Wikipedia:Peer review/A Canticle for Leibowitz/archive1

A Canticle for Leibowitz edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Several editors, including the primary contributor, have expressed interest in bringing this current GA to FAC. There are plans to create a new section about the characters, and the lead could use some expansion. The story background and plot summary, while well written and informative, are a bit long and I'm concerned about whether this will hold the article back or if it is acceptable the way it is. Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RJHall comments:

I'm sure you know about WP:PLOTSUM. The current format, with a section for each part of the book, helps with the length issue. Plus it is probably balanced by the length of the other portions of the article.
"Walter Miller, reclusive for years, committed suicide several decades after publication of his novel." It should explain why this relevant to the topic of Church vs. state.
The "Adaptations" section looks unfinished.
"Masterplots II: American Fiction Series" is a multi-volume set. The Shippey (2000) reference doesn't list the volume, page number, editor (Frank N. Magill) or ISBN. Note that this reference is used twice, so this information is missing in both places.

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is good, but I agree that it needs further work to approach FA-level. Here are some suggestions:

At least some of the featured articles about literature (WP:FA#Literature and theatre) include a section about writing style. Sometimes this is combined with material about character, and sometimes style and character are discussed in separate sections. Can this article be considered comprehensive if it largely ignores Miller's writing style and his methods of character development?

The "Church versus state" subsection seems underdeveloped. The three sentences in this subsection seem logically disconnected, and only the first seems related to "church versus state". The second is about conflicts between scientists and states, and the third is about Miller's suicide. How are these three disparate thoughts connected, if at all?

Development

"And the Light is Risen" - Should "is" have a capital I? It usually does in titles.

"Miller did not simply colligate the three short stories" - Most readers will not know the meaning of "colligate". Would "unite" or "group together" be more accessible?

Fiat Homo

"encounters a Wanderer," - "Wanderer" is capitalized here but not further down in the section. Should it be lower-cased?

during his return trip by "misborn" people (the "Pope's children") - "Pope" is upper-cased here but not elsewhere. Should it be lower-cased?

"The Wanderer discovers and buries Francis's body." - Same question: W or w?

"(The book then focuses on the vultures who were denied their meal; they fly over the Great Plains and find much food near the Red River until a city-state, based in Texarkana, rises)." - Perhaps a bit more background would help make this sentence clear. A city-state could not rise in the time it takes a vulture to make a flight (even if it flew such a long way). The sentence must refer to vultures in general or generations of vultures in different places. How much time elapses between the death of Francis and the rise of the city-state? What happens that provides so much for the vultures to eat?

Church versus state

"Walter Miller, reclusive for years, committed suicide several decades after publication of his novel." - Is this somehow related to the "church versus state" debate? It's not clear how it's related.

Adaptations

The last four paragraphs need sources.

I would turn the list into a single paragraph with complete sentences. Add a bit more detail about each item if possible. For example, what did the Felnagle play focus on?

Has anyone made a movie based on the novel?

Images

The map File:Fiat Lux Canticle map.png is very helpful. If possible, it would be good to add information to its description on the Commons. Where did User:Briangotts get the information necessary to make the map? What base map did he use? Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It will be hard to convince all reviewers that two fair-use covers are necessary for a reader's understanding of the material. If it survives the WP:NFCC tests, File:A Canticle For Lebowitz.jpg should be re-positioned so that it doesn't overlap section borders or displace edit buttons. I think, though, that it is mainly decorative and doesn't pass NFCC #8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

Other

Since citations 3 and 19 have URLs that produce only an abstract, it would probably be good to add "Subscription required" to the citation. You can use the |format= parameter in the citation template to add this information.

Citation 21 has a nested quotation inside a quotation. The convention for nested quotes is to use single quotation marks around the quotation inside the larger quotation; i.e., " '...' ". Otherwise, readers may be confused by where quotes begin and end. Citation 4 also has a small nested quotation.

In citation 9, you need "p." instead of "pp." for a single page. Same problem in citations 15, 22, and 23. There may be others as well; please check to make sure. Use "pp." only for multiple pages.

Citation 11 is incomplete or maybe just odd. Would it be better to turn this into two or more citations to specific pages in WorldCat that support the claim?

Citation 16 has an unusual amount of bolding. I think if you use "cite journal", as you do for citation 27, you will get a better result.

Citation 25 is missing an access date.

Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]