Jump to content

Talk:Agatha Christie/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Posting my comments from next week. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, many thanks Sainsf!  ~ RLO1729💬 04:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have taken a good look at the article now and I will post my comments over the next few days. SchroCat, thank you for your scrutiny of the article, it is great to have another pair of eyes check a long and important article like this. I read the points you raised and I agree with you.. one might suspect POV issues with the wording in places, incomplete coverage in Portrayals and apparent lack of sources in some sections where citations may not be necessary per MOS guidelines, but adding citations helps a lot as they "stop the "fact" being challenged later on". I especially appreciate the footnotes suggestion as it fixes a lot of these issues. Apart from that there are a few unreliable sources as mentioned. RLO1729, thanks for actively addressing some of the issues, we will handle the rest as we move ahead with the review. Let me compile my points and I will post them in batches. Cheers, Sainsf (knock knock · am I there?) 08:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So beginning with the comments: Sainsf (knock knock · am I there?) 18:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General
  • I am worried about quite a few instances of close paraphrasing from this source [1].
Plagiarism detector: reviewed top 25 listed (all matches of 9% and up). Four cases of unnecessarily close paraphrasing have been revised. The remaining issues flagged by the detector involve no violation:
issuu.com (plagiarized from an earlier version of Wikipedia’s Agatha Article)
Classiclodges: “Public reaction at the time was largely negative.” is a line probably stolen from Wikipedia, not the other way around.
All of the following either contained quotes which are properly punctuated as such and cited, or contained merely coincidences with book titles: Irish Times; agathachristie.com, Christie's life & re interview with Sophie Hannah (quoted and cited properly); New Yorker (quoted and cited properly); bbctoday (quoted and cited properly); guardian on stamps (quoted and cited properly); guardian on Bletchley (quoted and cited properly); archaeology.org (quoted and cited properly); Christie reading list; Telegraph obituary (quoted and cited properly); famousauthors (quoted and cited properly); Poirot.us disappearance; the-mousetrap; Guardian favourite Christie novels; trovenla (quoted and cited properly); mainecrimewriters.  ~ RLO1729💬 07:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the thorough review. Yes, I mostly meant the first one or two sources listed. No more problems here. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 17:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see some duplinks, see them using this tool and link the terms only on first mention
My understanding has been that links in the lead section may be duplicated in the body text. I have checked previously for dup links and there are some that appear so but aren't really for various reasons, can you point to any specific cases that we can discuss please?  ~ RLO1729💬 01:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This tool does not show links from the lead repeated in the main text, it just shows repetitions within either main text or lead while including captions probably, not sure. No problem, I will mention the ones I see here. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 17:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead - Hercule Poirot
New dup introduced after text revision, removed.  ~ RLO1729💬 21:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early literary attempts - The Little Lonely God
The same link is used for different text, taking readers to While the Light Lasts and Other Stories for both The House of Dreams and The Little Lonely God – suggest keeping both links.  ~ RLO1729💬 21:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second marriage - absolute
The same link is used for different text with which readers may be unfamiliar, taking readers to Decree nisi for "decree nisi" and "absolute" – suggest keeping both links.  ~ RLO1729💬 21:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adaptations - Murder on the Orient Express
Linked to different text earlier in article, but removed this link.  ~ RLO1729💬 21:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No dablinks or broken external links
Thanks, these issues are now resolved. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 07:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just corrected the name of a novel in one place, but that was because I saw a redlink. We need to check whether there are any more errors throughout the article.
Typo, thanks. I haven't found any similar cases.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • known for her sixty-six detective novels and fourteen short story collections Per the MOS numbers above ten should be in digits
MOS:NUMERAL indicates that "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words". We would prefer words as in current version.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no strict rule. Just a heads up as people often don't know about the guideline. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 03:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • published in 1920 featuring Hercule Comma after 1920
Revised sentence.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph focuses significantly on the impact of Christie's personal life on her writing. But I would have liked to see proper biographic details in it too. Like we move straight to the 2nd marriage without discussing even the first one, and even there the husband is not named. I believe we need a concise paragraph with a good balance between personal details from her birth to her death (let me know if it becomes too long though) while also commenting on significant changes in her writing (maybe cite only one example from this, instead of three? The lead should include only the most important details, and personal details appear more important to me).
