Talk:Caucasia (novel)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 02:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 23, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

1. Literary significance and reception = this whole sect is a bit of a WP:QUOTEFARM.
2. Characters = not necessary here, sect could be removed if Plot summary was clearer and more succinct and concise. As is, sect is completely unsourced. Unsourced is okay for Plot summary, but not other sects of article.
3. Plot summary = no need for subsections like that, could have bolded instead, without actual "edit here" type level-3 subsections.
4. Locations = not necessary here, sect could be removed if Plot summary was clearer and more succinct and concise. As is, sect is completely unsourced. Unsourced is okay for Plot summary, but not other sects of article.
5. WP:LEAD sect could more adequately satisfy lede, and be expanded. Ideally 4 paragraphs of 4-5 sentences each. As is, it has one and two-sentence-long-paragraphs, which is a bit short.

2. Verifiable?:

1. Major problems with unsourced material in this article.
2. 1998 Stephen Crane Award for Best New Fiction of the Year = unsourced.
3. Finalist International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award. = unreferenced.
4. Biography = entire subsection has zero citations or references.
5. Per WP:LEADCITE, do not need citations for non-contentious non-controversial material in lede sect, IFF that same exact material is cited later on down in article body text.
6. Please wikilink names of notable publications in citations.
7. What archival research database was used to access these citations and references? If one was used, please place this in the "via" field in the WP:CIT citation templates. Examples include HighBeam Research, JSTOR, etc.

3. Broad in coverage?: Good job on the Background and historical context sect. No issues here.

4. Neutral point of view?:

1. Concerns here. Caucasia_(novel)#Literary_significance_and_reception could simply be titled "Reception" or "Critical reception". Placing "Literary significant" right in the sect title is a bit POV.
2. Bolding "In praise of" and "Criticism" in that sect, instead of naturally working it into the prose text, is a bit POV.
3. Leading that sect with "In praise of", in and of itself, is a bit of a red-flag for POV.

5. Stable?: Upon my inspection of both the article edit history and the talk page, the article is stable. No issues here.

6. Images?: File:Caucasia-novel.jpg -- good fair use rationale on image page. No issues here.

Unfortunately, this one is a "quick-fail" due to failure of one of the most important criteria of "What Is A Good Article", namely, lots of unsourced content in the article without citations.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— — Cirt (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)