Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Franz Kafka/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Franz Kafka

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a recent GA and Gerda Arendt and I would like to get it to FA. Please review for that level. Thank you.

Thanks, PumpkinSky talk 11:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I am looking forward to reading this article. "Kafka" was a name frequently bandied around in my bohemian student days, though truth to tell, none of us knew what we were talking about. Now is my belated chance to find out. Because of a logjam of commitments this review will be somewhat intermittent. For the moment I am confining myself to the lead section.

  • Opening statement: encyclopedic neutrality requires removal of the descriptions such as "influential" which, like "famous", "notorious", "brilliant", etc, have a distictly peacocky flavour. Likewise, the statement that Kafka is "regarded as one of the greatest writers of the 20th century" needs to be specific to a source, rather than made as a general assertion.
  • To my understanding, the lead doesn't need any source as far as it is a summary of sourced material of the article. What do you suggest to summarize that Kafka influenced the production of writers and other artists? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Gerda than a well-written lead, as a summary of the article, does not need refs. Also agree with Brian that we could make this a little less peacocky. I'd like Brian's ideas on how to do that and also point Kafka's is one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. PumpkinSky talk 16:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is considerable overlinking, of everyday and common terms such as "novels", "short stories", "20th century", "Jewish", "unfinished works", posthumously".
  • "Educated" as a lawyer? One normally is "trained" for a profession
  • I found the second paragraph something of a muddle, with rather too much detail. For instance, it is not necesary to record the specific titles of the letter collections in the lead.
  • The syntax of the final sentence is wrong: "He was also conflicted over his Jewishness at times, feeling it had little to do with him, yet also heavily influencing his writing." Replace "yet also" with "although it".
  • Having stated that only a small part of Kafka's work was published in his lifetime, it seems unnecessarily repetitive to state, a couple of sentences later, that the majority of his works were published posthumously. Instead of "The majority of his writing, including unfinished works such as all of his novels, was published posthumously..." I would say "Unfinished works,including all his novels, were published posthumously..."
    Done, I guess by Gerda. PumpkinSky talk 17:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick glance the rest of the article looks like solid work, and I look forward to commenting on it. Brianboulton (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • On reflection, as you conclude the lead with examples of major writers influenced by Kafka, with further examples in the body of the article, I think it's OK to include "influential writer" in the opening sentence. The statement that "Kafka is regarded as one of the greatest writers of the 20th century" needs only to have the words "by leading critics" inserted after "is regarded". The statement is well supported and cited in the body of the article, a fact that I hadn't previously noticed. More review comments tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hesitate a bit to insert the critics, because I think even most people who have nothing special to do with literature would know that. The link went to "20th century in literature" all the time, but I expanded what shows, it's not just "20 century". I also inserted (before this PR) links to years where his works are mentioned in the timeline as key works of a year, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether readers are knowledgeable about literature or not, they need to know that statements about the greatness of a writer come from valid critical sources, rather than from, say, press agents or popular newspapers. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with BB here, "by leading critics" inserted. PumpkinSky talk 21:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More from BB: These comments cover the "Life" sections of the article, though not those dealing with Personality, Political views and Judaism/Zionism (which really form a separate grouping)

