Wikipedia:Peer review/The Log from the Sea of Cortez/archive1

The Log from the Sea of Cortez

Widely regarded as John Steinbeck's most important work of non-fiction, this was a stub until a few days ago. I started work on expanding it and there was a lot more info out there than I expected. I think it is a possible FA candidate, but would like some outside opinions on what is missing (and I'm sure it is full of the usual spelling/cut and paste/typo errors). Yomangani^talk 16:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment What were the comments from critics of the day regarding the work? What are the comments from the critics of today regarding the work? How was it recieved by the public - did it sell well or not? How do past and present Steinbeck biographers regard this work in his canon of output? These are all things the article could answer. LuciferMorgan 02:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I've expanded the critical receptions section slightly. Yomangani^talk 23:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Another interesting read (I've got to the start of "Book"), couple of points:

• On 23 March, they moved on to San José Island, where the "Sea-Cow" again let them down - could this be expanded? How did it let them down, how did they fix it?
• They accepted, wanting to see the interior - of what?

The prose occasionally suffers from too many commas for subclauses, so in some cases it may be clearer to split the sentences. Nice work so far. Trebor 22:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Fixed those two points. I'll try to split some of the long sentences. I was trying to avoid too many stubby sentences, but I probably haven't got the balance right. Thanks again. Yomangani^talk 23:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Another fascinating and valuable article. I've not read much Steinbeck, and I didn't realise he was a bit of a Hemingway, on the quiet. I also knew nothing about this part of Mexico. I love being introduced to stuff on Wikipedia, and now this makes me want to read the book.

I think this is on its way to FA; but I know from experience that anything to do with literature will be chivvied on the assessment and significance front, and so I'd recommend that a statement like "it is regarded as Steinbeck's most important work of non-fiction" is reffed (some might point to the dust-bowl articles), and that a summary of critical opinion is added at the end, assessing the book's quality, place in Steinbeck's work etc. This would complement the useful section on the immediate critical response. A dip into the main critical and biographical works on Steinbeck (and perhaps there's some stuff on Google Books), would turn up the appropriate material.

That is my only major suggestion about the article; but here are a few minor observations and queries:

• The infobox classes the book as a novel but the lead calls it non-fiction. Later the article says it is to some extent a work of fiction. To me, it doesn't sound like a novel, but still.
  • That was due to cutting and pasting the infobox from another Steinbeck novel and not fully updating it. Changed to non-fiction now.
• Although the article provides more detail of the specimens as it goes along, I felt I could have done with more information early on about what the specimen-collecting entailed: "Collecting biological specimens" was a bit vague, though the picture of the crab helped me out. Although I once went out with one, I'm a little unsure about what a marine biologist does. What does "preparing" involve? What "specimens" did Ricketts sell? Who to? Alive or dead? Was he planning to sell the ones collected on this trip?
  • I've expanded this slightly in various places, hopefully it gets the idea across now?

• Perhaps I'm being a bit thick, but I'm not sure I quite grasp the meaning of the following quote:

Furthermore, they had taught us the best of all ways to go hunting, and we shall never use any other. We have, however, made one slight improvement on their method: we shall not take a gun, thereby obviating the last remote possibility of having the hunt cluttered up with game.

I'm presuming this is a joke. But it wasn't introduced as an example of Steinbeck's wit and I was mentally trying work out what the hunting trip with the Mexicans had taught them. I think, for plodders like me, the quote might need to be introduced as a quip, if that's what it is.

• • I've given it a little more introduction, hope that suffices.

• "...allowing for a much more efficient collection at each station": I had to think for a moment to work out what was meant by "station" there, though for all I know it might be the correct term in marine biology.
  • It is the correct term, but I substituted "stop" which gives the same sense without any chance of confusion.

• The following sentence doesn't quite work for me, and I didn't know how to copy-edit to convey the meaning intended: "In the cramped quarters of the boat, all the equipment and books had to be set up and stowed each time the boat moved to a new anchorage." I'm thinking that all the books and equipment had to be stowed when they were at sea and taken out again once they had stopped for collecting; but it could mean that the equipment had to be set up but the books stowed.
  • The books weren't really important (we'll assume they are equipment), so I dropped them rather than attempt to rework the sentence.

• I'm not sure what "...focusing on his affirmation of humankind's place in the sphere of life" means. Perhaps this is from a source, but "sphere of life" is pretty vague, I think.
  • Reworded.

• "Seri": It might be worth adding a phrase saying who they were. I checked the link (they're interesting), but not everyone will.
  • Done.

• Where you have four note tags in a row, have you thought of combining them? It's a CMS condoned technique I sometimes use, because I dislike tag rows, but it's a matter of taste, of course.
  • Done - that grew over time.

• I find the paragraph beginning "As well as being a travelogue" a mite clunky. This sort of potted analysis is always a bugger to write, but I suppose it can't be avoided in an encyclopedia.
  • Tried rewording it.

• "He suggested a 15-20% share of the royalties..." Covici or Steinbeck (after Covici had pushed him)?
  • Covici. Fixed.

• Should not Sea of Cortez: A Leisurely Journal of Travel and Research appear in the References section, as well as the later purely Steinbeck version?

qp10qp 04:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the detailed helpful comments, I'll work on those later today. I'd love to have Sea of Cortez in the references but copies are like gold dust. Yomangani^talk 07:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've expanded the section on the reissue to try and encompass the modern views. Unfortunately most modern critics refer to it only tangentially in reference to Steinbeck's fiction or his relationship with Ricketts, so it is hard to pin down. Thanks again. Yomangani^talk 17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• I've now put it up at FAC so I have time to address any points before my looming wikibreak. Yomangani^talk 11:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)