This is this article's second FAC;
the first received a couple of reviews (thanks
Imzadi1979 and
Nikkimaria), but all the issues raised by them were addressed.
This article is about
George Steiner's controversial 1981 literary and philosophical novella in which
Adolf Hitler (A.H.) is found alive in the Amazon jungle thirty years after the end of World War II. It is currently a GA and has recently been
peer reviewed. I believe it meets the FA criteria, but I'm open to any comments/suggestions. —
Bruce1eetalk07:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)reply
The last sentence in "Reception", as a stand-alone sentence, looks incomplete. Are there other awards for which the book was nominated? Was there any notable reaction to its nomination for the Faulkner Award?
From what I've found this book didn't receive any other nominations/awards. Further, I can't find any notable reaction to this nomination. The nomination is mentioned in the lead – I could cite it there and remove it from the Reception section. What do you think? —
Bruce1eetalk08:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)reply
That all looks great. The Orosso sentence seems clear to me this morning, so I must have just been being especially dense yesterday. Nice work, good luck with the review. --
Coemgenus (
talk)
11:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)reply
"the play confronts the audience with an event that "logic, facticity and morality", and a "knowledge of Hitlerian atrocity" are of little help": I can't quite parse this, and I suspect a verb or clause has been lost in editing.
I think there's still an issue. The last clause of that sentence is "an event that "logic, facticity and morality" are of little help"; but there's a verb missing -- of little help in doing what? I suspect it should be something like "of little help in resolving", or perhaps "confronts the audience with an event, in the resolution of which 'logic, facticity and morality' are of little help".
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
11:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)reply
"Responding to theatre critics that Hitler had the last word": I think this needs to be either "Responding to criticism that" or "Responding to theatre critics who objected to Hitler having the last word"; the latter seems preferable to me.
"He described it as "wearisome" that is "suffocate[d]" by too much "fine writing" (belles-lettres)." I think you're missing a noun after "wearisome", or else make it '"wearisome", and suffocate[d]', with a comma to separate the clauses. And why the parenthetical link to belles-lettres?
Fixed. I parenthesised "belles-lettres" to explain "fine writing". I could pipe "fine writing" to "belles-lettres", but that means linking inside a quotation. —
Bruce1eetalk07:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)reply
The second paragraph of "Themes" gives the source for each of the scholarly opinions quoted; is that necessary? It breaks up the flow; the other two paragraphs read much more naturally.
I don't understand this point. The source of each quotation has to be cited. I don't see how this differs from the other two paragraphs in the section. —
Bruce1eetalk07:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)reply
I meant the name of the source work. Why not make it "Margaret Burton sees the language in the book as polarised between "a venue for truth" and "a source of destruction", with Lieber representing the former, and Hitler the latter. Bryan Cheyette argues, however, that Steiner is not contrasting Lieber and Hitler, but is "portraying them as part of the same dialect", and that they reflect a dichotomy in Steiner himself." Not that particular phrasing, perhaps, but why mention the source works in the text? It's a way of introducing these names, but I think in a "Themes" section the reader is going to assume these are scholars and can check the citations for more information. It's not a major point, but I think naming the works inline makes it a bit less readable.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
11:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)reply
I wasn't very clear; sorry. I cut it a bit more; looks better now, though the sentence structures in that paragraph are all a bit too samey. I'll see if I can think of a way to rephrase some of it, but in the meantime I'm supporting below.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
01:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)reply
he brushes aside his "defence attorney" and begins... - why the quote marks here?
I quoted "defence attorney", "prosecution attorney" and "presiding judge" because they aren't real attorneys or judges – see also the quoting of "defence attorney" on p.199 of LaCapra (2001). If you feel we don't need the quote marks, I'm happy to drop them. —
Bruce1eetalk13:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Is there any more discussion on what Teku means by "proven"?
Teku's statement is ambiguous, he didn't understand Hitler's speech but was moved by it. I've expanded on this at the end of the Plot and Controversy sections for clarity. —
Bruce1eetalk13:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it, I think we still need an image review. One can be requested at the top of WT:FAC.
Sarastro1 (
talk)
21:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Reviewed frame from YouTube video under CC license - OK (the channel is the institute's official channel, per their official website).
GermanJoe (
talk)
22:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)reply