Talk:The Great Lover (novel)

More sources to look at

Additional reviews I haven't added yet:

• http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10643845
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/6661434/Novels-of-the-year.html
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/rowanpelling/5238210/Words-fail-me-when-it-comes-to-public-speaking.html
• http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/leisure/4644915.Stories_of_different_worlds/

 DoneSadads (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Great Lover (novel)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I will review this, but it will take me a day or two to get through the page and make comments. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sweet, no big rush, working no a paper right now and packing to head back home, Sadads (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course you may regret it - if you have an eye on FAC, I'll be picky! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• "young, and fictional" needs to be recast. Which is more important - young or fictional?
• "focuses on the growing relationship between Nell and Brooke and Brooke's growth" - is there any way of avoiding the and & and?
• Need to make clear right away that he is not a fictional character, whereas she is
• Parallelism - "much of the novel's emphasis ... as well as contrasting". Try something like "The novel emphasizes ... and contrasts ...."
• "approachability of the novel's depiction of Brooke's life" - reword

   Done I think I fixed these, Sadads (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Background

• link tenure? Actually, the first time I read I thought it meant he was faculty, but now I realize you mean as a student, so probably needs rewording / clarification  Done
• "several unsuccessful relationships with male and female friends." - try simplifiying: "with men and women"  Done
• This needs a bit of clarification or simply to spit out the facts - he was confused because he was gay? bisexual?

  As far as I can tell, there is no consensus on Brooke's sexual orientation, the reviewers suggest that some authors favour each of all three options: he was straight, he was gay, and he was bisexual and in all cases he was completely sure if that was the correct. I think Dawson feels that sexual orientation was something that kindof eluded him, and he simply was really lustful and really enjoyed people and favoured heterosexual relationships, even though he couldn't "decide" persay, Sadads (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, that's fine. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Development

• "The novel is based on biographical research by Dawson" - passive. I'd make Dawson (who is doing the research) the subject of the sentence  Done
• Check the policy on pull-quotes. I think what you've done is fine, but I'm always a bit confused about these.

  Didn't see a policy anywhere for that (probably should be one). I figure its a good quote that builds off of one of my summary of her opinion in the section, Sadads (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Don't worry about it now. Might be fine; you'll find out when you get to FAC. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Can The Orchard be placed in context? Why did she visit, or why is it visit-worthy, and why was there or what was he doing there?

  Will do a little bit of looking through the interviews, and see if she expresses a specific reason for the visit. She does live in Cambridgeshire, and apparently Grantchester remains a place to visit in Cambridgeshire, because of the retired academic community and its history building since the 19th century of academics like Brooke living and visiting there, so it kindof makes sense that she went, Sadads (talk)

• In the "Plot" section it explains that's where she met him, but in the development section the reader doesn't understand why this is important. Just add something like "the setting for the novel" or "one of the settings of the novel" to add context. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done, Sadads (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• "how women kept falling in love" or should it be "why women kept falling in love"  Done

Plot

• Try to trim a bit

I think I did this, maybe. Looking at the prose now, it could use some polish, help would be appreciated, Sadads (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Not that important for GA, more important if you go to FA with this. I can't get to it immediately, but will help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Characters

• "Brooke begins the novel in 1909 at the age of 22" - he doesn't begin the novel
• Brookes or Brooke?
• Dawsen, Dawson or Dawsan?

 Done Sadads (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• "The integration of these facts is nearly seamless" - needs attribution

Looking, I know it is in here, Sadads (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I mean attribute to the source that claims the integration is seamless. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done

Themes

• "recently unearthed letters" - not literally. Simplify with "recently found" or something like that. Also this is another passive construction - prob better to have the letter-writer as the subject instead of the letters

 Done

MoS

• add wikilinks to captions, even if already linked
• If the dashes are emdashes, then no spaces
• Italics for titles

 Done

• Check for WP:LQ  Done

Images

• File:Noel Olivier; Maitland Radford; Virginia Woolf (née Stephen); Rupert Brooke from NPG.jpg looks questionable. Would certainly have an image reviewer look at it before going to FAC

I will see if I can find someone to check in on this one, Sadads (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• File:The Orchard.jpg - questionable license. Do we know who the author is?

Don't know who the author is, but can be verfied via http://www.orchard-grantchester.com/history/ as being that old. I don't know why it wouldn't be PD if they are publishing it like that. I don't think there are any available author credits online, Sadads (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, that's fine for now, but will need reviews for the next stage. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• A couple of retrieval dates are missing

 Done

Okay, you're good to go. This is ready to pass; I'll do the bookwork. Congratulations on another GA and a job well-done! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)