Talk:Strange Fruit (novel)/GA1
Latest comment: 5 years ago by ReaderofthePack in topic Notes
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 15:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Once complete, I'll be claiming this review for points in the 2019 WikiCup. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- I have made some copyedits. Please review for accuracy and revise as you see fit.
- Was the book published as "Jordan is so Chilly", or was that a working title? If the former, when was the change made?
- The revised play in Boston is mentioned twice, one in 'Bannings' and once in 'Adaptations'. I think once in the second section is sufficient.
- Boston and Detroit are linked, but not Montreal or New York. If you're going to link some cities, you should link them all.
- I think it would be beneficial to add dates to some of the commentary in 'Themes'. All the of the citations are from 2001 or later. Is there no commentary prior to that?
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- no concern
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
- Sources 31 and 32 are bare titles. The templates need to be filled out in more detail.
- 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:
- no concern
- C. It contains no original research:
- no concern
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- no concern per Earwig results
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- There's not much detail on the book's publication. The infobox says January without a source, but the body never specifies a month.
- The inbox image is labeled "first edition" - how many editions have there been? Are they all from Reynal and Hitchcock, who is only mentioned in the infobox?
- There's a comic book called "Strange Fruit", but I'm not sure if it's related to this novel. Might be worth investigating some.
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- no concern
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- no concern
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- no concern
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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:
- no concern
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- no concern
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Notes
editHi! I fixed the sourcing issues! Thank you for reviewing this and I look forward to your other notes! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm hoping to finish my read through today, but work unexpectedly got busy :( Argento Surfer (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- No worries! This is actually the first time I was able to get back to this GA nom - I'll work on this later today or tomorrow! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- OK, I've added a publications section. It's a little hard to track down every publisher since there are a lot of reprints through the same publisher and it's kind of hard to track some of them down, at least to reliable sources. I'll work on the other issues. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've edited stuff as far as the first part (well written) goes. With the commentary prior to the 2000s, this was mostly omitted because it was difficult to find and access content that was put out before then. I'll check out the comic. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- I took a look at the comic. As far as I can tell, it took its title from the Billie Holiday song, which isn't really surprising. The book isn't absolutely unknown but it's never gotten a super huge-huge amount of attention. It's still known in academia and some bibliophile groups, but outside of that it's kind of steadily falling into obscurity. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Argento Surfer, what do you think? Let me know if I missed something. I feel like I did. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- ReaderofthePack Thanks for the new additions. Given the book's age, I can understand that older commentaries and editions can be hard to track down. I'm satisfied with what you've found. Nice work!