# Talk:Theory of Literature

Great article here. I wish more lit theory articles on WP were this cogent and comprehensive.
A few minor points:

"Their success in presenting a unified voice has fallen under criticism"... they were criticized for succeeding at this, or for a lack of success at this? The following sentences present a range of views and don't quite clarify this for me.
Per MOS:QUOTE, "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." The article does this in several places, such as "history of philosophy" or "old New Critic", though the latter may be unavoidable.
"highly indulgent in formalism" --this phrase confused me.
That's all I've got. This looks very solid and ready to truck right through GA and FA. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Khazar!
Changed to "been debated".
HoP removed, New Critic... well, it's pretty key.
I tried linking "formalism". Hopefully that works better.
Cheers! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Theory of Literature/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Garamond Lethe (talk · contribs) 03:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
This my first GA review.  As such I will definitely be asking for a second set of eyes once I've finished and I'm open to discussing whether or not specific changes need to be made.  I'm planning on doing three full passes through the article.

Alright, I'll let you go through the article at least once before addressing your comments (avoid edit conflicts) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to break for dinner so have at it!  GaramondLethe 04:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, enjoy your dinner! Lunch for me now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Picking up where I left off.  Will address you're comments once I've finished this pass.  Overall it looks fine.  GaramondLethe 05:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
And that should do it for tonight.  I'm planning on responding to your comments tomorrow as well as heading down the university library to get a handle on converage as well as spot-check sources and close paraphrasing.  There are a few spots where I think you've correctly represented the authors' ideas but there's not enough in the article for me to know what those ideas mean.  Those should be fixable.  Beyond that I haven't found any serious issues and don't expect to.  Good stuff.   GaramondLethe 07:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. I'll get some examples from the text when I get home. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)