Talk:The Last Dog on Earth/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sadads (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

A little about myself: I am an English and History undergrad, with all kinds of crazy interests. I rather enjoy historical fiction, European literature and literary criticism and I am active in WikiProject Novels. I generally do GA reviews of literature topics including children's and YA novels. Through this review, I hope to help in as many ways as possible. I do have a real life, and the initial review may take up to a week, I will make comments below in sections for you to respond to and a checklist of the GA nomination requirements, which I and only I will check off. I see GA as a stepping stone to FA, so this review will be a combination of a peer review and a GA review: I will examine every line and (likely) request many changes. If I am for some reason neglecting this review contact me on my talk page or if I am not reviewing this article properly, feel free to request a new reviewer. I have an overseas flight to the UK on the 5th-6th and don't know what my internet status will be when I get there. If I am not responsive within several days of that flight, feel free to request input from other individuals (I would suggest User:PrincessofLlyr, User:Derild4921), though I don't forsee that need to arise), Sadads (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Content

1. A quick glance at the outline and a scan through the article, shows me that you are missing several important sections for Novels based on WP:MOS (novels). At the very least you should have discussions of Style and Themes as discussed by the reviewers, also, many articles will have sections on Genre and Production History. For examples of these types of sections see Quicksilver (novel), Warriors (novel series), Le Père Goriot and Cousin_Bette. Most of this information should be readily available in the critical reviews which you used to source the rest of the article. These are only the first content things, I may have more as I read the article, Sadads (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for choosing to review this article. I've added a theme and style paragraph; it's a bit messy, but I'll be back a little later to clean it up. I've searched for production information prior to putting this up for GAN and have found nothing. I suppose it is to be expected considering the novel's popularity and release. I will await further comments. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources

I am a little suspicious of the editorial tabs on any place that is specifically designed for selling the book, such as the Barnes and Noble page you use for citations 2+3, and are clearly not reliable sources for retrieving reviewer information (the first thing that should make you suspicious is that there is hardly any bibliographic information on those pages). Please use the original sourcing for these editorials, if you need help retrieving these sources, I have access to a number of journal and newspaper databases, and can find you some more reviews, etc and e-mail them to you if you would like. Also, it's very suspicious that Publisher's Weekly doesn't have any text similar to the one on the Barnes and Noble page on it's digital versions of it's back issues. Sales sites are appropriate for showing the publication history, especially in relation to e-books. Please review your sources that direct to a sales site, and determine if in fact they are WP:Reliable Sources for the topics which you address. I will be back home tonight and can see if I can find any more sources in my scholarly databases, Sadads (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate if you have the backlogs or more reviews, as I prefer them over sales sites. Administrator User:SlimVirgin stated that they "[looked] fine" during the article's peer review, so I decided to go ahead and use them. (All other sales' sites, such as Borders and Amazon, used condensed versions that praised the novel, rather than critiqued it.) WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, why do you use the FAQ at 14 as a source? It has nothing to do with this book, or any of the information in that sentence (unless you are pointing out that these form of epub are specific to Border's application, which I don't think needs a citation). If you are doing that for the other epub formats, I think that is probably unnecessary, Sadads (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The FAQ was used to clarify information regarding the ebook reader, mostly because the information was not available on the page. I can remove if it seems trivial and unnecessary in that case. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for delay

I recently moved to the UK for Study Abroad at Oxford, and internet has been touch a go and I have been fairly busy. I will continue the review within the day methinks, Sadads (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's fine! I know how difficult moving can be in general, let alone to another country. Take your time! (And enjoy your time in the UK; it been a dream of mine to live abroad.) WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I am requesting a second opinion to finish the review because life has taken me on a bit of a spin, and worked just ramped up alot here and with the Ambassador program, sorry about that, and I am very sorry this took so long, Sadads (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It's fine. I understand; life can be incredibly unpredictable. Good luck, though! WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Taking over review

It seems that Sadads has abandoned so I shall take over this review. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   It causes infected dogs, and later humans, to become unnaturally violent and eventually begin killing animals and humans. This sentence is a little clumsy, please rephrase.

   Logan struggles with the disease and what the future may hold for Jack. Likewise. Suggest a thorough copy-edit throughout.

   The names of publications such as Publishers Weekly should be italicised.

   Who or what is "VOYA"? OK, you have explained that it is "Voice of Youth Advocates", but what is that. Is it a journal or paper that reviews books?

   A 'Character section would be useful, see WP:Manual of Style (novels)

   The Lead seems a little thin, see WP:LEAD

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Ref #14[1] is unneccessary, doesn't say anything about this book.

   You cite various reviews with a reference to the publisher's website. How do you know that their republication is not highly selective? Either cite the original review or leave it out.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I guess that there is not much more to be said.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   Captioned, with a suitable FUR.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, on hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

   Ok, this now passes muster, thanks for the improvements. I am happy to list this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the Publishers Weekly and VOYA issue. I'll be expanding the lede more if needed and will be performing a copy edit soon. I'm hesitant to add a character section because the majority of necessary information is already presented in the plot. I removed ref 14. When you say cite it to the publisher's website, are you speaking about the supplementary award reference or all of the ones to Barnes and Noble? I can easily remove the former, as the official record for the Texas Lone Star list is already used. For the others, I was told here that they looked fine. I can remove them, but it would meaning losing a large chunk of my reception and theme sections. I believe these are the entire reviews in any case, considering they are fairly negative and other websites (Amazon, Borders, etc.) use only positive sentences lifted from those reviews. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well you may "believe these are the entire reviews in any case" but that is your opinion. We need the original citations or they should be dropped. Reprints on a publisher's website, which is dedicated to promoting their work, are not acceptable. I await expansion of the lead and a copy edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand it's a case of opinion (do note it isn't a publisher's website; it is a retailer). My argument came from basically getting the okay to use them during the peer review. I have searched fervently and come up empty-handed, so I will remove them. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This google search indicates that there are reviews out there. You should be able to access these via your local library or college. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There are two reviews listed on that search, both only accessible through paying. While I would happily try out the local library, I've been fairly busy as of late and will be on a trip lasting from Friday to Sunday afternoon. This article is interesting, but I'm not quite sure if I would consider in encyclopedic enough; similar groups exist and do the same thing, and The Last Dog on Earth is only one of the novels being utilized. Due to the aforementioned trip, I will be working primarily on this article tonight and on Sunday (the day when this GAN review will officially draw to a close). I felt I should give proper warning, and do ask that it isn't ended sometime earlier in the day. (Also, as I have fulfilled the request regarding references, I will not be focusing solely on copy editing and lede fixes.) WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I am quite happy to grant extensions if needed. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be great if possible. This week has been a bit chaotic for me. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will check back on 20 February, I would hope to see progress by then. I have place three reviews found at LexisNexis on the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help, especially the reviews. I can guarantee that it will be improved by that date. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Update

I've expanded the lede and fixed all noted issues under the "Factually Accurate" criteria. The VOYA bit is no longer included within the article due to the sourcing issue. I've not added a character section for previously stated reasons (unneeded, all necessary information included in plot, etc.) and have added italics where appropriate. Furthermore, I've run a brief copy edit and changed some clunky wording. I will, of course, work more with the copy edit. While I'd like to use more reviews, I simply do not have access to pay-to-view archives. However, there are articles that have been promoted with less, and I will keep my eyes peeled.

Are there any more issues you would like me to focus on? WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)