| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted a set of eyes on to help me prepare this for WP:GAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I had not even heard of this novel - thanks for your work on it; here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to GA.
- A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell is a FA on a fairly recent novel that may be a useful model.
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and needs to be expanded. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However "his second novel to be published in 2011 (the previous was Theodore Boone: The Abduction)." is only in the lead (and needs a ref)
- Removed. Not so important. Also not really mentioned in secondary sources.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the lead is almost all plot - I would talk about the critical reaction and the sales figures / bestseller lists.
- Why not include the free image of Grisham?
- When I read "edition" I think of earlier editions of this novel, not previous books by Grisham. See Having sold 250 million copies of his previous 24 novels in 29 languages, Grisham had produced an international best seller with each prior edition.[2][3]
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think it is OK to start with some background on Grisham, but is that really "Publication" information? I expected there to be more background on why Grisham wrote the back / how he came up with the idea for the novel, but it comes at the end ofthe Publication section. Why not do a background and composition section that focuses on Grisham and how he wrote it, then a Publication section with the details?
- Rearranged.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- Plot kind of just ends without giving the ending of the novel
- General consensus of the reviews is not to detail the ending. P.S., tomorrow, I will be picking up a copy of the book that I placed on hold at the library.
- I owuld split the long first paragraph of Critical reviews into at least two paragraphs
- Reformatted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Language is a bit rough in spots - one example: antecedent of he is unclear in Simakis praised the book for having more depth of character than he customarily does.[16] (assume Grisham is the he)
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure the List of characters section is needed at all - the plot introduces the characters fairly well
- I am not sure it should be deleted, so I moved it up to the plot section. If people feel it is redundant, it will get axed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Why list Helen in the characters - she is not mentioned anywhere else in the article?
- I have hidden that content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- 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 all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)