Talk:Passing (novel)/GA1

GA Review

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

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.