Talk:The Time Traveler's Wife/GA1
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will review The Time Traveler's Wife. It will take a day or two to read the article and compile comments. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've read the article The Time Traveler's Wife. This is almost good enough to pass
...except I'm not quite satisfied with the lead.
- I think this is a clumsy sentence. "The story is a metaphor for the failed relationships of Niffeneger herself, who was frustrated in love when she began it." The ending pronoun can be misread.
- I've changed the pronoun "the work". I'm afraid I don't see precisely what is clumsy about this - could you point it out? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Probably just me :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- The lead seems not to hit all the points in summarizing the article. Perhaps the lead could incorporate the following:
Niffenegger, an artist who teaches at the Center for Book and Paper Arts at Columbia College Chicago, was drawing when the inspiration for the novel came to her in a phrase: "the time traveler's wife"
- I've added a sentence on this. Awadewit (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
While much of the novel shows Henry and Clare falling in love, the end is darker and "time travel becomes a means for representing arbitrariness, transience, [and] plain bad luck".
- I'm reluctant to add a sentence on this idea in particular, as this is just one reviewer's opinion. The broader themes - love, loss, and free will - are the themes that appear repeatedly in the reviews. Perhaps I should explain the free will bit in more detail? Awadewit (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Walter notes that there is a "quasi-religious sense" to the inevitability of Henry's and Clare's lives and deaths
- Again, this is just one reviewer's view, so I am reluctant to highlight it in the lead. Awadewit (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Writing in The Chicago Tribune, Carey Harrison praised the originality of the novel, specifically the intersection of child-bearing and time travel. Despite appreciating the novel's premise, Amidon complained that the implications of Henry's time-traveling were poorly thought out.
- Again, these are very specific views by particular reviewers. I have tried to place the general views in the lead: Reviewers were impressed with her unique perspective on time travel and praised her characterization of the couple, particularly their emotional depth, while at times criticizing Niffenegger's melodramatic writing style. Awadewit (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Your arguments are fair. My overall concern with the lead is a bit vague. Somehow, it doesn't 'capture' the body text. I'm can't quite put my finger on it, though. No worries. Probably just me. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Is it the themes that seem too vague? I'll have another look at it tomorrow and see what I can do. Awadewit (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hopefully I've improved the lead. Awadewit (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Is it the themes that seem too vague? I'll have another look at it tomorrow and see what I can do. Awadewit (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Your arguments are fair. My overall concern with the lead is a bit vague. Somehow, it doesn't 'capture' the body text. I'm can't quite put my finger on it, though. No worries. Probably just me. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- On another note, the relationship between Turow and the author should be brought forward. This isn't a trivial detail.
- What do you mean by "brought forward"? Awadewit (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- 'Brought forward' in the sense of 'emphasizing'. Both the lead and a caption give the impression of serendipty - "became a bestseller after an endorsement from author Scott Turow" - sort of a lucky find by Turow while browsing in a remainder's bin, with the suggestion that the endorsement was completely altruistic. But it wasn't. Niffenegger wasn't lucky...except lucky to have conveniently useful friends. Only once, in an off-hand clause, do we learn of the personal relationship. As it is written, there is a sense of obscuring the relationship. Cheers,Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I hate to be picky here, but the article specifically uses the language of advertising ("endorsement"). I chose this word hoping to suggest just the opposite of serendipity since the word is associated with advertising. What language would you suggest I use here to convey this idea? I agree with you that it is important to suggest that this wasn't an accident. Awadewit (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- How about "became a bestseller after an endorsement from author and family-friend Scott Turow"? I wasn't thinking of a major re-write :-) Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, is this in the lead? Sure - added. (I was thinking total rewrite, btw.) Awadewit (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- How about "became a bestseller after an endorsement from author and family-friend Scott Turow"? I wasn't thinking of a major re-write :-) Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I hate to be picky here, but the article specifically uses the language of advertising ("endorsement"). I chose this word hoping to suggest just the opposite of serendipity since the word is associated with advertising. What language would you suggest I use here to convey this idea? I agree with you that it is important to suggest that this wasn't an accident. Awadewit (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- 'Brought forward' in the sense of 'emphasizing'. Both the lead and a caption give the impression of serendipty - "became a bestseller after an endorsement from author Scott Turow" - sort of a lucky find by Turow while browsing in a remainder's bin, with the suggestion that the endorsement was completely altruistic. But it wasn't. Niffenegger wasn't lucky...except lucky to have conveniently useful friends. Only once, in an off-hand clause, do we learn of the personal relationship. As it is written, there is a sense of obscuring the relationship. Cheers,Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I've re-read the article. The Time Traveler's Wife clearly passes GA. The revision to the lead was an improvement. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)