Talk:Regeneration (novel)

Fair use rationale for Image:PatBarker Regeneration.jpg

Image:PatBarker Regeneration.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Good-Bye to All That.jpg

The image Image:Good-Bye to All That.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wilfred Owen --sentence needs revision for grammar and content

The following sentence needs major revision: "Critic Kaley Joyes argues that choices like the inclusion of the work by poet Wilfred Owen in the novel, which has been romanticized and interpreted as nationalistic, highlights this thematic interest". There is a problem with grammar but also with content as Owen was surely highly critical of nationalism. See the Wilfred Owen article: "His shocking, realistic war poetry on the horrors of trenches and gas warfare was heavily influenced by his friend and mentor Siegfried Sassoon, and stood in stark contrast both to the public perception of war at the time and to the confidently patriotic verse written by earlier war poets such as Rupert Brooke". See also Owen's famous poem "Dulce et Decorum est". Rwood128 (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done I am not finding that sentence. Where are you pointing to? Sadads (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry-- see IdeologyRwood128 (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Also the following jargon needs to be translated into clear, plain English: "Ankhi Mukherjee describes the failure of narrativizing traumatic memories within the novel's examples of talk therapy." And is it a partial quote? Rwood128 (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done, sorry that was a bit of a problematic on my part.Sadads (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I still see a problem with "narratize" --is there even such a word? Rwood128 (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Awkwardly constructed sentences that also needs revision: "Harris describes Rivers' character, and Barker's authorial intent, as using his treatment of the soldiers as an opportunity to shape and rethink this model of masculinity, asking the men to reinvest emotions in their experience of the war.[3] The reintegration of emotions into the performance of masculinity become an important part of the novel; Barker focuses on the same type of emotional reintegration that historians identify in River's actual methods for treating victims of the war.[4]" Rwood128 (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done I think, does that make it easier to read? Sadads (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Intertexuality

The following sentence needs to be more explicit as to just what the 'myth' referred to is: "Joyes posits that the subtle uses of some of Owen's poems may be an attempt for circumventing the "preexisting myth" of about him and his work."

 Done Hopefully that helps. Owen like Rupert Brooke have aura's of meaning and heroism around them, that don't actually reflect their biographies (often this includes a nationalistic tint to everything, Sadads (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Again the following isn't explicit enough (and is too heavy with jargon): "Joyes argues that such a revision and subtle use of intertextuality with Owen's works as well as other texts allows Barker to engage politically in a metatextual move similar to those identified by Linda Hutcheon in her A Poetics of Postmodernism. According to Joyes, Barker's revisions 'destabilize eyewitness privilege and emphasizes narration's accessibility.' " Rwood128 (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done I think I explained this. Hutcheon is so common place in the subject area that I research, I wasn't fully explaining it... Sadads (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It's good to see these responses. I've been editing all morning and need to clear my head so I will comment more fully later. I really like Pat Barker's novels and you are certainly guiding this article in the right direction. Rwood128 (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments! Keep them coming. Sorry I didn't respond earlier, I just finished my masters, and the last week or two were pretty brutal. Yeah, I think the novel is pretty brilliant, and I was a bit horrified when I stumbled across the state it was in before I revamped it. Sadads (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hope all went well! -- I felt pretty guilty piling on the corrections at this time. Rwood128 (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I did the revisions as part of a class assignment (in lieu of a lit review). It just is going to take me a little time to come back and fix these things. (I am in the process of pulling some more, but need some intellectual downtime, before I dive too far (and have several other projects I am working on). Sadads (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't followed upon the most recent comments, I have been doing a bunch of things to line up jobs, and haven't had time to dive back into the writing/research for this. Definitely will follow up in a few days, Sadads (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Narrativize is jargon

My point is that a reader should not have to consult a psychological article in order to understand something. The term is psychological jargon: the article is on a novel. My sentence may have been unsophisticated but why not develop it using plain English? Jargon can be a too easy short-cut that obfuscates. This is an encyclopaedia article not something in some obscure, erudite journal on the psychology of literature (I'm beginning to rant!). Rwood128 (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC),

