Talk:A Gift of Magic/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 15:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Review

• I don't quite understand the dancing injury subplot - how does this tie into the larger story of ESP?
  • There's not really much of a connection between the dancing injury subplot and ESP. I don't have any problem getting rid of that part from the plot section. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't read it so I don't understand how important it really is to a plot summary but it struck me as off while reading the article. Based on what you've written here would suggest paring it back. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

I've gone ahead and condensed that part of the plot summary. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Are you sure the date of publication in Kirkus is the book and not the review?
  • The Best Sellers journal backs up the publication date, so I added that in as well. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done

• I would either move Note 1 to be after the citation supporting the fact in the next sentence or add its own citation for the sentence and keep the note where it is (this works better of the two, imo)
  • I added a citation for the sentence. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah for adding a citation for the note. I was actually talking about the sentence which starts "While Duncan was studying..." Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

My mistake. I went ahead and made the change. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• I never quite know what to do with audiobooks myself but having the release of the audiobook in publication makes sense but having the review in reception makes sense and those two things should be together. So not necessarily a suggestion here just a note.
  • Yeah, any of those arrangements make sense to me. I put the audiobook review in the publication history section because I've seen a couple of featured articles do it that way and it seemed reasonable to me. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

• What evidence is there that Tor.com is a reliable source for analysis/criticism?
  • The site has a team of editors and content is checked over prior to submission (based on this and this), so I would consider it a reliable source. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I still have questions but that feels good enough that I wouldn't want to hold up a GA over it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

• Any information about the commercial success of the book which can be added?
  • I'll look into it and see if I can find anything about it. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I haven't had any luck finding information about the book's commercial success. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done

Discussion

• I will go ahead and review this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fearstreetsaga: See review above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thanks for taking a look at the article. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)