Family
deleted both.PumpkinSky talk 21:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder whether the present level of detail is necessary in the "Family" section? Examples of detail which I think is superfluos:-
  • "next to the Church of St Nicholas"
  • commented until the church will have a article, then it might be of interest to look at the surroundings Gerda Arendt (talk)
  • "Hermann was the fourth child of Jacob Kafka..." and details of Jacob's profession
  • "fourth child" dropped, "ritual slaughterer" kept as significant for the Jewish background Gerda Arendt (talk)
  • Number of people employed by Hermann
  • I think it gives an idea of his business
  • Exact ages of Kafka's deceased younger brothers, rather than "died in infancy"
  • Lifespans of Kafka's sisters
  • kept - there was a long passage about their fate in the Holocaust, the dates give an idea Gerda Arendt (talk)
Perhaps keep some of this detail but cut the rest?
  • What is "High German"? There seem to be several related wikilinks but I don't know which is most appropriate. Is High German different from "German"?
  • High German (Hochdeutsch) (Wikt:Hochdeutsch) is probably chosen opposed to the Mauscheldeutsch described before, it's used in other context to differentiate "pure German" from dialect. How to say it? Gerda Arendt (talk)
  • Some of the prose is a bit choppy (short, terse sentences) while at other times sentences seem to meander, e.g. "He also spoke and wrote Czech,[11][12], which he studied for eight years and received good grades in at the Gymnasium,[13] but he never considered himself to be fluent in it, although others complemented his Czech." In the last sentence of the section you need a semicolon, not a comma, after "little interest in exercise". These sorts of problems are likely to recur in other sections of the article. A thorough copyedit is advisable; if possible I will do this when the review is complete.
Did a small ce here. PumpkinSky talk 21:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Education
  • New paragraphs, and especially new sections, should introduce the subject by name rather than by the pronoun "he". This is a recurring problem and should be fixed through the article.
Done, I think ;-) PumpkinSky talk 21:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He only went to the synagogue four times a year with his father, which he loathed." Full of ambiguities: did he go four times a year with his father and other times on his own? Did he loathe the synagogue, or going there with his father? Or did he loathe his father? Personally I think the word "loathed" is too strong a term unless you want to attribute it; in any event you need to sort the sentence out.
did a ce and + ref. PumpkinSky talk 22:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give date or year he began at Karl-Ferdinands-Universität
Done. PumpkinSky talk 22:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "first studied chemistry" → "began studying chemistry"
  • Citation required for second part of third paragraph
added translation and ref PumpkinSky talk 22:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He considered..." → "Kafka considered..." You could follow this with "He took an interest..."
deleted. PumpkinSky talk 22:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Employment
  • "He" issue in first sentence
  • "compiling and composing the annual report..." - the annual report of what?
ce'd. PumpkinSky talk 22:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Together with his close friends Max Brod and Felix Weltsch, these three were called..." needs rephrasing. Possibly "He and his close friends Max Brod and Felix Weltsch wee called..."
  • "spouse of his sister Elli" confuses slightly since "his" undefined. Why not: "Elli's husband", since we know who Elli is?
  • "collaborate in the operation of an asbestos factory" seems overelaborate wording. Suggest: "help him run an asbestos factory" - or otherwise remove this seemingly tangential information.
  • "Max Brod" can be generally referred to as "Brod" after first mention
  • "who usually supported him in everything else." - very loose phrasing. Perhaps "who usually supported his interests".
  • "he spent the next six months" - "Kafka spent the next six months"
  • "medical problems due to tuberculosis". Suggest replace "due to" with "associated with"
  • "his employers arranged for a deferment"; we could do with a reminder of who his employers were at this time.
added PumpkinSky talk 22:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Later years
  • File:Kafka.jpg is derived from the photograph shown here, which indicates that the copyright is held by Schocker Books. The information on the image file description is misleading; this image will not be PD in the United States.
deleted PumpkinSky talk 22:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The extract from Kafka's diary describing Felice is a little too long for a summary encyclopedia biography. It could easily be trimmed without losing its effect.
  • I thought that it serves three purposes at the same time: let him speak himself once in this article, and describe the women to whom he was engaged twice, and his way of looking at her/people Gerda Arendt (talk)
If you can make it flow better in fewer words, cool, but I'd like not to lose this info.PumpkinSky talk 22:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section, covering the years 1912 to 1924, ought to consist of more than a record of Kafka's amorous adventures which, apart from the paragraph dealing with his last illness and death, is really all it consists of. What else was he doing in these years? What was he writing, who was he meeting, where was he living? Did the war and post-war upheavals leave him completely unaffected?We need to have a much broader picture of his life during these critical years. The last paragraph is sketchy; when did he return to Prague, and how come that he died of "starvation"?
I'm confused. We talk about his work at the insurance institute, which went through WWI, his illness, and for starvation "The condition of Kafka's throat made eating too painful for him", basically, he couldn't eat. Please elaborate. PumpkinSky talk 22:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to leave the review for a bit, to give you a chance to consider these comments. In particular, a lot more research is needed with regard to establishing the PD status of the images, where I have identified numerous problems thus far. Image gurus are in short supply at present on WP, but you would do well to get some expert advice, if you can, on the eligibility of the images I have highlighted. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for detailed help, some taken already, some to be considered. I will tentatively move some details on language from family to later, please look at that. - Thanks for your patience, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes, many thanks for this thorough review. PumpkinSky talk 22:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More on the "Later Life" section Re my comments above:-

