Talk:All the Light We Cannot See/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 15:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are reliable. Two of the images look OK; I've asked an image expert about the St. Malo image as I can't tell if the licence is valid.

For the quote from Steph Cha, you've elided a bit in the middle, which is fine, but that needs to be indicated in the article by an ellipsis.
Earwig reveals one issue with close paraphrasing from the Washington Post review. The source has "When the Nazis invade France in 1940, she and her father flee to the coastal town of Saint-Malo to take refuge with her great-uncle Etienne, a recluse still suffering shell-shock from the Great War. Unbeknownst to Marie-Laure, her father has been entrusted with the Sea of Flames or one of three exact copies". The article has: "When Germany invades France in 1940, Marie-Laure and Daniel flee to the coastal town of Saint-Malo to take refuge with her great-uncle Etienne, a recluse and shellshocked veteran of the Great War who spent his time broadcasting old records of his dead brother across Europe. Unknown to Marie-Laure, her father had been entrusted by the museum with either the Sea of Flames diamond or one of three exact copies". This needs rephrasing to be further away from the source.
"who spent his time broadcasting old records ": I've read the book, but too long ago to remember the plot details. Shouldn't this be "spends"?
"Marie-Laure and Etienne continue her efforts": "their efforts"? Or is it really just Marie-Laure? Or are you saying Etienne is only now getting involved.
"Etienne is eventually falsely arrested": it's not clear what "falsely" means: was he not really arrested? Or arrested on a trumped-up charge?
"Werner's entrance of Schulpforta": suggest "Werner's attendance at Schulpforta", or if it's really the entrance that alienates Jutta, then "Werner's acceptance of a place at Schulpforta". I think the whole sentence is a bit clumsy, though. How about "Jutta hates Nazi values and has been listening to French radio broadcasts relating horrifying stories about Germany's invasion, and is alienated from Werner when he accepts a place at Schulpforta"? Alienated is perhaps a bit strong, given that the next sentence describes an agreement between the two. Perhaps "angry with"?
"When Werner asks for him to leave Schulpforta two years after entering to be with Jutta, Dr. Hauptmann fabricates Werner's age and convinces Nazi officials to send Werner to the military." I assume "for him" is an error? And Hauptmann doesn't fabricate Werner's age; he presumably forges documents or lies about his age.
"According to Anthony Doerr, the first inspiration for All the Light We Cannot See during a 2004 train ride when he saw a man get angry over his call cutting out after the train entered a tunnel". No main verb.
"The descriptions of various points of interest, such as battlefields and beaches, are rich and detailed;[9] nearly all the nouns in writing has an adjective next to it.[14]" This misrepresents the source; it makes it sound as if sprinkling adjectives on the page makes the writing rich and detailed, whereas the Guardian commentary is strongly negative on this point.
Suggest cutting "subtle" or attributing it to a source; we shouldn't make value judgements like that in Wikipedia's voice.
The story about the train ride and the phone call are given twice in the body; the second time should at most refer to the first, rather than repeating it in full.
"much of Doerr's works": either "many of Doerr's works" or "much of Doerr's work".

Spotchecks:

FN 15 cites "the book moves with the brisk pace of a thriller novel"; source has "the book moves with the pace of a thriller", which is too closely paraphrased.
FN 9 cites "Many of the characters, even the heroes, are flawed in some way to make them seem real"; source has " All, even the most heroic and likable, are flawed in some way, as real people are (and people in novels often are not)." This is not quite what the source says; the problem is that in paraphrasing a slight change in meaning has crept in. The reviewer is praising the outcome, not saying why Doerr made the choice to give them flaws.
FN 13 cites "Much of the novel deals with ethical themes. During the novel, Germany's attempt to acquire all of Europe leads to its downfall, while Von Rumpel tries to acquire the Sea of Flames, highlighting the dangers of possession. Another theme is the nature of sacrifice; Daniel gives the Sea of Flames to Marie-Laure to keep her alive despite the curse leading to him being arrested, while Werner is forced to reluctantly risk his life for Germany." The source doesn't mention the curse.
FN 15 cites "The novel also deals with dilemmas such as choice versus fate and atrocity versus honor". This is too close to the source; I think you'd be better off here quoting rather than trying to rephrase.
FN 15 cites "much of Doerr's works play on his fascination with science and the natural world": the source has "Doerr's fiction often reflects his fascination with science and the natural world". THis is too close.
FN 17 cites "When the story is taken to the present day, a character imagines the abundance of electromagnetic waves flowing from cell phones and computers." Source has "Doerr ... brings his novel into the present. One of his contemporary characters imagines the electromagnetic waves coursing into and out of computers and cellphones". This is too close.

I am going to stop here and fail the article. I didn't quite finish the prose review, but there's too much copyediting needed, and too many instances where the source has been too closely paraphrased, to fix at GAN. Once you've fixed the paraphrasing issues, I suggest a GOCE copyedit before renominating. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]