Talk:Chaucer coming in contact with Petrarch or Boccaccio/Peer Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Peer Review[edit]

  • The lead needs to summarize the entire article per WP:LEAD. So, for example, some of the basic influences on Chaucer's works need to be mentioned in the lead.
  • It is probably a good idea to say which scholars propound these theories rather than "some scholars". See WP:WEASEL for advice on avoiding this problematic phrase.
  • Gave the names of the scholars for "some scholars" along with inline references.
  • I wonder if the title of the article should be something like "Petrarchan and Boccaccian influences on Chaucer".
  • Changed name to "Petrarchan and Boccaccian influences on Chaucer".
  • Petrarch's letter to Boccaccio, forming a preface to the tale of Griselda, was written shortly after he had made his version of it - Unclear - who is "he" and what is "it"?
  • Revised to: Petrarch's letter to Boccaccio, forming a preface to the tale of Griselda, was written shortly after Petrarch had made his version of Griselda.
  • In some copies it has a date of "June 8, 1373." - Why is this date important? Explain to the reader that the date is related to the date of supposed composition, for example.
  • added clearer wording of ..."June 8, 1373," which indicates the date of supposed composition.
  • Later he eventually put it in writing, Latin of course - Try to avoid this conversational tone. Revision suggestion: "He eventually wrote it down in Latin, a common poetic language of the time."
  • Revised as suggested to: "He eventually wrote it down in Latin, a common poetic language of the time."
  • The first paragraph of "Griselda" is a little confused - what is its main point? Try to tell the story a bit more chronologically - that might help.
  • He then went to work to translate it into English where it became part of The Canterbury Tales as The Clerk's Tale - Try not to start paragraphs with pronouns, as it is difficult to know what they are referring back to. Replace "he" with "Chaucer" in this instance.
  • Replaced "He" with "Chaucer" and copyedited the paragraph accordingly.
  • The "Griselda" and "Clerk's Tale" sections could be combined and placed in the "Clerk's Tale" section of the "Imitator" part of the article, as they are about the same texts. I would also make sure that all biographical information about Chaucer and Petrarch is isolated to the "Chaucer's trips" section. So, for example, the following sentence seems more appropriate for the trips section: Biographers say Chaucer very well could have met Petrarch personally, not only at the wedding of Violante in 1367, but also in Padue sometime in 1372-1373.
  • Chaucer basically tightens the structure of Boccaccio's Teseida and changes some scenes in the general plot with deepening the philosophy of the original - Details, please! :)
  • Chaucer's House of Fame is believed to have been started in 1374, considered one of his greatest works, has much Italian influence. - Watch out for sentences like this, with phrases just tacked on the end ungrammatically.
  • It was a period of confusion even in the identity of Boccaccio being the original author, as Chaucer was mulling around the Italian influence during this time. - Unclear
  • Also there are likenesses between this work of Chaucer's and Boccaccio's Amorosa visione - What is similar?
  • Avoid bullet points, as in the "Alternate viewpoints" section - turn these into a paragraph.
  • I see that you have a lot of old sources. When it comes to literary criticism, anything before 1950 or 1960 is "old" in the sense that it uses a completely different method and model for evidence. In general, a good rule of thumb is not to cite any literary criticism before these dates unless lots of later critics cite it (meaning it is still important). I don't know Chaucer criticism, so I can't tell you what is important from the 19th century, but certainly we should not be using the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica or Chambers' Cyclopedia.
  • Removed this reference of Chambers' Cyclopedia.
  • To find up-to-date scholarship on this question, I urge you to search the MLA database. If you don't have access to it, let me know and I'll search it for you and send you what I find.
  • This is not a reliable source, as it is self-published. There are very good medieval histories published by historians through university presses - I would suggest one of those.
  • Removed this reference.
  • Removed this reference.
  • Removed this reference.
  • This source is verging on the unreliable since it is self-published (albeit by a professor). Certainly, you can find something much better, since this is Chaucer!
  • Removed this reference.
  • This source is unreliable - note that it begins "I am unfamiliar with medieval literature" - this is not written by an expert.
  • Removed this reference.
  • It is unclear who wrote this source, so I doubt its reliability.
  • Removed this reference.

I hope this is helpful - I think the most important task is to go through the sources and remove the unreliable ones, then remove the older ones, and then finally insert newer scholarship. Awadewit (talk) 03:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)