Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/The Historian/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

The Historian edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I plan on nominating this article for FAC, so I would like feedback on its readiness. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moni3

I read through the article, starting at the literary elements and skipping the plot section. I thought the discussion on genre, style, and themes was interesting and engaging, and aside from some minor questions (who says the reviews were "at best, mixed" -- odd to see it in quotes if it can be expressed without, or attributed to a single writer) found it quite well written.

I have not read The Historian so I don't know if it is the sequence of events which are convoluted or the sentence structure in the Plot section, that seems to diverge in style from the rest of the article, but some of the passages in the Plot section are stunted and out of place it seemed to me. The following passage is in the article now. It starts with some graceful sentences, then switches to shorter ones that appear to be disconnected.

The bulk of the novel focuses on the 1950s timeline, which follows Paul's adventures. After meeting with Paul, Rossi disappears; smears of blood on his desk and the ceiling of his office are all that remain. Certain that something unfortunate has befallen his advisor, Paul begins to investigate Dracula. While in the library, he meets a young, dark-haired woman reading a copy of Bram Stoker's Dracula—Helen Rossi. She has become an expert on the subject. Paul tries to convince her that a librarian is trying to stop them from researching Dracula. She is unconvinced, but tells Paul that she is the daughter of Bartholomew Rossi and that she is going to publish the definitive work on Dracula to punish Rossi for abandoning her. Later, the librarian attempts to stymie their research and attacks and bites Helen. He is then seemingly killed in a car accident in front of the library.

That, and I can't get away from "stymie" being a character from Our Gang. What about something like this:

The bulk of the novel focuses on the 1950s timeline, which follows Paul's adventures. After meeting with Paul, Rossi disappears; smears of blood on his desk and the ceiling of his office are all that remain. Certain that something unfortunate has befallen his advisor, Paul begins to investigate Dracula. While in the library, he meets an expert on Bram Stoker's Dracula, a dark-haired woman named Helen Rossi; he endeavors to convince her that their research on the historical figure is being impeded by a librarian. Rossi remains skeptical, and continues to work on publishing her definitive work on Dracula if only to punish her father Bartholomew, himself a researcher of the Transylvanian vampire, for abandoning her. Rossi is attacked and bitten by the librarian following his attempts to hinder their progress, and he subsequently dies in what seems to be a car accident in front of the library.

Just there I had to struggle to find several different ways to say "Dracula". What are your thoughts on dividing the Plot summary into three parts under third level headers?

In the rare occasions I write about novels, they are usually ones I love dearly. I do my best to convey how much I love the books I write about in the language in the article, without compromising encyclopedic tone or going off the melodramatic deep end. I worry that the article on Tipping the Velvet is dull and the specialness of the prose and the liveliness of the characters and writing is lost, or I have failed in expressing it. So much that I wonder what Sarah Waters might think if she reads it. To connect this to The Historian, I don't find that the prose moves well in the Plot section. I think it can be fixed easily, however, but all I can think to say is that it needs movement and emphasis on what is...again (sorry)... so moving about the story. Let me know if you have questions or want clarification. I can be rather obtuse sometimes. --Moni3 (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would appreciate any suggestions you have for how to improve the plot summary. I've adopted the paragraph you revised wholesale. This section has been the hardest for me to write - I can't gracefully explain the intertwined timelines. Perhaps that is because I don't particularly like this book or think it is well-written, so that may be coming through in my description of it. I find the novel convoluted and the timelines inelegantly linked together. Dare I say it is plodding? I like the scholarly elements of it and how the author conveys the excitement of scholarly discovery, but other than that, I was disappointed (although, oddly, I remembered liking it - a reread does nothing for the book, however). The GA reviewer suggested a one-paragraph plot summary (something like the first paragraph of the plot summary) and hinted that the rest of the plot summary was so incoherent it was best to leave it out. Do you think that would be a better way to go? Awadewit (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, goodness. I have to say that I am a bit relieved that you don't especially like this book. I guess I picked up on your "meh" tone. I can't imagine what you were trying to convey if you were coming from an approach where you really, really loved it.
Suggestions: the third level header plot summary can be seen as an example in Fingersmith (novel), not for the length or detail, but for the way it's laid out. I think the synopsis in Fingersmith is way too long. Is there a way to marry the brevity necessary in just getting the point across and the complexity of the plot and all the characters? I don't know really what the most important action or characters are to portray in the plot summary, but if you slice it up I can try to assist. Sometimes too, when I get specific criticism about leads or some such, I deconstruct it and start over with bullet points, then turn that into prose.
I also have to add that I spied a link to Pride and Prejudice and Zombies on your talk page during one of my many bouts of insomnia and I laughed my ass off through the entire article. April 1, 2010 main page article? I took the torch from Karanacs...shall I pass it to you? --Moni3 (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: My God, this is a difficult book! Hats off for the attempt to decypher it, it fair wore me out, all 704 pages of it. My comments so far only cover the lead and plot summary. Many of these are suggestions which you may choose to ignore.

