Wikipedia:Peer review/Susanna Clarke/archive1

Susanna Clarke edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to take this article to GA, so please review with an eye to those requirements. This is also the first WP:BLP I've written, so I would aslo appreciate feedback regarding how well it adheres to that policy. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 05:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:

First, I have no doubts that the article is OK with regard to BLP. I can't see anything that could be interpreted as a breach of that policy.
In fact, I could find very little with which to quibble. The single area in which I felt that a bit more elaboration was due was the short fourth paragraph of the Strange and Norrell section. At the start of this, Clarke is in despair and giving up. In the middle she gets a £1 million advance, and at the end she has a world best seller, all in about 100 words. I found myself wanting a bit more information: was Giles Gordon her first agent? Two publishers rejected the manuscript – who were they? She was "offered" £1 million – wouldn't it be better to say she "accepted" this sum? Also, could brief mention of the book's publication history in England be made?
Otherwise this looks like a gem of a shortish article. I'd say GA is a given; why not FAC? Is it because Clarke, although 50, is thought to be still at an early stage in her writing career, and her professional life might develop in new directions? That might be a reason for holding back, I suppose, but personally I'd be tempted. Great work.

Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed Gordon as her first literary agent and added the release dates for Jonathan Strange. I don't know who the other two publishers were. When it comes to the 1 million, I really it is extraordinary that Bloomsbury offered it, so that is why I phrased it that way - Clarke was first-time novelist, after all. Awadewit (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to take it to FAC because Clarke is a living person - the sources are thin and the article massively unbalanced (most of this is taken from the articles on her works, after all). Don't tempt me. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]