Talk:Blanche on the Lam/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Maclean25 (talk · contribs) 20:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Good article review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article? for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Work on making the prose more concise. Work on the lead section.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See below.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Expand on Background & Reception. Work on tightening the prose.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   One image used (File:Blanche on the Lam.png) with a valid Fair Use rationale.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Hold

   Comments:

   I understand this is part of a class project: User:Profhanley/teaching/literature of labor. I will make minor edits to the article, as I see fit, but I will list major edits here for the editors to take care of. maclean (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

   • 3(a) Add a "Background" section which describes where the book came from: who wrote it? when? why? For example, this appears to be Neely's first novel, at what point in her life did she write the novel? is there anything that made her qualified or motivated to write the novel? and any information on how it was written or published.
   • 3(a) Expand the "Reception" section. This should include published opinions on what elements made the book good or bad.

   • Common publications (available online) that review books include Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, Christian Science Monitor.

   • The article has only one wikilink of words beyond the introduction. Add more wikilinks to key words or concepts. Here is an example of how to add wikilinks: [1]
   • 2(b) There are references to The Blues Detective and I Know What the Red Clay Looks Like in the text that are not followed through with citations.
   • 2(c) The last paragraph of "Invisibility of Blacks, Laborers and Females" does not have a citation. Please add one to indicate where this information is coming from.
   • 1(b) The lead section needs work. The lead should summarize the article (contain info from every section). Currently, the second paragraph is too broad with general statements about society and history. Keep it relevant or directly linked to the novel.
   • 1(a)/3(b) The Good Article standard for prose quality is "clear and concise" (as well as free of errors). I do not find this writing to be concise. The plot section contains an unnecessary level of detail.

   • Examples on how the writing can be made more concise:

   • "There was a disturbance out in the hall and she took her chance to escape by slipping out of the restroom and making her way to the exit and out into the underground parking lot." → 'During a disturbance in the hallway, Blanche escapes to underground parking lot.'
   • "Blanche finds clues here and there and eventually learns that the Aunt Emmeline she saw sign the will was an impostor and that the real woman had been killed. After going over the clues she had and looking at what evidence she had already uncovered and seeing Grace again, she realized that she had been suspecting the wrong person of murder all along. Who would have thought sweet, believable, weary, frightened Grace would have been a serial killer?" → 'After finding clues and gathering evidence, Blanche deduces that Aunt Emmeline had been killed by Grace and that she had witnessed an imposter sign the will.'

Conclusion

1. I'm placing the review on hold. I will keep it on hold as long as the article is being actively worked upon. The most important aspect to work on is adding to the reception and background; with that in place I would feel comfortable about re-assessing it to B-class. Improvements to the writing quality, lead section, and citations will boost it from B to GA-class. It is often difficult to edit your own writing, and since Wikipedia is designed for collaborative work, it would really help to have a fresh set of eyes to help edit the writing. maclean (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• There has been little progress over the past two weeks. Due to the reasons noted above, this article does not meet the GA criteria. maclean (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)