  • Lead:
    • "a remarkable $2 million" may be true but reads as opinion
      • I'm going to leave this, as it is sourced and readers need to know that the amount was large. Awadewit (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slight ambiguity: "The Historian is not a horror novel, but rather an eerie tale." "Rather" can mean "instead", which I suspect is your intent here. Or it can mean "inclining towards" as in "I'd rather like to try". Perhaps a slight rewording is in order?
    • "It is concerned with history's role in society and representation in books..." may well be grammatically correct, but would read more smoothly with "its representation..."
      • Unfortunately "its representation" would refer back to society and therefore be incorrect! (I think I used to have that, actually, and switched to this to avoid the pronoun problem.) Awadewit (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comma required after "particular theme"
    • "to land at number one" reads rather heavy-footed; "to reach number one"
      • Interestingly, it didn't really "reach" - the first week it was released it was already at number one. Can you think of a better way to word this? Awadewit (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, some reviewers criticized the book's structure..." In view of the previous sentence the word "reviewers" could be deleted here.
    • Is it possible to give a time reference to the final sentence, e.g. "and as of 2009 was planning a film adaptation"?
      • Added "as of 2007" since my sources on the film are from 2007. Awadewit (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot summary
    • I think Moni's suggestion of a subdivision (Parts I, II and III) is a good one, which would help navigation through the summary.
    • I have a slight problem with "The unnamed sixteen-year-old narrator". The "Note to the Reader" which prefaces the book makes it clear that the story is being told retrospectively, 32 years after the main events described, so strictly speaking it is being told by a 48-year-old woman remembering her sixteen-year-old self. It might be an idea to clarify this in the first paragraph of this section.
      • Placed age earlier in plot summary and clarified that the novel is told retrospectively. Awadewit (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As a result, Rossi researched Vlad Ţepes," should be "Ţepeş"
    • Punctuation: "Rossi traveled as far as Istanbul, however, the appearance of curious characters and unexplained events caused him to drop his investigation..." First comma should be semicolon
    • I agree that "stymie" as a verb jars in this context. The suggested alternative version of the paragraph flows slightly better than the original but doesn't offer much more clarity to those who haven't read the book. I would rewrite the second part of the paragraph along the following lines:

While in the university library he meets a young, dark-haired woman reading a copy of Bram Stoker's Dracula. She is Helen Rossi, the daughter of Bartholomew Rossi, who has become an expert on the subject of Dracula. When Paul attempts to convince her that one of the librarians is trying to prevent their research of Dracula she is unpersuaded. She tells Paul that she intends to publish the definitive work on Dracula, to punish her father for abandoning her. Later, the librarian in question attempts to obstruct Helen, then attacks and bites her. Paul intervenes and overpowers him but he wriggles free. The librarian is then run over and apparently killed by a car, in front of the library.

