Talk:Testimonies (novel)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 21:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie, many thanks for taking this on. I should be able to deal with your recommendations within the next week or so. I'll ping you once done, if that's OK. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course, but I do keep a close eye on my watchlist and a ping isn't really necessary. As soon as I see you're done I'll stop by the next chance I get. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• One book cover is certainly fair use, but the FURs currently both say "to identify"; we don't need two images for that. The justification for the second one is presumably that Hunt painted a cottage like O'Brian's; we need to change the FUR to say that.

  Done. Have expanded both FURs. The second image should, I think, be justified not only by the painting of the author's cottage, but also as it's the first UK edition under the alternative title. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Struck. I think this is verging on OR, but the resemblance is strong enough that I'll let it go. I think this might be challenged if you were to take the article to FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  OK, thanks. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• The two very short sections at the end are rather ugly. Could we move the dramatic adaption to the end of the "Publication" section, and the note on the names to the end of the "Literary significance and criticism" section? Which I would suggest renaming to "Reception", as being more concise.

  Done. I've folded the notes on the names into the Re-issue 1993/1994 section, as that specific point is mentioned in one of the newly-added reviews. Seems as good a place as any. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Unaware that O'Brian had changed his name in 1945 from Richard Patrick Russ, many reviewers assumed the novel to be the author's first." I think it's worth clarifying for the reader that it was his third book, and second work of fiction, under that name.

  Done. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  Looks good, but can we cite that half-sentence? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, not sure what's intended there. Do you mean delete the words "a non-fiction anthology, A Book of Voyages (1947), and a collection of short stories, The Last Pool (1950)."? MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  I meant can we add a citation after that? Current the phrase (that you quote) is not cited. You could cite it to the books themselves, but it would be better to cite it to a third party because the books themselves only support their own existence, not the fact that they were the only two works he had previously published under his new name. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Done. Apologies - for some reason I read the word "cite" as "delete"; no idea why. I'm not quite able to cite the fact that those two books were the only ones he published before Testimonies. Probably King is the source needed, but I don't now have immediate access to that and it's not online. Instead I've mentioned the two books, sourced both of them to the BL, and left open the theoretical possibility that there might have been others. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Neatly done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Overall I think the article is a little out of balance. The plot section is about 40% of the text, and quotes are 20%. The article should do more summarization of the opinions of the reviewers, quoting them for illustration. I agree we need an extended quote from Schwartz.

  Done. I've left in a few illustrative direct quotes, which I think are worthwhile, but most are now summaries. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  Striking; I think there are close paraphrasing issues but have added a new bullet point below to cover those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• There are other reviews you have not used; any reason? I looked in newspapers.com and found at least one or two from the 1994 re-issue, and several reviews from the British Newspaper Archive from 1952 -- The Illustrated London News said "full of beauty and consolation", for example.

  Don't think I had easy access to the British Newspaper Archive when I wrote the article. But now I do, I'll add some more reviews, as you suggest. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Done. Have added a further five reviews. Have also taken the opportunity to split the reviews into original and re-issue, and have slightly beefed up the lead. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• "The reviewer noted the author's expert pacing of the story, his extraordinary gift for the visual scene, and his brilliant ear for the subtle counterpoint of sound in speech": see WP:RECEPTION, which warns about the use of "note" in this way -- it implies these things are true, rather than opinions.

  Done. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  As above I think there are close paraphrasing issues here but they are covered under a point added below, so striking this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• This is a link to the original Delmore Schwartz review, which you may want to link in the citation.

  Done. Thanks for that. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Spotchecks:

• FN 8 cites "O'Brian's publishers Secker & Warburg were of the view that his preferred title Testimonies would be difficult to sell". Can you quote the supporting text from King?

  Secker and Warburg was still searching for an acceptable title for the book. The editors and sales staff thought Testimonies sounded too much like a treatise or codicil and not enough like a novel. They worried that the title might be confusing and cause their "travelers" (salesmen) to have a problem getting orders from bookstores.

