GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Colin M ( talk · contribs) 14:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
(Still working on writing up my comments - should be ready soon.)
Colin M (
talk)
14:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
First off, I should note that reaching GA is, IMO, a lot more difficult for an article on a significant topic like this about which much has been written. It demands some difficult editorial decisions around what information to include and what not to include, and identifying and summarizing the highest quality sources from a broad field. So the fact that this article is already close to GA status is an impressive feat. I particularly want to call out the introduction as being a wonderfully concise and effective summary, as well as the comprehensiveness of the citations.
I have one non-trivial concern wrt WP:GACR, plus a number of little nitpicks. Though I want to emphasize that none of these comments are intended to be the final word. If you disagree with any of these points (either on their substance, or their relevance to GACR), please say so. Hopefully we can talk it out and reach consensus. :)
My one significant concern is with the 'broad coverage' criterion. The last paragraph of the intro notes:
Dracula is regarded as one of the most significant pieces of English literature. Many of the book's characters have entered popular culture as archetypal versions of their characters; for example, Count Dracula as the quintessential vampire, and Abraham Van Helsing as an iconic vampire hunter. The novel, which is in the public domain, has been adapted for film over 30 times, and its characters continue to appear in a variety of other media.
This is definitely an important aspect of the topic, and I think the body needs to give a little more detail on it. The big unanswered questions I had after reading through the article were:
The novel, although reviewed well, did not make Stoker much money and did not cement his critical legacy until after his death.And here it's unclear to what degree this was due to low sales vs. unfavourable contract terms and/or the copyright issue.
Not saying you need to cover every question raised above - I realize we're limited to what can actually be found in RS, but I would be surprised if there wasn't significant RS discussion of at least some of these areas.
Some more low-level comments below:
A small group, led by Abraham Van Helsing, try to kill him.Our plot summary in the intro shouldn't leave the reader in suspense as to how the story ends.
In the past century, Dracula is situated as a piece of Gothic fiction.Tense feels a little weird to me. "has been situated" seems like it would be more natural.
Raymond McNally's Dracula Was A Woman suggests another historical figure as an inspiration: Elizabeth Báthory.Would be useful to know when this was written, since the section goes on to talk about it being questioned in "recent" scholarship.
This template can be used for
block quotations (long quotes set off from the main text). However, this use is not advised in articles. The
Manual of Style guidelines for block quotations recommend formatting block quotations using the {{
Blockquote}}
template or the HTML <
blockquote> element, for which that template provides a wrapper.
On the name, Stoker wrote: "Dracula in Wallachian language means devil. Wallachians were accustomed to give it as a surname to any person who rendered himself conspicuous by courage, cruel actions or cunning" (sic)Okay, I'll bite. Why the sic?
When Universal Studios purchased the rights to make a film version, it was discovered that Stoker had not fully complied with US copyright law, placing the novel into the public domain.When was this discovered?
The only thing I have yet to do is some citation checks - I'll try to do that shortly and update this if it results in any further suggestions. Colin M ( talk) 16:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
The British magazine Vanity Fair noted that the novel was, at times, unintentionally funny, pointing to Dracula's disdain for garlic.It certainly suggests that the garlic trope may have been novel (which is why I used it as an example), but it could be that it was an existing trope which was simply not well known at the time, or that the particular way that Dracula's aversion to garlic manifests in the book is unintentionally funny (rather than the aversion per se). But your larger point about (lack of) RS support for this line of inquiry is well taken. Colin M ( talk) 20:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
"Teaser"-style or incomplete plot descriptions (e.g. ending a plot description with "In the end the family makes a shocking discovery…") should not be used.To me, the summary in the intro falls squarely in this category, as it so strongly provokes the reader to wonder whether they succeeded in their attempt to kill him. I don't see an issue with the alternative wording you mentioned, except maybe on an aesthetic level, though I'm sure there are other ways to communicate the same idea. e.g. "In the end, Dracula is killed by a small group led by Abraham Van Helsing." Colin M ( talk) 20:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
The novel didn't sell well.[1]? (Or some similar wording) Colin M ( talk) 22:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I found a few quotes that I felt helped resolve some of the questions I raised above about the trajectory of Dracula's ascendance into the cultural canon and its place within the larger context of the vampire myth and vampire fiction.
