![]() | The Blood of the Vampire has been listed as one of the
Language and literature good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 27, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Blood of the Vampire article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about The Blood of the Vampire. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about The Blood of the Vampire at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet ( talk · contribs) 06:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Hey, Tiger. Following up on my comment. Like I said at the time, I really enjoyed reading this article, and I think it can make GA for sure. I'll get the prose nitpicks issues out of the way first.
I don't think this needs to be two sentences -- it feels a bit unfinished to read out that way. "...an 1897 novel by Florence Marryat, generally classified as Gothic fiction" works just fine.
This sentence made me laugh, which I'm fairly confident wasn't the intent. As is, it seems dismissive and almost a non-sequitur. Try see if you can get the gravity of the matter across more and synthesize it better into the broader issue of Harriet killing the people around her.
'Female Gothic' isn't usually capitalised that way (ime or elsewhere on Wikipedia; Ifill does seem to use it, but the de facto MOS here appears lower-case 'female'), and "19th" is written with numerals elsewhere in the article.
Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.Every other Wikipedia article about Female Gothic is wrong here, not academia at-large. A quick Google would clear this up for you. — ImaginesTigers ( talk)
While I make allowances for the em-dashes of your personal writing style, I don't see the need for them here, especially considering they're immediately preceded by a comma. "But by the time of Marryat's novel, women were experiencing..." reads much better.
Now, I haven't read Ifill on this, but in context is that 'West' supposed to be to Western world? It strikes me as referring to the West Indies specifically.
'Psychical' should just be 'psychic'.
The quote-crop here appears to be synthesizing some thoughts. "..."a lesbian threat", and as "unsophisticated, practically accidental" but nonetheless "a serious threat"" makes more sense to me, but again, I haven't read where you're quoting from, so I may be wrong.
Here it is interesting that the danger of Harriet, unlike later in the novel, is classified as a lesbian threat, and furthermore, that a lesbian danger is described as unsophisticated, practically accidental. All the same, it is still a serious threat
There are more than two novels involved in this clause. Clear this up?
The matter that concerns me somewhat more here is the article's focus. I'm not sure what to say about this, and frankly I think I could be persuaded to drop it, because it troubles me to ask about something you've clearly researched in elaborate depth. As is, this is closer to a literary essay than an encyclopedia article. The section on contemporary reception barely exists -- it satisfies GA requirements (which require a broad overview rather than a deep one), but the juxtaposition between it and the modern analysis belies a focus imbalance. I quibble with myself over what to recommend here. GA is not supposed to be a terribly imposing process, and you've clearly done a lot both regarding modern analysis of the novel and to find what contemporary takes you do have (19th century book reviews and literary analysis are not trivial to find) such that recommending sweeping changes would risk becoming a terribly imposing process, but simultaneously I think the current focus is off in important ways.
If at all possible, see if you can find some more substantial contemporary reaction than you have. I recommend this before I recommend cutting down the analysis section, because, well, I'm a bleeding heart, and I know how hard it is to kill your darlings. Considering the degree to which the analysis section is rooted in modern associations, it would be really interesting to see more about how Marryat's contemporaries perceived those aspects of the novel, not to mention their thoughts on the work more broadly. We already have a sense that they found it an overall unimpressive work, but what more did they think? They thought it sensationalist -- what were the worst parts? Did other reviewers disagree and like it more? How much was the "this doesn't seem particularly vampiric, actually" picked up on?
Regardless -- great work. Good job, good luck. Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 08:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Back here now. Let's call it a pass. Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 02:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | The Blood of the Vampire has been listed as one of the
Language and literature good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 27, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Blood of the Vampire article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about The Blood of the Vampire. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about The Blood of the Vampire at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet ( talk · contribs) 06:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Hey, Tiger. Following up on my comment. Like I said at the time, I really enjoyed reading this article, and I think it can make GA for sure. I'll get the prose nitpicks issues out of the way first.
I don't think this needs to be two sentences -- it feels a bit unfinished to read out that way. "...an 1897 novel by Florence Marryat, generally classified as Gothic fiction" works just fine.
This sentence made me laugh, which I'm fairly confident wasn't the intent. As is, it seems dismissive and almost a non-sequitur. Try see if you can get the gravity of the matter across more and synthesize it better into the broader issue of Harriet killing the people around her.
'Female Gothic' isn't usually capitalised that way (ime or elsewhere on Wikipedia; Ifill does seem to use it, but the de facto MOS here appears lower-case 'female'), and "19th" is written with numerals elsewhere in the article.
Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.Every other Wikipedia article about Female Gothic is wrong here, not academia at-large. A quick Google would clear this up for you. — ImaginesTigers ( talk)
While I make allowances for the em-dashes of your personal writing style, I don't see the need for them here, especially considering they're immediately preceded by a comma. "But by the time of Marryat's novel, women were experiencing..." reads much better.
Now, I haven't read Ifill on this, but in context is that 'West' supposed to be to Western world? It strikes me as referring to the West Indies specifically.
'Psychical' should just be 'psychic'.
The quote-crop here appears to be synthesizing some thoughts. "..."a lesbian threat", and as "unsophisticated, practically accidental" but nonetheless "a serious threat"" makes more sense to me, but again, I haven't read where you're quoting from, so I may be wrong.
Here it is interesting that the danger of Harriet, unlike later in the novel, is classified as a lesbian threat, and furthermore, that a lesbian danger is described as unsophisticated, practically accidental. All the same, it is still a serious threat
There are more than two novels involved in this clause. Clear this up?
The matter that concerns me somewhat more here is the article's focus. I'm not sure what to say about this, and frankly I think I could be persuaded to drop it, because it troubles me to ask about something you've clearly researched in elaborate depth. As is, this is closer to a literary essay than an encyclopedia article. The section on contemporary reception barely exists -- it satisfies GA requirements (which require a broad overview rather than a deep one), but the juxtaposition between it and the modern analysis belies a focus imbalance. I quibble with myself over what to recommend here. GA is not supposed to be a terribly imposing process, and you've clearly done a lot both regarding modern analysis of the novel and to find what contemporary takes you do have (19th century book reviews and literary analysis are not trivial to find) such that recommending sweeping changes would risk becoming a terribly imposing process, but simultaneously I think the current focus is off in important ways.
If at all possible, see if you can find some more substantial contemporary reaction than you have. I recommend this before I recommend cutting down the analysis section, because, well, I'm a bleeding heart, and I know how hard it is to kill your darlings. Considering the degree to which the analysis section is rooted in modern associations, it would be really interesting to see more about how Marryat's contemporaries perceived those aspects of the novel, not to mention their thoughts on the work more broadly. We already have a sense that they found it an overall unimpressive work, but what more did they think? They thought it sensationalist -- what were the worst parts? Did other reviewers disagree and like it more? How much was the "this doesn't seem particularly vampiric, actually" picked up on?
Regardless -- great work. Good job, good luck. Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 08:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Back here now. Let's call it a pass. Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 02:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)