Talk:Postcritique

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Postcritique/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 01:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'll review this. It's quite a big article, but comments should be added here in a few days! Kingsif (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Style

• Article written like an academic essay; will need re-writing per WP:MOS.
• Lead too long for article length
• There are wikilinks to technical terms but while I, having degrees in literature, can understand, I do not expect someone without that level of education to be able to because the concepts are not even briefly explained.
• Grammar is good. The argument is also strong, I'd give you a high 2:1. Unfortunately, not what Wikipedia is for.
• In general, article uses too many academic words as well as jargon from critical theory.
• Practitioners is just two long prose lists. One has no refs, too.
• Sectioning is not done well
• Fail - Nice argumentative essay. Suggest reading Information style and tone style guide, reviewing WP:MOS, and after this a copyedit.

Coverage

• Lead a bit too long for article, as well as going into too much detail and reading less like an overview and more like an analytical introduction of an academic essay
• The History section only mentions postcritique in an uncited sentence at the end, after discussing other works of famous theorists. This section seems largely irrelevant to the article, and could be condensed dramatically to "Ricoeur believes X about critique, Sedgwick built on this and called for "a stance...", with Latour also thinking that traditionally critique became corrupted enough to require a new alternative." And then give some detail on how their works have contributed to development of postcritique, which may be details already included, but needs restructuring to not be an infodump with a statement of how the infodump is meant to be read added at the end.
• The main body of Principles and practice doesn't establish principles or practice in layman's terms. Though there is sufficient information there, it is mixed up with jargon and presented in a way that argues rather than states.
  • The second paragraph, in particular, will be entirely incomprehensible to someone without a university-level knowledge and understanding of literary theories. Its first paragraph seems to repeat the point of the History section, whereby an important theorist says critique isn't good enough.
• The examples subsection should explain how the examples are postcritique readings, rather than just list X said Y about Z with a short quote and no context. Assume that most readers have zero knowledge of literary theory.
• The Opposition section does give an average reader information on reasons why the theory has opposition, but also gets into a discussion of those not opposed sharing the same concerns, which should either be contextualised better or not in this section. This also confuses the focus of the section (an essay can debate and ramble, a WP article should be more split-sectioned)
  • This is also the largest and most developed section by far, which suggests the rest of the article (i.e. the main content on the overall subject) has a lack of coverage
• Relevance to other practices section seems to have suitable coverage.
• Fail - complications largely coming from the inappropriate style

Illustration

• No illustration, would benefit even from an image of main theorists - there is an image of Kosofsky Sedgwick, for example
• Fail

Verifiability

• Good range of RS sources, some of them are footnote citations, so may recommend a ref + bibliography layout. Not actionable, certainly at GA, though.
• Several uncited statements.
• Fail

Neutrality

• Written as an essay with an argument; this cannot be neutral even if it gives a strong coverage of the entire theory. In this case, the article essay reads like a proponent of the practice of postcritique.
• Fail

Stability

• Had a sizable addition this month, but nothing else since April - looks like it should stay stable, unless these are drive-by updates. Recommend main editors to keep a watch on it.
• Pass

Copyright

• Check looks clean
• Pass

Overall

• - more essay than article, and a niche technical one at that. Kingsif (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)