Talk:Moonrise (novel)/GA4
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: -- Cirt (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC) I will review this article. -- Cirt (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of May 21, 2011, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: The writing quality is okay, but I would be more comfortable if at least one other previously uninvolved editor could go through it and perform some copyediting. Please try soliciting input from other previously uninvolved editors, and you can also try WP:GOCE, and posting to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects.
- 2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout, I see that some referencing improvements were made from the last GA review.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Not yet passing here. Some subsections could be significantly expanded upon.
- Lede/intro = The 2nd paragraph could be expanded a bit more.
- Inspirations and influences = 2 one sentence paragraphs. Please expand this sect.
- Critical reception = Fair, but not good. This could even be doubled in size. Perhaps expand a bit with more sources - and one-sentence-quotes from choice sources.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Neutral presentation throughout, no issues here.
- 5. Article stability? Upon inspection of article edit history and talk page, no stability issues. No problems here.
- 6. Images?: One image used, fair use book cover, fair use rationale on image page. No issues here.
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.
-- Cirt (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Replies
1. If you look at the section above, I actually got it copyedited by an uninvolved editor after the previous GAN. However, if you would like me to get it copyedited again, I can find someone. Please tell me if you would like another copyedit done as soon as possible, so I can find someone. Brambleclawx 20:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
3. I'm not sure there are any reliable sources left that I haven't used, so expansion may not be possible at the moment.
- Yes, certainly please try to get at least one more previously uninvolved user for copyediting.
- Perhaps you could solicit input from WikiProject members of relevant projects, and the copyeditor, for possible additional WP:RS secondary sources.
-- Cirt (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- I did a couple searches through the various databases I have access too, and I am not finding anything more. Right now, I think we have the most comprehensive list you could expect, in the way of sources. In my experience, once more popular books are in the 3rd or 4th book of a series, publishers stop getting them reviewed by a large number of organizations (except maybe with Kirkus as was the case here). With children's literature this is also commonly the case, especially if they already have a good following. I think the article is in a good enough position source wise, Sadads (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, but there is still lots of list-type-stuff that seems like it could be moved to separate standalone pages...... -- Cirt (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure I understand what you mean by "list-type-stuff"... are you referring to the character list? I gave a "main article" link-thing for List of Warriors characters for that one, but someone suggested I list the most important characters here anyway. Unless you're talking about something else? Brambleclawx 14:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, but there is still lots of list-type-stuff that seems like it could be moved to separate standalone pages...... -- Cirt (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I did a couple searches through the various databases I have access too, and I am not finding anything more. Right now, I think we have the most comprehensive list you could expect, in the way of sources. In my experience, once more popular books are in the 3rd or 4th book of a series, publishers stop getting them reviewed by a large number of organizations (except maybe with Kirkus as was the case here). With children's literature this is also commonly the case, especially if they already have a good following. I think the article is in a good enough position source wise, Sadads (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I took another look and that part is fine. Just please update here when copyediting is done, and when Reception has been expanded a tad bit more. -- Cirt (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I believe copyediting is essentially complete (save for a little removal of duplicate links). There were already quite a few quotations in the reception section, and I added an extra quotation. There aren't any more reviews from reviewers, unless you feel it appropriate to comment on comments made on the book at places like Google Books, and Amazon? Brambleclawx 22:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
GA passed
Thank you for addressing issues raised during the review. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)