It is a word that has clear roots in common language: narrative. Thus, most readers shouldn't get hung up, if they don't understand the meaning. Moreover, its a term common to most fields of humanities, sociological, anthropological and psychological study. If we want to communicate humanities (and scholarly) methodology effectively, its important that we maintain the terminology and concepts that aren't too complicated (as is this one). The idea is to create a learning environment that pushes a bit at the boundaries of readers normal reading of novels, without being too complicated, Sadads (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Masculinity

Another problematic sentence: "The reintegration of emotions into the performance of masculinity become an important part of the novel". I note that I commented previously and that you have made improvements. My problem is with the term 'performance of masculinity' which seems to be jargon from Sociology. Perhaps (probably) I'm dated, but is this phrase used regularly and understood by most intelligent people, including users of Wikipedia? Rwood128 (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

This got changed in the subsequent revisions, Sadads (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Section: War

The meaning of the following sentence needs to be made clearer: "the conceptual opposition in Western culture between flesh or body parts and the social definition of a person." Has it to do with preferring abstract thinking to feelings?

I think I fixed this, Sadads (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way please excuse my earlier jargon rants and I think that I have drifted into sarcasm at times. Rwood128 (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I responded above, and understand the impulse, but that part of the article, though read by many public readers, is mostly going to be of use to students or readers working in the humanities and familiar with the conversations happening throughout the field. If not, I hope the links provide the context that people need. Writing about the humanities on Wikipedia needs to demonstrate the breadth of interpretive methods available for understanding a topic, and in doing so introduce people to the integration of different methods of knowledge creation. When I talk to users during outreach, what they often appreciate is when articles send them on little "Wikipedia adventures" where they learn about new fields of information or knowledge. That is what I am trying to effectively develop here. Sadads (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Maclean25 (talk · contribs) 19:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Maclean25: Hey Maclean! Glad to see that you picked up this review. I am pretty busy through the 6/7th, so won't be able to respond to review comments before then. Also, can I ask what the question marks are for in #1? Specific feedback would be great! Sadads (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Sadads. I'm having less time than I expected for reviewing so there may be some awkward pauses. I placed the question marks as a placeholder until I can complete and articulate a more comprehensive comment. Specifically what I noticed is that some of the language looks defensive (e.g. there are 11 uses of the word "very", the first thing the opening sentence says is prize-winning (I see that is a remnant from when the article was a stub), and the film also received considerable success and awards). maclean (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  No worries on the timing: as I said fairly busy for the next few days. As for the language: many of the instances of "very" are in quotes; part of this might be because many of the arguments about the novel are about writing it into a male dominated tradition, so they have to demonstrate how this novel is "more" successful than most. Looking forward to working with you :) Sadads (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Good article review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article? for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   8 images used: File:PatBarker Regeneration.jpg = image of cover, valid fair use rationale; plus 7 Commmons-hosted images with pubic domain tags.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• "Barker had long appreciated the literary figures she draws inspiration from in the novel..." - sentence turns awkward after "figures". is this a tense shift (draws?), Barker is the subject so it should be 'for the novel' (she was not in the novel). Restructure/reword the sentence or make these fixes.
• Why no use of contemporary reviews like NYT?
  • I chose to focus mostly on the academic materials because: a) I was doing academic research when writing the article, so was reading those works anyone, b) the Westman book surveys the reviews in depth, and her claims about the reception are sufficient to not need to work with contemporary reviews (I would be doing more OR-ish work, when academic meta-claims already cover that information) and c) its only GA review; if I were moving towards FA I would definitely do a more detailed review of contemporary reception. Eventually, I plan to go back in survey the contemporary reviews, but the legacy of the novel is more couched in its academic significance alongside the surprisingly high sales because of the contemporary reception of the later novels, Sadads (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• "..."best novels of 1991", according to the New York Times.[1]" - better to be more direct. NYT placed it on their Best Books of 1992 list: [1] [2]
  • The article would benefit with expansions on several topics: the book's publication details, background of novel's role with Barker's career, and the film adaption.
    • Publication details: there are some details in the infobox but per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, the infobox is there to "summarize key facts that appear in the article", write in prose who published it, where, release dates, etc.
    • Background: the lead mentions it is part of a trilogy but the body does expand on this (the lead should just be a summary of the body) - was it not intended to be a trilogy?, this is also the place for who wrote the novel (she had previously written 4 other novels, dealt with subject matter of ... etc.) - the 'label' quote in there is good but should have this descriptive context of who she was when creating the novel.
    • Film adaption: what is mentioned here is vague. It should be direct: it was a British-Canadian co-production filmed at Craiglockhart Hospital, released 6 years after the book's publication, adapted by Allan Scott and Gillies MacKinnon, nominated for several Canadian Genie Awards and British Independent Film Awards, etc.
      • Should be able to do these fixes no problem. Will need a week or two to get it done though :P Other ones are a bit simpler, will definitely follow through Sunday/Monday. Been traveling a lot lately, Sadads (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• As this review and the associated article have been inactive for a month, I am procedurally failing the article. Feel free to renominate it at a later date, ideally once you believe all the issues raised in this nomination have been addressed. --erachima talk 20:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • • • @Erachima and Maclean25:Many apologies for being silent on this, been way to busy in the last 8 months with WP:TWL and another job, going to make these changes and renominate soonish. Thanks!Sadads (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels -- rated high importance

