Wikipedia

Talk:The Firebrand (Bradley novel)/GA1

< Talk:The Firebrand (Bradley novel)
(Redirected from Talk:The Firebrand/GA1)
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Ruby2010 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago51 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Michael! (talk · contribs) 19:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! I'll be reviewing The Firebrand. Michael! (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

First GA review

edit

Overall, it is a good article: clear, informative, neutral, well written, not too long, nor too short. Although I've never read any of Marion Zimmer Bradley's works, I do have an idea what The Firebrand is about (or at least I think so), thanks to reading this article. Well done!

A few remarks: please correct

edit
  • "after the success of her successful 1983 novel" (introduction): too much "success". I would prefer either "after the success of her 1983 novel" or "after her successful 1983 novel".
  • "It has been published into at least twelve languages, beginning with Portuguese and French in 1989." (introduction): This suggests that the French and Portuguese editions were published before the English edition, which you probably didn't mean. Changing it to "The book has been translated into ..." would be better.
  • "seminal" (Development): Although I'm not afraid of big words and I know "seminal" means something like "strongly influencing" (from Latin semen), I doubt whether most people know this particular word. It would be better to replace it with something else, or remove it completely.
  • The "main characters" could be described more elaborately. These one line descriptions reduce the main characters to flat, stereotype characters. I would prefer a complete section about the main characters, or at least a short description of Kassandra (one paragraph, not just "serious-minded").
  • After looking at other literature FAs, I'm debating just eliminating this section entirely (and incorporating some of the character details into the plot section). Thoughts? Ruby 2010/2013 03:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • You might want to keep the main characters subsection but change it into a short paragraph about Kassandra and other very important characters. Most characters, like Aeneas and Oenone, probably doesn't have to be described. Deleting it altogether isn't a problem either. However, the subsection as it is right now doesn't add anything important to the article.Michael! (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Update: I am currently reworking this section so that it provides a closer look into the personality of Kassandra and other major characters, using both primary and secondary sources. Ruby 2010/2013 19:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • The pictures should have a proper caption: artist/creator, title of the work, year, etc.

Serious problems: the Themes and analysis section

edit
  • First of all, it isn't totally clear at first glance which parts are about Homer's Iliad and which are about The Firebrand.
  • Although the part about the characters in the Iliad is annotated, almost every note relies on a single, secondary source, i.e. Dorschel's dissertation. Even if Dorschel is an expert on the subject, a magnificent scholar, and his dissertation completely brilliant, even then, using only one source would be ... limited and questionable, if not biased and unreliably. You should provide more citations from primary, classical sources (i.e. Homer!) and several other secondary sources about the subject (preferably with opposing views), not just only Dorschel.
  • When citing Homer (or any other ancient Greek or Latin author or literary work), do it properly: author, title, book, line, but never a page of a certain edition of a some modern translation!!! (for example: Hom, Iliad, VI, 123-132 or, equivalently, Z 123-132 is a correct citation). Same for Shakespeare.
  • Are you really sure you cited the correct passages? The piece of Shakespeare is a dialogue of Nestor, Ulysses, Patroclus and Agamemnon, waiting for Achilles, without any mention of Cassandra. Homer isn't about Cassandra either. Virgil, although it is about Cassandra, she isn't being raped.Michael! (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

σοί τε κακὸν καὶ πατρὶ καὶ ἄλλοισι Τρώεσσιν.
ὣς φάτο, Δηΐφοβος δὲ διάνδιχα μερμήριξεν

... to thee and thy father and the other Trojans."
So spake he, and Deïphobus was divided in counsel,

Homer, Iliad, XIII, 454-455
Translation by A.T. Murray, 1924

Heu nihil invitis fas quemquam fidere divis!
Ecce trahebatur passis Priameïa virgo
crinibus a templo Cassandra adytisque Minervae,
ad caelum tendens ardentia lumina frustra,—
lumina, nam teneras arcebant vincula palmas.

But, ah! what use of valor can be made,
When heav'n's propitious pow'rs refuse their aid!
Behold the royal prophetess, the fair
Cassandra, dragg'd by her dishevel'd hair,
Whom not Minerva's shrine, nor sacred bands,
In safety could protect from sacrilegious hands:
On heav'n she cast her eyes, she sigh'd, she cried—
'T was all she could—her tender arms were tied.

