Talk:Spook Country/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The linkcount server returns 19 redirect links and 1 dab page link. Fix or pipe the redirects and select the proper article from the dab page. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Eight editor fixes resulted in the linkcount showing 12 redirects. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I was able to fix 11 of the redirects indicated, but can't find the 12th. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the 12th is that damn Publisher link in the infobox. I hope that thing goes away soon. :/

Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Why is the article in British English spelling? It is a North American author's book, written about an American subject. Dates in the article are in mdy format, a U.S. habit. Date consistency is good by itself, but in the bigger picture it is not consistent with engvar UK selection. One of these should change, and in my opinion U.S. English is the better choice for the article. Whichever version of English is selected, date style and spelling should be consistent with each other.
   • Most endquotes are followed by period or comma, but some endquotes come after the period or comma. Take a look at these, please, using Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_marks as the guide.
   • Please replace the instances of "while" which don't specify contrast between different things or two things happening at the same time. Specifically, the ones between Duffy and Itzkoff, between Smith and Martin, and between Perkins and Martin.
   • The construction "early-nineties" has two problems. The hyphen isn't needed and, less importantly, I wonder if any reader will need the more specific "1990s" so that they know which century is being referenced.
   • Is "pre-occupation" a British spelling? The hyphen can go away in U.S. spelling.
   • The sentence "Gibson made an appearance in the virtual world Second Life"... should the "in" be "within"?
   • What's the plan for the redlink geohacking? I know Gibson coined the term, but is it going to become an article any time soon, or an entry at Wiktionary?
   • The last sentence of the lead paragraph starts with "It". Should it start with something like "The book"?
   • Perhaps you could write "Tito" instead of "He" following "a mysterious old man." Otherwise, the reader will be confused for a moment thinking "He" refers to the old man.
   • Please rewrite "...a desire to write a novel but no ideas or themes he wished to explore." Awkward.
   • Is a "networks theorist" the same as a "network theorist"?
   • I don't mind big words and complex sentence structure when they are indicated, but too much can overwhelm. The article's balance between extended sentence length and large word size is good, but the two combine to place the text at the level of the university scholar. Minor tweaks can help bring it down from the stratosphere, and so enlighten a wider swath of humanity. How about "was unsatisfactory for Gibson" becoming "did not satisfy Gibson"? Other bits like this can be found where passive voice can be skewed in a more active direction. The sentence "When first introduced to locative media websites linked by a friend, the phenomenon had impressed Gibson as 'excessively nerdy and very conceptual'." might be rewritten as "Gibson was first introduced to locative media websites by a friend (in what year?). They impressed him as 'excessively nerdy and very conceptual'."
   • Quotes within quotes. The sentence "When I started, I thought that the “locative art” stuff would work the way immersion technology did in my earlier fiction" includes quotes within quotes. I see you've used different quote characters as separation, but at MOS:QUOTE they say to use alternating double and single quote marks. I believe that sentence should be changed to "When I started, I thought that the 'locative art' stuff would work the way immersion technology did in my earlier fiction." There are some other examples of this in the article—each one needs to comply with the manual of style.
   • Your phrase "latter novel" refers back to "predecessor" in the previous sentence, which refers to Pattern Recognition. I think you mean to say "later novel" or "more recent novel".
   • Pick either pseudonym or nom de plume, not both: "The pseudonymous author, under the nom de plume patternBoy..."
   • The superannuated phrase "but whereas" does not need to be in this article.
   • I doubt that Gibson spelled the middle of a seismic event "epicentre". That spelling was probably applied by the Brisbane news agency. Gibson's quote should most likely be "epicenter."

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • Each quote should be followed with a reference. Please add cites to "excessively nerdy and very conceptual", "When I started, I thought that the “locative art” stuff would work the way immersion technology did in my earlier fiction", "a master of atmosphere, if not character".
   • One dead link: "Audio interview at CBC Bookclub". Replace with new link or archived version.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • Relative to the book reaching bestseller lists, can you define the time frame for the reader? Like "x number of weeks after its introduction" or "from June to August 2007" or whatever?

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):

   • Please position images inside the section to which they refer, not above that section heading, per MOS:IMAGES. Please add alt text to each image for readers who cannot see it.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I understand that this article is headed for FAC, so I will be a tough reviewer. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking ahead to FAC, I predict some too-intricate or convoluted sentence constructions will come into question:

• "whom he has translate"
• "He is adept in a form of systema that encompasses tradecraft, a variant of free running, and the Santería religion." (Leaves the reader grasping for meaning)

Okay, that's my GA1 assessment. Good writing in general, some specific fixes indicated, not so far away from gaining GA and FA status. Binksternet (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I see a number of fixes performed. I am striking some of my comments as a result. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I axed my casting about for a guide for quotes and instead directed attention to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_marks. Also, I want to emphasize that I am not demanding that the article be written in U.S. English—I just want to know your position on engvar and date style. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yo Binksternet, thanks for the thorough review! I have made some alterations as you've noticed, but my limited command of English is leaving me struggling on some of your above points.

