Talk:Wormwood: A Drama of Paris

Deleted Content - Epigraphs from the American Edition

I've removed the epigraphs... the first one is not even translated to English, and there is no mention of why these epigraphs are significant. I've preserved them below; they could be restored if a translation and an outside source asserting the importance of the epigraphs to the novel were provided. Dozenthey (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

First Epigraph

A MESSIEURS

LES ABSINTHEURS DE PARIS,

CES FANFARONS DU VICE

QUI SONT

LA HONTE ET LE DESESPOIR DE LEUR PATRIE

Second Epigraph

"And the name of the star is called WORMWOOD: and the third part of the waters became WORMWOOD; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter." --Revelation 8:11 (King James Version)

"Et le nom de cette etoile etait ABSINTHE: et la troisieme partie des eaux fut changee en ABSINTHE; et elles firent mourir un grand nombre d'hommes parce qu'elles etaient devenues ameres." --Revelation vii. 11 (Nouveau Testament Francais)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wormwood: A Drama of Paris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060407202224/http://www.oxygenee.com/absinthe-BOOKS9.html to http://www.oxygenee.com/absinthe-BOOKS9.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wormwood: A Drama of Paris/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 21:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	no synth; interpretations are supported by RS
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	earwig is great
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	well done finding so much visual interest for a book!
	7. Overall assessment.