  The text of King is not fully online, but a Google books snippet can be found here. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• FN 15 cites quotes from Schwartz: verified.
• FN 15 cites "In later editions of the book, part of Schwartz's review was reprinted as a preface." Can you quote the supporting text from Bennett?

  (Now FN 18) Not sourced to Bennett, but rather to the 1994 re-issue under the title of Testimonies, which does in fact have the preface as stated. Happy to cite in some other way, if you think this could be improved. Maybe "In the 1994 re-issue ..." ? MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Unless the fact that Schwartz's review is reprinted as the preface is mentioned in one of the sources, yes, I think it would be better to say "In the 1994 re-issue" rather than the current wording. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  OK, Done. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• FN 10 cites "Hunt illustrates a cottage almost identical with the real-life cottage in Cwm Croesor that O'Brian and his wife had rented in 1946." Can you quote the supporting text from Tolstoy? The citation gives the impression that this it is only referring to the plate -- or is it the caption that supports this?

  The text of the photo caption reads (above) Fron Wen, where Patrick and Mary lived after World War II, in Cwm Croesor, Snowdonia. The statement that "Hunt illustrates a cottage almost identical with the real-life cottage" comes from the very exact comparison between the photo and the cover illustration. There is a reference on page 342 to the couple having first rented the cottage in 1945 (not 6). Have amended the citation accordingly. Tolstoy is now available on line, and you can see the photo and caption here. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Struck per comment above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like you're about done, so just a note to say I'm at work till 5:00 US East Coast time, but should be able to look at this this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, done now. I hope I've covered everything. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

A few more points:

• "The US reviews were enitrely different". Since you've now quoted some positive reviews from the UK, I think we should tone down the implication that the US reviews were at the opposite pole from the UK reviews. How about "were uniformly positive"?

  Done. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• I assume that all of Schwartz's review of Testimonies was reprinted as the preface to the 1994 edition? If so, I would suggest cutting "omnibus" and "part of"; it's common practice to review multiple books in a single column and I had to guess at the intended meaning of omnibus when I first read the article. I think it's not controversial to take "Schwartz's review" as meaning that part of the column that reviewed Testimonies, and it removes a distraction for the reader.

  Done. Good idea. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• For some of the reviews you're running afoul of WP:PARAPHRASE -- Pearl Kazin and Jessica Mann, for example. I understand that I asked you to remove direct quotations; what I think is needed is to summarize the reviewers' opinion by collecting similar comments, and rephrasing, rather than essentially quoting without the quote marks.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. In reviews such as many of these, where we have only a single sentence or two to go on (much of the rest being plot-related), it's inevitable that some of the same words will be used or the text either becomes hopelessly generic or stops being an accurate reflection of what the source actually says. Where there seems no realistic way to to summarise, I've made sparing use of short snippets of direct quotation - always making sure I comply with WP:NFC which allows this so long as it is not extensive. Also, WP:NFC confirms that limited close paraphrasing of copyrighted sources may also be permitted as fair use. The essay you mentioned, WP:PARAPHRASE, gives the example The New York Times reviewer found the film "pretentious and boring". If you still feel that the paraphrasing of any review remains too close, I'd prefer to revert to more short direct quotes rather than cut it entirely. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree -- we need to convey the reviewer's meaning and a little compromising is sometimes necessary on the paraphrasing. What you've done looks fine on that front, but I have one nit to pick: "evocation of power and emotion" doesn't seem to me an accurate paraphrase of "the extraordinary power and intensity of emotion achieved". Perhaps "powerful evocation of emotion"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, on second thoughts, I agree. Done. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for comments so far. Am now be away for a day or two, but will complete soon. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  No hurry. The article is in excellent shape and I expect to pass it once the paraphrasing issue is addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Mike Christie All done now I think. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks good now; passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I really appreciate your careful and helpful review. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)