The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that although Wellek and Warren's Theory of Literature was imprinted with three copyright dates, none were the year it was published?
Current status: Good article
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Great article here. I wish more lit theory articles on WP were this cogent and comprehensive.
A few minor points:
"Their success in presenting a unified voice has fallen under criticism"... they were criticized for succeeding at this, or for a lack of success at this? The following sentences present a range of views and don't quite clarify this for me.
Per MOS:QUOTE, "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." The article does this in several places, such as "history of philosophy" or "old New Critic", though the latter may be unavoidable.
"highly indulgent in formalism" --this phrase confused me.
This my first GA review. As such I will definitely be asking for a second set of eyes once I've finished and I'm open to discussing whether or not specific changes need to be made. I'm planning on doing three full passes through the article.
And that should do it for tonight. I'm planning on responding to your comments tomorrow as well as heading down the university library to get a handle on converage as well as spot-check sources and close paraphrasing. There are a few spots where I think you've correctly represented the authors' ideas but there's not enough in the article for me to know what those ideas mean. Those should be fixable. Beyond that I haven't found any serious issues and don't expect to. Good stuff. GaramondLethe07:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
"Imprint" is problematic. Even after following the link I read that as the first edition had be reprinted in each of those years. The misleading copyrights should probably not be raised until the section on publication history.
extrinsic, relating to factors outside a work, and intrinsic, relating to factors within. Examples of extrinsic and intrinsic factors would be helpful here.
I think there are a few places where it does get in the way of readability. It's not an issue that will fail the article here, of course. I'll just remind you that most of your audience is having to digest a dense presentation of new material that makes use of a highly specialized vocabulary. Breaking up a few of the longer sentence gives the reader (well, me, anyway) a bit of breathing room. GaramondLethe21:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
read through Roman Ingarden's work. That's ambiguous to my ear: did he study Ingarden or did he study Husserel through Ingarden? If its the former then dropping the "through" will disambiguate.
Y If the MOS allows you might want to go ahead and add the cite to that sentence as well. Yes, it's redundant, but you've done such a complete job with inline citations elsewhere that I drew the mistaken conclusion that you didn't have a cite for that sentence. But I'll leave that up to you. GaramondLethe21:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps begin with an overall description, "The book is divided into x sections and y chapters..."?
The paragraph beginning "The original publication of Theory of Literature consists of twenty chapters set in five sections based on thematic similarities" was meant to give that. I originally had it in Contents, but moved it to writing. I don't mind moving it and the unified voice back. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
It wasn't clear to me that "Definitions and Distinctions" was a section title. If the MOS allows, perhaps change the headings here to "Section 1: Definitions and Distinctions", etc.?
"refute" is a very strong word. If you have a source that uses it you should defintely drop a cite in here. If this is your paraphrase then I think your use of "contrast" gets the point across that there is some disagreement.
All but the first sentence of the second paragraph works really well because you've got very concrete words explaining rather abstract literary terminology. Could you do the same to the first sentence by adding a vivid example of what "connotative" means in practice?
The first and third paragraphs ground the reader into the book with The first section and They note, respectively. Perhaps something similar for the second paragraph?
I'm not sure the word "treatment" in the first paragraph does justice to the rest of the sentence. This sounds like classic bibliographic study (and happens to be what I'm most interested in). I guess I'm asking for a punchier first sentence, but beyond that I can't give you much help.
Second paragraph: "They refute that authors" Not sure if you want to keep "refute", but if you do perhaps "refute the idea" or "refute the hypothesis"?
"Wellek and Warren sound systems as inherent to the text" If "sound systems" are a term of art, perhaps italicize them or put them in quotes? As the sentence stands I had read "sound" as verb as was thinking there must be typo somewhere.
The first two sentences of the paragraph are about sound and the last two are about language; I'm not seeing the relationship indicated by their being in the same paragraph.
An example in the sixth paragraph would really help me understand what the authors are getting at.
Just for an idea where to go with this, are you thinking around "appear unable to write history" (i.e. an example of a literary history they criticise?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I haven't looked at the sources yet and so you may be faithfully representing what I find to be a confusing image. As I understand this paragraph, there is a strata composed of (from bottom to top) "sound", "meaning" and "world", and the "world" has "substrata" (indicating they're underneath?) of "paradigms" and "metaphysical qualities", and this substrata is where the reader "contemplates". You have all of that (and the technical terms) in one sentence. That makes it harder to pick apart. Hmmmm.... ok, I'm just lost here.
Alright, I'll try to work through this one (I'm aiming for fairly universal comprehension, so if someone with a background in literature is having problems I've done badly). Substrata here is meant as a subdivision, will rephrase. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply