Talk:Why Bother? (essay)/GA1

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Viriditas in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 01:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Punctuation

edit

Categories

edit

Title

edit

Lead

edit

Background

edit
  • between the publication of Franzen's novels Strong Motion and The Corrections
    • In other words, between 1992 and 2001. Why not say that? My preferred format is to place the year of publication in parentheses next to the name of work, but there are other ways to do it. Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • In the introduction to the collection, Franzen attributed his doing so
  • a long defense of the solitary act of literature in a modern world
  • Need additional sources. You've got ~100 words that are unsourced. Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Content

edit
  • If this was a brief synopsis it probably would not need references to chapters and page numbers, but this section is what I call a hybrid synopsis; it has more than 1000 words and contains multiple quotes, with many interpretations thrown in for good measure. Long, complex summaries should have at least one citation (chapter/page numbers of primary source will suffice) per paragraph, whereas simple and short summaries might not need them at all. In this instance, you need them. Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Reception

edit

Further reading

edit

References

edit

Checklist

edit
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):  
    Full original title ("Perchance to Dream: In the Age of Images, a Reason to Write Novels") should appear somewhere.
    Clear prose preferred. Statements like "concerns the persistence of reading within the context of technological growth and distraction", "meditations around the state and possibility of the novel form", "potential cultural agency", "paradoxical drives of both culture and author", and "media assent to the jingoism" are not clear. This might be acceptable wording on a blog or at a cocktail party to impress the ladies/gents, but on Wikipedia we want to communicate as clearly as possible, without unnecessary ambiguity. You can keep it both smart and simple. If John von Neumann can communicate complex quantum mechanics in clear and simple language, then you should also be able to describe a work of literary criticism with clarity as well.
    MOS: quotations for essay titles, not italics.
    Need to summarize main points in lead (such as reception).
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    Half of the background section is missing inline cites.
    References are unnecessarily duplicated and do not point directly to the source material (for example Toth instead of Rebein).
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    No mention of the essay as part of the death of the novel discourse
    Doesn't mention the wider context and dispute involving Ben Marcus[1][2][3] or Cynthia Ozick[4]
    Doesn't mention James Wolcott's critical review, "Advertisements for Himself", which provides a renewed perspective from the author that is essential for this article
    It is not clear if the reception section focuses just on this essay or other works.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    Neutral
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. 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):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    Open tasks listed above. Viriditas (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
    Failed after no action in a week. Please nominate again after addressing the issues. Viriditas (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply