Talk:Ender's Game/GA1

GA Review

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

Before Jclemens says anything in his official review, I must point out that the 4 lists in the middle of article are lame, and sufficient grounds for quickly failing GA for bad prose/organization. So please replace the lists with some prose to introduce those plot elements. Xasodfuih (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also "Ender's Game (1985) is the best-known novel by Orson Scott Card." is an opening sentence that even in a middle-school essay would be embarrassing. Xasodfuih (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And awards should be mentioned in the lede instead of book revisions. No offense, but this article seems written by very immature editor that focuses on less relevant details and lacks perspective. Xasodfuih (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I probably won't get to a detailed review of this until this weekend. Feel free to leave more comments, or go ahead and review the entire thing if you have time and inclination. Jclemens (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the references in this article, I see they're mostly news from the entertainment industry about the movie or some other adaptation. I don't see anything resembling a literary criticism source that discusses the novel in depth. A GA does not need to be comprehensive, but I think that having an article that's plot + list of characters + list awards + adaptations is the wrong way to portray a novel. I recommend failing this GAN until this is addressed. Xasodfuih (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the problem with this. You seem to be suggesting that there needs to be something brilliant about the article for it to pass. The article covers basically all there is to cover about the novel without breaching WP:OR and discussing symbolism and themes. Once again, the article covers the general areas of Ender's Game, and for an example of a Featured Article about a book that has a similarly written article you can look at Halo: Contact Harvest. While the article is perhaps better polished than the Ender's Game article, that is to be expected because that article is featured while this one is merely attempting to reach good article status. Could you perhaps give some advice on how to improve the article rather than saying how poorly written it is? Malinaccier P. (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is my opinion. Leaving aside that the editor behind Halo: Contact Harvest pretty much admits to writing it to get the mop, that article is no great example if you ask me: 60% of that FA is a lengthy plot summary. But at least it doesn't have lengthy bullet lists, and it has some details on critical reception and some of the author's ruminations. Anyway, Jclemens is running this GA, so it's his call. Xasodfuih (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Hatnote seems kind of iffy--why is it needed? If it is needed, make it less redundant, but it seems like a See Also would be sufficient. Listing of sequels in the lead are neither chronological by publication date nor alphabetically--why? Lead length is fine. It's been a while since I've read the book, but the plot summary seems to include a lot of things not central to the book. Passive voice is used too frequently.
Y Hatnote sent to "See also," sequels reorganized, passive voice changed to active in the plot summary. Malinaccier (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
There are more sources for the potential movie than anything else. This really needs some independent RS on commentary about the book, and less plot summary. For example, see "http://www.sfnewmexican.com/Teen/-Ender-s-Game--a-masterpiece-to-put-your-mind-in-a-spin" for the sort of thing I think needs to be added. There are lot more commentaries where that came from. IMDb is not an official source for anything.
Y I've created a "Critical response section" with sources from commentaries from sources such as NYtimes. Malinaccier (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
See above comments--needs more literary reaction and less plot summary.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Seems a bit fannish. Hard to put a specific finger on it, but the overall feel is one of a fans writing about a favored book, not of detatched appraisal.
In the critical response section I've dedicated a lot of writing to negative responses to the novel, but I'm unsure if this has fully solved the problem. Malinaccier (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
On hold for up to a week for improvements. I'm leaving the country Friday, so I will review this Thursday, and either pass it, fail it, or extend the hold for another week, based on the progress against these recommendations. Jclemens (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments: Category "Ender's Game series novels" should be a list, rather than a category, since it's finite and completion is possible. Fact is, looks like the list article already exists. Jclemens (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it. Malinaccier (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it turned out fine. It could use a bit more copyediting, but my main points about the content have been addressed. Minor quibbles:

The inspiration for the ansible comes out as a bit of a "huh" trivia in the creation section. Perhaps move it somewhere in the setting section and mention it parenthetically.

Done. Malinaccier (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"... as of now" in should probably be avoided in the adaptations section.

Done. Malinaccier (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the critical response section "On the other hand, there have been several negative reviews" doesn't strike me as the right transition because the NYT review right before it was also fairly negative. Perhaps you intended to label that as a mixed review and contrast it with wholly negative reviews? Xasodfuih (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Malinaccier (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1/16 re-review Grr. I just wrote up a detailed review, and then my browser ate it. I'm probably not going to get to redo it before I leave for a week, so hold is extended until I return.

High points:

Call it science fiction in the lead

Done. Scapler (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It is set in Earth's future where mankind has barely survived two conflicts with the Formics (an insectoid alien race also known as the "Buggers") and the International Fleet is preparing for war." Too much information, awkward and redundant--why do we care about an International fleet? If mankind has barely survived an interplanetary war, naming earth is redundant.
"In order to find and train the eventual commander for the anticipated third invasion, the world's most talented children, including the extraordinary Ender Wiggin, are taken into a training center known as the Battle School at a very young age and trained in the arts of war through increasingly difficult games." Awkward, too long and complex.
Second lead paragraph needs to clarify that the series didn't immediately follow the novelette.

Done. Simplified the sentences, and performed a copyedit. Further, I have clarified the IF's significance. However, I do believe it is appropriate to mention that it is earth's future, rather than another setting created for a sci-fi universe. Scapler (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure:

Move Creation after Synopsis? I like plot to follow lead, just a preference, though--do what reads best.

Comment - I believe it reads better to surround the plot with real world info, like you said, just a preference. Scapler (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the creation section before the plot gives some context. Xasodfuih (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summary:

Almost every sentence needs some work.
"Upon departure for Battle School, the Battle School commander, Hyrum Graff, immediately singles out Ender as the most intelligent student." Upon departure for or arrival at?
"Ender gains the reputation of an elite soldier and becomes ranked top of all the soldiers in battle school." Gains a reputation is awkward. Capitalize Battle School consistently throughout. Use "children" or "child soldiers" instead of soldiers in the final clause--emphasize that the school is made up of kids.

Done. I have copyedited the whole article as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, so the article as a whole should read better now. Scapler (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's a quickie rehash of a detailed review. You're much closer than you were, the improvements are showing, but more copyediting is still needed. The critical reception section is a great add. I'll be back 1/24, and will look at what you've done then. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lede could use more attention. The first paragraph was a half-plot summary with awards tagged awkwardly at the end of it. I've tweaked it a bit, but it still needs a rewrite to make any sense to someone not familiar with the novel. Xasodfuih (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Right away I see problems with the lead paragraph. Focusing on it:

The first paragraph has words based on the root 'expand' occur twice in the same sentence and it has words based on 'update' occur twice in the same sentence. Get thee to a thesaurus.

Done Scapler (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention 'Formic' in the first paragraph--wait until the second para where the wikilink is. The first para should say something like "intergalactic wars" or "alien wars" or similar.

Done Good catch on both of these Scapler (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The chronological progression in the first paragraph isn't complete. There's a sentence about 1977, a glaring gap where it should discuss the early '80s when the novelette became a novel, a void during the mid-80s when the book was gaining popular and critical success, and then the 1991 update could be brought in. If such a chronological sequence isn't desired for the first paragraph, take all that stuff out and put it in the third paragraph. Keep the author/book real world timeline together.

Comment - I do not believe that the lead should necessarily be arranged chronologically. As it exists now, it flows quite logically: Origin, Plot, Reception and adaptations. In my opinion, this works fine. Scapler (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need for Soviet Union in the first paragraph. Just say the book was updated to keep in step with current events. Save the details for later. Binksternet (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done

1/24 Re-review Still a lot of awkward things that needed copyediting, so I did 'em. Passed per improvements. Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]