Wikipedia:Peer review/Middlesex (novel)/archive1

Middlesex (novel)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to receive feedback on the article's prose, structure, and depth. I plan to take this article to WP:FAC.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maria

This is such a wonderful book, so I'm glad to see the article is in great shape! Here are some comments and suggestions made with the FA-criteria in mind:

The lead contains some unnecessary repetition, and could use some copy-editing with User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing in mind. A couple examples from the top:

including the 1967 Detroit riot, which he observed when he ~~lived in Detroit~~ -- when he was a child?
Scholars have noted that the main themes of the novel are nature vs. nurture and rebirth. Scholars have also noted that the novel depicts the differing experiences of polar opposites, such as males and females. -- I would suggest combining these two sentences, to remove the redundancy of the bolded words.
The bulk of the novel is devoted to telling his coming-of-age story growing up in Detroit, Michigan in the late 20th century. -- To me, "coming-of-age" and "growing up" mean the same thing. Bildungsroman is also already linked in another paragraph.

Done. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The novel is told in the form of a memoir in an androgynous voice. This sentence seems out of place, as it's unconnected to the rest of the paragraph.

Done. Removed. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of lead organization, I would suggest delving into the plot first (after the initial intro paragraph), and then moving onto important themes and what critics thought. Otherwise, the themes are not given any context; that is why the plot summary tends to be the first or second section in an article.

Done. I've moved the paragraph about the plot to be before the paragraph about the themes. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of the lead switches from present tense to past tense, which is confusing. I would suggest referring to critics' past opinions as just that: past opinions, in the past tense.

Done. Changed all to past tense. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With some dedicated copy-editing, I think this article may have a better chance of fulfilling the first FA-criteria, which is that the writing be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". In particular, the sentence structure is very "samey"; take a look at the first few sentences in the "Biographical background and publication" section:

Eugenides initially thought...
He had read the Memoirs of Herculine Barbin...
Eugenides believed that the memoir...
He sought the advice of many experts...

Try beginning with an "-ing" verb now and then, combining a couple thoughts with commas or semi-colons to create more complex sentences. "Two decades prior to writing his novel, Eugenides had read the Memoirs of Herculine Barbin, which detailed the life of a hermaphrodite schoolgirl living in a 19th-century French convent. Believing that the memoir evaded discussion about hermaphrodite anatomy and emotions, he concluded that he would 'write the story that I wasn't getting from the memoir'". Or something similar, of course, I'm just brainstorming for the sake of varied sentence structure.

Done. Revised the sentence structure for that section and did a little copyediting to remove redundancy. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I know how long and detailed the novel is, the current plot summary may be a little too long. Some of the details regarding the grandparent's courtship and marriage, for example, can be shortened, as can the details of Jimmy's faked death; although this is mainly Cal/Callie's story, it takes too long to get to him/her!

Done. Shortened plot by removing less important occurrences. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, the remaining areas of the article seem well put together. I still see instances of repetition or lack of sentence variation here and there, but it's not as noticeable as it is in earlier sections.
You may want to consider splitting the "Reception, awards, and nominations", or else including a couple subsections; it seems a little jam-packed as it is now, and the information towards the end -- Oprah's Book Club, Pulitzer, etc. -- looks disjointed. If there is more/future info about the TV series, I can also see an "Adaptation" section in the near future.

Done. Split into several sections. So far, there hasn't been much info about the TV series, so I can't expand that paragraph yet. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The refs all seem to be correctly and consistently formatted, and I'm glad to see a variety of sources used.

All of the information I would personally look for seems to be present, and other than some superfluous details in the lead, the article's scope doesn't seem to stray too far.

There's only one image, but it has a proper fair use rationale. It's unfortunate that the one free image of Jeffrey Eugenides is so poor, otherwise I would suggest using that as well.

I, too, wish that there is a better free image of Jeffrey Eugenides. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments and suggestions help! Best of luck, María (habla conmigo) 13:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your insightful comments! I will start revising the article over the next week or two to incorporate your suggestions. Cunard (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the changes you suggested. Thank you for reviewing this article! Cunard (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments from Maria

I was asked to revisit the article, and I find things much improved. The lead in particular flows far better than before.

The section titled "Biographical background and publication" currently has no information about the book's publication.
Still watch out for the wordiness and unnecessary repetition throughout. One example I see from the background section: It took Eugenides nine years to write Middlesex. He spent such a lengthy amount of time writing the novel because he had trouble with its voice which... -- "It took Eugenides nine years to write Middlesex, mainly due to the difficulty he had with its voice..."?

Done. Shortened. Cunard (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the plot need to link and describe 5-alpha-reductase deficiency twice? I suggest removing the second instance.

Done. Removed. Cunard (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to mention this before, but "after an accident" in the plot is somewhat vague. Was it a car accident? (I honestly can't remember!)

Done. I've changed the phrase to "After Callie is injured by a tractor". Cunard (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both Eugenides and the narrator have lived in a street called Middlesex Boulevard. -- is living "in" a street British? Even so, seeing as how this is an American novel, both lived on a street. :)

Done. No, it's not British. Just a typo on part. ;) Cunard (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why "Biographical background and publication" and "Autobiographical elements" slightly overlap, title-wise? Perhaps rename the first section "Background and publication" (actually including information about the book's publication, of course).

Renamed the section to "Background and publication". I'll work on adding information about the book's publication. Cunard (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of the narrator is considered to be "sardonic empathy". -- Remember Tony1's rules about wordiness, and cutting out unnecessary words: "the narrator's tone".

Done. Reworded. Cunard (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Middlesex is characterized as a Bildungsroman with a "big twist"; the coming-of-age story is revealed to be the incorrect one. -- somewhat incorrect use of the semi-colon here. Something's missing. "because"? The "genres" section needs sentence structure variation, similar to what I suggested earlier with beginning every sentence with "The".

Done. Connected the sentences with "because". Cunard (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first few paragraphs in the "Themes" section seems to be a catchall of things that don't fit in the below subsections. This is somewhat confusing and disjointed, since this space is typically used to summarize what will be discussed. Some of it may simply be cut, or moved elsewhere for better flow. The Detroit riots and other historical parallels, for example, don't necessarily constitute a theme; can this be moved to the background section?

Done. I've moved the Detroit riots and other historical parallels to the background section. I'll try to expand those paragraphs so that each can have its own section. Cunard (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...the male prophet who also switched genders. Cal is also compared to the Minotaur, a creature that was also half and half—part man and part bull. -- repetition of "also" here, three times. I have a tendency to overuse "also", "as well", "in addition", etc. as well (ha!) but be on the lookout for reducing them. They are especially prevalent throughout the "themes" section.

Done. Removed most of the occurrences of "also" from the "themes section". There are three remaining and are in different paragraphs. Cunard (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the newly implemented subsections in the "Reception" section. It's not something I've seen before, but perhaps it's used elsewhere? Thinking back to what I meant when I suggested subsections last week, I believe what I had in mind was something like initial response vs. later critical acclaim, but I'm not sure how that would fare either. Blargh, I'm stuck. Perhaps wait for further thoughts before you go taking my questionable advice on this matter. :)

I've seen subsections of this sort in the "themes" section of To Kill a Mockingbird but don't know if this format is widely used. Cunard (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these additional thoughts and suggestions help. María (habla conmigo) 12:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking over the article again. You've provided very helpful feedback. Cunard (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]