things before I try to *gulp* nominate it for anything... Gah! --Moni3 (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It's looking much better – kudos for all your hard work. I'd recommend spacing out the images a bit more if possible (or adding more; there are big swaths of text with no images at all). I'd also suggest getting another set of eyes on it before nominating it; perhaps WillowW or JayHenry? – Scartol • Tok 00:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I think I just might be somewhat at the end of addressing your points. I just added a couple of images to spruce it up. I hope they're appropriate in licensing and purpose. I just asked Maralia to clean up all 120 freakin' citations. And I have no problem asking WillowW or JayHenry to give it another look. Thanks again, Scartol, for all your help! --Moni3 (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Pattern Recognition (novel)

Science fiction novel published in 2003. Is it comprehensive? The writing involved a lot of synthesis from many sources, so I have the fear that some points get lost or mashed up with others. Please see if everything makes sense, that the points are complete and understandable. I've kept track of what came from where by using ample footnotes, so I can backtrack. Also, check if the writing flows well, or where the problematic areas are. --maclean 07:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Great start; lots of good info! Kudos on the research! I only have a few basic suggestions:
  • Move the second paragraph in the lead down into the Background section; it clutters up the lead, and seems to fit better below.
  • Some of the info in the Background section seems unrelated. I'd remove the parts about Gibson's other novels unless they are directly related to Pattern Recognition, and maybe the sentence explaining who Gibson is. These are better explained in their respective articles.
  • There are a few items in the lead which should be sourced, or re-written to avoid weasel-words. I've marked these in the article with citation tags.
FusionKnight (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Alright, thanks. The lead section is supposed to be an overview of the article, so I will go through and ensure it adequately reflects it. I will add some citations to the lead to back up some of those claims. In the "Background" I'm trying to provide context for how/when the book was written, so I'll try to relate it all to this novel. --maclean 05:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Le Père Goriot

Insofar as it's usually described as Balzac's most important novel, this article is on its way to FA status. I've received invaluable assistance from Awadewit, and I think it's nearly ready for FAC. In her GA review, she suggested more information about the publication and revision history, which I have been unable to locate in the 10+ books I've consulted. I would also point out that both she and I are generally opposed to cluttering up the top of articles with infoboxes, which tend to repeat details already in the lead.

Thanks in advance for your feedback! – Scartol • Tok 21:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Great article, good read and well put together. I have a few (non-infobox related) comments, but they probably won't help you at an FAC.

  • Good call. Changed. – Scartol • Tok 03:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Mayyyybe. I generally don't care much for "Further reading" sections, but I don't suppose it can really hurt. Maybe I'll just throw 'em into the bibliography.
  • Yeah, I kinda feel like at this point it's been published and republished so often that unless a particular edition is notable in itself (read by Patrick Stewart or some such), listing them all gets tedious.

--maclean 02:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! – Scartol • Tok 03:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments from User:Qp10qp

I found this an excellent, comprehensive and clean article. I've never read the book, but I've seen it analysed often enough (Percy Lubbock is good on Balzac), and so I have an awareness of it. I don't have any serious criticisms of the article, but I noticed a few spots where I felt the language could be more precise:

  • I suppose. Changed to "unique among bodies of work"; I don't know if this is tighter, but it feels more straightforward. – Scartol • Tok 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • True and true. Fixed. – Scartol • Tok 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It was meant to contrast the fact that we get new insight on the stories in LPG at the same time as we learn new info about their lives after the end of that novel. I changed it to: "complementing the evolution of their stories". – Scartol • Tok 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Much better. Changed. – Scartol • Tok 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Argh, this sentence again! =) Changed to "ascend". – Scartol • Tok 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, okay. Changed to "master". – Scartol • Tok 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think so; I've seen it used for individuals and small groups (like families) before. I hope you won't be offended if I hang onto this one. – Scartol • Tok 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with the last part. Reworded that sentence to: "France's social upheaval provides Vautrin with a playground for an ideology based solely on personal advancement; he encourages Rastignac to follow suit." The "Still" leads into the contrast between society and Vautrin as the ultimate corrupting force. I added a "finally" which should help clarify. – Scartol • Tok 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Changed to "a fundamental schism" and added a word about why his daughters abandon him. – Scartol • Tok 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Good point. Employed 1819 for both. – Scartol • Tok 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I was a little uneasy about my own wording there, and I thank you for reminding me to fix it. Removed "tumultuous". – Scartol • Tok 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, you almost make me want to read the novel, depressing though it sounds. qp10qp (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, but it's so beautifully written! Like The God of Small Things, it graciously combines beauty with the rain. Thanks so much for your detailed review. – Scartol • Tok 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't that detailed. I couldn't think of much to say, since the article was so well done. Give the cat another goldfish. qp10qp (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Aw shucks. (blush) The point is, you looked. And I'll bet the editors at FAC will prove you wrong! =) Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 22:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A Tale of Two Cities

I have been working consistently on this article, and I believe I have improved it a lot, but I'm sure it has much further to go. I'm aiming for GA status, which would be one step up from where it is now, if I understand the system.