From the preface of Browning:
It became the benchmark after which later vampire narratives were patterned. This development, however, was not immediately realized until the 1920s. While Stoker’s novel successfully established such vampiric tropes as tombs or “coffins” (although Dracula journeyed to England with “crates” or boxes, not coffins), and firmly cemented the vampire’s metamorphosis into a bat, the real impact (which we shall discuss at length momentarily) occurred, initially, with the Hamilton Deane (1924) and Hamilton Deane–John L. Balderston (1927) stage versions, then, more prominently, with the Universal (1931) and Hammer (1958) film versions.
There are also a couple of small breadcrumbs in the foreword: Bram Stoker died in 1912, before Dracula became popular
, and Ironically, this copyright technicality can be credited with allowing the Dracula character to proliferate to all corners of the world
.
Miller has lots of stuff about prior vampire fiction (around pg. 147), and about how it shaped subsequent depictions ("So powerful has been the impact of Stoker's novel that his prescriptions concerning the strengths and limitations of vampires have shaped common knowledge of the legendary creature"). pg. 157 for example talks about it originating the literary association of vampires with bats.
As you said, it seems there's not much info about commercial performance of the book, but Bram Stoker: A Literary Life at least specifies that the initial printing was 3,000 copies (and it seems other sources repeat this figure).
David J. Skal's Hollywood Gothic says Dracula sold steadily but did not make Stoker a wealthy man[...] Stroker wrote several more books, but none achieved the success of Dracula
.
Not suggesting you need to use these particular sources/quotes, but I put them forth as tentative evidence that there is some RS discussion of some of the items I raised at the start. Colin M ( talk) 00:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
@ ImaginesTigers: If this is getting difficult to address, I'd love to help. The article feels nearly ready for FA status as is. Horsesizedduck ( talk) 22:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
It's good! It's a rare treat to come across such a well-developed article as a reviewer, because it makes my job very easy. The newly expanded "Legacy" section is great, and I'm satisfied that the few GACR-relevant issues raised above have been addressed. Congrats, and good luck on the road to FA status! Colin M ( talk) 16:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Colin M ( talk · contribs) 14:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
(Still working on writing up my comments - should be ready soon.)
Colin M (
talk)
14:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
First off, I should note that reaching GA is, IMO, a lot more difficult for an article on a significant topic like this about which much has been written. It demands some difficult editorial decisions around what information to include and what not to include, and identifying and summarizing the highest quality sources from a broad field. So the fact that this article is already close to GA status is an impressive feat. I particularly want to call out the introduction as being a wonderfully concise and effective summary, as well as the comprehensiveness of the citations.
I have one non-trivial concern wrt WP:GACR, plus a number of little nitpicks. Though I want to emphasize that none of these comments are intended to be the final word. If you disagree with any of these points (either on their substance, or their relevance to GACR), please say so. Hopefully we can talk it out and reach consensus. :)
My one significant concern is with the 'broad coverage' criterion. The last paragraph of the intro notes:
Dracula is regarded as one of the most significant pieces of English literature. Many of the book's characters have entered popular culture as archetypal versions of their characters; for example, Count Dracula as the quintessential vampire, and Abraham Van Helsing as an iconic vampire hunter. The novel, which is in the public domain, has been adapted for film over 30 times, and its characters continue to appear in a variety of other media.
This is definitely an important aspect of the topic, and I think the body needs to give a little more detail on it. The big unanswered questions I had after reading through the article were:
The novel, although reviewed well, did not make Stoker much money and did not cement his critical legacy until after his death.And here it's unclear to what degree this was due to low sales vs. unfavourable contract terms and/or the copyright issue.
Not saying you need to cover every question raised above - I realize we're limited to what can actually be found in RS, but I would be surprised if there wasn't significant RS discussion of at least some of these areas.
Some more low-level comments below:
A small group, led by Abraham Van Helsing, try to kill him.Our plot summary in the intro shouldn't leave the reader in suspense as to how the story ends.
In the past century, Dracula is situated as a piece of Gothic fiction.Tense feels a little weird to me. "has been situated" seems like it would be more natural.
