Talk:The Jungle Book/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 16:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I will review this article. It is about a very significant and influential novel and looks to be a promising candidate for GA. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions

I have a few suggestions that I would like to be addressed before I pass this article:

1. The "Setting" section speaks as though all the stories are in India, but "The White Seal" is very self-evidently not set in India. You may want to clarify that the section is talking about most of the stories, not all of them.
   1. Done.
2. The plot summaries in the "Chapters" section are ambiguous and incomplete. They lack relevant details and do not describe the endings of the stories; it almost seems like the section is intentionally trying to avoid giving spoilers. If I had not read the book, I would be forced to guess at how the stories end. I would recommend adding a little bit more detail, as well as the endings of the stories. Obviously, we do not want to paraphrase the whole book play-by-play, but we can afford to tell more about its contents than a person can learn just by reading the dust jacket. I think that each story should probably have about a three or four sentence summary.
   1. Done.
3. The caption for the postage stamp reads: "Heroes of the Soviet animation film on a postal stamp of Russia". I would recommend changing this to say "Heroes of the Soviet animation film on a Russian postage stamp" because "postal stamp of Russia" makes it sound like Russia is shown on the postage stamp as well.
   1. Done.
4. The "Adaptations" section does not make any mention whatsoever of the 2016 live-action remake of Disney's original animated Jungle Book movie. I think that the live-action remake is surely worth at least listing alongside the others, especially since, according to our own article about it, it was the fifth-highest grossing film of 2016 and it won an Academy Award. I am sure there are plenty of sources about it available that you can use. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
   1. Added.

Excellent work! I now feel comfortable passing this article. Congratulations. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·