Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Peer review/Earth Abides

Earth Abides

I have made a lot of additions to this article, but am still learning Wikipedia conventions. I could use some pointers if I am making mistakes, and pointers to how I can improve this article. I received a comment that someone not familiar with the book should take a look at it. Thanks,Jacqke (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Yllosubmarine

This is a fairly good start for an article, especially from someone who is relatively new around here, so congrats! Because I haven't read the book and cannot comment on the content of the article and how it relates to the work, most of my comments deal with MOS and formatting issues.

Keep in mind WP:LEAD; that large block quote in the lead section is great, but the first part of the article is supposed to be an overview of the entire article, so large, clunky specifics are usually not a good idea. Also, only include facts in the lead that are mentioned in the body of the article -- James Sallis is not mentioned anywhere else. I would suggest moving the entire second to "Literary significance and reception" and saying something more broad about its reception in the lead.
This could use a very strong copy-edit. The first sentence, for example, is not grammatically incorrect, but it is a little too detailed: "Earth Abides is a 1949 post-apocalyptic science fiction novel by American author George R. Stewart. Telling the story of the fall of civilization from deadly disease and its rebirth..." perhaps?
Remember that all refs must go after punctuation or the end of the line, depending on what it refers to. Ref 3, for example, currently goes before the period, which is incorrect.
I count 18 separate book covers. This is, to put it lightly, overkill. :) It also goes against fair use guidelines, which states that "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." I understand the desire to illustrate articles that are so prose-heavy, but the only cover image that is truly needed is the original cover, which is currently in the infobox. If there is one other that is notable in itself and/or mentioned in the article, then you can include that one, as well.

DoneJacqke (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's obvious to most that the source for the plot summary and introduction are the book itself, there are others who insist that every section is referenced. Even if it's just the book itself, one or two refs wouldn't hurt down the line.
Some interlinking of less common terms would be helpful: "Golden Gate Bridge", "pandemic", city names, etc.
The "Characters" section seems to fall into a list-like pitfall. To help this, combine smaller sentences into one paragraph on minor characters, or just remove the minor characters all together to concentrate on the main characters.
Amazon is not where you should be getting your reception information for. Stick to scholarly and notable reviews from the media, not John and Jane Does from the internet. :) State the names of the reviewers and perhaps even quote them for proof; this is where James Sallis could come in handy.
Do you have sources for the "Symbols" section? Interesting stuff, but you need something scholarly -- this does not include the book itself. Have critics remarked upon these symbols?

Done—eliminated as the symbols were original research. Will look for them if I can ever get to a decent university library.Jacqke (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest merging the "Symbols" and "Themes" section and converting the material from list to prose formatting. That goes for "Details That Are Dated", as well. By the way, WP:HEAD: lowercase unless proper names!

converting from list to prose, Done.Jacqke (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lowercase in headlines, Done.Jacqke (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Symbols and Themes, DoneJacqke (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Details that are dated, Still needs to be doneJacqke (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Wikipedia articles should never be used as source material. Replace the footnotes and rm them from the "References" section

Done, I removed these. --maclean 04:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some footnotes, like "Stewart, George R. (1969). Earth Abides. Boston: Houghton Mifflin...", are already listed in the "References" section. Therefore, you can use truncated names in the footnotes. For example, <ref>Stewart (1969), 125</ref> That cuts down on the clutter, but still provides the reader with all of the information they need.

I hope this has been useful! If you have any questions or comments, just contact me on my talk page. María (habla conmigo) 17:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three points

(1) remove the block quote from the lead. I try to avoid any quote in the lead unless it is immediately identifiable with the subject. Quotes are too specific for the lead which is supposed to an overview of the article. Best to move it to the Reception section and paraphrase the intent it in the lead.
(2) I would remove the sub-sub-headings "Chapters 1-5", etc. They don't seem to be necessary.
(3) The Analysis section is not referenced to a secondary source. Unless this kind of analysis is done by a secondary source, I wouldn't go there. --maclean 04:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]