Agree; revised paragraph.  ~ RLO1729💬 08:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now. I would still like a final, short line about her illness and death and it would be good to add the year of her second marriage. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 17:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added both marriage years to lead. I started to add something about her death but date of death is already given at the start of the lead and the only other details in the body text are failing health 1971-74, conjectured (but not formally diagnosed) dementia, and died peacefully at home. Are these important enough to include separately in the lead given date of death is already there?  ~ RLO1729💬 21:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it is that uncertain, let us leave them out of the lead. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 07:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is only one child then better take the name in the infobox instead of '1'.
I've deleted the item as her child Rosalind does not have a separate Wikipedia article and other bios do not generally just list children's names unless they can be blue-linked. An alternative would be to include her name and red-link it if we considered she should have her own article (though that has not been seen as necessary by other editors to date). Thoughts?  ~ RLO1729💬 01:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally like to be able to find the name of her child (or children) as a reader in the infobox, and a redlink won't bother me. But as editors we should go with what is mostly followed in other bios. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 03:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Childhood and adolescence
  • Too many short paragraphs can increase the section length unnecessarily and gives the article quite a bitty look. Maybe combine a few of them.
  • The second paragraph may be condensed and merged with the first. Some details in the first part of the para might be irrelevant and can be omitted. Similarly, I am not sure how relevant the details of the births of her older siblings are (3rd para), so again I would recommend condensing it.
  • She was surrounded by a series of strong and independent women from an early age 'Independent' may be a fact, but in whose opinion were they 'strong'? An idea to rewrite this is attribute this statement to the writer of the source. Here it seems to be a credible biography by a notable person, whose name you can take and say "Jane Morgan notes in her biography of Christie that.." which omits concerns of NPOV and OR.
  • Not sure if we need to mention the publication years of books she read in her childhood. The titles should do.
  • Although she devoted much time to her pets, Christie spent much of her childhood apart from other children I don't quite see the contradiction here to say 'although' at the start.
  • We can omit the terms "Christie's sister/brother", "her mother" once these people have been introduced. The names should suffice.
  • Why is "pension" italicized?
Revised section to address these points.  ~ RLO1729💬 23:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Early literary attempts and the First World War
  • she continued her social activities Are there any prior mentions of such activities? Let me know if I missed any
Will add a line or two; previous mentions of social activities include Childhood: would visit the homes of her step-grandmother/great-aunt Margaret Miller in Ealing and maternal grandmother Mary Boehmer in Bayswater, Childhood: her appearance with them in a youth production of Gilbert and Sullivan's The Yeomen of the Guard, and Early literary attempts: Christie attended many social functions and particularly enjoyed watching polo.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I think I mistook social activities for social work! My bad. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 03:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, revised text to clarify anyway.  ~ RLO1729💬 08:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The House of Dreams,[20]) citations are typically placed after the bracket.
Corrected typo.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christie wrote her first short story What year?
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of her biographers has commented that If you do go with calling her by her name, replace mentions like 'one biographer' etc with 'Morgan'.
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • made under pseudonyms (including Mac Miller, Nathaniel Miller, and Sydney West) Should these not be mentioned in the infobox? It appears as if Mary Westmacott was the only pen name she used. May be call it her most commonly used surname or something in the lead? Similarly for Monosyllaba and any others later.
Westmacott was the only pseudonym under which anything was actually published so I'd suggest is the only one needed in the infobox. This has also been clarified in the text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Though personally I feel it may create an impression that it is the only one on a quick reader, but let's follow what most articles do. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 03:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christie then set her first novel, Snow Upon the Desert, in Cairo I think "Christie then began work on her first novel, Snow Upon the Desert, set in Cairo..." sounds better. Also, what year was this?
