Talk:Why Bother? (essay)

Summary

Alright. I consider my main work on the article finished. I think the only real work left to be done is making the summary clearer (which I shall continue to do) and adding some links in the reception section to interviews. I should add that Franzen himself found the original essay's form to be rather unclear, and mentioned revising it for its ideas rather than its style. And I find the style kind of rambling and unfocused at times. Which is what the content summary should evince. I would encourage anybody who could find a better way of summarizing it to suggest it or edit the that section of the this article. --Artimaean (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Why Bother? (essay)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 01:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Punctuation

• Replaced double hyphens with em dash. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Categories

• Added two cats: Works by Jonathan Franzen and Essays about literature. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Title

• It isn't clear whether the title of this encyclopedia entry should be the original essay title as published in Harper's or the revised version. Viriditas (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• MOS: House style is to use quotations for essays, not italics. Viriditas (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Full original title is "Perchance to Dream: In the Age of Images, a Reason to Write Novels". For some reason, it is not mentioned. Viriditas (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• It's generally poor form to start the lead section off with a 14 word parenthetical mentioning the original title and publisher. That's the kind of thing that should be explained in the body and in the lead. There's no need for a parenthetical here. Viriditas (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• It first appeared in the April 1996 issue
  • You mean, it was first published? Then that's where you say it was originally published as "Perchance to Dream". Viriditas (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• concerns the persistence of reading within the context of technological growth and distraction
  • While cute, that statement fails to convey the meaning of the essay in clear terms to readers unacquainted with the subject. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Fails to mention that the essay is included in the How to Be Alone collection discussed in reception. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Fails to summarize main points, such as reception. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Background

• between the publication of Franzen's novels Strong Motion and The Corrections
  • In other words, between 1992 and 2001. Why not say that? My preferred format is to place the year of publication in parentheses next to the name of work, but there are other ways to do it. Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• In the introduction to the collection, Franzen attributed his doing so
  • Not clear. "Attributed his doing so" refers to what? I'm going to guess, you are talking about his revision of the essay and retitling. Then, why not say that? Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• a long defense of the solitary act of literature in a modern world
  • I'm sure you are trying to say something and that this means something, but exactly what is it? Viriditas (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Need additional sources. You've got ~100 words that are unsourced. Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Content

• If this was a brief synopsis it probably would not need references to chapters and page numbers, but this section is what I call a hybrid synopsis; it has more than 1000 words and contains multiple quotes, with many interpretations thrown in for good measure. Long, complex summaries should have at least one citation (chapter/page numbers of primary source will suffice) per paragraph, whereas simple and short summaries might not need them at all. In this instance, you need them. Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Reception

• It's not clear if all of the sources refer to this essay or to other works. Viriditas (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• No mention of Marcus, Ozick, or Wolcott. Viriditas (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Further reading

• Not necessary to include How to Be Alone as it is already used as a reference. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

References

• There needs to be at least one full reference to the original publication: Franzen, Jonathan. (April 1996). "Perchance to Dream: In the Age of Images, a Reason to Write Novels". Harper's Magazine. 292 (1751). Viriditas (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Unnecessary duplication of citations. Use ref name instead. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Rebein is poorly cited to editor Toth (2007) rather than to the essay, "Turncoat: Why Jonathan Franzen Finally Said 'No' to Po-Mo". Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Full original title ("Perchance to Dream: In the Age of Images, a Reason to Write Novels") should appear somewhere.

   Clear prose preferred. Statements like "concerns the persistence of reading within the context of technological growth and distraction", "meditations around the state and possibility of the novel form", "potential cultural agency", "paradoxical drives of both culture and author", and "media assent to the jingoism" are not clear. This might be acceptable wording on a blog or at a cocktail party to impress the ladies/gents, but on Wikipedia we want to communicate as clearly as possible, without unnecessary ambiguity. You can keep it both smart and simple. If John von Neumann can communicate complex quantum mechanics in clear and simple language, then you should also be able to describe a work of literary criticism with clarity as well.

   MOS: quotations for essay titles, not italics.

   Need to summarize main points in lead (such as reception).

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Half of the background section is missing inline cites.

   References are unnecessarily duplicated and do not point directly to the source material (for example Toth instead of Rebein).

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   No mention of the essay as part of the death of the novel discourse

   Doesn't mention the wider context and dispute involving Ben Marcus[1][2][3] or Cynthia Ozick[4]

   Doesn't mention James Wolcott's critical review, "Advertisements for Himself", which provides a renewed perspective from the author that is essential for this article

   It is not clear if the reception section focuses just on this essay or other works.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Open tasks listed above. Viriditas (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

   Failed after no action in a week. Please nominate again after addressing the issues. Viriditas (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)