Talk:Obernewtyn (novel)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email)

Overview

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 illustrate 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:

   While there are many good features of this article, there are too many problems for me to give this passing review. I hope that you continue to improve on this article and perhaps offer it for for GA review again in the future.

Specific issues

• The introduction for the article is too short. See WP:LEAD for more information about what a lead should look like.
• The section "Synopsis" is essentially plagerism as I see that it has been copied and pasted from the Borders reference. It is okay to quote from other sources (generally 1 or 2 sentences, not paragraphs), but you must explicitly state in the text of the article that you are quoting another source.
• "Synopsis" is a synonym of "Plot Summary", so it is not necessary to have 2 separate sections. The plot summary is too long and full of too many details. A good plot summary should only give a broad overview of the story and should avoid "spoilers" when possible. Please see WP:PLOTSUM to learn how to better write that section.

• For the "Awards" section, if there is only one item, it should be written in prose, not in a table. Tables are reserved only for organizing large lists (if a book had maybe 5 or more awards or nominations).
• Reference #4 is a dead link, and ref #18 looks like it is a public forum, and those are not generally considered to be acceptable sources.
• References should be given in formal citation style (Like refs 1-3 are). Bare URLs are not acceptable as they are prone to link rot. Also, when citing the same ref multiple times (as it looks like refs 7, 8, 10, 11 are all the same), please use the format of <ref name = xyz>. You can learn more about this at WP:CITE
• I think there may be a slight bias in the article. The praise for the book is overly glowing. (E.g. " Tamora Pierce warmly expressed", and , "The novel has also been quite popular"). Remove unnecessary adjectives. The only down point mentioned about the book is the very short, last sentence of the "Reception" section. That sentence should be expanded to a paragraph. I think if you search through some more book reviews, you'll probably find a few more sentences to add about some negative points of the book.

I appreciate the work that you have put into the article thus far, and I hope you can use the things that I have listed here to make further improvements on the article. If you have any more questions about this review or about any of wikipedia's policies, please let me know! (The link to my talk page is the brown kanji symbol after my name. It is Japanese for "talk") Thank you for introducing me to this article. --Tea with toast (話) 03:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)