Wikipedia:Peer review/Theory of Literature/archive1

Theory of Literature

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a fairly heavy topic and I would like some feedback as to what could be developed further, if anything, and language. I've spent quite a bit of time in the trenches with this one, so I'm not really able to give it an objective read.

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

• File:Theory_of_Literature_cover.jpg: why PD-shape over PD-text?

• Was thinking of the grey bar, but PD-text added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• File:Sadness,_by_Julia_Margaret_Cameron.jpg: source page?

• Pinged the uploader. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• File:Witkacy_Roman_Ingarden_1937.jpg: when/where was this first published?

• Source page says family archives, removed until better information found. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• What was wrong with Eleanor?

• Not in source. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Studies of literature must be literary and systematic,[26] treating literature as literature" - this might not be clear to someone unfamiliar with literary theory, is there a way to better explain what you mean by this?

• Added "and not part of another field." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• By "linguistic differences", do you mean different languages, different styles, or something else?

• Different languages. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "two levels of operations" - should clarify that you're referring to general manuscript study rather than specifically forgeries

• Added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "the second level may require greater initiative from the student" - is the text specifically targeted to students? If so, at what level? The mention of publishing seems odd for a student text

• They don't explicitly state such an audience, although they use the term "student of literature" ("student") quite often. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "ideas" in the extrinsic section?

• The chapter is entitled "Literature and Ideas", so I've used the term here. Their discussion is closer to "Literature and Philosophy", so do you think an Easter egg link will do? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think that'd be clearer. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "contrasts these definitions with those of other scholars" - any specific approaches being criticized?

• Gave a couple examples, but worried about giving too much weight — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Wellek and Warren consider only an analysis of the psychological types of the characters in the work to be a legitimate application of psychology part of literary study. Such an analysis they find lacking on its own merits, as individual characters do not fit (or even exceed) psychological theories of the time they are written" - this phrasing is a bit awkward

• Reworded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "the author shapes said tastes" - you haven't mentioned tastes in this paragraph

• reworded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "the same effect as another art, through effects" - repetitive

• Reworded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "will have provide an "aesthetic experience" which can be judged" - grammar

• Dur, "have" trimmed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "dual fluency in several modern languages" - dual suggests two, several suggests more - which is correct?

• Good point, trimmed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "They also and recommend the teaching" - missing or extra word?

• Extra, trimmed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Down to "Theoretical", more later. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "borrows the formalist-turned-structuralist Roman Jakobson's term literariness" - but you've just used this term in the context of Russian formalism. Is this a contradiction in sources?

• Jakobson came up with the term while a formalist. Could be clearer — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "possible extrinsic studies based on factors outside of the work being studied" - awkward
• "Unlike Russian formalism, however, their theory recognized possible extrinsic studies based on factors outside of the work being studied, Wellek and Warren emphasized the intrinsic aspect of literary criticism, looking at aspects within the work itself" - missing a word or a punctuation mark somewhere in here

• Reworded (goes for both this and the above). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Be careful with tense in Reception - for example, you start with present for Hatzfeld and then move into past

• Think I got this — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "he believed to be most of the of the literature"?

• Clarified — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Ingarden, who considered...considered...He also considered" - repetitive

• Threw in a few synonyms — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• You could be a bit clearer about why the book lost influence in the 1960s

• Had to go outside the source for this (Holquist didn't say much). Hope this is better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "leading to them becoming binary opposites" - I think you mean intrinsic vs extrinsic here, but the phrasing suggests Wellek vs Warren

• I think this works. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Where is Evanston?

• Illinois — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Page for Thomas Jr.?

• Added URL, sorry — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• This book's entry in the References list is missing location. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)