Talk:Kafka's Prayer/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 20:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey czar, I'll be your reviewer for your GAN. Since I'm between school and my laptop rn, I will be posting the template then adding in piecewise suggestions. The whole process should be done by this evening, so I appreciate the accommodation. Etriusus (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

On a friendlier note, its good to see you again, I used to go by the handle of "Mac507" a few years back and thanks to the help you provided on The Anarchist Cookbook, I just got it signed off for GA status.

@Etriusus, appreciate the review and congrats on The Anarchist Cookbook! Hopefully the first of many GAs to come. :) (Also I have the Larabee chapter for that article, if you need it.) I've addressed the below comments where appropriate either in prose or inline. czar 01:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Czar Added one additional edit, there's an issue with one of the images I didn't notice initially. If I missed something obvious in it then please lmk. Once that issue is cleared up, the page will be ready for a final GA signoff. Etriusus (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Etriusus. See the Kafka photo's talk page for a prior discussion in which its copyright status was reviewed. czar 05:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the image sourcing, I'll give the article on last pass through to check for grammar/small edits. Excellent job on this article, this is a wonderful addition to the GA listing. Etriusus (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Templates for my own convenience:  Done

 Done1. It is reasonable well written the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

The line "The critic, Paul Goodman, believes the novelist Franz Kafka to have been established as a "great writer" by both the passage of time and how reality has come to approximate Kafka's fiction." needs to be reworded or moved. If this is describing a forward, or introduction to the book, then please specify. Additionally, the shift between book content, to book title, then back to book content does not flow very well. Move the sentence covering the title to the front. Lastly, calling Goodman "the critic" can be confusing since there is a separate section dedicated to criticism, I'd recommend either saying "the author" or cut it. Etriusus (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

When discussing Philip Rahv, the article jumps from Rahv to News media's opinions, then back to Rahv. The first paragraph in the Reception section covers a breadth of names and it can be a bit hard to follow. Lead off with Rahv then transition into the editor/media reception. Etriusus (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable It contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

Please convert source 14 to a template format, all citations need to be consistent.Etriusus (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The first line for the "reception" section has 4 citations, unless there is a specific reason all 4 of these citations are needed, please pare it down to 1-2 sources. See WP:OVERCITE for more details. Etriusus (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

All inline citations are from reliable sources;

It contained no original research;

It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

Not picking up anything on Earwig, no original research noted. Etriusus (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

fwiw it's consistent with a "Notes" section to include either short footnotes or any sort of asides that would normally be footnoted—in this case, a full quote.

On my computer the source was listed as a bare URL under just a basic reference format. It looks to be fixed now, idc about the long quote, the template can be a bit wonky at times. Etriusus (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Those four citations are functioning as a group citation, i.e., each says that Goodman overanalyzed Kafka, but no one source says that "multiple reviewers said that Goodman overanalyzed Kafka"—that strength comes from the number of sources cited. So it's not citation overkill but just part of writing a coherent "Reception" section. Easy enough to combine them into a single citation if the four citations are distracting, though. czar 01:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done 3. It is broad in its coverage

It addresses the main aspects of the topic;

It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

Page covers a good breadth of information without getting too far into details. My main concern when reviewing literature articles is that a good amount of the book's content is covered. Etriusus (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done 4. It has a neutral point of view

It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

"Amidst Goodman's overall oeuvre, selections from Kafka's Prayer are among the best representations of foundational role that literary criticism played in Goodman's thought, according to Widmer." Put in the original quote ideally, using the word "best" is not encyclopedic and if it's his actual words then quote it. See WP:WORDS

I think this is okay—it's attributed and the word fits. czar 01:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

If you mention the criticisms of the book in the introductory paragraph, you should make mention of the praises too. It doesn't have to be particularly long, but the article spends two paragraphs on the good aspects of the writing so a sentence mentioning them should be sufficient. The intro should contain equal coverage of both the good and bad critiques. Etriusus (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The section is organized by theme rather than by author, which I think is a better reading experience per WP:Copyediting reception sections. Also the coverage is already proportionate that of the sources, including the good and bad. czar 01:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I see how you structured it. No need to reorganize those themes around then. Etriusus (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done 5. It is stable

It does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Page is stable, no ongoing edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

Images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Images and copyrights look to be in order. 1 is justified under fair use, the other is public domain. Captions are present. Etriusus (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

czar, On a second review of the Kafka image, I found that the source provided does not list a year of publication for the image. If the 1967 date within the source is anything to go by then the image wouldn't be fair use. Realistically, if you can find a source closer to the original that would be ideal but if you cannot confirm the year, cut the image out to avoid issue. Etriusus (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

First impressions following initial review: There is a fair number of edits that are necessary before passing the article. Realistically, the article should flow from one person's perspective to the next, there are a few places where it jumps around. I will make a few grammar/stylistic edits myself just to lessen the load on you and if you need help with any edits just shoot me a message. If you don't think the article will be ready in 7 days lmk. Etriusus (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Recommendations

This is a summary of what needs to be done, detailed points are listed above.

1. Format the sources into a template format. Ref 14 is still a single link with a whole block of text behind it.  Done
2. Fix WP:OVERCITE issue.  Done
3. Fix the first sentence in the content section  Done
4. Some content needs moving around  Done
5. Add more to introductory section  Done
6. Add quotations  Done