Things to address

There are a few things I'd recommend improving, largely related to the prose, listed below. I'll do a more detailed source check for OR and copyvio shortly. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• The main thing I notice is the absence of a "style" section. The summary actually (improperly) begins with style, by noting that the novel is related in the first person: I suggest moving that sentence to a new section and adding a few more sentences about the nature of the writing. The Sally Mitchell review appears to have some comments on the book's fast-paced and dramatic style. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Expanding on this-- the Punch parody also alludes to some distinctive features of her vocabulary (archaisms and incorrect French). From the Mitchell review, it looks like the book has a lot of untranslated French. The style section need not be long but would be useful to note this kind of thing. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    •  Done I was somewhat resistant to this idea at first, and thought there wouldn't be enough content to merit a dedicated section, but I actually think it turned out pretty well. Colin M (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Thanks for going with it! I agree that it turned out well. In the long run (i.e., for FA) this section may merit some discussion of decadence as an aesthetic style, but for now it's not like the reader is missing anything too important there, since the book's general relationship to decadence is well-stated. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Moral themes: The novel was said to have contributed to legislation... -- I think this actually belongs in "reception." Or, the article might actually benefit from a "background" section discussing the cultural status of absinthe, where this could also belong. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • As you said, "Reception" is usually about critical reviews, or other indicia of the book's appeal to different audiences, so I think this would feel a little out of place there. The preceding paragraph is about how Corelli intended the book as almost a sort of anti-absinthe propaganda, so I think that leads very naturally into talking about the effect the book had on absinthe legislation. Colin M (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    •  Done Fair points -- the flow feels smoother now. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Moral themes: this section is usually called "major themes." Is there a reason for using "moral"? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I just think the present heading is a better description of its content. I mean, I could make a "Major themes" section with "Moral themes" being a subsection thereof, but that seems redundant unless there are going to be other subsections (and I haven't encountered any major themes discussed in RS that aren't related to moral judgements). Colin M (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Ok, that makes sense. Looking at the sources more, I think I agree: the other topics I'm seeing discussed in the criticism are realism and the divide between highbrow & popular culture, neither of which is a theme in the work itself. A nod to realism might belong in "style" and highbrow/lowbrow in "reception." ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Are you able to access Idol of suburbia : Marie Corelli and late-Victorian literary culture by Annette Federico? It appears to only exist in print but seems likely to have useful information on this book. It's the only major work on this novel that I found which was not referenced in the article, so it may be ok to go without it if access is challenging. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I wish! My local library system has a copy only at their reference branch (meaning it can only be viewed there, not checked out), and it's not open to the public now due to Covid. :( Colin M (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Alas! I can't get it either. Ok, then let's do without for now, though it would be good to find it before going for FA. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Publication: receiving £100 as an advance, £300 on publication, and 6 shillings per copy after sales passed 1,500 -- these numbers need their own inline cite (even if it's a repeat) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Done Colin M (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Reception: The prose in this section is organizationally disjointed. Specifically, it is confusing to say it got "mixed reviews" to begin a paragraph that actually only describes praise. It might be useful to organize this section around the distinction between high and low literature, as discussed in "‘I Love Beauty – and I Study It Wherever I Find It, Dead or Living’: Marie Corelli’s Wormwood" by Kirby-Jane Hallum. (I can help you access this article if needed.) Or it might just be useful to reorganize the points into one paragraph of positives and one of negatives. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I've tried to address this. I considered just splitting the first sentence about mixed reviews into a standalone paragraph, but I think that would have looked weird. I ultimately decided to just cut the sentence altogether, since it was almost bordering on being WP:SYNTH-y. I only have two (secondary) sources that discuss the book's reception. Masters only mentions negative notices, and describes the press as generally "hostile" to the book. MacLeod mostly talks about positive notices, but doesn't try to characterize the overall critical reception. Colin M (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Shouldn't the parodies go with the adaptations? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I thought about this, but I don't think a parody like that can be properly described as an "adaptation". And the parody very much is basically a vehicle for lampooning the book's apparent shortcomings, so the "Reception" section felt like the best fit. Perhaps a compromise could be to move it into the "Adaptations" section, but rename the section to something like "Impact"? (In which case the effect on legislation could also be moved into that section.) Another name could be "Derived works", though that feels a bit clunky. Colin M (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    • You're right that it's not strictly an adaptation, but the reception section is more usually used for things like direct reviews of the work. I don't think "Derived works" is too clunky. Another option might just be to have a subheader, "Parody in Punch", within the "Reception" section. Mostly I want to address the fact that I found it a bit confusing to start reading about the parody, so perhaps prose edits could also make the transition clearer. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I decided to keep the parody in the "Reception" section for now, but I changed the way it's introduced to try to make it clear why it's in the section (i.e. because the parody is in large part a takedown aimed at pointing out the book's flaws and absurdities). Colin M (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    •  Done I'm impressed by what a difference these small edits made. It would be nice for there to be more synthesis but if the sources don't synthesize, this method of giving each kind of reception its own paragraph is the next best option and I think it's less confusing now. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Another note on further reading: I think the explanation of decadence in "Moral themes" gives too much weight to the "secretly also kind of pro-decadence" interpretation. I played around with the ordering of sentences in that paragraph to group together similar topics, and I think it's missing a few sentences of stating the obvious about how the book is anti-decadent. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the edits here. I've tried to incorporate some more details on the ways in which the book's anti-decadent tone was manifested (i.e. the fact that the protagonist meets his downfall as a result of his decadent lifestyle, and the explicitly anti-decadent arguments in the introduction and the novel proper). I think the quotes from the second paragraph also bolster this point (since decadence and absinthism are closely intertwined). Colin M (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    •  Done This is great. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Another "stating the obvious": somewhere the article should point out that wormwood is another name for absinthe, to explain the title. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Done Good idea! I added it to the "Moral themes" section in the paragraph talking about the book's anti-absinthe advocacy. Colin M (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for picking up this review and for the thoughtful critiques so far. I've replied with a few initial thoughts above. Unfortunately I'm going to be offline from now until Monday, but I look forward to putting in more work on this then. Colin M (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good and no rush! I think the article is really very good and possibly not all of my prose suggestions above are strictly necessary. You've done a good job having the interpretations follow the sources, which can be tough for book articles. I look forward to seeing your edits! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I think I've addressed some of the points above. I still plan to possibly add a short "Style" section, and address your points about the "Reception" section, including possibly relocating the material on the Punch parody. But it may be a few days before these are done. I'll send a ping when it's ready for another look. Thanks for your patience so far. Colin M (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@LEvalyn: Okay, I've replied to all your comments above, and I think this is now ready for another look. Colin M (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for all these edits! The article is looking great and I am happy to pass it as a GA! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks again for your insightful comments and suggestions. I think the article is much better for them. :) Colin M (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)