Raymond McNally's Dracula Was A Woman suggests another historical figure as an inspiration: Elizabeth Báthory.Would be useful to know when this was written, since the section goes on to talk about it being questioned in "recent" scholarship.
This template can be used for
block quotations (long quotes set off from the main text). However, this use is not advised in articles. The
Manual of Style guidelines for block quotations recommend formatting block quotations using the {{
Blockquote}}
template or the HTML <
blockquote> element, for which that template provides a wrapper.
On the name, Stoker wrote: "Dracula in Wallachian language means devil. Wallachians were accustomed to give it as a surname to any person who rendered himself conspicuous by courage, cruel actions or cunning" (sic)Okay, I'll bite. Why the sic?
When Universal Studios purchased the rights to make a film version, it was discovered that Stoker had not fully complied with US copyright law, placing the novel into the public domain.When was this discovered?
The only thing I have yet to do is some citation checks - I'll try to do that shortly and update this if it results in any further suggestions. Colin M ( talk) 16:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
The British magazine Vanity Fair noted that the novel was, at times, unintentionally funny, pointing to Dracula's disdain for garlic.It certainly suggests that the garlic trope may have been novel (which is why I used it as an example), but it could be that it was an existing trope which was simply not well known at the time, or that the particular way that Dracula's aversion to garlic manifests in the book is unintentionally funny (rather than the aversion per se). But your larger point about (lack of) RS support for this line of inquiry is well taken. Colin M ( talk) 20:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
"Teaser"-style or incomplete plot descriptions (e.g. ending a plot description with "In the end the family makes a shocking discovery…") should not be used.To me, the summary in the intro falls squarely in this category, as it so strongly provokes the reader to wonder whether they succeeded in their attempt to kill him. I don't see an issue with the alternative wording you mentioned, except maybe on an aesthetic level, though I'm sure there are other ways to communicate the same idea. e.g. "In the end, Dracula is killed by a small group led by Abraham Van Helsing." Colin M ( talk) 20:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
The novel didn't sell well.[1]? (Or some similar wording) Colin M ( talk) 22:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I found a few quotes that I felt helped resolve some of the questions I raised above about the trajectory of Dracula's ascendance into the cultural canon and its place within the larger context of the vampire myth and vampire fiction.
From the preface of Browning:
It became the benchmark after which later vampire narratives were patterned. This development, however, was not immediately realized until the 1920s. While Stoker’s novel successfully established such vampiric tropes as tombs or “coffins” (although Dracula journeyed to England with “crates” or boxes, not coffins), and firmly cemented the vampire’s metamorphosis into a bat, the real impact (which we shall discuss at length momentarily) occurred, initially, with the Hamilton Deane (1924) and Hamilton Deane–John L. Balderston (1927) stage versions, then, more prominently, with the Universal (1931) and Hammer (1958) film versions.
There are also a couple of small breadcrumbs in the foreword: Bram Stoker died in 1912, before Dracula became popular
, and Ironically, this copyright technicality can be credited with allowing the Dracula character to proliferate to all corners of the world
.
Miller has lots of stuff about prior vampire fiction (around pg. 147), and about how it shaped subsequent depictions ("So powerful has been the impact of Stoker's novel that his prescriptions concerning the strengths and limitations of vampires have shaped common knowledge of the legendary creature"). pg. 157 for example talks about it originating the literary association of vampires with bats.
As you said, it seems there's not much info about commercial performance of the book, but Bram Stoker: A Literary Life at least specifies that the initial printing was 3,000 copies (and it seems other sources repeat this figure).
David J. Skal's Hollywood Gothic says Dracula sold steadily but did not make Stoker a wealthy man[...] Stroker wrote several more books, but none achieved the success of Dracula
.
Not suggesting you need to use these particular sources/quotes, but I put them forth as tentative evidence that there is some RS discussion of some of the items I raised at the start. Colin M ( talk) 00:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
@ ImaginesTigers: If this is getting difficult to address, I'd love to help. The article feels nearly ready for FA status as is. Horsesizedduck ( talk) 22:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
It's good! It's a rare treat to come across such a well-developed article as a reviewer, because it makes my job very easy. The newly expanded "Legacy" section is great, and I'm satisfied that the few GACR-relevant issues raised above have been addressed. Congrats, and good luck on the road to FA status! Colin M ( talk) 16:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)