Talk:The Kindly Ones (Littell novel)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

My preliminary review is finished. It's basically a very well-written article. There is good attention to detail, and it follows the flow of the subject novel well. Broadness, focus, neutrality and stability do not present any issues. All good to that point. Here are my initial criticisms.

A. Generally, in Good Articles there should be more inline citations of sources.

B. There are more images available that could be used, particularly since so many historic figures and events are woven into the plot of the novel.

C. Although I've only recently created an account at WP, I bring a substantial amount of editing experience from the world of professional publishing. I see an article where every word is spelled correctly, but there are numerous errors in grammar and punctuation. My experience tells me these symptoms indicate a product of a well-educated person for whom English is not his first language. Evenfiel is the primary author of this article. His User page indicates he's a Brazilian national living in France. English is one of the most difficult languages in the world to learn, and with all due respect, while Evenfiel's English is many times better than my Portuguese, this article needs a bit of work.

For example:

Current version: The goddess Athena intervenes setting up a jury trial to judge the case of the Furies against Orestes. Athena casting the tying vote which acquits Orestes, pleads with the Furies to accept the trial's decision and to transform themselves into "Most loved of gods, with me to show and share fair mercy, gratitude and grace as fair."

Improved grammar and punctuation: The goddess Athena intervenes, setting up a jury trial to judge the case of the Furies against Orestes. Athena casts the tying vote which acquits Orestes, then pleads with the Furies to accept the trial's verdict and to transform themselves into "Most loved of gods, with me to show and share fair mercy, gratitude and grace as fair."

I would be more than happy to help with the grammar and punctuation corrections, but this would create a conflict of interest. I can't edit the article extensively and then decide on its Good Article status. If you'd like, I'll correct the grammar and punctuation, and then seek a second opinion on Good Article status.

Reviewer: Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the review! About your criticism:

A. More inline citations? It already has 36 citations! That's more than most good articles about novels. Pretty much everything - other than the plot itself - has a source.

B. I've added a few images. What do you think?

C. Sure, please work on the grammar and punctuation and then seek a second opinion. That looks just fine. Evenfiel (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly in response: I'd like to keep the discussion of the Good Article improvement and review process here on the GA review subpage if you don't mind. It can become very lengthy. Please see my comments here as the review goes forward.

A. I am accustomed to seeing more technical articles. I must confess that I don't spend a lot of time on articles about art or literature. A comparison with similar (literature) articles that have achieved GA status indicates that you are correct regarding inline citations.

B. Good work with the images.

C. I'll work on the grammar and punctuation during the next few days, and seek a second opinion. I may also import more material from the French WP version of this article. You will find that many of the changes I make are very minor. I am fussy that way. While a sentence may be technically accurate, it might appear awkward to the native English speaker; and the native English speaker is the principal audience for the English Wikipedia. Again, in general the article was very well done before I looked at it. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we can keep the discussion here.

C. Why did you change "Aue" to "Max"? Most articles and reviews about the book call him "Aue", not "Max". Personally, I prefer the former. My ego also has to say that, except for the "two hundred" and a "him" to "Littell", you didn't edit anything that I've written. Skål! Evenfiel (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are other characters in the book with the surname "Aue" -- family members. I've changed the reference to "Max" to distinguish the main character from these other characters. As I said, it's just a series of minor punctuation corrections, for the most part. There's a bot that automatically posts a code, transcluding this discussion to the main Talk page. Next, I'd like to change the source citation style to be consistent with other WP articles. A citation normally incudes the name and date of the publication, a link (if it's an online source), the author's name and the date when we accessed it. I would also like to discuss including more material from the French Wikipedia article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The family member are never referred by the surname Aue. As a matter of fact, his mother remarried and his sister is married, so they use other surnames. I prefer to use the name Aue, or a combination of Aue, Max and Max Aue.

About the citation style, everything is mentioned under "References". I decided to use that type of citations style after looking at many featured articles and finding out that each article used a different style, including the one I´m using, Harvnb. When I first used it, I set it up in a way that, after clicking on the citation name, like "Garcin 2006", you were automatically taken to the citation's own highlighted entry under "References". I guess that one of the citation templates was changed and that feature is now broken.

Sure, we can discuss the material in the French Wikipedia. Maybe we should translate parts of it. Evenfiel (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments from Maria

I had originally volunteered to review this article for GAC, but time got away from me. I'm glad that Phoenix and Winslow has stepped in, as I largely agree with their points, especially regarding the state of the article's prose. Nothing that a few thorough copy-edits wouldn't fix. :) I would like to make some comments in addition to the review above, if that's okay.

The number of citations means far less than what is cited, per WP:RS; I believe that the article fulfills the second criteria of WP:WIAGA (article is "factually accurate and verifiable"). Additionally, I see no issue with the current citation formatting, which is consistently used throughout. Please note, however, that newspaper and magazines should be in italics (The New York Times).
The addition of a "Reviews" section is not standard on the English Wikipedia, although it may be on other wikis. Furthermore, several of the reviews in this section are also listed in either the "References" or "Further reading" section; this is both confusing and unnecessary. I suggest removing the "Reviews" section entirely, while integrating non-repetitive links to either "References or "Further reading", depending on whether or not it is being used as a source.
The lead is too short to fulfill WP:LEAD; it should be a summary of the entire article. Some of the background information, as well as some details on the novel's reception (other than awards, which are already mentioned) can be added to the lead to better summarize the article.
Because a majority of the article deals with plot and/or character descriptions, I fear the article may stay a little too far from WP:WAF. The main point of this guideline is to ensure articles about works of fiction remain rooted in the real world, rather than the fictional. One way to do this is to detail production details (what is currently being done in the "Background" section) as well as thematic and literary style details that reviewers/critics have noted in the work. For an example of these out-of-universe additions, take a look at Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, which contains numerous sections detailing the novel's use of themes, style, genre, etc. Because it is a fairly new book, note how a majority of the sources used are reviews, which is quite similar to how this article is currently sourced. With all of this in mind, I suggest scouring the sources (both under "References" and "Further reading") to see what can be said about various literary and real-world elements that can be connected to the novel. This will amplify the entire article, and will truly make sure it fulfills criteria #3 (article "addresses the main aspects of the topic").

I hope this helps! If there are any questions in regards to my comments, feel free to contact me. Best of luck, María (habla conmigo) 17:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input! I´ve dealt with issues number 1 and 2. While I agree with issue number 4, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell is a featured article, not a good article. It seems to me that the content of the article, as it is right now, should be enough for a good article. Evenfiel (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite aware of the difference between a GA and FA as I've written a few of each. ;) Jonathan Strange was meant as only an example of what various out-of-universe additions can be implemented. Again, take a look at the Good Article criteria; in order to fulfill criteria #3, the article must in fact be broad in its coverage. In order to address the main aspects of the topic, I believe it's more than fair to expect some aspect of the work's literary merit to be represented in the article. Just a suggestion, of course, but like I stated above, the sources obviously exist, so it's just a matter of weeding through for the good bits. María (habla conmigo) 21:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status of this GAN? Is work progressing, is it a pass/fail now at this point, etc.? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All issues brought up by the first reviewer were addressed, just like most issues by the second reviewer. Evenfiel (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

I apologize for not commenting sooner, but I assumed that the initial reviewer was still active here. Because he/she is not, Wizardman has asked me to wrap up this review. I'm glad to see that my previous comments have been addressed more than adequately, and that my concerns regarding WP:LEAD and WP:WAF have been taken into account. The only minor issue I can see is the usage of bullet formatting in "Historical characters" -- while I understand it's easier to list these individuals according to group, a paragraph or two in prose conveying the same information ("Littell also introduces a number of historical characters, including top-ranking Nazi leaders such as Himmler, etc., etc.") but in a less choppy fashion. Just a suggestion, of course. Here is my final assessment:

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The lead can better integrate information from the entire article, including background information, and the book's international reception. The lead also perhaps dwells too much on a full plot summary, whereas the first sentence of the second paragraph is only truly necessary to summarize the article.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
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:

I'm satisfied that this article now fulfills the GA-criteria, and am happy to pass it. Congrats, and so sorry for the delay! :) María (habla conmigo) 14:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]