  • The first paragraph is entirely concerned with his relationship with Felice Baur
  • The second paragaph deals with a putative affair with Greta Bloch, a possible illegitimate son, visits to brothels - and nothing else
  • The third paragraph mentions affairs with Milena Jesenka and Dora Diamont - and nothing else.
  • In the fourth paragraph he takes ill and dies. You give the probable cause of death as starvation before mentioning the throat condition that prevented him from eating, which briefly confused me, but that's not important. What is important is that apart from recording his illness and death, the section is wholly concerned with his love affairs. It's as if he did nothing else for 12 years but chase women. I imagine that Kafka's writings will be properly discussed later in the article, but the biographical section needs to summarise all the main aspects of the subject's life. For example, what was Kafka writing during this period? What if anything was published? What did he try to get published? Did he ever travel or go anywhere? Etc, etc... we need a full summary of his activities in this important period, not just a record of his love life.
  • Perhaps we really should rename most of the paragraph to "Women" and move it somewhere else. Yes, his works are mentioned later, twice, once in "Stories" and "Novels", many works again in "Publication", I think mentioning them a third time would be too repetitive. The division of the article in a life section and a work section was given when we started to improve it. - Women: growing up with three sisters (no brother) and female servants probably shaped his life. - I agree that there should be more about his travels and where he lived, but he travelled more in his earlier years when he was not ill. Gerda Arendt (talk)
  • I think perhaps I am not making myself clear. I am not suggesting that Kafka's literary works be discussed in detail in the "Life" section, but since his fame is as a writer, there needs to be some mention in this summary of his life of what he wrote, when he wrote them, and what got published, etc. Just a few names and dates, along the lines of "During this time Kafka was busy writng such and such...", or "That year, Kafka began..." Reading through the Life section at the moment, it is hardly apparent that he was a writer at all; you mention his literary interests as a student and later his membership of Der enge Prager Kreis, but that's about it. This is the point that needs addressing. Brianboulton (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to continue the review at the weekend, but I have a busy off-wiki time coming up and will be away for part of next week so progress may be a bit sloooow. Brianboulton (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I move the love life stuff to its own section, "Love life", though I'm open to name changes. PumpkinSky talk 22:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "Private life" rather than "Love life", but as mentioned above, the Life section needs a little more attention, to highlight the fact that it is the life of a writer. Brianboulton (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. We'll work on the later life stuff this weekend. PumpkinSky talk 10:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I started inserting a couple of works 1912 where a connction is visible. Please check if that is a road to go. Questions: should the works be linked there? I would say yes, because readers might jump there. Should we change the heading again, because now it's no longer only private life? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I renamed "later years" to "death" and moved it to the end of the life section. PumpkinSky talk 02:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: unfortunately I will be off-wiki for a few days but hope to be back towards the end of the week. I will resume my comments then. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no problem here, best wishes for you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back again: OK, it looks as though a lot of work has gone on in the past week, with some useful reorganisation in the Life sections. Rather than going over that again, I'm moving on to the "Works" sections and will report back shorttly. Brianboulton (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Hope your vacation was good and we really appreciate the thorough review. `PumpkinSky talk 10:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

Stories
Novels
  • "the same motifs" → "the common motif" (only one mofif mentioned)
  • "The novel was not completed, but the final chapter was finished." Use the active voice: "Kafka did not complete the novel, although he finished the final chapter".
  • Awkward prose: "Elias Canetti titled his book on Kafka's letters to Felice Kafka's Other Trial, in recognition of their relation to the novel The Trial, described as "a novel ... in which Kafka's engagement to Felice is re-imagined as the mysterious and menacing arrest of the hero". I would alter the sequence along these lines: "According to Elias Canetti, within the novel "Kafka's engagement to Felice is re-imagined as the mysterious and menacing arrest of the hero"; Canetti titled his book on Kafka's letters to Felice Kafka's Other Trial, in recognition of the letters' relation to the novel."
  • I would not include the title of Kakutani's NYT review, as it makes the sentence very difficult to read.
  • More awkward phrasing: "Kafka planned his novel Das Schloss (The Castle), already in 1914, according to an entry in his diary of June 11, 1914,[91] but began writing on January 27, 1922." Suggest: "Kafka's diary entry for June 11, 1914, indicates that he was already planning his novel Das Schloss (The Castle), although he did not begin writing it until January 27, 1922."
  • " Kafka had suggested that in the end the castle notify K. on his death bed..." I'm not sure what this means. Where did Kafka suggest this, and to what does "in the end" refer?
  • "...the novel is focused on alienation, bureaucracy, the seemingly endless frustrations of man's attempts to stand against the system, and the futile and hopeless pursuit of an unobtainable goal." Whose summary is this?
Publications

Will continue in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More

Max Brod
  • This sentence: "Brod prepared for publication the novels The Trial (chapters were unnumbered and some were incomplete),[118] The Castle (which stopped mid-sentence and had ambiguity on content),[118] and Amerika, which Kafka had titled Der Verschollene (The Man who Disappeared)" needs rewriting. It's far too complicated at present, with three parenthetical insertions, and it also raises further questions. For example, how did Brod deal with the incomplete chapters in The Trial, and how did he resolve the unspecified "ambiguities" in The Castle. Did he add prose?
  • I felt the same ;) That sentence was there, I don't know on which source. Should I just simplify it? Gerda Arendt (talk)
  • "It appears Brod took a few liberties with the manuscripts, such as moving chapters, changing the German and cleaning up the punctuation". Not a neutral ecyclopedic sentence; where does "took a few liberties" come from? Also, "changing the German" is far too vague an expression.
Modern editions
  • The organisation of the section is muddled; for example, the paragraph on the "Kafka Project" at SDSU does not seem closely related to "modern editions"
  • Moved to "commemoration" section. Open to other suggestions. PumpkinSky talk
  • The information that notebooks and letters were confiscated by the Gestapo has already been given (previous section)
  • The prose in the last paragraph is seriously garbled - I struggle to make sense of it. And it appears to have nothing to do with modern editions.
List of works
  • This would be better as a subarticle rather than as a section here. As well as reducing the size of this article, an advantage would be that issues relating to the list can be resolved away from the main article.
  • Such issues include:
  • Inappropriate column headings "de" and "en". Headings need to be be readily understandable, and in English
  • Whether direct links to Wikisource pages are allowed. Links to external pages are not generally permitted in WP pages.
  • I would not include them in text. Here we talk links to the original text of the writer in question and their translation. I understand the link as a service to the reader. Coming from the Bach cantatas, there are links to the score, the German version even has links to the entries on the bach-cantatas website, Gerda Arendt (talk)
  • Irregular format: see "Literal English title" column - some entries are centre-aligned
  • Dates of first publication are, with one exception, year of first publication. Likewise, more or less, "Date of writing".
  • There are no citations to sources anywhere in the table.
  • The table is a summary of information in the individual articles about the works, in order to make it sortable, Gerda Arendt (talk)
I will look again tomorrow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have glanced ahead, to get some feel of the rest of the article. I have serious reservations about the long "Translation problems" section. The text seems specialised and inappropriate for a general encyclopedia article on Kafka. The diagram has no source information in the image description and looks very much like original research. Brianboulton (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with Gerda. Kafka presents unique linguistics challenges that should be cover. The first sentence of Die Verwandlung is a primo example thereof. The chart is labled as "own work" which I think was done by a linguistics type upon request of user Maunus. I've asked Maunus to comment here. PumpkinSky talk 23:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad that the List of works has been separated. The outstanding issues on the list can be left to one side for the moment while we concentrate on getting the main article right. In that regard I have to strongly disagree with your approach to the translation issue. The article has, first and foremost, to be readable—it is part of a general encyclopedia, intended for the general reader, not part of a specialist or scholarly publication. I'm afraid that the prose in the Translation section will be impenetrable to the general reader, who will be likewise baffled (as I was) by the diagram. A separate issue is that unless the diagram's content can be traced to a reliable scholarly source, it is original research. I urge you to think again about the "general reader" approach and to modify your text accordingly. It is not that the translation issue isn't important, but...let me put it this way. When I write an article on an opera or other musical work—The Rite, Mahler's Eighth, an opera—I don't go into details of chordal analysis or syntactical structure. These are important issues for musicologists and students of musical theory, but not for general readers. Back to Kafka: I suggest a simple statement that translators face formidable problems in rendering the original German into any other language, because of the particular structure of the German language. Perhaps one example to illustrate. Ditch the section and ditch the illustration. Or at least, think about it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem (my POV): it's not "the German language", it's Kafka's unique style of using the German language which poses the difficulty, and I would have a very hard time to say in simple words what the diagram shows at a glance: the structure of a complex sentence (how can making a sentence from the source visible be OR?) and the different structure of the translation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BB-please don't let this issue hold up getting to the rest of the article.PumpkinSky talk 22:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum comments: Like Brian, mention of Kafka brings back memories of student days. I've only looked at the lead so far, but it seems a bit choppy and disjointed to me. I've made a few small changes and moved a little bit around, but here's an example of what I'm talking about: "Kafka preferred communication by letter". Preferred it to what? Semaphore? Morse Code? Speaking? And why not the more straightforward "to communicate by letter", unless the implication is that he preferred everyone to communicate by letter, not just himself. Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that one. If you have more suggestions, please let us know. PumpkinSky talk 00:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have loads more: "He left unfinished the novels Der Process (The Trial), Das Schloss (The Castle) and Amerika (Amerika or Der Verschollene)." That doesn't seem at all idiomatic to me: much more natural to say "He left the novels ... unfinished". It seems to be in the wrong place anyway, should probably be integrated with the final paragraph, which already mentions the publication of his unfinished works. And given the conjunction of this sentence with the preceding "While working for an insurance company ..." the implication seems to be that he left them unfinished while he was working for an insurance company, but may have completed them later. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and thanks! PumpkinSky talk 01:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another: "While working for an insurance company he wrote many stories". What that implies is that he wrote no stories after he left that insurance company. Added to which he worked for more than one insurance company, so "an insurance company" is rather misleading. Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

