Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Tom Swift/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Tom Swift

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, although it recently passed GA, I think it still needs to be improved. I would appreciate any feedback.

Many thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will do the review. Brianboulton (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brianboulton. Ricardiana (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I am reading through the article with great interest. Because of multiple commitments, I have only managed the first half of the article so far, but hope to deal with the remainder in a day or two. It looks an impressive effort. From the edit history, I see that the article is overwhelmingly the work of one editor, and I wonder if it could benefit from some light copyediting from a fresh set of eyes? Here are some general comments:-

  • Lead
    • The first line describes Tom Swift as "the central character", but it is evident that there is more than one "Tom Swift" across the generations, so shouldn't this be qualified by saying "the name of the central character"?
Agreed - changed. Ricardiana (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are told "five series", but it would help to know, approximately, the total number of books involved.
Added. Ricardiana (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the pun business worth mentioning in the lead? It's a mite trivial, perhaps
Removed. Ricardiana (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Character and inventions
    • Despite its title, this section says almost nothing about Tom's character.
It's true. I was trying to follow the pattern of the Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys articles, but the sources don't talk much about any Tom's character. I've changed this to "Inventions." Ricardiana (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • First sentence: "Tom Swift, in all his various incarnations, is an inventive science-minded young protagonist, usually in his teens." I found the phrase "an inventive science-minded young protagonist" jarred a bit, and reformulated the sentence in my mind as: "In his various incarnations the protagonist Tom Swift, usually in his teens, is inventive and science-minded." For consideration. I'm unsure, though, about how the teen thing squares with his eventually being married, or with his best friend becoming the company's finance director.
Hmm, I don't remember writing that one. Regardless, it does sound clunky. Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As we are talking about machines, "assisting" rather than "engaging" would be more appropriate. I have slightly altered this sentence for clarity, but will leave you to make the main change.
Changed to "assisting." Still might need work, though. Ricardiana (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Authorship
    • Watch a tendency towards excessive use of quotes. For example, unremarkable phrases such as "take advantage of the market for children's science adventure" could easily be paraphrased.
Yes, cutting down on quotations has been a real struggle for me on this article, for whatever reason. I've tried to cut down some more; I hope it's better now. Ricardiana (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Syndicate's process for creating the Tom Swift books consisted of creating a detailed outline with all plot elements; drafting a manuscript; and editing the manuscript." The repetition of "creating" should be avoided. "Detailed outline" is an oxymoron. The sentence is also clumsily punctuated with semicolons. A simpler version might be: "The Syndicate's authors created the Tom Swift books by first preparing an outline with all the plot elements, followed by the drafting and editing of the detailed manuscript."
Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...to produce further series" (rather than future)
Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest reword final sentence: "Two such series were produced: one, published from 1991 to 1993, and the Tom Swift, Young Inventor series, begun in 2006." Also, for some reason you have not cited this information.
I don't actually have a source that meets WP:RS to which to cite this info - I didn't think this kind of information had to be cited. Suggestions?? Ricardiana (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original series (1910-41)
    • Eight rather than 8
Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "one commentator" - why not name her/him?
This was added by someone who was annoyed that the quotation (which I've paraphrased) said that the books were racist. Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a lttle confused: a teenage boy has a research team?
Yes - this is the kind of thing that makes the books great fun! Ricardiana (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...but only with the help of a balloonist." Are the words "but only" really necessary?
Well, perhaps not, but they imply what the source implies, a denigration of the early Tom Swift's prowess. Ricardiana (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are several instances of unattributed quotes in this section. Although they are all cited to sources, there are no indications in the text as to who said them. Examples: "somehow innate"; the sentence beginning "The early Tom Swift is more dependent on his father..."; the quote beginning "had no union". On this last one, I am again confused; they were prepared to work round the clock for Tom, a teenager?
Well, in answer to the second part - yes - they willingly work for the teenage genius. do you tink I need to emphasize that more? ~ About the attributions - I've added attributions for the quotations you mentioned into the text. Ricardiana (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will complete the review as soon as possible. Brianboulton (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your comments so far, Brianboulton - I really appreciate it. Ricardiana (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pleasure. (Please call me Brian) Brianboulton (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thanks. :) Ricardiana (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing

Sorry I've not been able to finish this review yet, but here is another chunk. Please note that these are all pretty minor points:-

  • Second series
    • The point raised in the last section, about unattributed quotations applies here, too.
Added more attributions. Ricardiana (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest rephrase final part of first paragraph from "compared with the 14 million copies the first series sold" to: "compared with sales of 14 million copies during the first series."
That sounds much better, thanks. Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second para opening: suggest you say "earlier series" rather than "first series", to avoid repetition of the latter.
Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comma required after "patriotism".
Added. Ricardiana (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third series
    • Unattributed quotes again
Aggh! My bane. You're right - added more attrib. Ricardiana (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure of the meaning of the phrase "expressly Tom Jr". Does this mean: "who is referred to as Tom Jr"? Clarity is needed, with all these Tom Swifts about.
Hmm, not my phrase. He is not expressly Tom Jr; it's really not clear whether this series is a reboot of the first Tom Swift or a third-generation descendant. Ricardiana (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "lest fast-paced" would be neater as "slower-paced". I think you need to clarify: "slower-paced than the Tom Swift, Jr. adventures of the second series".
Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourth series: only two comments here. First, the usual about unattributed quotes. Secondly, to avoid over-repetition of the name, I suggest you say "previous versions of the character" rather than "previous versions of the Tom Swift character".
Sounds good - thanks. Ricardiana (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fifth series: no particular comment.
Yes, there's not much there. I wish there more sources.... Ricardiana (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Books: This sentence is uninformative: "Tom Swift was also the hero of the Tom Swift, Jr. Adventures and three other series, including the most recent, Tom Swift, Young Inventor." It merely tells us what we have just read. The previous sentence tells us how many volumes were in the first series; can we have similar information for the subsequent series?
Added info. Ricardiana (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will cover the last couple of sections tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