Working on this, the year was 1908 but her biographer has this completely wrong.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now revised.  ~ RLO1729💬 09:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • from a family friend and neighbour, successful novelist Eden Phillpotts "from successful novelist Eden Phillpotts, a family friend and neighbour" flows better
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile, her social activities expanded Again, more details on this would be helpful.
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 09:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • She then met Archibald Christie The name "Archie" used later should be mentioned here
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her war service ended when Archie was reassigned to London Year? Keep mentioning years whenever there are important events like this.
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First novels and Poirot
  • She wrote her own detective novel...moustaches" and egg-shaped head sounds a bit weird. Do you mean her "first" detective novel? Also, you later say She began working on The Mysterious Affair at Styles in 1916 which sounds repetitive. Maybe the line I mentioned first should be reworded "Her first detective novel was..."
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poirot had taken refuge in Britain after Germany invaded Belgium. Should be merged with the earlier line
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • though they still employed a maid Seems irrelevant
Revised text slightly to emphasise the contrast between the low salary and what they considered indispensable – goes to world-view.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • as did short stories commissioned by Bruce Ingram May be the short stories publication should be described more. Especially as she faced many rejections initially.. did she face similar troubles here too? Also, since when did these short stories start appearing?
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More generally re this subsection: I have broadened the scope of the previous subsection heading ("Early literary attempts and the First World War 1910–1919" now "Early literary attempts, first marriage, literary success: 1910–1926") and deleted the heading "First novels and Poirot 1919–1926" to create a less chronologically restricted section. After following Archie's career to the end of WWI, this allows the slight backtracking in time to Christie writing Styles in 1916 (but not publishing it until 1920).
Impressive. I feel the prose flows much better after this. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 17:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disappearance
  • The disappearance caused a public outcry Had she acquired a lot of fame by then? May be talk a bit about the success of her works in the previous section to give the idea.
The press brouhaha came out of nowhere, as press brouhahas often do. She was not “famous” before this. Will revise to clarify.  ~ RLO1729💬 03:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Revised text to emphasise the reason for the public interest.  ~ RLO1729💬 03:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some believe that she disappeared during a fugue state, including her biographer Janet Morgan To be changed to "including Morgan" if you go for mentioning her as said earlier
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 03:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Jared Cade? Introduce him
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 03:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laura Thompson provides the alternative view She is only called "one biographer" anonymously earlier, may be change those references to her actual name and continue likewise throughout the text. Or introduce her here.
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 03:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Second marriage and later life
  • The 2nd para maybe merged into the earlier one
We would prefer to keep it as a separate paragraph as "the whole period" refers to the earlier disappearance as well, rather than just from January 1927 where the previous para begins.  ~ RLO1729💬 03:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 17:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christie would use settings that were familiar to her for her stories This should include a mention of Poirot, as his character was also influenced by her observation of Belgian refugees in real life. I am not sure where to place this paragraph though, as it is quite general and does not belong exactly to this part of her timeline. May be put it in Formula and plot devices?
I have struggled with this. I think the section needs to reference at least some of her writing over this time period and grouping some of her works by mentioning her use of familiar places is not a bad way to do this. Influences on Poirot's background have been mentioned previously ("Early literary attempts..." para 6) so not needed here. This "familiar places" para doesn't suit "Formula and plot devices" as the places are influences rather than devices, but it would be largely superfluous to the "Interests and influences" section which covers archaeology in depth. So I suggest leaving it where it is.  ~ RLO1729💬 09:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see the difficulty. No worries, this is good enough for GA. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 17:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christie's 1934 novel Murder on the Orient Express was written in the Pera Palace Hotel If the source states so, may be it will be clearer to write she used her travel experience (most importantly the train journey) to write this.
Revised text and citations.  ~ RLO1729💬 05:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • National Trust in 2000[52]) cite after bracket
The citation was placed inside the bracket to emphasise that it was only relevant to the information in the brackets. Placing it outside the bracket then means it needs to go after the full-stop which makes it seem to apply to the whole sentence. Will move if necessary but prefer it where it is. Please advise.  ~ RLO1729💬 04:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. okay. Not really an issue. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 17:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fictional Chimneys, Stoneygates Why the caps?
They are house names (as is Abney Hall).  ~ RLO1729💬 04:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • She served in a Devon hospital during the First World War, acquiring a good knowledge of poisons Now looking back at this from the lead this has not been mentioned clearly in the main text (World War I section), whereas this statement is there in the next section she updated her knowledge of poisons – to be put to good use in her post-war crime novels. Need to add the important missing link
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 09:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • it helped solve a case that was baffling doctors You mean in real life? The way this is worded one may mistake it for a story plot.
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 09:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • she and Max Mallowan Stick to calling him Mallowan
Revised text throughout.  ~ RLO1729💬 04:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were one of the few married couples...knighthood, Christie could also be styled Lady Mallowan. No inline citations
Revised text, added citation.  ~ RLO1729💬 04:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • May be Personal qualities should be a separate section outside Life and career
We would prefer to keep it within this section as a summary view of qualities she brought to all the activities covered in this Life and career section. I also prefer the Contents main section heading flow of "1. Life and career" followed by "2. Death and estate" without an intervening "Personal qualities" main section heading.  ~ RLO1729💬 04:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just looked a bit odd to me as many other bios I've seen make it an independent section. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 17:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, many thanks Sainsf. As I mentioned elsewhere, this article has had many contributors over the years, so it is not the article Tbytheriver and I would have written had we started from scratch. Your collaborative and constructively critical approach to this review is much appreciated. We will work through each of your comments and we look forward to the next batch.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I am really impressed by your spirit :) Take your time with the issues, it is a long and difficult article after all. I will post my next batch later today, then there will be a final batch. Cheers, Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 03:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most points above addressed, outstanding items underlined. :)  ~ RLO1729💬 09:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing job, the rewritten parts look excellent! On to the next batch of comments. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 17:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next batch of comments

[edit]
Personal qualities
  • I DO like sun Were the caps in the original quote? First time I'm seeing something like this.
Yes, caps in the original are clearly intentional so kept here.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Death and estate
  • I am not sure I like "Christie's" at the start of the heading for 2 sections, consecutive too. I feel it is redundant (it is implied we are talking just about her) and titles should be more of common nouns than mentioning names unless necessary.
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Winterbrook House, Winterbrook, Wallingford, Oxfordshire Just the name of the house should do.. the location details seem a bit too long and were anyway mentioned only a few paragraphs earlier.
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • with her husband Sir Max Mention either the relation or the name for previously introduced (plus heavily discussed in this case) people. Anyway consistency is needed in her husband's name. If necessary say Lord Mallowan consistently after you mention knighthood, I'm not sure how the name should be.
Missed this one when I revised all occurrences of Mallowan (because it didn't include "Mallowan"). Revised to just "her husband" in this case.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link The Mousetrap on the first mention
Revised links.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • by her daughter, Rosalind Hicks, Again, either the name (without Hicks) or the relation should be mentioned
"Rosalind" is used to identify her and connect with previous mentions in the article, "Hicks" was included here as she was married by this stage and is referred to by surname in later text (similar to other individuals in the article) rather than continuing to use her first name (which would seem to treat her a little childishly). I've re-worded slightly but suggest both Rosalind and Hicks are necessary in this first mention of her as an adult.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I agree, let the name be that way. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 07:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • James Prichard is mentioned twice by full name.. also he should be introduced as Christie's grandson if that is what he is.
Full name needed to disambiguate Prichard family members mentioned in the same para. "Prichard" is used in the previous para to mean Mathew so available alternatives for the second "James Prichard" are then "James" or "Christie's great-grandson", both of which I think are worse than simply repeating his name in full.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is not too big a deal, just looked weird are the lines are so close together. Maybe you can call them James and Mathew later? Up to you. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 07:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • at the time earning £2.1m annual revenue Maybe add a present day estimate?
Added monetary value templates to all figures in this para.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Works of fiction
  • Biographer Laura Thompson Repeated introduction
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be a short description of Miss Marple similar to Poirot's as she was clearly one of her best known characters.
Revised text  ~ RLO1729💬 04:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if there should be a line of mention for Quin and Satterthwaite, two other well-known detectives?
Added new section on other detectives.  ~ RLO1729💬 06:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, looks great! (And refreshed many old memories :) ) After I read that I was thinking this line Their last adventure, Postern of Fate, was also the last novel written by Christie is probably important enough to include in the ending to the career section. I myself was under the misconception that Curtain was her last and Sleeping Murders was the only one posthumously published. Could we do that? Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 07:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added info to last para of "Second marriage...".  ~ RLO1729💬 07:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Queen of Fictional Crime"[100] developed her storytelling techniques during what has been called the Golden Age of detective fiction The title is not mentioned previously, not even the lead, but is apparently a crucial point. The present wording seems a bit too sudden and cramped for two major points in one line.. it would be good to split this into two, first say maybe that several sources/people/authors etc have called her the Queen of Fictional Crime (isn't it more commonly Queen of Crime that we hear?) followed by the Golden Age point which, by the way, should be in title case and would look better without italics. Sure italics emphasize points but some consistency is appreciable. As other points don't, and look better without, italics, this too should look similar.
Okay I just noticed the Queen of Crime part comes in Critical reception and legacy.. which means this needs to be sorted for consistency in mentions. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 18:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Though in this line we need the names to be in quotes, like they are in the next mention Christie has been variously dubbed the Duchess of Death, the Mistress of Mystery, and the Queen of Crime.
Added quotes.  ~ RLO1729💬 07:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Dilys Winn
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really sure but isn't "vamp" a bit too informal?
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in her Forward to Cards on the Table Isn't it usually Foreword?
Good catch thanks, revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Curran describes how Just Curran works
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • grateful thanks" for writing this novel Does the quote not cover the last part? Ideally the last part should be bracketed and put within quotes to imply an obvious (not originally researched) missing part.
The quote-mark position is correct and the citation provided covers the whole sentence. We have not included original research, just paraphrased the cited work.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, hadn't seen something like that earlier. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 07:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • conventions: There is no detective small 'T'
Replaced colon with full-stop to avoid potential future editorial problems with differences between British/American language and style guides.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of Christie's mature works What are 'mature' works and considered so by whom?
Deleted word.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author Charles Osborne notes Just Osborne
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titles section mentions a lot of non-fiction works too.. I think this needs to be fixed for consistency. I suggest we make the Titles section an independent one and put it after Non-fiction works.
Agree, moved text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italicize Book of Common Prayer
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reflecting a juxtaposition of innocence and horror...in the course of the story. No inline citations
Added citation, revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A link for Hebraic?
Added link.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other Westmacott titles are... A Daughter's a Daughter (1952), and The Burden (1956) About the citations for book titles, do we add a note or something as we discussed earlier?
I don't see the problem with including them here for completeness. Some may feel it interrupts the narrative but, as a reader, I appreciate the information being there without having to click links to other parts of the document or Wikipedia and then click another link to get back, which in itself is disruptive. There aren't many titles and it's only a couple of lines so I'd prefer to keep them as is.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No no, I meant are we going for a note or something at the end so that it is not challenged as discussed on your talk page. I personally don't find it necessary as I understand the book names are enough as sources, just checked if we are clear on this. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 07:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link West End on first mention in Christie's death and burial
Added link.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception and legacy
  • regarded Christie's plotting as superior to her skill with other literary elements Now that we have read so much about her skills in constructing mystery plots, it would be good to know what literary elements were found to be lacking in her works. The critics and their writings are mentioned but please include a few words on what exactly they felt was lacking, what they were "dismissive" about.