One problem I have as an author is dividing interpretation from fact. I often feel that facts about literary works only make sense in the context of interpretations. (I'm one who believes that some interpretations of a work are invalid, even though there are probably infinitely many valid ones, and also that some are better than others — I can't really defend this, of course, it's just my belief.) But I nonetheless expect I need to do a better job of keeping my own readings out of the article (even though they are supported by citations of prominent scholars). In particular, I'm afraid I may need to take out the "doppelganger" point about Carton and Darnay, which to me is really the key to the novel, so I'd hate not to be able to find some way to reference it - opinions welcomed).

The version of the article I inherited very much needed to Omit Needless Words, and also never used a ten-cent word when a twenty-five-cent word would do worse. So I'm sure there's much pruning and rephrasing that remains to be done.

The last issue is probably just one that Wikipedia will have to live with, which is that since this is the novel of Dickens's most commonly taught in high schools (in the United States, at least) it is subject to vandalism. And more interestingly, since the audience for this article is younger than that for many of the articles on Dickens's other novels, should it aim at more of a high school reading level?

Finally, are there whole sections I should remove or should add?

Thank you for your time.

DiderotWasRight (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Yllosubmarine

This was only a quick review, but I hope it helps point you in the right direction. The most important thing to keep in mind is sourcing, sourcing, sourcing. I would suggest finding more scholarly sources, ensuring that there is at least one ref in every paragraph (except for the plot section, which is typically self evident; aside from direct quotations, of course). The prose seems wordy, but you already knew that; work on cutting the plot section down and developing more sections that not only help readers understand the historical/publishing context but also what this book's legacy has to offer. Best of luck, María (habla conmigo) 12:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; this is very useful. When citing a work that exists in many editions (such as Hamlet), authors often refer to "Act x Scene y" rather than to a page number. Since Tale also exists in many editions, is there a way I can cite page numbers but also give Book and Chapter for use with other editions? DiderotWasRight (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Direct quotes from Shakespeare's plays are typically referred to by act, scene and line numbers; in fact, I see a few cited that way over at Hamlet. I haven't read Dickens in a while, but it's strictly prose, yes? :) The key is that referencing should be as specific as possible for our purposes. This requires page numbers leading to your specific text in the Bibliography (WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). I personally do not see much of a reason for listing the book or chapter with the page number, since one seemingly denotes the other, but you could play with the formatting to see what makes the most sense. I can't find anything that says it isn't allowed. María (habla conmigo) 02:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to give page numbers for every quote, but I would like to also include book and chapter numbers as well (Tale is in three "books," so a quotation might be from Book 2, Chapter 4). This would be so that a student who has the Dover edition of the text and wants to find a quote the Wikipedia article references will be able to find it at least roughly, even though I cite the Penguin edition. The book and chapter numbers are universal across all editions of the text; the page numbers are not. DiderotWasRight (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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:

I hope this helped. Let me know if you have any questions. María (habla conmigo) 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:

Grey Griffins (book series)

I am about to nominate this article for GA status and I want to know what i need to do to further improve before nomination. King Rock Go 'Skins! 02:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from user:Yllosubmarine

First of all, this is a good start. The major problems I can see that would keep it from being promoted to Good Article status (as per the Good Article criteria) is its lack of both comprehensibility (3a) and verifiability (2). Here are some suggestions to help expand:

I hope these comments helped. Best of luck, María (habla conmigo) 12:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from user:Dozenthey

