Talk:Passing (novel)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Passing (novel)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 22:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, MoHD, assuming you don't mind another review from me so soon, I'll be glad to take this one--I wrote on an undergraduate term paper on it back in the day. (If you would rather have fresh eyes on your work, btw, I wouldn't be offended in the least to hand this off to another.) Initial comments to follow in the next 2-3 days. Thanks for your continued lit work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope, I would be happy for you to carry out the review. Take your time—as per usual I am slightly cheeky in posting for GA review but continuing to add improvements up until it properly begins, so that's fine for me. Cheers, MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

This looks quite strong to me and ripe for promotion. The article is brief but appears on comparison to a few literary encyclopedia entries to cover the major aspects, including the most common thematic interpretations. Thanks a lot for your work on this.

Only a few small points for now:

• Don't forget to fill in that "when" tag on the Rhinelander case.

• Done. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• The text in the caption could be better connected to the article--what role does the hotel play in the book's events?

• Done. Mentioned that the roof restaurant of the Drayton is where Clare and Irene meet. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• WikiCommons has a good photo of Larsen if you're interested in it at any point down the road.[1] Certainly not needed for GA status, though, and I'm not sure it'd even fit in the article for now.

• That was my thought; a good image, but nowhere really for it to neatly fit at the moment, sadly. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• The category "American novellas" should be removed from the article unless supported in text. Ideally, it'd be nice to mention somewhere how very short this book is.

• Okay, not sure where such a mention could go. Any suggestions? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe an explanatory footnote to mention some critics also classify it as a novella? -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• That would work. Sorting it now. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• I might add a book cover to this article at some point in the future--either a photograph of my own or one stolen from Amazon or someplace.

• Will do. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• No, I mean I personally might. =) I've got the book right upstairs; I might do this later on in the afternoon. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hah, fair enough. Read as "I might [if I was you]". That would be appreciated, thanks. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• I found one that had Larsen on the cover. Two birds; one stone. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me go through the checklist and see if there's anything I'm missing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is good; spotchecks show no copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The relevancy of the Drake Hotel image could be better clarified in the text of the article.
	7. Overall assessment.

Recent additions

@User:Zahra293, User:Abiename, User:Jmerius3, User:Kerymi. I appreciate the effort taken in the recent additions to the article, but unfortunately they are not in keeping with the quality of the article. Particularly the new sections ("Character descriptions" and "Quotes") are not recommended by the MoS guidelines concerning Novels; more generally, the content is largely conjecture that is not referenced. Please take the time to consider how the content might be included in the article, possibly by raising concerns/queries here and I can then assist you in this? Many thanks, MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Relocated section: 'Interpretation'

I am relocating this recently-added section 'Interpretation' to here, as the content did not belong in the 'Plot' section of the article, but the author may want to make further refinements before re-inserting into the various 'Themes' sub-sections. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

One thing that is unclear about the story is the ending. This article’s main focus is on the Irene’s psychological view as she tells the story. Claudia Tate describes how Irene’s view is all from an internal view of how she is and the way she acts, while Clare’s view is told through an external view by Irene. She goes on to talk about how this leaves Clare as a mystery but it is obvious Irene envies her beauty and has an emotional effect on her making her feel very mediocre and insecure. These reasons lead Tate to believe that “We do not know whether she [Irene] is simply glad that Clare is permanently out of her life by means of quirk fate, whether she does not regret killing her, or whether she has suffered monetary amnesia and therefore does not know her role in Clare’s death.” Larsen never clearly states how Clare died, instead Irene never allowed herself to remember which leaves the cause of death up in the air. Claudia Tate then continues on about how it would take away from Larsen’s “consummate skill in dramatizing psychological ambiguity.” to assume that Irene had pushed Clare to her death or that she had committed suicide. There are many valid reasons to why she might have committed suicide as well as why Irene might have pushed her out of the window. Tate cannot force herself to decide what actually happened because of the praise she has for Larsen’s ability to center the novel on a dramatic psychological interpretation instead of a tragic story of a light skinned who passed as white fatally dying. (add page number of Tate's criticism

What exactly is the point of the "Character" section?

Besides the fact that it talks about more than one character (and thus has an awkward title), it doesn't seem to add anything other than more plot summary, and is not written very well to boot. I'd like to delete the whole section but thought I'd ask first. Brightnsalty (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hi! That was something added by a student I oversaw. I saw that the section has issues, one of which was that it's sorely undersourced, so if you think that it can't be salvaged, please feel free to do whatever you think is best. Offhand a good alternative to this section would be to replace it with a list of the characters in the book with a brief overview of each character. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

public domain

I can't find a renewal for this book. I searched for the author and the publisher in both the catalogs and card index.

If a renewal did surface this would still be public domain in 2025 as a published work from 1929. SDudley (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)