changed to "He wrote some of his stories while working for an insurance company", is there a better wording than that? PumpkinSky talk 01:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really uncomfortable about what seems to me to be a non sequitor. What significance does it have that he wrote some stories while working for an insurance company? Surely the best thing to do is to say something along the lines of that after finishing his legal training he worked for an insurance company, and started to write (short?) stories? Or are the two things related in some Kafkaesque way? Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So tweaked, thanks for helping. PumpkinSky talk 10:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Late into this: that is a line that was there, I felt uncomfortable but not enough to do something about it, thank you for pointing that out. I guess the intention is to say that for most of the day he was not a writer but an employee, he started writing in his spare time and complained for life how much time he had to devote to his "Brotberuf" and how little to what he felt was his calling. Wording? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a really important point, and we ought not just to drop the fact that he went to work for an insurance company. What about something like "After completing his legal training Kafka took up employment with an insurance company. He began to write short stories in his spare time, and for the rest of his life complained about how much time he had to devote to his Brotberuf ("day job", literally "bread and butter") and how little to what he felt was his calling"? I'd also consider dropping that partial list of short stories, as it doesn't seem to add much where it is. Malleus Fatuorum 14:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So changed. PumpkinSky talk 20:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Little of Kafka's work was published during his lifetime—the story collections Betrachtung (Contemplation) and Ein Landarzt (A Country Doctor), and individual stories in literary magazines." It's unclear to me what this is trying to say. "Little of Kafka's work was published during his lifetime, only the story collections ..."? Malleus Fatuorum 16:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translation problems to English

edit
  • I share Brian's concern about this section, and that it needs to be more accessible for the general reader. One thing I'd suggest immediately is moving that dependency diagram to The Metamorphosis's article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus_Fatuorum (talk • contribs)
I can live with moving the chart, but noting the chart was made by a guy with a PHD in German and linguistics. Moved the chart. PumpkinSky talk 01:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We've all got degrees in something or other. Am I supposed to be impressed? ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a degree in Business Studies. That should really impress you, MF! Brianboulton (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better than football studies I guess. Marginally. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 14:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut much of the technical stuff from this, tried to copyedit too. Pls review. PumpkinSky talk 21:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review continued: I am continuing with the sections I haven't looked at yet, before going back to review earlier parts. Here are my comments on two further sections:

Critical interpretations
  • "Critics and academics, including Vladimir Nabokov,[128] regard Kafka as among the greatest writers of the 20th century. W. H. Auden called him the "Dante of the twentieth century". Nabokov was a novelist; Auden was a poet. Although their opinions are of value, neither can justifiably be called a "critic" or an "academic". So I would modify the statement along the lines of: "The poet W.H. Auden called Kafka "the Dante of the twentieth century"; other writers such as Vladimir Nabokov have regared him as among the century's greatst writers".
Done PumpkinSky talk 23:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his breakthrough work" sounds like a modern Americanism used for film actors, singers etc, but it reads oddly here. Also, the two word "of his" at the end of the sentence must be removed.
Done PumpkinSky talk 23:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "multivalent"? The meaning is "having a valency of two or more", where valency is "the combining power of an atom measured by the number of hydogen atoms it can displace or combine with in the formation of compounds". I think you may have chosen the wrong word.
The 4th definition where I looked it up is "Having various meanings or values" but as it's confusing, I cut the word out. Got a word to put in its place? I couldn't think of one.PumpkinSky talk 23:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a section entitled "Critical interpretations" you need to be specific about who is saying what; foms such as "Some see..." and "others point to..." are not adequate.
Reworded.PumpkinSky talk 23:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "skewering of bureaucracy" - whose phrase?
Cut PumpkinSky talk 23:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistencies in tenses, e.g. "Kafka's prose allows..." and "Kafka's work touches on..." versus "Kafka's books drew influences from..." and "his work was centered around..."
Fixed. PumpkinSky talk 23:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Encyclopaedia Britannica Online..." What is the status of this source material? It has no author's name, no citations and, worryingly, carries a general invitation to "Help us expand this topic" by adding a contribution. I would not use this stuff.
Cut PumpkinSky talk 23:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Much of Kafka's work touches on the theme of human conflict with bureaucracy; nevertheless, this has been disputed in an article on The Guardian, where William Burrows claims that such work is centred on the concepts of struggle, pain, solitude, the need for relationship, amongst others; he hence asserts that to view The Castle as a novel on bureaucracy is merely to "trivialise Kafka's artistic project" and "reductive". Monster sentence with non-idiomatic phrases ("he hence asserts" is nonsense). The whole thing needs a substantial rewrite.
Done.PumpkinSky talk 23:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whose insertion is "with good reason"?
No idea. Cut.PumpkinSky talk 23:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 135: I followed this link, which appears to go to an unrelated page.
Page 7, critical intrepretations section. PumpkinSky talk 23:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kafka saw the absurdity of human existence and that people could make it meaningful or not". Statements like this need to be attributed, not just cited. In this case, I am not sure that the source supports the statement as given. The appropriate lines are, presumably, "Kafka ... approaches the inherent terror of existence with a wink and a nod, and embraces the absurdity of everything. Later in the twentieth century, the comedy troupe Monty Python would in a sense follow in Kafka’s steps, presenting life as ultimately absurd and as meaningful or meaningless as one chose to make it." Thus it is the Monty Python comedy troupe, not Kafka that presented life as "meaningful or meaningless as one chose to make it." Also, where was this essay first published? At the moment it is only linked to "The Literture Network".
ce'd + new refPumpkinSky talk 01:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Biographers have noted..." Specifically?
Cut PumpkinSky talk 23:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Law"
  • Having read the section, or having tried, I'm unconvinced that this aspect of Kafka's writing deserves a full subsection on its own.
?PumpkinSky talk 00:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the quasi-ironic quotes in the title?
I wondered that too. Was there when Gerda and I started. Cut. PumpkinSky talk 00:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A number of attempts have been made to examine Kafka's legal background and the role of law in his fiction,[139][140] though relatively few compared to the vast collection of literature devoted to the study of his life and works, and marginal to legal scholarship." This sentence does not parse properly. I fail to see any real use of the wording after the references (which is where the problems are).
Cut PumpkinSky talk 00:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is meant by "mainstream studies"?
Cut mainstream PumpkinSky talk 00:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whose phrase is "the horizon of meaning"?
Was there when we started. Cut. PumpkinSky talk 00:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph needs more citations (none after the first phrase)
added PumpkinSky talk 01:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence beginning "However, James Hawes argues..." is another of the prose marathons that needs editing and splitting. In particular, interpolations such as "in fact" should be avoided. Several other sentences are similarly afflicted.
Tried to fix. PumpkinSky talk 00:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The significance of law in Kafka's fiction is also neglected within legal scholarship, as Richard Posner pointed out, most lawyers do not consider writings about law in the form of fiction of any relevance to the understanding or the practice of law". Please explain why "legal scholarship" should bother about Kafka, or any other fictional writings about the law.
Cut PumpkinSky talk 00:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no clue what the last paragraph is about. It is nearly all a quote; if it means anything important, you need to paraphrase it in simpler language.
big copyedit. PumpkinSky talk 00:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My final batch of comments:

Kafkaesque
  • The sources in this section are websites: "Infoplease", "Free Dictionary", "Websters Online dictionary", "Wired 2011" and "Aquella 2006". These are not scholarly sources. Given the huge amount of Kafka scholarship, it is surely possible to present a discussion of this term, and illustrations of its use, on the basis of something more reliable than these.
Adding at least three journal articles from JSTOR in the next few minutes.PumpkinSky talk 21:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drop the hatnote. It is of no interest to someone reading this article that "Kafkaesque redirects here"; they are already here. The link to the episode of a TV series undiscussed in the article will simply puzzle people, and that should go, too.
Cut. PumpkinSky talk 14:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get rid of gratuitous opinion such as "If Franz Kafka were Mexican, he would be a Costumbrista writer", incomprehensible to the general reader and of no value - but I rather think this whole section will have to be rewritten.
Cut. PumpkinSky talk 14:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commemoration
  • The section looks a little thin and uninformative.
  • The museum is "dedicated to his work" - can you amplify? When was it established? Is it a state institution? Is it just exhibits of manuscripts etc, or is it a centre for research and scholarship?
Added a few sentences on that except I can't determine it it's state or private. PumpkinSky talk 14:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I'd bother to mention the asteroid, which smacks of trivia.
I respectfully disagree, few people have their own asteroid.PumpkinSky talk 17:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Franz Kafka Prize was established in 2001, to recognize the artwork's "humanistic character..." etc. The words "the artwork" give a sort of clue, but we need to be told clearly to what artistic fields (painting, sculpture, whatever) the prize relates, who is eligible, how frequently it is awarded and, importantly, what the prize consists of (money? medal? trophy? all of these?)
Done.PumpkinSky talk 17:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, but I would be very surprised to learn that SDSU is the only university among the thousands in the world that operates a centre for Kafka studies, or that it is considered among the leader in this scholarship, so it is strange to find a whole pararaph devoted to the work of this institution and no mention of anyone else.
It's there because they're at the core of the search for K's papers PumpkinSky talk 18:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Literary and cultural influence
  • First paragraph needs specific attribution
Done PumpkinSky talk 20:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the list of writers influenced by Kafka you have three successive citations to the same source. You should give authority to the statement that these writers were thus influenced by giving the source (Sandbank for the first three, a Financial Times literary critic for the others.
Done PumpkinSky talk 20:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of the first paragraphs reads like a continuation of the attribution to Sandbank, but I see it is sourced differently. This should be clarified.
Done PumpkinSky talk 20:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph makes trenchant statements but, as with elsewhere in the article, these wordings need to be placed specifically in the mouth of a source.
Done PumpkinSky talk 20:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table seems to come out of nowhere, without any preamble. What is it? It looks like a medley consisting of film and dramatised versions of Kafka's life and/or works, mixed with derivative and original works influenced by Kafka, bits of music and video games.

I don't know who compiled this, but I think the content needs looking at. At the very least ant such table should be properly indroduces and presented as a partial or selected list. Personally I would ditch the whole thing, select the more significant items and cite them in the text as examples of K's literary and cultural influence. Presenting the items in this form is asking for trouble.

Added a lead in sentence, I think it's worth keeping as it shows the wide and varied impact he's had on modern culture.PumpkinSky talk 21:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That completes my general review of the article's sections, and I feel I need a bit of a break from Kafka before I read through to see what effect my comments I have. Before I go, though, a few final observations:

  • The infobox would benefit from exorcism. I'll do some work on this later.
Already did that. PumpkinSky talk 21:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the thousands of WP articles I've looked at, I've never seen one with so many listed sources. I count 45 books, 19 journal articles, 11 newspaper articles and 50 websites. Are all of these cited in the text? As mentioned in my review comments, some of the online sources look distinctly dodgy. I wonder why such a huge proliferation of sources is truly necessary, and whether some rationalisation is possible. To cap it all you have listed 25 more texts as "Further reading"!
Will work on some of the iffy refs. YES, every ref listed in the biblio section, books, web, journals, newspapers, IS USED. PumpkinSky talk 14:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are minor issues such as image placement which I'm not bothered with at the moment, but which will need attention in the final polishing stage. My impression on reading through is that the prose will need a lot more attention before the article is anything like ready for a FAC. When I read through again, in say a week's time. I'll be able to judge the extent to which the prose has improved, so I'll make no further comment on that now. Finally, a word of congratulation to Gerda & Pumpkin for the efforta made to bring this article up from a very poor state towards something worthy of so important a writer. I have mentioned this in the current CORE contest, and requested that the article, if not a prizewinner, should get an honorable mention.

Now for a short break. Phew! Brianboulton (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed and thorough review. PumpkinSky talk 21:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yomangani comments
  • I love the infobox occupation field: "Insurance officer, factory manager, novelist, short story writer". Perhaps reword the opening sentence: "Franz Kafka[a] (3 July 1883 – 3 June 1924) was an influential German-language insurance officer and factory manager." Yomanganitalk 02:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't reviewed the infobox yet. I suspect that much of it is for the chop - or will be, if I can have my wicked way with it. Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cut the ", insurance officer, factory manager" part. The rest is standard writer infobox stuff. PumpkinSky talk 12:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "Influenced" section is pointless - it contains only a subgroup of the authors mentioned in the text which in turn is only a subgroup of the authors he has influenced. As a summary it is next to useless. Yomanganitalk 18:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree it's pointless. PumpkinSky talk 02:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You make a convincing argument. Say I want to know if George Orwell was influenced by Kafka - if I read only the infobox then I can apparently say for certain that he wasn't. If I'm a machine collecting the data for dissemination it's even worse because I will be passing on that haphazard condensed condensate without any supporting data from the article. That this field is ubiquitous doesn't make it useful. What information is it supposed to convey? Is Kafka Camus' main influence? Is he Saramago's only influence? Should he be listed as an influence on Foucault because Foucault was influenced by Sartre? Did Kafka influence film-makers or artists? Welles, Kubrick, M. C. Escher or the developers of Bad Mojo? I was going to suggest that this field is on a par with having a "Things that are this colour" field for {{infobox colour}} but I reckoned without Wikipedia's talent for self-parody. Maybe a "Things that contain this substance" for {{infobox element}} would be a better parallel (I daren't look) Yomanganitalk 10:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Brian that "Law" probably doesn't rate its own section. There are several problems with it as it stands anyway:
Made it not a subsection.PumpkinSky talk 02:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The bulk of the first paragraph is presumably a paraphrase of Glen's opinion of other critiques - I doubt the other critics would agree that they have failed to account for an important aspect of Kafka's writing.
Fixed.PumpkinSky talk 22:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using "Kafkaesque" to describe Kafka's work - how "Joycean"
Fixed.PumpkinSky talk 22:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "are based on accurate and informed, though exaggerated" - exaggerating them makes them inaccurate.
Fixed.PumpkinSky talk 22:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Similarly, the requirement for the traveler to register with the authorities in The Castle to stay a night in the village seems repressive and odd to the Anglosphere" Does it seem odd to the Anglosphere?
Cut.PumpkinSky talk 02:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...present-day Germans..." Not the Bohemians of Kafka's time? Wouldn't they be more relevant than the present-day people of a different country?
Cut.PumpkinSky talk 02:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "present-day Germans, as with most continental Europeans, are required to register their address" Who and when and where? Germans are required to register their address when staying in a US hotel? The imprecise assertions made in this sentence don't add much.
Cut.PumpkinSky talk 02:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Kafka was an insurance lawyer" - was he? The earlier sections have him qualified in law but working as an investigator and administrator.
Reworded.PumpkinSky talk 02:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Reza Banakar argues..." - this sentence is nonsensical. I corrected a couple of other sentences in this section to what I presumed they were intending to say but I'm at a loss with this one.
Cut.PumpkinSky talk 02:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yomanganitalk 18:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Truthkeeper comments

I thought about picking this up but Brian beat me to it and much of what I have in my notes (I began a review) has been addressed. A couple of suggestions though:

  • I think much of what's been addressed can be mitigated with a thorough literature search of the best scholarly material available about Kafka. Too much reliance is given to Brod which is problematic for several reasons: Although the 1960 edition is being used here, the biography was published in 1937 and thus very dated; some biographers (and this is especially true of biographers for writers) have a PoV - Brod knew Kafka, had his work published and retained some sort of control of the Kafka estate. My suggestion is to keep some of Brod but cut back as much as possible
Worked and working.PumpkinSky talk 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most respected current biographer is Reiner Stach. Lean on him a lot more.
Doing tonight. PumpkinSky talk 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More emphasis should be given to literary critics, particularly for the lit. crit sections. Cambridge Companions are really good for this because they are compilations of the most recent literature by the "best" scholars. They're fairly cheap to buy online (I've bought a few for as little as $7) so I'd suggest using that as the best resource.
Taking you up on your offer on your talk. PumpkinSky talk 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a sentence (sorry haven't pulled it out but can if you wish) in regards to critical analysis that's sourced to the NYT > generally on-line sources, unless very good, are not great for critical analysis
Can't figure out which line you're talking about. PumpkinSky talk 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About motif which should be sourced to a modern lit. scholar. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an e-book that has some weird mirroring, backward copyvio thing going on that I can't figure out, but I'd remove it and maybe ask MRG if a backwards copyvio tag is necessary for the talkpage.
Noticed this too, will take out that ref.PumpkinSky talk 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brian is correct in regards to the proliferation of sources: sources sometimes tend to be derivative and it's not always necessary to use everything, e.g. the info about the battle over the estate is presented equally as well by the New York Times and PBS, so maybe one of those can be trimmed out.
I think you meant NPR vice PBS. Cut. PumpkinSky talk 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was meant to be an example of others; but yes NPR. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better and more varied biographical and critical sources will give more information that's necessary to fill in some of the gaps; filling in the gaps to some extent will solve the choppy prose problems.
Working.PumpkinSky talk 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, in regards to the translations - I think it's not so much that he wrote in German, or the way he wrote, but that it was a function of how the modernists wrote in general (which maybe needs more exploration). That's out there in sources and if either of you is interested I'd be happy to help with a literature search.
SurePumpkinSky talk 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Franz_Kafka/archive1&oldid=1089814172"