Wikipedia:Peer review/Eureka: A Prose Poem/archive1

Eureka: A Prose Poem

Article on Edgar Allan Poe's very odd essay Eureka: A Prose Poem. Looking to see if it seems "complete" or if something is lacking. I'm also a bit concerned that the flow of the article isn't clear or logical. I may put this up for GA review after this PR, so any suggestions are helpful and welcome! Thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Jashiin

I'm sorry, but I think the article is currently far from GA status. Its a fascinating topic (and its great of you to pick it up!) and the article is very interesting to read, but many kinds of problems are present. Here are some points that might be helpful:

• First of all, some work on the lead is needed: references (there's just one, and most things there need references) and wikification (German, American, 1848, naturalist, etc.).
• Wikification throughout the article is also required, ie. Romantic (in Influence and significance), crescendo, various dates, etc.
• Most titles should be italicized, not put in quotation marks; ie. Ligeia instead of "Ligeia", An Essay on the Material and Spiritual Universe instead of "An Essay on the Material and Spiritual Universe", etc. See WP:MOS#Italics.
• A typo? - "non-fiction" in the lead vs. "nonfiction" in the Overview section.
• It may have to do, at least partly, with my own likes and dislikes, but I think the major problem of the article is that much work on the text is needed to make the prose flow more naturally (and you did say you're concerned about that). For instance, in the "Overview" section the sentence "It is Poe's attempt at explaining the universe.." really belongs into the second paragraph, not the first. Because the first one deals with technical details, dates, etc., the second deals with the content of the work. Grouping paragraphs like that (ie. by topic) sometimes pays off. Or consider the "Critical reception" section, which has two paragraphs, one of them barely over one line long - it'd read much better and look much more logical if there were either two large paragraphs (if you can find more positive reviews, or break the first paragraph a little bit earlier - maybe at "Even though.."), or if you somehow incorporated the positive review information into the first paragraph and leave the section at one paragraph. Still another technique that might help is using various figures of speech to make the text more natural, ie. (in the same section), instead of "Some critics, however, respond favorably to Eureka. French writer Paul Valéry praised it..", consider something like "Some critics, however, respond favorably to Eureka. One notable example/For instance [the celebrated] French writer Paul Valéry praised it...", etc. - just don't overdo it.
• At several points the sentences lose their subject, so to speak. Two examples:

In the lead: "Adapted from a lecture he had presented, in Eureka Poe describes his intuitive conception of the nature of the universe" - sounds like Poe is adapted from a lecture. A better way to say the same thing: "Adapted from a lecture, Eureka describes Poe's intuitive.."

In Analysis: "Like his theories on a good short story, he believes the universe is a self-contained..." - sounds like the theories believe this. A better way to say this: "In accordance with his theories on what constitutes a good short story, Poe believes.."

Etc.

• Since the work is in public domain now, perhaps one or two large quotes (those that go under the "blockquote" thing) could be used, instead of numerous bits and pieces quoted inside the text. It'd make the article look better, facilitate reading and provide the reader with some actual examples from the text (rather than just short bits). To facilitate reading even further, perhaps making a list of things Poe suggests would work nicer (in the Overview section, second paragraph), like a summary of the most important ideas Poe discusses.
• An image (of the cover of the first edition, for example, or of a newspaper page with an unfavorable review, or of a poster announcing the lecture) would spice things up a bit, if its available anywhere.
• Oh and, when was the actual essay written (ie. when exactly in 1848)? The article doesn't say anything about that.

Hope this helps! (this is my first review :) Good luck with this and other Poe-related articles - I noticed you're working on those. Jashiin (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't have time for a full response but, quickly, about italics... the manual of style on Wikipedia (and, really, anywhere that uses the English language) does require that short stories go in quotation marks, not italics. So, "Ligeia" et al will stay just like that. :) I'm also worried about over-wikifying, which is a criticism I seem to see the most on PR, GA review and FA reviews that I've been through. I'm also not sure about adding significantly long quotes... Most of Eureka is relatively incoherent, so the short quotes seem more helpful. I'm glad you agree that the article doesn't have such a great flow... I'll see what I can do about that. Anyway, thanks for giving this such an in-depth review; it is greatly appreciated! I'll be back after the holiday, I think. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, never had any experience with short stories, my bad! Sorry! As for over-wikifying, I don't think a few extra links would hurt, especially with things like "Romantic". Finally, its your choice whether to include one or two long quotes from the text: I just thought they might give the reader a better understanding of the style and content of the essay, plus, in my eyes having lots of small bits of quotations sort of clutters up the text. Jashiin (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I think I get what you're saying about short quotes cluttering things up a bit. I'll put some thought into it and see what I can do! I'll go through again and see what additional wikilinks I can throw in. Thanks again for the tips! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnightdreary (talk • contribs) 00:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)