Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/The Murders in the Rue Morgue/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Murders in the Rue Morgue[edit]

The first detective fiction story, written by Edgar Allan Poe. I'm considering putting this up for good article review soon. If someone could check the writing in particular, that would be helpful. Also feel free to help me trim down list of Adaptations and Allusions from other works. The article is relatively short; please advise if I should expand on lead and/or plot summary. Thanks in advance! --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my thoughts:

  • Maybe the first mention of "rationcination" should be linked to Wiktionary, seeing as it's a terrifying word. It also needs citation as coming straight from the horse's mouth.
  • Reference 6 should be following punctuation.
  • Swedish Death Metal isn't the tidiest wikilink ever. I think it's Gothenburg metal or something like that. Throughout that section, albums should be italicised and song titles put in quotes.
  • Take a look at the external links section of The Mystery of the Yellow Room - the Wikisource link it prettier, and it includes a link to Project Gutenberg. I'd advise you do the same.
  • If there's a way to have the 'Works of Edgar Allan Poe' hidden by default, I'd go for it, 'cos it's fricken' huge.

I really didn't stretch myself, sorry. But every little helps. Seegoon (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, it certainly helps! I hadn't realized that a typical Wikisource box wasn't on there, nor did I realize I hadn't set up a Wiktionary link for "ratiocination" (I had just done it for C. Auguste Dupin). I haven't found a relevant Project Gutenberg link, possibly because this was never part of a book during Poe's lifetime. I'm also not going to edit the template; I don't think the way it displays should be considered in a GA or FA review... and, if it is, "The Raven" passed FA with the same template and no comments about it. And I'm hesitant to put any serious work into the References/Allusions from other works section because... well, because I just don't care for it. I'd rather just cut it all entirely. Really, who cares that some "Swedish Death Metal" group referenced "The Murders in the Rue Morgue"? What are your thoughts (or anyone's) on deleting the whole section? --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Awadewit[edit]

A wonderful story - I took time to reread it. I'm still thinking about the organization of this article. Could you explain why you chose to order them as you did? It might help me. For example, I am unsure whether "publication history" should be so late in the article. I would also turn the "Adaptation" section into prose rather than using a list - such lists are generally discouraged. Is the "Allusions" section really necessary? Could these allusions be included in Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture instead?