    • Next paragraph: Suggest begin "On hearing..." rather than "While..." It isn't necessary to say "in the 1970s", since we have already been told that Part I begins in 1972.
      • I think we do have to mention we are back in the 1970s since the previous paragraph is about the 1950s. Awadewit (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last sentence of this paragraph would more logically be the first sentence of the next, and it should be possible to avoid the repetition of "during the 1950s"
    • Ambiguity? "Helen and Paul conclude that Rossi might have been taken by Dracula to his tomb" - whose tomb?
      • Grammatically, "his" refers back to "Dracula". Awadewit (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He has access to the archive..." - could this archive be identified, e.g. the Dracula archive?
      • This refers back to the Sultan Mehmed archive mentioned in the previous sentence. I don't think it is necessary to repeat it. Awadewit (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggested reconstruction for end of paragraph: "They also see the librarian who was killed in the United States, who later attacks one of the librarians assisting the group. Helen shoots the vampire librarian—who has been following them—through the heart, but he does not die."
    • "From Istanbul, Paul and Helen travel to Budapest ... to meet with Helen's mother, who they believe may have knowledge of Rossi—the two had met during his travels to Romania in the 1930s" I don't quite follow the sense here. They believe the mother may have current knowledge of Rossi; the phrase after the mdash appears misplaced. I would end the first sentence after "Rossi" and then continue: "For the first time Helen hears of her parents' torrid love affair—the two had met during Rossi's travels to Romania in the 1930s. Helen reads letters..."
    • "...forgot the entire incident" – a torrid love affair is not really an "incident". Perhaps "experience"?
    • "Upon reaching Sveti Georgi, Paul and Helen find the interred Rossi..." That's a bit cryptic. Suggest: "After many difficulties Paul and Helen discover the whereabouts of Sveti Georgi. Upon reaching the monastery they find Rossi's interred body in the crypt and are forced..." etc
    • After "She survives and decides to hunt him down and kill him" it might be useful to say that Paul's letters end here.
      • I'm not sure how important that is - there is already too much information in this plot summary! Awadewit (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That completes my comments on the plot summary. I will return to the rest of the text after a brief interval. Brianboulton (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: A little hurried, because I shall be away for several days after today, but as you will see I had few issues with this quality article.

  • Composition and publication
    • The first two paragraphs are background, rather than composition or history, and could perhaps be subheaded separately. And, in my view, it would help a general understanding of the author and the writing of the book if it was made clear that she is not herself an Eastern European (if only by adding in the second sentence "...her father, an American professor of whatever, was teaching..." etc.
      • I've renamed the section "Background and publication" and added two subheadings: "Biographical background" and "Composition and publication". I'm not sure about labeling her father "American", as I really know nothing about him. I've added that the family moved from the US to Europe for a year. I hope this helps clarify the situation. Awadewit (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Couple of nitpicks:
      • "The rights (plural) to the book were(plural) then auctioned off and Little, Brown and Company bought it (singular)..."
      • "Publishers Weekly explained the high price as a bidding war..." The high price resulted from a bidding war, but was not in itself a war.
  • Genre and Style
    • Old literary argument: "repulsed" or "repelled" in "...both fascinated and repulsed by Dracula"?
      • "Repulsed" to me has overtones of physical repulsion, which is an important part of both stories. Awadewit (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slight ambiguity: "Yet, Kostova shapes Dracula into her own character." She "shapes Dracula into a character of her own making".
      • Sorry, I don't see the ambiguity. Could you explain it to me? Awadewit (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Character" can mean personal attributes/characteristics, as well as someone in a fictional work. I wanted it to be clear that the latter meaning was intended, but the point is minor. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The novel's tone and structure place it within the serious literary tradition for which Kostova was aiming." Has this tradition been defined earlier in the article? If not, there should be a word of explanation as to the tradition she was aiming for.
      • The reviews I read assumed readers would know what this tradition is, so they don't define it. It is a problem, because, of course, not everyone agrees what "serious literature" is. I'm worried that if I defined the tradition here, I would be inserting OR. Awadewit (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Themes: no issues with this section
  • Reception
    • A bit more date information would help; when did she begin her promotion tour and, more particularly, what was the book's publication date?
    • The "Baker" who praised Kostova's prose should perhaps be reidentified as nancy Baker of The Globe and Mail.
      • As she is already identified, I don't think this is necessary. Awadewit (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I had forgotten who she was; the full name may have helped me remember. Not important. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other than that, the section looks fine. I see that someone other than me found the book "ponderous".
      • I keep wanting books about scholars to be better! Awadewit (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comments on the Awards or Adaptations sections

Overall: the quality is there, only the final polishing necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help!

