Talk:Ved Vejen/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomcat7 (talk · contribs) 15:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

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 (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

---

• Lead does not summarize the article and introduces new information--Tomcat (7) 15:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• "In 1986 it was made into a feature film" - probably "the"--Tomcat (7) 15:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Perhaps link Jutland--Tomcat (7) 15:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Spaced m-dashes should be either spaced n-dashes or unspaced m-dashes, but the current wording is acceptable if it is written as such--Tomcat (7) 15:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• "Impressionistic is indeed the the word" - if there are two thes than add a sic note--Tomcat (7) 15:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• I would link Turgenev--Tomcat (7) 15:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• "the selection committee operating under the" --Tomcat (7) 15:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• I propose creating a Legacy and reception section and merging "Pioneer of literary impressionism" and "Danish Culture Canon" into that section--Tomcat (7) 15:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Rails debuted in Denmark around that time. Probably that should be noted
• [1] may include some more information
• If possible, I would like to see more reception from different perspectives and periods--Tomcat (7) 15:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your points, I'll entrust you to conduct a fair review of this. I've addressed the main points and asked Ipigott if he can find any critical reviews, doubt it, as it is a late 19th century novel and accessing papers of that period unlikely. i don't think waffling about railways in Denmark is relevant.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think that notes about the publishing history are "trivial basic facts" (WP:LEAD). Also, it is standing in the Background section that he already wrote on it one year earlier. Also, if the English title is Katinka then the article should be problaby moved and occasions of Ved Vejen changed to Katinka. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Tomcat for all your useful suggestions. I have added quite a lot more on the book's initial reception with summaries of the reviews by the major Danish literary critics of the day which I think adds usefully to the article. While it is true that there has been a translation into English as Katinka (like the movie), I am not too happy about changing the title of the article. Ved Vejen is quite widely known as such in international literary circles -- just as, for example, Balzac's Le Père Goriot is known as such rather than by the title of the English translation Old Goriot (which redirects just like Katinka).

Following your suggestion regarding the railway, I have tried in vain to find accurate information about the history of Skørping Station. Unfortunately, the reports I have turned up refer to the completion of the station after the publication of the book! I would therefore rather steer clear of introducing questionable comments on the rail history of Jutland in an article about literature. In any case, I have not been able to find anything that directly relates the rail history to the origins of Ved Vejen. Perhaps you would be kind enough to let me know on my talk page if you think there are other important points I should work on.--Ipigott (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Forget the railway, and I now agree about the name of the article. Still, I think some aspects from the lead could be merged into the following text. You don't need to trim the lead, just repeat the same information, as the lead is a summary of the whole article. Also, do you know what languages, apart from English, it was translated into? You probably may want to create a publication history section, but I must say all this is not really important, so I will pass that article as I strongly feel it meets the GA criteria. Well done and excellent collaboration with Blofeld! Regards. --Tomcat (7) 17:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)