Good suggestion thanks, revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of 2011, And Then There Were None was Christie's best-selling novel, with approximately 100 million sales "As of 2011" sounds better than "is" in the lead, as it does not confuse one as to when this information was added? Have there been changes since then?
Exact current figures and independent sources have been difficult to find. There is also some confusion in the general use of the terms "best-selling" and "bestselling" which may mean either "highest selling" or a "best seller" (i.e. topping some chart somewhere). I have tried to reduce the opportunity for confusion in revisions of the lead and this section.  ~ RLO1729💬 03:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Really well-worded now. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 07:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adaptations
  • The French television series... works of detective fiction. no inline citations
I have added some links to the series official website and the Christie estate site but consider this unnecessary under Wikipedia policy.
The source for the information stated is the primary source evidence of the series episodes themselves. While I certainly understand and take on board other editors' comments in this regard, please bear with me as I'm going to have another go at using Wikipedia Policy to make the argument that inline citations are not needed in such cases. The inline citations would be the primary sources themselves, but including them as citations is superfluous when they have been named in the text already. Previously (on my Talk page), when I referenced MOS:TVPLOT:
Plot summaries, and other aspects of a program's content, may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given.
it was suggested that this was a slippery slope, so I'll go straight to fundamental Wikipedia Policy for primary sources WP:PRIMARY (my emphasis below):
Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
The credits of thirty-six episodes of Les Petits Meurtres show the Christie novel that has been adapted by that episode. The article only states this straightforward, descriptive statement of fact.
(The same policy covers basic plot descriptions provided in the final section of the article.)  ~ RLO1729💬 04:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree with you, should've clarified this in my point. The reason I raised this was I wanted to ensure we discuss one final time what we are going to do about this and also because though the policy is logical, a few harmless links are not going to be a problem, in fact they would be helpful in avoiding unnecessary "cn" tags. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 07:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The note mentioning this excellent citation needs to be added. Let us see if any other section of the article could do with such a full list of things put in a citation in a note, especially if only a few of them are covered in the text. No case like that so far apart from this I guess.. books (/ plays) of one type have been listed fully or cited just as examples.
Thanks for the link. This book (also available at https://archive.org/details/filmsofagathachr00palm/mode/2up) was published in 1993 so would only cover the earlier films. I'd suggest it could be included in the Further reading or External links section.  ~ RLO1729💬 04:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually like to see this implemented the way SchroCat suggested on your talk page, it is their idea I am repeating here. Of course we should look for more recent books if any, else this should do. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 07:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Underlining new reply) so I guess we are not putting this book in a note for a complete list of works as suggested by SchroCat because the book seems outdated and there is no better alternative? Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 05:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've included the source as an External link. Although good, it doesn't cover modern adaptations and the subsection already has a link to a list of adaptations at the beginning: Main article: Adaptations of Agatha Christie.  ~ RLO1729💬 06:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's for the second phase.. final phase coming after most of this has been dealt with. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 18:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive work at an amazing pace :) Starting with the last part now. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 07:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final phase

[edit]
Influences
  • Link therapeutic agents
Added link.  ~ RLO1729💬 08:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were to be many medical practitioners...among numerous others I get the meaning but it could be rephrased for better. Sounds a bit like these people are going to occur in her real life and then there is a string of her novels all of a sudden.
Revised text.  ~ RLO1729💬 08:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arsenic, aconite, strychnine, digitalis, thallium, and many other standard pharmaceuticals We could do with a good number of links here. Digitalis links to Digitalis (foxglove) , which is the article about the plant and not the drug. You can say "digitalis (a drug obtained from foxgloves)" and link foxglove instead.
Added links to appropriate poisons.  ~ RLO1729💬 08:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Abu Simbel
Added link.  ~ RLO1729💬 08:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Portrayals
  • I myself agree to self-sourcing in the mentioned works, but I would once again ask SchroCat if they are now satisfied with the citations in this section before we can finish the review.
