Talk:Love Among the Walnuts

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Love Among the Walnuts/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sadads (talk · contribs) 19:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey I like doing reviews of novels, and I hope to be able to work with you on this one. Some early, first observations:

• Missing information listing from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/ALAN/v31n2/pdf/tuccillo.pdf?q=teens-top-ten-books or https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/ALAN/v31n2/tuccillo.html
• Missing discussion of themes and humour citation from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=YqSGPz2snrIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=%22Love+Among+the+Walnuts%22&ots=Kgn6rd48Cz&sig=riOAzH9qE_J-8A4W3LiUxRSGhV8#v=onepage&q=%22Love%20Among%20the%20Walnuts%22&f=false -- also a fair bit of discussion of some of the characters.
• The paragraphs in the lead, plot and reception sections are really long, making it hard to read: recommend breaking both up into smaller sections -- if you want me to try it let me know.
• The reviews all deal with the a) satirical/funny language, and the Dictionary of Youth LIterature book above carries a fair bit of discussion of this as well. I would recommend breaking out a paragraph (maybe in a seperate style or genre section) which discusses this, based on the reception.

Funky/unclear language:

• "Soon, they fall in love. During their stay at Walnut Manor, they realize that the patients there are portrayed as far less capable than they actually are" -- super convoluted: twice passive voice, almost impossible for English Language Learners and hard for younger audience.
• "With the help of the Manor's residents, Sandy, Sunnie, and Bentley catch Sandy's uncles, revive Horatio, Mousey, and Flossie, and convince Walnut Manor's board of directors (composed of family members of its residents) that its patients should not be forced to live there." - could be expanded a bit, it sounds like you are skipping over the bulk of the action, and there is no reason to think it should be one sentence.

These are only first impressions, I will compare it to a checklist in a few minutes. Sadads (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Thanks so much, Sadads! I'll work on this within the next couple of days. Best, BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 03:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Hey, Sadads. Thanks for the refs you linked; they were hugely useful. I've attempted to address every point you raised above; let me know what you think of this revision and what more can (or needs to) be done. Thanks for your review! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 18:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah! Glad it was useful, I will do a second pass tonight -- a quick glance, thinks I am going to find a few more things ... but we are really close. Sadads (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Pass 2

Funky language:

• "One evening when Sandy is a young adult, his scheming uncles, Bart and Bernie, feed the family a poisoned birthday cake in an attempt to inherit the family fortune, sending everyone but Sandy and Bentley into a coma." -- super long sentence, with lots of complications -- suggest breaking into two.
• " The book has variously been recommended " -> Suggest "Reviewers recommend various appropriate reading ranges, including..." -- Passive voice is really complicated here

Broader revision comment:

• The new themes section feels like it could pull a bit more from the sources. Do you think any of the covereed works have a bit more to give in terms of discussing comedy and the tension with conventional genres?
• "Some publications discussed the novel's tone and style." feels like it belongs more in the literary features section above: I would modify it to seomthing like: "For some reviewers, the tone and style reinforced the novels quality." -- As an topical sentence, it doesn't reinforce the main focus of the section (reception).

Otherwise, I think we are good: not finding anything else that stands out. Sadads (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Sadads. I've tackled these points as best I could. Everything was pretty much addressed as requested except for the themes paragraph, which I struggled to find more info for. I did add one sentence and hope it's to your approval. All the best and thanks for the review, BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 01:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)