This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs help that I can't seem to give it. In particular, the last section feels very sloppily organized to me, but I haven't been able to figure out a better scheme. I would appreciate any feedback on that or anything else.
Thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: This seems to me to be overall well done and pretty close to ready for FAC, here are some suggestions for improvement.
- I am puzzled by the timing of the creation of the character - the lead says Chan was created in 1919, but the article seems to imply a later date of about 1923 for the actual addition of Chan to the novel (though that novel was conceived of in 1919): He did not begin to write the novel until four years later, however, when he was inspired to add a Chinese American police officer to the plot... I also note that the novel was not published (so the public did not become aware of the character) until 1925. Perhaps if the lead sentence were something like Charlie Chan is a fictional Chinese-American detective created by Earl Derr Biggers in 1919, for a novel published in 1925. it would be clearer?
- Good point; I had completely overlooked that. I changed it to "created in 1923, for a novel published in 1925," since he didn't think of the character till four years after starting the novel in 1919. Ricardiana (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I found the Books section odd for a couple of reasons when compared to the rest of the article.
- First, it does not state clearly how many Chan novels there are or when the series was finished / last novel was written (the films and other media are much clearer on this). Looking at the bibliography there are six books by Biggers, then four more later books, but these are not mentioned in the books section (that I can see).
- Second, it has the criticism mixed in with the description of the novels, while the rest of the article has the critical reception separate. Would it make more sense to have a books section and a films section in the Controversy and criticism section.
- Per MOS:QUOTE watch logical quotations and punctuation - for example For the first time, Chan was portrayed on occasion as "openly contemptuous of his suspects and superiors."[30] should have the period outside the end quotation mark. If it is a full sentence, the punctuation can be inside the quotes.
- Right. I'll double-check at some point, but I think those are the way the are because they are in fact the ends of the sentences in the original. Ricardiana (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:HEAD subsection headers should not repeat section headers if at all possible - so can "Spanish-language films" and "Chinese-language films" be changed? Perhaps use adaptations as is done with "Modern adaptations"?
- Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am still thinking about the cirticisms section to try and see how to improve it. Perhaps more attribution as to who thinks what?
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ruhrfisch - I appreciate it. Ricardiana (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I reread the article, especially the criticisms section. It seems to me that there are several things that could be tried to organize it better.
- I already noted this, but the last paragraph of the books section is mostly criticism and could be moved to the criticism section. The first two paragraphs of the current criticisms section are all about the books except for the last sentence (quote from the actor who played number one son). So it seems like there could be a books section in Criticism without too much trouble. If there was any criticism of the 4 more recent books, this could also be included here.
- The next two paragraphs of the criticism section seem to be about the films mostly, so perhaps there could be a films section.
- As I noted above, it is unclear to me in many cases who the various quotes and criticisms are from. I think it would be helpful to identify the critics with a some sort of brief descriptive phrase (X, author of this book, or Y, professor of Asian Studies at that university, or noted film critic Z)
- It might also help to group the criticims or at least identify them by year. It seems that another way the criticisms might be organized is chronologically or even contextually. Some of the criticisms look at the works in relation to their contemporary society - the books were unusual for presenting an Asian in a more positive light than most, for example. The controversy seems to mostly be taking old films and judging them by modern standards.
- Finally, it might be useful to find a model article about a character or series of works and look at how it handles the criticism section. Not sure which to suggest though, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for all this. I will try to work on your suggestions (and PR another article) over the next week. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)