Virgil, Aeneid, II, 402-406 (only 403 is quoted)
Translation by John Dryden

  • By the way, the Iliad ends with Hector's funeral. The fall of Troy, the Trojan Horse, the rape of Cassandra, the murder on Agamemnon, none of these famous stories is described in the Iliad itself. Keep this in mind when rewriting the article.
  • "unbelieved": don't you mean "not believed"?
  • "... the "monomyth of Neo-paganism," which according to followers, was a simplistic matriarchal religion that is believed to have "flourished" in much of Europe before Christianity arrived, ...": this sentence is misleading, if not utterly wrong. "Monomyth" isn't a main-stream concept. By the way, which "followers"? Neo-paganism is per definition modern and post-Christian. Paganism wasn't paganism "before Christianity arrived in Europe", if Christianity ever "arrived" in Europe (you could argue that Christianity was created in Rome and thus never could "arrive in Europe" - however, this controversial discussion is far beyond the scope of this article'. If you just want to say that Zimmer Bradley "used" a mother goddess religion in her book, or if you want to say that Zimmer Bradley used her own Neo-pagan beliefs and ideas in her work, or if you want to say something else, then please don't make it so difficult, confusing and controversial, as it is now. In short, please rewrite this seriously problematic sentence.
  • Although I understand that Zimmer Bradley used more correct transliterations like Akhaians (Akhaioi would have been even better) and Kassandra, these are known in standard English as Greeks (or Achaians) and Cassandra. When speaking about the Iliad or anything except Zimmer Bradley's book, then you should use the correct English transliteration, not Zimmer Bradley's. However, using two different kinds of spelling in the same paragraph is confusing as well. So please make sure the content of the Iliad and other (secondary) sources is clearly separated from the content about Zimmer Bradley's book itself.
  • Why are some of the book reviews ("critical attention") mentioned under "Themes and analysis" and others under "Reception"? It isn't wrong, as long you've thought about it twice and have good arguments to separate it in two section in this specific way.
  • I moved the sentence on critical success to the reviews section, but otherwise I was very intentional in citing some of the same sources for both sections (some critical reviews observed themes that best fit into the analysis section -- their more direct opinions, such as Magill Book Reviews' praise of the novel's faithfulness, fit better into the critical reception section.

Conclusion

edit

Although my perhaps somewhat harsh review might suggest otherwise, I do think, overall, this article is quite good.

Nevertheless, as long as these problems exist, I won't pass this article as a GA. I'll put it "on hold" for a week. Please improve the article and solve the aforementioned issues.

Michael! (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry, I don't think your review is harsh at all, as you have only provided actionable, constructive criticism that is helping the article and by extension the encyclopedia (I wish every review had such detail!). I still have a little editing to go on the article (including wrapping up Kassandra's character section and clarifying the sourcing from Shakespeare etc.). Would you mind extending the review? Ruby 2010/2013 19:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your reply and edits! Take your time to improve the article. I'm in no hurry at all! The "on hold" is extended and I'll have a second, careful look at the article in a few days (today, I'm busy with other things). By the way, you can find some general advises at WP:MOS-NOVELS, which might be helpful for improving the article, although you've probably checked that page already. Michael! (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Alright, I am done with my changes. Please let me know if you see any other issues. Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 04:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Edit: rating GACR:

edit
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; passed
    2. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. passed
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; passed
    2. it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; passed
    3. it contains no original research. passed
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; passed
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). passed
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. passed
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. passed
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
    1. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; passed
    2. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. passed
Michael! (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi Michael. Thank you for taking the time to review. I should be able to jump into addressing your comments tomorrow. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 03:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Second review

edit

After a second, more careful look at the rewritten article, I discovered more points which should be addressed, before I could pass this article as a GA. I made a few minor edits myself, but there are still several things you should have a look at. Michael! (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

References

edit
  • Bradley's The Firebrand is often used as a reference. This isn't always forbidden, but it's better to avoid using the book as a reference. Of course, if you quote her (e.g. [71]), then you should put a note to the correct page, but why do you refer to Bradley, for instance, in [63]?
  • You had stated in an earlier part of this review that it is better to provide primary sources where possible, and I agree (as long as the content is uncontroversial). For the main characters section, I added a mix of primary and secondary sourcing, but for other parts, such as [63], I sometimes added her to support the opinions of secondary sources. [63] concerns the meaning of the title, which is directly discussed in the novel. I hope this clarifies the sourcing. Ruby 2010/2013 21:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Homer, ii, 454-455 is still wrong; this passage isn't about Cassandra either.
It seems your edition uses the wrong line numbers. (Perhaps it's using the line numbers of the translation? It's quite difficult to translate Homer one-to-one into English hexameters; sometimes you have to be "creative" and insert a few extra English lines to translate a single line of Homer, which means the translation is significantly longer (i.e. has much more lines) than the original Greek text. By the way, it certainly is a quite improper translation, according to modern standards. Besides, it even translates Ἥρης ("of Hera") with "of Juno"! I also encountered several other Roman Gods. Nowadays, Greek names of gods are usually translated with the names of Greek gods.) When I'm using classical sources, I often have a look at [1] first, since the original (Greek) texts and several old translations (without copyright) can be found there. I did some research and also checked a few other translations I've at home and I think the passage you're looking for is Iliad XIII, 363-367 (it's on page 21 of your edition); this is the only mentioning of Cassandra in the Iliad, as far as I know:

πέφνε γὰρ Ὀθρυονῆα Καβησόθεν ἔνδον ἐόντα,
ὅς ῥα νέον πολέμοιο μετὰ κλέος εἰληλούθει,
365ᾔτεε δὲ Πριάμοιο θυγατρῶν εἶδος ἀρίστην
Κασσάνδρην ἀνάεδνον, ὑπέσχετο δὲ μέγα ἔργον,
ἐκ Τροίης ἀέκοντας ἀπωσέμεν υἷας Ἀχαιῶν.

