Talk:Fight Club (novel)/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Reassessment[edit]

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

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose (Symbol oppose vote.svg) 1b. MoS (Symbol oppose vote.svg) 2a. ref layout (Symbol comment.png) 2b. cites WP:RS (Symbol support vote.svg) 2c. no WP:OR (Symbol oppose vote.svg) 3a. broadness (Symbol oppose vote.svg)
3b. focus (Symbol comment.png) 4. neutral (Symbol comment.png) 5. stable (Symbol support vote.svg) 6a. free or tagged images (Symbol support vote.svg) 6b. pics relevant (Symbol support vote.svg)
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked Symbol comment.png are unassessed


Because I respect the integrity of the editor(s) who got this promoted years ago, I take no shame in offering the opinion that it no longer fits the GA criteria. I will remove it if no attempts are made anytime soon to fix it. What needs fixing:

  • The intro is incredibly short and doesn't adequately summarize the article.
  • The prose throughout features a number of short paragraphs, most of them without a topic sentence or equivalent.
  • The prose at times is awkward and ambiguous, particularly in History.
  • Plot contains some poor grammar, e.g. "recruiting fight club's members", inconsistent use of tenses.
  • The article is poorly organized; Characters should come before or after Plot, History should be before Awards.
  • There's essentially no Reception. Find more, split it—along with the sales stuff—into a new section, and merge Awards into it.
  • Motifs and Themes contain a huge amount of original research and weasel-wording that compromises the article's neutral point of view. They look like something that would earn a 3 on the English Literature AP test.
  • Some of the refs are formatted incorrectly or missing information.

It's urgent that you fix this if you want it to remain a GA; this article looks C-class to me and it's a disservice to keep it on the WP:GA list and thereby give readers the pretense that they'll be poring over something of contemporary quality. Please fix this. Tezero (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)