My biggest concern, however, is the research. I am not sure that this article adequately represents what has been written on the matter by literary scholars. For example, when I put "murders in the rue morgue" into the MLA database, I got 71 hits. There seemed to be many helpful articles and books. I haven't begun to look through "edgar allan poe" yet. Doing more reading will allow you to expand the "Analysis" section, for example. Awadewit | talk 20:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I'll be able to respond more fully after my holiday break. Not sure what MLA database has on the story; I'm only using my library of books on Poe right now. As far as section ordering, I usually follow what's suggested by WikiProject Novels... though I usually do it from memory. I'll get back to this in a few days but thanks again! --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest devising your own sections - let the research guide you. Editors tend to adhere to the WikiProject guidelines too rigidly. Each article should be custom-designed to convey the information on that topic efficiently and eloquently. Awadewit | talk 04:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've completely removed the "Allusions/references from other works"... it seemed fairly useless to this article. As far as section headings and organization, I don't feel I'm blindly following a Project... I just happen to agree with it. For one, I sorta like the "Publication history" so low in the article; it seems more important to get into discussing the "Analysis" sooner rather than talking about how it was randomly republished with "The Man That Was Used Up." Other than that, what are you suggesting for organizing these sections? I think, maybe, "Inspiration" could be a subsection under "Analysis"... what do you think? Also, what research have you noticed which is missing? I've stuck with most of the main respected names in Poe studies, with the exception of Arthur Hobson Quinn (haven't gotten a hold of him yet) but if you give me a direction from what you've read I'm sure I can find it. I tend to use ink and paper sources rather than online, so that might be slowing me down. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering what logic you followed in setting up the article. I might do something like this:
  • Plot summary
  • Themes and style
  • Genre [Invention of the detective story]
  • Inspiration [some of this material I would place in the "Genre" section]
  • Publication and reception
  • Adaptation
Genre could even come right after "Plot summary" - obviously the discussion of the detective story is one of the most important topics in this article. It needs to be addressed with much care and with much fanfare. :) Looking at the material you have on the detective story, it seemed difficult to know where exactly to place it all. I feel that the organization of this article is tricky. Awadewit | talk 05:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The MLA database has quite a bit on this story (as you know it is one of Poe's most famous and most important). I haven't read all of that material, but you should at least take a look at it to see what is there. You need to determine what the "scholarly consensus" is on the story. (Also, the MLA database points mostly to ink-and-paper sources, as you say. Literary critics haven't gotten around to publishing much online, yet. Alas.) By the way, how did you figure out who the major Poe scholars are? I'm always curious how people do this. It's easy for me to figure out who the major scholars are in a field because I can just ask a professor or fellow graduate stduent, if I don't already know myself. Awadewit | talk 05:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent) I'm not sure I agree with most of your suggestions for section headings, to be honest (and no offense meant). I'm wondering if anyone else out there is reading this who would like to tune in. I'd prefer keeping all the articles on Poe stories as standard as possible for easy navigation between them. But, that's all I know. As far as who the major Poe scholars are, well, I've read a lot and have been a Poe scholar myself for years. I also work with Poe scholars and, as dorky as we are, we all chat and drop names. Certainly, when you're within a certain field, you know the relevant names! I guess with me, I couldn't tell you about known scholars of Melville, Steinbeck, Hemingway, Austen, or whoever... but I know Poe! Again, I'll look more into this stuff and your suggestions when I'm back from vacation. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I will politely disagree with you on the standardization. Being a scholar yourself, you ought to recognize how impossible such a dream is. :) For example, "The Murders in the Rue Morgue" initiated a genre, but other stories did not. To me, that means the article should foreground a discussion a genre in a way that other articles on Poe stories would not. I'm really not in favor of standardization for the sake of standardization (I was just saying this over that WikiProject Shakespeare, too - they wanted to have all of Shakespeare's articles look the same - the comedies, the histories, the tragedies). I think that standardization only leads us so far and being bound by it restricts articles.
  • I'm glad to hear that we have a Poe scholar working on the article. Finding appropriate research can be the most difficult part of doing these articles. (I apologize for explaining the MLA database.) However, it does still strike me as odd that there are so few sources in this article and is the best Poe scholarship really published in the Cambridge Companion or Bloom's book? Usually Bloom's books are of poor quality.
  • By the way, I'm a bit confused by your statement that you have been a "Poe scholar for years". Your userpage says you received a BA in American literature and that you are a graduate student in publishing. Are you a Poe scholar or a grad student in publishing? or both? or a bastard hybrid? :) Awadewit | talk 15:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never said I was interested in standardizing for the sake of standardizing... I just so happen to think that the current set-up works just fine and is not confusing at all (again, no offense is meant here and I hope I'm not being argumentative!). You make a good point about the creation of a new genre, but I think the "Literary significance and impact" section does the job just fine - a fuller discussion of the genre and its history can be in the detective fiction article. I wonder if there's a similar article to compare this with... And, certainly, Bloom isn't much-respected, but he only compiled this particular book of essays; he didn't write them. I wouldn't worry about publications as much as scholars anyway. Again, Hobson Quinn's research will be forthcoming, and (hopefully) J. Gerald Kennedy as well. As for my own background, literature is a part of publishing, so not sure where you're confused. I also didn't mean to suggest I was a full-time professional Poe scholar (not sure how I'd make enough money from that, but it sounds like fun!)... and graduate school only involves a few hours of my week; I do much more than attend a couple classes. Really, your confusion about a few simple userboxes confuses me. But, I digress... As for this article, I agree it could use more sources; it is definitely in its early stages (I hope you didn't think I was done with it already!). I'll keep building on it as resources are found or dug up. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think standardization for the sake of "navigation" is really any different than "for the sake of standardization", though. However, I have an open mind and am willing to hear your reasoning.
  • One of the reasons that I suggested renaming "Literary significance and impact" to "Genre" was because it focuses almost exclusively on a discussion of genre, therefore I feel such a title would be more descriptive and would emphasize the invention of the genre to the reader.
  • I know Bloom only compiled, but it is precisely his compilations that aren't respected. His single-authored scholarly books such as The Anxiety of Influence are respected. Questions have been raised about how he chose the essays for those compilations.
  • By the way, just for future reference, it might be best not to refer to yourself as a "Poe scholar" unless you say "amateur Poe scholar". To someone like myself, who is a graduate student in English literature, "Poe scholar" indicates someone in academia who spends at least part of their career studying Poe.
Quick comment... not sure why a peer review became a discussion of my background, but I'll just say that "amateur Poe scholar" is not appropriate in my case. I'm just not particularly forthcoming with the details... Anyway, the only reasoning I can provide for the section headings and organization is that it seems to work. I haven't really been convinced otherwise. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/The_Murders_in_the_Rue_Morgue/archive1&oldid=192614449"