• I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "endquotes", or by the phrase 'but whereas' being "superannuated" (it sounds awkward to me but I can't think of a replacement).
• I'm not familiar with the distinction between "in" and "within" (re:Second Life).
• General prose comments; the article is (or aspires to be) written in Canadian English, which adopts some British spelling conventions and some Americanisms. I'd like to keep the Month Day, Year convention, but if it's in tension it can be changed.
• Regarding quotations, the convention I am trying to follow is that full sentences "keep" their own punctuation, whereas partial quotes do not. I've changed the quotes-within-quotes to use single quote marks, with the exception of the blockquotes (where there is no internal conflict).
• Regarding epicentre, the only source the article has for this is the one using English spelling, and I am following MOSQUOTE in not changing that.
• The source cited uses "networks theorist" rather than the singular; I'm not sure of the referent, but if the singular form is the universal designation for a specific profession it can be used instead. Knowing Gibson, it's probably some emerging field and the nomenclature would reflect that.
• I'm not sure on how "pre-occupation" ought to be spelled (or spelt for that matter).
• You're right in that I have used "while" inappropriately in trying to keep the prose from being too repetitive. Any suggestions for what it could be replaced with in stringing different reviews together?
• "Geohacking" is a term I was unfamiliar with, and I imagine most readers would be even more unfamiliar with, so it deserves further elaboration and thus merits a link. What becomes of it is up to the wider wiki; the augmented reality article mentions it, so that is a possible redirect target. Overall, the article has an unhealthy lack of redlinks, but hopefully this will change as it develops.
• I can expand the bestseller info with a timeframe; have to dig into the refs some more.
• I'll play my one get-out-of-MOS-free card on image placement; the previous convention was the exact opposite (don't cut off level-three headers), and I don't believe moving the images below the headers would improve the layout or the visual quality of the article in this case.

• I have addressed the ambiguous link and bad redirects; I'm mostly happy with the remainder (with a nod to WP:NOTBROKEN), with the possible exception of the infobox's publisher link.

• Regarding pre-FAC comments, I thought "whom he has translate" was a direct way of expressing the relation, but could write "whom he gets to translate" instead if it helps? I can also expand on Tito's tradecraft, though it is quite a complicated task for a brief plot summary.

• Thanks again, I am happy to say that this has been an unusually comprehensive and stringent review thus far. Regards,  Skomorokh  21:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I am amazed that you judge your English skills "limited"—the Readability Server says that your article has fairly long sentences and fairly long words which combine to place the article at an advanced reading level, somewhere around the level of a sharp university student at the age of 20. Nice!

I think I will jump in and help make some of my suggestions happen—the ones that I haven't been able to convey clearly enough.

• By "endquotes" I am being lazy. I really mean the final quotation marks following quote, the ones at the end.
• The word I used, "superannuated," means too old. The phrase "but whereas" is still used by a few writers but it is getting thin white hair and arthritis.  ;^) This cheat sheet by Ealgdyth includes "whereas" as one of the words to watch out for in GAN.
• Regarding a speech performed using the multiplayer online game Second Life: I'm not sure "within" is correct. I will not touch your word "in".
• When I first saw the article it had month-day-year date style. You changed it to day-month-year. You can change it back if you wish. Date style must be consistent, but I don't care what it is in a Canadian English article.
• Regarding MOS:IMAGES, I have always preferred the appearance you have achieved by placing the image above the header. This placement is not specifically forbidden in WP:Good article criteria. As well, it is not specifically forbidden at WP:Featured article criteria. Nevertheless, the practice has been attacked by many either because it is deprecated in some guideline or was discouraged in the past. For instance, Ealgdyth's cheat sheet says "Left-aligned images should not be placed at the start of subsections." Your Canal Street image pushes the "Initial conception and development" heading toward the center, and some reviewers hate this. Me, I think it is okay.

• Just to be clear, the sentence "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading" which is present at MOS:IMAGES, a general style guide. Neither the WP:Good article criteria nor the WP:Featured article criteria require that the image style guide be followed, only that the images "follow the image use policy and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, brief and useful alt text when feasible, and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly." Here at GAN, the rules are even looser. However, you will likely find a lot of FAC reviewers who will not pass your article without conforming to MOS:IMAGES. I suggest you show these editors that it is not necessary. Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• I will continue for a little longer to look at the article with a tough FAC eye but we are getting very, very close to GAN. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Pass! Good work, man. I will keep track of this article in FAC. Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)