Talk:Colonel Sun/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sadads (talk · contribs) 14:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am User:Sadads, and I always like to give a little background on me before I begin reviews. I am a student of History and English, and have been contributing to Wikipedia for a while, mostly in fiction, but also in a wide variety of topics. I have been the primary contributer to GAs in literature including Quicksilver (novel) and The Great Lover (novel). I see the GA review as a process of peer review, less a approval process. I will be providing comments on major issues as well as minor edits over the next couple weeks. I will check of the various parts on the checklist and provide comments in the comments section bellow. The coments section is for conversation about improving the article, the checklist for me to keep track of my work. If I am somehow neglegent at any point, please contact me on my talk page or via Email, Sadads (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustratePro the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Prose Quality

Just from reading the lead, the prose quality is fairly poor. This is not an automatic fail, but does need serious revision before we can approve it for GA. Suggestion: read the article for passive voice and the use of helping verbs such as is, are, have, etc. Try to rewrite each of these sentences to eliminate those. Also, make sure that any "this" and "that" has a very clear referent otherwise (see how I fixed that in the first paragraph). Also, try to simplify sentences, though many of our contributers are highly educated, many of our readers around the world may not be fluent in English or have exceptional reading skills, thus we need to make the communication as direct as possible. As you can see, I copyedited the first paragraph, and will work my way through the article over the next week or two. Anything I don't think I can handle I will throw a comment below, Sadads (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the prose quality is not "fairly poor": it is just a different style to yours, which is American. Mine is a British style which will generally tend to avoid short simple sentances as people can understand longer ones just as well as shorter ones. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The short sentences is less important then the clarity of meaning fixed by the removal of passive sentences, complex verbs and unclear referential language. We are making some progress, but remember this is peer review too, I am not trying to insult you or anything, just point to where outside audiences are not going to understand the meaning, Sadads (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Plot

I don't understand the second paragraph of the plot summary especially the first four sentences, try to clarify your language, Sadads (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the first paragraph supposed to summarize the plot? I ask because I am getting some of the same information from paragraph one and paragraph two. Is there any way you can merge the two or cut any summary? The plot summary is short enough, I don't think we need a summary of a summary, Sadads (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I fixed that, but the plot section still needs to be reread a couple more times, Sadads (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Characters

Third sentence paragraph one of the Characters and themes section needs to be more consistent in the list, especially in how novel titles are included in relationship to the events, Sadads (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Please make sure paragraph 2 describes what you want, Sadads (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, it does. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

That was a subtle way of saying, I have no clue what the first two sentences mean. Please add some contextual details, especially with that second sentence, and help me understand why a semi-catonic state should mean a more emotional response to readers (I can guess, but I don't really know.), Sadads (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Done - SchroCat (^ • @)

Themes

Also, paragraph 1 doesn't flow very well, the connections between the information isn't great. Consider setting up a summary sentence at the beginning Sadads (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Slight tweak all that was needed: it flows fine. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Background

"As the Bond character could not be copyrighted, " Descibe the "Why?" That doesn't make any sense to someone not familiar with the legal context of the work. Remember, when writing, context, context, context. Sadads (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an IP lawyer, so I don't know the details as to why or why not and I don't have any other information to hand about UK IP law which would clarify it, I'm afraid. The citation in place covers any possible questioning of the fact itself. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Release and reception

Could you provide a summary of the types of reception which the novel recieved at the beggining of the reviews subsection. This helps the reader know what to expect from the section, instead of getting lost in a sea of opinions. The summary should include: a) the generally positive or negative opinion of the reviewers, and b) particular details that almost all the reviewers focused on. For an example see the one I did on Quicksilver_(novel)#Critical_reception. There is another way to do it. Many of the featured articles about fiction group the types of reception by what they emphasize or how they describe the work, for example Pattern_Recognition_(novel)#Reception or The_Sun_Also_Rises#Reception. Notice how each paragraph in the reception section summarizes the types of reception that will be presented in that paragraph, Sadads (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

On a similar note, these long quotes in the reception section are unnecessary. Take the liberty to paraphrase some of the opinions held by the critics, and to cut out all but the most pertinent phrases from each persons commentary. You don't need something like 30 quoted words from each critic to accurately reflected their opinions. You are erring on the side of WP:QUOTEFARM, Sadads (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd have pulled you up on the quote boxes of both those as they give too much emphasis to a single review over the others ;) In actual fact, only one of my quotes is over 30 words at 32: in Pattern Recognition some of non-quote box ones (which is over 100 words) are also quite long - one weighing in at 37 words, alongside a number in their 20s. In other words, there isn't that much difference between the that article and this!

I agree with you on the summary of the reception and I'll put something in shortly. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Adaptations

Currently the sentence "Colonel Sun is the only non-Fleming Bond novel adapted as a comic strip by the Daily Express newspaper and syndicated worldwide." communicates the meaning that: "the novel is the only bond novel adapted by the Daily express and the only novel syndicated worldwide." The reason I broke it up was so that the verb subject relationships were clearer, the current language has no clear meaning, Sadads (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Now tweaked. Your version was misleading as it suggested the syndication was published on the dates shown, not the original version. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Article Organization

I would suggest moving the background section before the plot. It influence how people read the article: instead of rushing them into the plot, the plot becomes contextualized alongside the themes and the other information, Sadads (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw your change back to the section. The reason I would divide them is that their is no topical connection between the two (also WP:MOS (novels) suggests the divide, Sadads (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The layout of lede-plot-background follows the same as all the Fleming Bond books, which have all recently got to GA level, as well as becoming a Good Topic. It is logical to have this follow the same structure as all the others, as well as being the order in which WP:MOS (novels) suggests. In relation to the Characters and themes section, again, the previous Bond novels and associated Good Topic have them as one section, not least neither makes for a terribly convincing stand-alone section. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thats fine I suppose, don't agree with the choice, but I am not one of the main authors.... Sadads (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)