This novel has been given a high importance rating. Surely mid (or even low) is more appropriate. See, for example, major novels by Doris Lessing, Richard Ford and Salman Rushdie. Rwood128 (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rwood128: Just saw this: its one of the best received novels about WWI in 20th century British literature, and upon completion of the trilogy, she received The Booker Prize for the third novel, but a number of critics have talked about that reception, as for the whole series: because they missed Regeneration because of some of the publishing market's effects. Its, in essence, a nationally important novel, and if we had a "British Literature" project it would be either High or Top importance, for that reason. A number of those authors should also have high works: the Regeneration Trilogy novels are the only ones by Barker that should be "high", Sadads (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Good defence Sadads. However, my point really was that some more important novels by major writers got lower ratings. When I checked it looks that this must have been remedied for Rushdie. But see, for example, Lessings' The Golden Notebook and Ford's The Sportswriter and Independence Day. See also the novels of Angela Carter, who is as important a British novelist as Barker. By the way this isn't meant as an attack on Barker, whose work I admire, though I was more impressed by A. L. Kennedy's Day. But this is minor, I suppose, when there are not even articles on some major works (see Dorothy Richardson's, Pilgrimage), or just stubs (Day). Thanks for responding. Rwood128 (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I've checked further Sadads, and Alasdair Gray's Lanark: A Life in Four Books I note is classed mid-importance. Which seems low but acceptable. I doubt that any recent novel should be classes higher. See novels by Nobel laureate Patrick White for further proof that there are problems with classification system for novels. Rwood128 (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rwood128: No doubt: I have been doing most of the article assessment for the last year or so for Novels, and I am constantly revising the importance levels: I find stuff that is either High or Mid in the low class all the time, because of the number of people that assess them. I try to stick to the guidelines laid out at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Assessment#Importance_scale which emphasize a mix of public awareness and literary reknown for high, while mid is more about literary significance, but not neccessarily importance or public impact. Sadads (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sadads thanks. This is helpful and I realise the difficulties in dealing with the contemporary novel. However, I still feel that Regeneration is "notable" not "very notable" – and furthermore that "high" should be used very sparingly, and maybe not at all, for recent novels. It is also a little puzzling that this novel is rated so much higher than the other two in the Trilogy, though I'm not suggesting that they should be raised. Sorry to be so argumentative! Rwood128 (talk) 10:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Regeneration (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lolapress.org/reus_e.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)