Similar to Maria's comments, a good start but it needs a lot of work.
-The plot summary dumps way too many names and details in (the THOR agency, the Codex, Morgan Le Fay... where do these things/people come from, why are they in this story?). I'm having trouble getting a clear, simple idea of what the story is about because in every sentence of the summary there seems to be something completely different going on. Flesh it out a bit more, try to take out details that aren't necessary for a brief overview, or explain them/give them context if they are necessary.
-Also, in the summary of book three, the tenses are a bit confusing, and not knowing the plot, I'm not entirely sure what it means. Does he find the spear during this book, did it happen before, is it a flashback? Make it so that I can follow whats going on from beginning to end of the book without too much confusion.
-The last paragraph of the summary I would recommend that you move into the section on characters, give a brief description of the power each one has, and whether he is a good guy or bad guy, something like that. That would be a good way of giving context without overloading the summary.
-I've also changed the internal links that refer to in-world artifacts attributed to mythological figures (ie the spear of Ragnarok), so that only the mythos, rather than the novel-specific aspect, is in hypertext. I think it was confusing to click on an artifact and be redirected to a page about a myth without specific reference to the artifact.
-The review section:
- Like maria asked, what significance do these books have in culture, is anyone reading them, etc.?
-I'm not sure that "The Children's Literature Review" is actually the reviewer, or at least I can't find any information about this group. I think its just a review from the Border's website under the heading "Children's Literature". You need to look into that, and make sure those reviews are from respected sources.
-I'm not sure I agree that the books were reviewed "fairly", as you state in the intro... the reviews don't trash the novels completely, but they are generally negative ("practically unreadable" stands out).
If you have particular questions about how to rewrite the page, let me know, I'll try to help as far as I can not knowing the stories. Dozenthey (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Earth Abides

I have made a lot of additions to this article, but am still learning Wikipedia conventions. I could use some pointers if I am making mistakes, and pointers to how I can improve this article. I received a comment that someone not familiar with the book should take a look at it. Thanks,Jacqke (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Review from Yllosubmarine

This is a fairly good start for an article, especially from someone who is relatively new around here, so congrats! Because I haven't read the book and cannot comment on the content of the article and how it relates to the work, most of my comments deal with MOS and formatting issues.

DoneJacqke (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Done—eliminated as the symbols were original research. Will look for them if I can ever get to a decent university library.Jacqke (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
converting from list to prose, Done.Jacqke (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
lowercase in headlines, Done.Jacqke (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Merging Symbols and Themes, DoneJacqke (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Merging Details that are dated, Still needs to be doneJacqke (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Done, I removed these. --maclean 04:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope this has been useful! If you have any questions or comments, just contact me on my talk page. María (habla conmigo) 17:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Three points

Naked Lunch

I've been working on cleaning this up recently and I want to get it to GA status. Any kind of comment or guidance would be great, I know that the Characters section needs some work so don't comment on that unless you have a specific point mucho thanks HangedJonny (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly ill-informed review

The lead section could definitely use some work, particularly the single sentence first paragraph. The phrase "it can be argued" in "Plot introduction" should be changed to either indicate that such an argument has been made and by whom or removed. "and his addiction to drugs (notably heroin and morphine)" in "Plot introduction" is a bit of a dangling clause, and should be altered to better integrate into the main sentence. The "he" in "as much as he wants to share" is vague and should be clarified. "taboo fantasties" should be elaborated one somewhere, as there is no clear indication as to what is being referred to. "have led to much controversy" is another phrase which could use clarification, regarding what controversy there has been. "Plot summary" has the phrase "decapitating people and imitating a pirate", which reads strangely phrased, as one would think the latter significantly less important. It should possibly be broken up or changed to indicate that it is describing things chronologically. "Hassan is not too pleased with this" indicates that Hassan is somewhat pleased with it. Is that true? If not, alter phrasing. Sentence structuring throughout could use some work. The sections on the parties could use sourcing to indicate that the statements there aren't OR. The last three paragraphs of "Literary significance and reception" could use at least one reference apiece. First paragraph of "Allusions in other works" could be broken into at least two, starting with "Several characters..." Trivia section should probably be sourced, author of "Move Under Ground" should be mentioned by name. Citations for the last two paragraphs of "Film adaptation" should be added as well. I know that looks like a lot, and it is, but most of it relates to comparatively minor points and can probably be fixed rather quickly. It probably wouldn't reach GA without several of those changes being made, though. John Carter (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Winston Science Fiction

My ultimate goal is to get this article to FA status. I'd appreciate any feedback at all. I know it's a little thin as far as references go, and the list of books in the set take up a lot of the article. The Winston Science Fiction set was an important one in the early development of science fiction literature, especially in the sub-genre of juvenile novels. The art is also particularly notable (i.e. collectible). Thanks! FusionKnight (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article soon. (I have a few other tasks to finish first, but since I'm requesting a review I'd like to provide one to make things fair.) – Scartol • Tok 21:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
As promised, my review is below. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks! Looks like it's time to get to work!  ;) FusionKnight (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Review by Scartol

This article has some good information, but it really isn't very complete at all right now. The reader should get the following information:

It looks like a lot of this information will be tricky to find, since I doubt there are many books about the series itself. But you've found one text, and the bibliography of that one will (hopefully) point you toward others.

Good luck with this article, and when you have something more substantial, I'll be happy to copyedit or offer more comments. – Scartol • Tok 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Category