Wikipedia:Peer review/The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes/archive1

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Right, after some discussion about whether this should go down the article or the list route, I figure that a peer review, in which the article can be shaped further might be the clearest path to take for the moment. Although I am happy to receive a full detailed review that will help pave the way towards FA or FL, I am particularly interested in the broad strokes: what would be useful if we could add, move or remove?

Thanks, Harrias ^talk 06:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

 Doing... – I'm taking a look and will leave some comments soon. It may not be a complete review, though. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from BB

Lead

• It would help if, at some early point in the lead, you indicated the size of the whole Holmes canon (four full-length novels produced between 1887 and 1915, and 56 short stories betw. 1891 and 1927), to make it clearer that this collection of stories is only a small – and early – part of the whole.
• " the individual stories were serialised in The Strand Magazine" → " the individual stories had been serialised in The Strand Magazine
• "Holmes is portrayed as offering a new, fairer sense of justice": The terms "new" and "fairer" are relative; what is the comparison with?
• "a prominent character in modern adaptations" – meaning in modern adaptions generally, rather than just this story?

Context

• A hatnote link to Canon of Sherlock Holmes would be very helpful
• You need to clarify that A Study in Scarlet – and indeed The Sign of the Four, were full-length novels
• "was lowly paid for it" isn't really modern English idiom: "was paid little for it"

Publication sequence

Some of the synopses are not particularly clear and could do with some polishing. Here are a few points for attention, but a good look at this section is advised.

• "Stepfather" is not hyphenated
• In "The Man with the Twisted Lip" you say "Holmes reconsiders", but your summary has not previously brought Holmes into the story, so it's not clear whar he is reconsidering.
• "bell-pull" requires a hyphen
• "recounts his tale to first Watson and then Holmes" – ugly phrasing: simplify to "recounts his tale to Watson and Holme".
• In "The Adventure of the Engineer's Thumb" you need to put Hattersley's narrative into the past tense, since he is narrating it to Watson and Holmes.
• No need for multiple linking of Lestrade
• "consults with Holmes" → "consults Holmes"
• "offered a job as a governess with a number of strange criteria" – awkwardly phrased, and "criteria" is probably the wrong word here. "Offered the job subject to a number of unusual conditions" would be clearer.
• "Holmes discovers that someone had been kept prisoner in the wing, but when they enter...." – who is "they"?
• "Holmes, Watson and Hunter are accused to freeing the prisoner..." – "of", not "to"
• "and he sets his dog on them" – who is "he"?

Critical reception

You have limited comments in this section to those from a few contemporary provincial newspapers. I would expect a section such as this to have a rather broader basis – national press, literary magazines, later literary criticism and analysis, etc. A quick Google search indicates some apparently promising avenues of enquiry.

I struggled with scope a little here; should I try and keep this to reviews of the collection, or would analysis of individual stories be fair game here? Harrias ^talk 12:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Adaptations

I am not sure of the usefulness or relevance of most of this section, which seems more appropriate for a general Holmes article rather than one concerned with this particular anthology.

I tried to offer a brief synopsis of Holmes' adaptations, and then more specific on this collection, but again I struggled with scope. Would you suggest that this section might be superfluous to this article? Harrias ^talk 12:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. One point I found particularly interesting is the revelation, from "The Five Orange Pips", that Holmes was a mass murderer – if the ship was lost, presumably all the crew perished, too. And Holmes presumably accepted the consequences of his actions.

Thank you very much for this, it has helped a lot. I have offered a couple of specific questions above. The article is definitely in an unpolished state at the moment, so I know that it needs a thorough copy-edit throughout before I take it any further. Unfortunately, my inability to summarise plots has put the wrong spin on the events in "The Five Orange Pips". Although Holmes sends the letter, the ship is lost at sea in storms before it can be delivered to the ship. Harrias ^talk 12:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

One brief further question, would you see this as an article (that after a fair bit more work) should be looking to head down the FA, rather than FL, route? Harrias ^talk 19:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

This is an excellent article, and I struggle to find anything to quibble about, particularly after BB has already had a go. Doing my best:

• Lead
  • To my mind the blue links to anthology and short story are unnecessary. I often think we all link too much and too often, and I really don't imagine your readers will need to click on either of these links.
• Context
  • A link to Poe might be helpful (ignoring, as practically everyone does, the inexplicable MoS guidance not to link from within quotations.)
• Summary
  • "Amongst" is a fustian word, I think. "Among" is shorter and better.
• Table
  • First column – in a table (as opposed to prose text) I'd be inclined to lose the quotation marks round the titles, though I quite see why you have included them.
  • The Adventure of the Red-Headed League – I really don't think your readers need a link to explain to them what red hair is.

That really is all I can find. A fine article, impressively cited. Despite the inclusion of a large table, I think this page should go to FAC rather than FLC. It's not a mere list: if you were to reformat the table as prose – not that I'm suggesting you should – it would be obvious that the page is an analysis of the context, content and reception of the book. To my mind you have the proportions of the article right: the background is well covered, the plot summaries are concise and to the point, and you give both pro and anti comments in the reception section. – Tim riley talk 11:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tim riley for your kind and useful comments! Harrias ^talk 20:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)