Talk:Glamorama

Glamorama was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 8, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed

Novels Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is Sean Bateman 'significant'?

"The novel keeps up Ellis's tradition of using pre-existing characters from previous novels. For example, a significant character is Sean Bateman, who was the primary character in The Rules Of Attraction and was Patrick Bateman's brother in American Psycho (Patrick himself makes a brief cameo in Glamorama)."
What exactly is it that makes Sean Bateman a 'significant' character? I may be wrong, but I only recall him being mentioned briefly in part one during a conversation between Victor and Lauren, and then again in a Camden flashback in part six. If someone can't explain why he is so 'significant' then I'll re-write the section. I'll leave my bit about Bertrand and add a somewhat more authoritative list of all characters who have made a return in Glamorama.

Matthew king 22:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-written the paragrah. I hope I didn't miss anyone out. ;)

Matthew king 10:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

The original headline of "plot stolen/recycled" didn't exactly seem neutral or encyclopedic, so I went ahead and cleaned up a little. - Ambientlight 23:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoolander

In the Zoolander article it says Ellis did take legal action and settled out of court, and can't talk about it due to the terms in the settlement. In this article it says he was joking about taking legal action. What gives?

Fair use rationale for Image:Glamorama (cover).gif

Image:Glamorama (cover).gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Glamorama/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kaguya-chan (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Character names are in bold for some reason.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
There are two citation needed tags in Adaptions, which has several unsourced statements. Refs 12–15 only have urls, and Refs 1, 5–9, and 16 lack an accessdate. Ref 4 lacks a publisher. Ref 14 is also a blog and may not be a reliable source.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article has no plot section, which makes trying to understand it without having read the book first very difficult. The lead is also way too short.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
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):
There are no images in the article.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

This is an interesting article with some very nifty analysis (lit. devices and style was especially fun to read). While it has greatly improved, I don't think it meets the GA criteria at this point. The article uses quite a bit of quotes, (more paraphrasing would be nice), parts of Adaptions are unsourced, some references are not properly formatted, the lead is way too short (WP: LEAD recommends two to three paragraphs), and it lacks a plot section. A picture of the cover would also be nice. Kaguya-chan (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is better than a number of literature 'good' articles, but okay. Were this an FAN, those points would have been taken care of. But, regardless, thanks for your time in editing and for the helpful peer review. If you'd informed me sooner before failing it, I could have amended the issues and passed the GA, too...~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Wording edited 04:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter numbering

Should the unusual numbering system of the chapters be mentioned?) (I don't have the novel here, but I remember that in at least one part of the book they are counting down instead of up, for example.) -- megA (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Each "act" has its own chapter numbering and they count down to the end of the act. It's not that unusual, really, but if it's come up in critical evaluation of the novel then I suppose that could be mentioned. GRAPPLE X 14:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I remember there was some inconsistency in the numbering, but I'd have to look it up when I have the book at hand again... Is it really not that unusual to count the chapters down? -- megA (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article lacks a lot of info

This is a rather strange article. In an article about a book, I hope to see a little bit of background about the author and the writing; a brief plot summary and list of characters; maybe a little bit of supported analysis of the themes; and a bit of the reception history. This article seems to be a long and loosely organized string of quotes from reviews, some of them no-name newspapers (the Lakeland Ledger?) or college papers. There isn't really even a plot summary. 71.198.222.71 (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]