Wikipedia:Peer review/Either/Or/archive1

Either/Or

Hi, managed to make this a Good article. Any suggestions to help make it a featured article would be welcome. Poor Yorick 06:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the correct title Either/Or or Either-Or? It says both in the article. --thedemonhog talk contributions 05:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Original Danish is with a dash; apparently, it's been translated into English with a slash. Will correct. Poor Yorick 06:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit

This is a good start on a difficult text. Here are my suggestions.

• a practice which he developed during the first half of his career - "employed" or some other synonym, perhaps?
• Can you characterize the genre of the book in the lead?
  • Attempted characterization...
• I think that the lead could summarize the article better. Perhaps the details about the author/narrator could be placed later and more information reflecting the article could be included. See WP:LEAD.
• The lectures turned out to be a disappointment for many in Schelling's crowd - this usage of "crowd" is too colloquial for an encyclopedia, don't you think?
• The heading "Development" is unclear.
• I think that you should try to change the bulleted lists into prose in the "Development" section; bulleted lists aren't very "brilliant" or "compelling" (if you eventually want to go for FA) and should only be used when absolutely necessary.
• I would also suggest that you transform the list in "Either" into prose.
• Your use of the cite book template makes it very difficult to know what pages you are citing in the "Either" section; could you include the page numbers?
• When referencing other works in the text, such as Kierkegaard's other books, it is generally a good idea to include their dates of publication.
• What are your references for the last paragraph in the "Either" section?
• Victor Eremita found a group of letters from a retired Judge Vilhelm (or William) to the author A, trying to convince A of the value of the ethical stage of life. - be careful not to represent fictional personas as real
• Undefined usage of the term freedom, "choosing one's self", etc. - etc.? How is the reader supposed to know what that "etc." refers to? You need to explain more here.
  • Unknown entry, not mine. Removing.
• What are your sources for the last paragraph in the "Or" section? If it is the source in paranthesis, please make that an inline citation like all of the rest of your notes.
• Along with this work, Kierkegaard published, under his own name, two upbuilding discourses intended to complement Either/Or - do you mean "uplifting"?
  • Has been translated in the Princeton Edition as "Upbuilding".
• Please remove the table from the "Themes" section and put the information into prose form - this is not scientific information, nor, do I have a feeling, is it that neat. Also, as far as I can tell, you address a single theme, so either the section should be retitled to describe this theme or you should add more material - I would vote for adding more material.
• Alcohol, drugs, one-night stands, couch-potatoes and other self-indulgent lifestyles are some such examples of unrefined immediacy. - Does Kierkegaard give these examples? Perhaps we should stick to his examples.
• I would again suggest that you remove the table in "Kantian interpretation" and convert the information into prose.
• The "Later reception" section jumps around a bit; can you make it flow better?
• I would say that overall the article needs more citations, particularly from Kierkegaard scholars. Scholarly ooks and articles on Either/Or and Kierkegaard would probably help you turn the tables into prose and flesh out the "Themes" section a bit more.
• This article also needs a copyedit when you are done revising; I saw a few grammar mistakes. When you decide to go for FA, it will need to conform to the manual of style more rigorously than it does now. You should begin by going through WP:MOS (the first page, anyway). Awadewit 03:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)