Talk:The Word for World Is Forest/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 09:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Excellent: thank you. I should be available anytime over the next weeks to address questions and/or suggestions. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll take this one on if you like! It looks like you've had to wait quite some time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

In the whole this is a very good and well written piece of work which clearly meets with the Good Article criteria. There are a few areas of prose that I think, however, could be improved. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Lede

• The opening sentences make no reference to the fact that Le Guin was an American or that the place of publication was the United States. I would add both. I would also add the name of the original publisher(s) into that opening paragraph. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Partially done. I've added the publisher: I hesitate over the "American". I've worked enough with Latin American pages to avoid the term "American" to mean "from the United States;" and I feel "United States author Ursula Le Guin" to be too clunky. Also, I don't think the author's nationality is commonly stated in the lead even To Kill a Mockingbird does not do so. Likewise, although it was written by a woman living in the US, I have not heard it frequently described as an "American" novel": hence my hesitation.
    • I appreciate the concern about "American" as a synonym for U.S. citizens being a contentious issue within the Americas, but unfortunately it does seem to be the only term that we have to describe citizens of that country. I really would recommend putting it into the lede, otherwise the reader loses out on crucial information; this could just as easily have been written by a Briton and published in the UK, or written by an Australian and published over there. I think it's really important to do this, otherwise I feel that it perpetuates the underlying U.S.-centric bias that is already fairly endemic across a lot of Wikipedia (I'm shocked that To Kill a Mockingbird has the same problem!). At the very least I would state that it was first published in the U.S. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I've added "published in New York" (we might as well be specific, after all): is that better? On second thoughts, I've added "United States" as the place of publication; it's not clear that the anthology was published strictly in the city of New York.

Background

• "Vietnam war" - probably better as "Vietnam War". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • done

Setting

• "terrestrial colonists" - is the term "terrestrial" actually used in the novel for the people of Earth? I think that some confusion could arise from the use of the term in this context. Would "Terran" or something like that be better? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • good point. done

Plot summary

• "investigate,and" - space bar needed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • done
• "Raj Lyubov, the colony anthropologist" is introduced twice in this section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, I've done this a few times, haven't I. I've cut a few mentions: the two that are left are unavoidable, I think.
• "League of Worlds" and "league of worlds" - this needs to be standardised, probably to the former. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • done

Publication and reception

• "was first published in the first volume" - to avoid the repetitive usage of "first", how about replacing the second appearance of the term with a synonym like "inaugural"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Well it was not a periodical, so "inaugural" does not quite work. I've added "initial" in place of "first" the first time: does that work?
    • I think so. Good call. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• ""New Left" of science fiction" - is there any link that we could add in here? Clearly, New Left itself isn't really appropriate, but perhaps there is something else that is more fitting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The closest link is New Wave science fiction, which I've added.

Primary characters

• "Raj Lyubov, the colony anthropologist"; again, we've seen this too many times before. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • done
• India is linked to twice. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm aware of the overlinking guideline, but this was intentional. Given the nature of the topics, there is a tendency to interpret "Indian" to mean "Native American." I think it's important that the distinction be made clear in both places, hence the links. If you still feel one should be removed, then I will do so.
    • I think, as per Wikipedia policy, it will have to be removed. I do appreciate the reason for your hesitancy, however, but I don't think that Wikipedia policy allows exceptions. We could perhaps go with "South Asian" in place of "Indian" if that clarifies things? Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
      • "South Asian" should be good enough: I've changed it.

Themes

• "his interpretation of dreams is a negative one, because it tells the Athsheans how to kill" - This is something of a value judgement, and could probably be rewritten, perhaps with the addition of "According to Spivack..." or something of that nature. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• In the "Colonialism and anti-war themes" sub-section, the Vietnam War is linked for the first time in the article body, but it has already been mentioned elsewhere in the article; it should be there that any link appear. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Again, this was intentional. It seemed to me that the link should be used where it would be most necessary for clarification, and the "themes" section seemed to me to be that location. If you disagree, I will shift it: it is not crucial.
• "the film Avatar shares" - I'd add "2009" in there, to make it clear that the film came after the book. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • done
• You already cite Barnhill's article in the Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture, but it might also be worth looking at Barnhill's chapter on "Spirituality and Resistance: Avatar and Ursula Le Guin's The Word for World is Forest in Bron Taylor's edited volume Avatar and Nature Spirituality. That's certainly not a prerequisite for passing at GAN, but it may be something for you to look into in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • This is an excellent suggestion, thank you.

Style and structure

• "Captain Davidson narrates chapters 1, 4, and 7; Selver narrates chapters 2, 6, and 8; and the anthropologist Raj Lyubov " - again, no need to introduce Lyubov in this manner, and we probably don't need "Captain" either. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • done
• Duplink of Vietnam War. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • done

Sources

• Some work is needed here to fully format the different sources cited. For instance, "USA" appears as part of the location name for some publications but not others (I'd scrap that). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay. I've removed the "USA", and added links for clarity.
• There is an inconsistency in the use of capital letters; the Donna White book needs to be formatted in the same manner as the other sources in this regard. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • done
• A variety of journals are cited; some lack page numbers, others lack volume and issue numbers. These all need standardising. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • done, I believe
• "Ursula K. Le Guin Awards List" needs a website name. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • done
• The retrieved dates need to be standardised. I'd recommend standardising them all to the "1 April 1976" style as it is much clearer on an international level. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • done
• Also, some of the links appear in strange places. For instance, both The Dispossessed and The Left Hand of Darkness are linked to in the "Themes" section, but they have both been mentioned before that. Make sure that each is linked to on its first appearance in the main body of the text (i.e. excluding the lede). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • done

• I've responded to several comments: I'll finish the rest shortly. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Midnightblueowl: I believe I have fixed or responded to all the points you have raised. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Vanamonde:. This is a really great piece of work and I am now happy to pass it as a Good Article! Well done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.