Comments from completely involved Casliber

Funny, in hindsight that was/is/will be the bit that is the most awkward. Think of this as an exercise and challenge in being able to present a three-timed-sequenced timeline into a succinct and easily legible summary. I am trying to make some time for this, just have to deal with some arb stuff :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 21:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Update from Awadewit - I now have a herniated disk and cannot sit at my disk and edit. I'll have to return to this when I feel better. Awadewit (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're sitting at/on your disk, does this not exacerbate the problem? Try your butt. Helpful me. --Moni3 (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OUCH - okay, I have now freed up a bit of time to do more relaxing things. Will look at the page anon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Colin (talk · contribs)

I enjoyed reading this and it reads very well. I have skipped the plot section because I haven't read the book.

  • I got a wee bit confused with the second paragraph of the "Composition and publication" section. On first reading it, I thought it was a mini-bio but trying to work out where she spent her life at various times was difficult. For example, the foreign-sounding surname (which I see later she got from her Bulgarian husband) made me think she was born and raised in Slovenia (spending a year in the capital). Then I realised I shouldn't really be worrying about piecing together her life because the purpose of the first half of this section is to show what influenced her to write this story. (Perhaps the section heading is wrong since much of the section is pre-composition?) Given this purpose, should the sentences in the second paragraph be inverted? Rather than saying "As a child, she...", "As an undergraduate at Yale University, she...", "In 1989, she...", "While Kostova was in Europe, ..." Could we say "She listened to recordings of Balkan folk music as a child, and ...", "She sang in and directed a Slavic chorus while studying as an undergraduate at Yale University", "She and some friends traveled to Eastern Europe in 1989,", "The Berlin Wall collapsed while Kostova was in Europe"? Perhaps there are other reasons that suggestion doesn't work. Maybe it would make the paragraph's sentences just a jumble of facts.
  • I've retitled the section "Background and publication" and added subheadings "Biographical background" and "Composition and publication". I've also adopted many of your suggestions for rewording the sentences. Awadewit (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is better now and the "The family moved from the US to" helps. Colin°Talk 11:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found this sentence surprising: "She even found a vampire-killing kit at the Mercer Museum, which had a pistol, silver bullets, a crucifix, a wooden stake, and powdered garlic." The tone "She even found" makes one think she had gone to extraordinary lengths (and seems a bit informal) but then the actual thing she found sounds more like an ACME vampire-movie kit than something serious. Is finding historical items in a museum noteworthy? There must be something special about this, or you wouldn't mention it, but it doesn't come across.
  • I meant the "even" to indicate that a vampire kit is a bit odd. How could I convey this better? Awadewit (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the problem is with "found"? Can you find something that is on open display? Or was it in the archives? Then we could say so. Did she just come across it when visiting the museum? Then we could say "came across" rather than "found". Or did she visit the museum because she heard it had vampire stuff. Then we could say she "visited the Mercer Museum to see a vampire kit, ..." I find it a bit odd that a US museum would have a vampire kit. Was it "real" (in the sense that the person owning the kit really was afraid of vampires) or was it just some items from an old movie set? I can't read the source and suspect it doesn't go into these details. Perhaps it is just my mind running away here and nobody else's mind started down that path... Colin°Talk 11:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you anticipated, the source does not go into detail. I wondered about this as well. I'm guessing it was in an archive (but that's only a guess). It is "real" vampire kit from the 19th century, but I'm not sure how serious it was. I wanted to do an article on Vampire kit when I read about this, but I haven't been able to collect enough material yet. Here are some kits and replicas. :) Awadewit (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to wikilink any of the "cities and countries which the story traverses". Should the six audio book actors be wikilinked? Who did the voicing of Dracula that was so criticised?
  • Wikilinks removed and I'm not sure if the audio book actors have enough press coverage to rate an article. I'm not sure who did the voicing of Dracula. Awadewit (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colin°Talk 14:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary - I've worked on the plot summary some more. I've removed some more details and tried to clarify still further. Let me know if this has improved the flow of the plot summary at all. Awadewit (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/The_Historian/archive1&oldid=321731274"