  • Film and television: no problems, except that the final part is written in a way which will require updating, as this project develops.
Yes, I'll be keeping an eye out for more info. Ricardiana (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cultural impact
    • Many unattributed quotes. Also, much of this quoted material would be better paraphrased. For example, the section could begin: "The Tom Swift books have been credited with laying the foundations for success of American SF."
Rephrased; paraphrased some of the quoted material. Ricardiana (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "150,000 copies a year were sold" - suggest "were being sold"
Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "To date" is too vague. Suggest "Up to 2009..."
Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...over 20[39] to 30 million copies worldwide" The "over" is redundant, and the [39] citation is very awkwardly placed.
Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whose description is the term "adverb-heavy"?
Added ref. Ricardiana (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...Tom's drive to invent and harvest resources..." I'm not sure how this should be read. Is the meaning "to use his inventions for the harvesting of resources"?
Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Some contend..." Who might these be? Likewise the "others", who disagree.
Added names. Ricardiana (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • General: This is potentially a very sound, high-quality article. I have mentioned the recurrent weakness: too much reliance on verbatim quotes, coupled with frequent failure to attribute these quotes. A couple of MOS points: page ranges in references should use ndashes not hyphens; non-breaking spaces should be used , for eample in "12 million" (there are other cases).

I hope you have found this review useful. If you have the time, might it be possible for you to look briefly at the opera article The Bartered Bride, which I have just nominated for peer review? Any comments there would be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Brian - I'm sorry I haven't had a chance to respond properly to all of your helpful comments yet, but I plan to work on them this weekend. I will also read over The Bartered Bride, which I'm looking forward to. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonyungk comments: As with your article on The Hardy Boys, this is a fun read and your enthusiasm for the subject definitely shows. For the most part it reads extremely well, but I still have a few comments.

Inventions

  • Shouldn't "Department of Defense" actually be "United States Department of Defense", to spell out which country you're referring to?
Good idea - added. Ricardiana (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship

  • "Most titles were outlined and plotted by Adams; the actual text was written by various writers: William Dougherty ..." This sentence feels a little long and cumbersome punctuated the way it is, though I have a good idea why you did so. Would it read better with a period instead of a semi-colon after "Adams"?
Sounds good to me. Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with the following sentence: "The Tom Swift, Jr., series ended in 1971; a third series was begun in 1981 and lasted until 1984."
OK; changed. Ricardiana (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original series (1910–1941)

  • "For most of the series, Tom dates Mary Nestor; it has been suggested that his eventual marriage to her led to the series' demise, as young boys found a married man harder to identify with than a young, single one [12], although after the 1929 marriage the series continued for 12 more years and eight further volumes." This is a whopper of a sentence. What about breaking it down a little bit, at least in punctuation: "For most of the series, Tom dates Mary Nestor. It has been suggested that his eventual marriage to Mary led to the series' demise, as young boys found a married man harder to identify with than a young, single one [12]; however, after the 1929 marriage the series continued for 12 more years and eight further volumes."
Agreed. Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tom's inventions are not at first innovative: in the first two books of the series, he fixes a motorcycle and a boat, and in the third book he develops an airship, but only with the help of a balloonist.[16]" Would this read better with a period instead of a colon (I'm already expecting you to explain why Tom's inventions are not at first innovative in what immediately follows)?
Hmm, I think I like the colon here, but I'll change to a period as you suggest. I do have a tendency to write overly-long sentences. Ricardiana (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last paragraph, you mention the series' portrayal of workers, Jews and African-Americans. An example or two would help here so I can better see what you mean.
I think I had some examples here that people took out because they disagreed with them. I'll add something back in. Ricardiana (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second series (1954–1971)

  • In the first paragraph, should the compound adjective "four-mile-square" actually be "four-square-mile"?
Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unlike his father, Tom Jr. is not just a tinkerer; he relies on scientific and mathematical theories: 'Science is, in fact, understood to be a set of theories that are developed based on experimentation and scientific discussion. Rather than being opposed to technological advances, such a theoretical understanding becomes essential to invention.'"[30] I get a little lost reading this sentence. Is this Tom Jr. speaking? If not, a couple of words of explanation (in brackets?) would help smooth things out.
Re-worded. Ricardiana (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Film and television

  • "A Tom Swift radio series was proposed in 1946; two scripts were written, but, for unknown reasons, the series was never produced.[38]" Would a period work better, reading-wise, than the semi-colon (though I can see why you used the latter)?
sure. Ricardiana (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with this sentence: "Twentieth Century Fox planned a Tom Swift musical in 1968, to be directed by Gene Kelly; a script was written and approved, and filming was to have begun in 1969."
OK. Ricardiana (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural impact

  • What is an "edisonade"? I know there's a link there, but not everyone is going to use it.
Added a little explanation. Ricardiana (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else looks good. Nice work. Jonyungk (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your comments, Jonyungk. My apologies for being slow to get to them - I'll try to address them all soon. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Tom_Swift/archive1&oldid=303598284"