Talk:When We Cease to Understand the World/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

Nominator: SafariScribe (talk · contribs) 22:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jaguarnik (talk · contribs) 19:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Taking on this review. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Well-written:

Poor grammar and lack of cohesiveness is noted throughout the article.

• using delve twice in the lead feels odd (and a bit like ChatGPT...) Better words like "describes", "relates", "explores", etc could be used.
• infobox has errors. The book was not originally written in English, rather it was translated to English, and so English should not be listed as a language of the book.
• How can a book be both nonfiction and fiction?
• According to the Guardian and the Booker Prize site, Pushkin Press is the publisher, while other articles state it's the New York Review of Books. I recommend putting both for the infobox, as English publishers. The original publisher, Editorial Anagrama, should also be mentioned.
• The entire themes section is written poorly. Take for instance social phobia, as seen in the book, segregates scientists from living like other normal beings.[10] Heisenberg, that he might escape microscopic particles affecting him, ran to Helgoland in 1925, where he understood the behavior, shapes and system of function of the elementary particles. Yet his continued hallucinations continued. It's most difficult for one to know whether it is the author's imagination or true fact. Hence, the force of the prose obscures the boundary, thus "wrapping fiction in the gown of fact." Social phobia should be capitalized. How does social phobia relate to the rest of the paragraph? What is the "force of the prose" intended to mean?
• Labatut allows scientists to glance at "truth" only after they have proven themselves worthy of their discovery through sacrifice. For example, Heisenberg scientifically concluded that he "seemed to have gouged out both his eyes in order to see further." Also Alexander Grothendieck was able to conclude that the atoms that tore Hiroshima and Nagasaki apart were split not by the greasy fingers of a general, but by a group of physicists armed with a fistful of equations." Missing quotation marks for the Grothendieck quote, and I don't see how it relates to the theme of discovery through sacrifice.
• The novels used scientific subjects: Mathematics, physics, quantum science, which the characters prioritized over pleasure including their families and friends. He used science to show how the characters see it as their god and in serving it, exposed them and the whole of humankind to a terrible suffering. Should probably be "the novel", remove "a" before "terrible suffering, don't capitalize "Mathematics", change to "scientific subjects such as mathematics, physics, and quantum science". "prioritized over pleasure including their family and friends" feels odd, I would change it to just "prioritized over their family and friends", if that needs to be mentioned. To be honest, this whole paragraph is composed of several ideas that don't really relate to one another and are not cohesive.
• John Banville of the British magazine, The Guardian argued of it better called a nonfiction novel, -> "John Banville of The Guardian argued that it was a nonfiction novel"
• Franklin Ruth of The New Yorker said it was a meditation in prose that bears a familial relationship to the work of W. G. Sebald or Olga Tokarczuk, while detailing a sequential biography of both. That is not what the source says. The source says "that bears a familial relationship to the work of W. G. Sebald or Olga Tokarczuk: a sequence of accounts that skew biographical but also venture into the terrain of imagination." The book does not detail a "sequential biography" of either author, whatever that might mean. Also, this review could be re-summarized as "Franklin Ruth of The New Yorker compared the novel to the work of W. G. Sebald and Olga Tokarczuk."
• Corinna da Fonseca-Wollheim in The New York Times Book Review praised...while John Williams in The New York Times Book Review says that..." Tenses should be consistent, either past or present tense should be used.
• the book called Labatut's stylish English-language debut "offers an embellished..." replace "Labatut's stylish English-language debut" with "novel" to be succinct. Publishers Weekly is a trade publication, not a book. Using called with "offers an embellished..." is grammatically incorrect, either state that "Publishers Weekly called it an "embellished, heretical, and thoroughly engrossing account..."" or that "Publishers' Weekly stated that the novel "offers an embellished, heretical,"
• Constance Grady in writing for the American news website Vox wrote No need to describe that it's an American news website, that can be removed.

Verifiable:

The sources look good and reliable, but too much copyright violation. Earwig flags 69% from the Guardian review, and from other articles flags up to 37%. There are far too many quotes that are simply taken from the reviews. It would be better to summarize the reviews, for example, you could mention that the New York Times and Publishers Weekly "praised Labatut's prose and West's translation".

Broad:

I would expect of any good book article to have a summary. Where's the summary?

Would also like to see more reviews of the book from Spanish-language sources such as El País, El Periódico, Infobae, etc; since the book was originally written in Spanish. Reviews from Spanish-language sources would not be necessary to pass a Good Article review, but it would make the article broader and stronger (imagine an article about Don Quixote that didn't mention how Spaniards felt about it.)

Balanced:

The reviews cited only use positive quotes, making the article seem more like an advertisement. Additionally, the quotes used tell us nothing about what the reviewers actually liked about the book. What is "darkly dazzling" supposed to mean? Did they like the prose, the style, the plot, the translation? There are several book reviews that are more critical of the novel, such as The Spectator, The Sunday Times, that would give a more balanced tone to the reception of the article.

Stable:

No edit wars, as far as I can tell.

Media:

English cover of the book falls under fair use, and has a rationale.

Final comments

Please do not be discouraged, but at this time, this article needs much more work to reach Good Article quality. It does have potential. I wish you best of luck should you nominate the article again. Jaguarnik (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2024 (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.