For he slew Othryoneus of Cabesus, a sojourner in Troy, that was but newly come following the rumour of war; and he asked in marriage the comeliest of the daughters of Priam, even Cassandra; he brought no gifts of wooing, but promised a mighty deed, that he would drive forth perforce out of Troy-land the sons of Achaeans.

He slew Othryoneus from Cabesus, a sojourner, who had but lately come to take part in the kleos of the war. He sought Cassandra the fairest of Priam's daughters in marriage, but offered no gifts of wooing, for he promised a great thing, to wit, that he would drive the sons of the Achaeans, like it or not, from Troy;

Homer, Iliad, XIII, 363-367
Translations by A.T. Murray, 1924 and Samuel Butler, 1898?, respectively

  • Ah yes, the wonders of translation. I have changed the citation to use the passages you indicated above. Thanks for putting in the legwork for it. I'll use Tufts' website if I need to do more translations in the future. Ruby 2010/2013 01:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Shakespeare, T&C 2.2 is correct, but are you sure about the line numbers (you quoted 100-122)? Cassandra enters at line 97 and she's called "mad" before line 100.
edit
  • First occurrences of Andromache, Hector, Odysseus, Penthesilea, Troilus should be wikilinked as well, OR Agamemnon, Akhilles, Kassandra, etc should be unlinked as well.
  • Please link "Sack of Troy" to a more relevant article. It now directs to a lost epic poem, instead of the fall of Troy.
  • Is heel relevant here?
Because that article is about the modern meaning of "an Achilles heel" (i.e. a fatal weakness) instead of Achilles his heel. I understand you want to refer to the classical myth, but I think it's better to unlink it completely. The alternative is linking "fires a fatal poisoned arrow at his unprotected heel" to Achilles#Fatalwound.Michael! (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough. I have removed the link. Ruby 2010/2013 01:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • There should be no wikilinks inside a quote, per WP:MOSQUOTE#Linking. For instance, I unlinked "Dorian Invasion", "bronze", "iron", "Minoan", and "Mycenean" in MZB's quote in "Development" section.

Other remarks

edit
  • The Synopsis is quite long and detailed. Per WP:MOS/Novels#Plot, it should be concise, preferably in three or four paragraphs.
    • However, if you prefer to keep it as it is, I won't object and ignore this point.
    • Nevertheless, I think it's better to remove the quotes from the book itself in the "Synopsis", so at least two sentences should be rewritten.
  • I have removed the two quotes concerning "scrying and sorceries" and Penthesilea's comment to Kassandra. I have considered that the plot section may be too long, but cannot really think of anything to trim. The book is rather long, and and I think adequate detail is provided. Ruby 2010/2013 21:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Then it's okay.Michael! (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • "Volume" or plain "book" or "part"? "Volume" is usually a separate book, which isn't the case here. You might wish to remove the "volume" subdivision completely if you chose to rewrite the Synopsis to a shorter, concise version.
Idem.
  • "was fluent" (Development): do you mean he speaks Ancient Greek fluently, or just mean he's able to translate Ancient Greek? If 2, then replace "fluent" with "knowledgeable" or something equivalent.
  • "classical transliteration" (Development)is ambiguous. It could mean the transliteration used in classical times, i.e. the transliteration of Greek names into Latin, which is quite different from MZB's transliteration (Latin Cassandra instead of MZB Kassandra).
  • Bradley used the phrase "classical transliteration" when describing this decision. Here is the full quote: "Walter's knowledge of the language persuaded me, in the name of 'linguistic correctness' and rather against my better judgement, to use classical transliterations rather than the more familiar Latinized forms; hence Akhaians for Achaeans (the term 'Greek' was not known then), Akhilles for Achilles, and worst of all, Kassandra for Cassandra." (quoted from her Acknowledgements section). Ruby 2010/2013 21:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Still, "classical" is incorrect. Either change it to something better, for instance "linguistic(ly more) correct transliterations", or change it into a full quote ""... classical [sic] transliterations ..."". (By the way, I still don't understand why she wrote Latinized Colchis instead of Kolkhis and used Latinized Menelaus instead of Menelaos...) Michael! (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I have edited the section to use your phrasing. Keep in mind that Bradley herself is not an historian (and we don't know for sure how much Breen knew about the subject!). :) Ruby 2010/2013 01:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • As long as the references are correct, you don't have to write "According to ...". I removed several of those "accordings".
No problem!

Final conclusion

edit

Most if not all issues are addressed and this article certainly meets all of the "good article criteria". It is passed as a GA and already listed here.   Done

User:Ruby2010, thank you for your work on the article. It has been improved a lot. Well done!

Michael! (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for taking the time to review! Ruby 2010/2013 14:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Firebrand_(Bradley_novel)/GA1&oldid=1079349847"