Certainly, excellent idea.  ~ RLO1729💬 08:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See also
  • Typically only the links not mentioned in the article but anyway important should be in this section.
Dup links removed.  ~ RLO1729💬 06:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
  • Citations formatted well enough, FA-level precision not necessary, though I would recommend adding ISBNs wherever possible, and removing .com, .org and other domain names and just using the website names.
Source website names revised, will continue to look for ISBNs.  ~ RLO1729💬 08:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the ref 33 website reliable enough? Who runs it, especially as it is not endorsed by Agatha Christie Ltd?
This is a source added by another editor in 2013. I am not able to see who runs the site but it has been around since at least 2008, seems to have good production values, and is cited in Hercule Poirot (though only once). It is not required as other sources now cover the information in the sentence so I've moved it to the External links section.  ~ RLO1729💬 09:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is better, thanks. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 05:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In ref 138, is HowStuffWorks a good source? Like is the information presented well-researched like a proper book source might be?
Source appears to be reliable but have removed citation as I have not been able to confirm this independently.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's good. By its looks it easily looks like a top 20 list from somewhere on the net so won't exactly be an ideal source for us. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 05:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is ref 150 source that reliable? Need to check its background.
The ref 150 website is copyrighted "2020 TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES, INC. A WARNERMEDIA COMPANY" and the review cited is by the film critic for the Seattle Times, so we consider the source to be reliable.
Okay checked. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 05:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any new comments to make. Thanks for this very interesting read, I enjoyed every bit of it :) Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 07:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a very comprehensive and helpful review - much appreciated! Please let me know if there are any items above needing further attention while we wait for SchroCat's comments.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't have imagined such a long review would progress this fast :) Okay so I would like a reply to two points underlined above, first phase is fully done. We will wait 5 more days for SchroCat to weigh in, in their absence and after these points have been fully addressed I don't see any major reason to stall the promotion. Cheers, Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 05:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Underlined items addressed. Thanks. :)  ~ RLO1729💬 13:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for butting in to your GA review. I came to this page today to check out something in a paper by one of my students. I don't see why we have that great long paragraph on Christie's parents. In abbreviated form, it could go into a note, but seems irrelevant in an encyclopedia article on Agatha Christie. YoPienso (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YoPienso, thanks for your question, you are very welcome to join the conversation :). There is value in setting the Christie family social and financial scenes as they impinge on Christie's life and fictional characters and settings, as well as explaining the complicated relationship with "Auntie-Grannie" who inspires Christie characters, including Miss Marple. It is important that readers understand that her parents were not born into the upper classes and it clarifies her American background (which most people don't actually know about). It also corrects a number of mistakes found in the usual biographies on aspects of her background that those biographers see as important to include.
I suggest that, as an ongoing project, my co-editor Tbytheriver and I (and any other interested editors of course) revisit whether the family background provided can be simplified/rearranged, but do you see this as an obstacle for the current review? Cheers.  ~ RLO1729💬 03:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a first step, some of the finer detail of the para has now been removed or relocated to notes.  ~ RLO1729💬 22:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment Yopienso. The length and the arrangement of this part of the text were a concern during the review, and I am happy it has improved much after the discussion. It would be good to shorten and simplify it further, but I do not find it mandatory per the points made by RLO1729. Let us know what you think Yopienso. Cheers, Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 09:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion

We have worked together and discussed several points about the article in the last two weeks. All major issues raised in this review have been adequately addressed, and the article now meets all GA criteria in my opinion. Excellent work by both nominators on such a long and difficult article. Promoting :) Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 14:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Sainsf for your very constructive review which has helped improve the article to this standard. Thanks also to all the other editors who have contributed over the years. Cheers, ~ RLO1729💬 and Tbytheriver (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Agatha_Christie/GA2&oldid=956099406"