 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Could somebody check the "see also" page? I'm not sure I've included what I should or that I've formatted it correctly. IllQuill (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- See also sections are pretty tricky. They're usually related to things that directly pertain to the article, but cannot be otherwise included in the article itself. This can usually turn into things like similarly plotted works that are frequently compared to the article subject, like people comparing the Fifty Shades series to other fanfics turned into published works. Since the author's already mentioned in the article and the other book doesn't pertain to this specific work other than a similar title, I've removed it. The link to the list of other authors would be good to add to the author's page, though - but not really this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Ideas for changes
editI think the plot summary needs to be edited to fit the style suggestions. I was considering making subheaders for each part, ex ===Part I=== and maybe write who (Amber or Violet) is the narrator, as well as simply describing the plot in chronological order rather than how it's presented in the book. I also think it would be a good idea to include more information about when and where events are taking place. I know the tenses are inconsistent and that needs to be fixed. IllQuill (talk) 04:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I also think a lengthier introduction as well as longer summaries for parts I, II, and III would be helpful IllQuill (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
It needs to mention that the book is available as an ebook, the intro should not just be a quote from the marketer but put in another person's words.
If no real reliable source can be found saying that this is a feminist work or something along those lines, it could be replaced with "bloggers consider this to be a feminist work", as blogger reaction is part of the reception, not just critical reaction.
I'd also like to add a link to a negative reputable review, though I haven't found one of those yet.
Italics & similar stylistic things need to be addressed IllQuill (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Also a book infobox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_book IllQuill (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- I've cleaned up the article some and I'm going to approve it. I've merged the sections together for the book synopsis. This makes it a little less linear, but it does make it a little less bulky. That's unfortunately one of the drawbacks of trying to put together a synopsis for a book that takes place in different time periods and is surreal like this one was. I've also cleaned up the background section some. I've removed the mention of it being a feminist book. I found the mention, which is in the SLJ article, but it refers back to a blog, which would fall under WP:SPS. It's easier to just leave it out than it would be to try to justify adding it into the article, to be honest, and I figure that the best thing to do would just be to wait and let more outlets call it a feminist work. Self-published sources like blogs are very frequently contested on Wikipedia, even if they're popular blogs like Book Riot. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)