Jump to content

Talk:Final Blackout/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sadads (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC) A little about myself: I am an English and History undergrad, with all kinds of crazy interests. I rather enjoy Science fiction and literary criticism and I am active in WikiProject Novels. Through this review, I hope to help in as many ways as possible. I do have a real life, and the initial review may take up to a week, I will make comments below in sections for you to respond to and a checklist of the GA nomination requirements, which I and only I will check off. I tend to do my reviews very thoroughly because I see GA as a stepping stone to FA, so this review will be a combination of a peer review and a GA review: I will examine every line and (likely) request many changes. If I am for some reason neglecting this review contact me on my talk page or if I am not reviewing this article properly, feel free to request a new reviewer, Sadads (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  Pass
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  Done
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  Pass
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  Pass
    C. No original research: Pass
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  Done
    B. Focused: Done
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  Pass
  5. Is it stable?  Pass
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  Done
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  Done
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  Done

Coverage of Major Aspects and Even coverage

[edit]

Images

[edit]
  • Just to check: is there anything else we could represent in the article? I can't think of anything off the top of my head. Any artwork related to the book by chance? (Probably not) Anything that we could find to represent plot elements or something important to themes and symbolism? This point isn't too important (and doesn't need to be addressed to pass the review), just something we should think about as we improve the article. Sadads (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps an image of the author? -- Cirt (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is debatable if that really improves the articles about books. Sometimes it is great if the book brings the author to public attention and/or the book is effected by events in the author's life and we can get a picture from that period. At other times it just clutters the page, for example, I am not so sure the mug shot of Neal Stephenson in The Baroque Cycle is really helpful, and it's inclusion led to some interesting argument (See the discussion), Sadads (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will defer to your judgment about that. :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does Hubbard develop a new geo-political map for the alternative universe in the book, or is it essentially the same as it was in Post WWII-Europe? We could request a map, if it is significantly different. Sadads (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I recall one in the copy I had, but could be something to consider at a later point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

[edit]
  • "The Lieutenant leads the Fourth Brigade, which is composed of one hundred and sixty-eight soldiers from multiple nations." makes me ask why multiple nations? I think I am looking for a little more geo-political background, methinks. (Are their two alliances that fought the war? etc. etc.) Maybe, if Hubbard didn't cover this, we can find some critic who comments on the effect of this lack of geopolitical awareness for the reader. Sadads (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "G.H.Q." is this ever explained in the book? Leaves the reader guessing. "General Headquarters", maybe?Sadads (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strike that, wasn't reading as thoroughly (the abbreviation wasn't explained anywhere), Sadads (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]