Talk:Gnomes (book)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 12:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I will be reviewing this. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 12:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Link — "gnomes" in "The book explains the life and habitat of gnomes".
"The drawings by Poortvliet were praised for its natural style and use of watercolor. Huygen's writing, which mixed physiology with fiction, was also praised." — I suppose these two could be merged to be more concise. Also, since Huygen is the author, his part should be mentioned first. Something like → "Huygen's writing, which mixed physiology with fiction, and Poortvliet's drawings for their natural style and use of watercolor received praise." should work.
"The book was well received" — It becomes repetitive to mention this bit again in the second paragraph. I would suggest you either remove it, or move the sentence talking about critical reception down to this paragraph and after "The book was well received".
"several other spinoff books" → "several spinoff books"

Synopsis

"The book is written as if it was a biology book" → "The book is written like a biology book" or "The book is written in the manner of a biology book".
"Poortvliet and Huygen" — Should be "Huygen and Poortvliet" (author first), unless it is described that way in the book.
"In the book", "According to the authors", and "According to the book" — These are a little redundant, and self-evident terms since the section is called "Synopsis". They should be removed.
"The book also ends with a message" → "The book ends with a message"

Themes

"The Foxes' Union" and "Small Is Beautiful" — Mention years in brackets.
Link — "kabouter"
"One of its creators, Rien Poortvliet was also an advocate for "selectful (sic) and respectful hunting."" → "Rien Poortvliet was also an advocate for "selectful (sic) and respectful hunting."" — As it is clear that he is the illustrator, it is redundant to mention "One of its creators".

History

"Before working together on the book, Wil Huygen and Rien Poortvliet" → "Before working together on the book, Wil Huygen and Poortvliet" — Since his full-name was just used in the preceding section (and sentence).
"Poortvliet contributed with his drawings, which had been influenced by other famous Dutch artists that had come before him, such as" → "Poortvliet contributed with his drawings, which had been influenced by other Dutch artists, such as" — For a formal and an encyclopedic tone.
File:Doorzichtige glazen kelderfles jonge kabouter jenever, veelkleurig, objectnr 49011.JPG would be a good inclusion here. The article only has the book's cover in media and could use an image or two. Another picture of a typical Dutch gnome could also be used if you can find a good one on commons.

Publication

"The company, with the assistance of the paperback house Bantam, planned initially for a release of 40,000 copies to the market, titled simply Gnomes, but the book ended up selling 250,000 copies during its prepublication period, with the publishing house expecting, at the time, "to sell another 150,000 copies at the full price"." — This is a little too long and hard to track. Consider splitting it into two or three sentences.
"were released in the following years, such as:" → "were released in the following years:"
"Secrets of the gnomes" → "Secrets of the Gnomes"

Reception

Unlink — "Poortvliet", "Hyugen"
"Lingeman also called attention to the fact that the gnomes" → "Lingeman also noted that the gnomes" — More formal.

Adaptation

"The 1980 television movie Gnomes, directed by Jack Zander, is based on the book by Poortvliet and Huygen." — Use "film" instead of "movie". Also the sentence is bit redundant. Consider re-writing as "Gnomes was adapted in a 1980 eponymous television film, directed by Jack Zander." or "Gnomes was adapted in a 1980 television film of the same name, directed by Jack Zander." Alternatively, you can just drop their names and go "The 1980 television movie Gnomes, directed by Jack Zander, is based on the book."

In Spain

Link — "Ramdom House Mondadori"
"El libro secreto de los gnomos" — Mention translation in brackets. I suppose it is "El libro secreto de los gnomos?

References

Reference 5 — "TIME Magazine" → "Time"

Main aspects

I have some concerns about the coverage aspect. Some inclusion of sales in the Netherlands (in "Publication), as well as how it was received critically in the country (in "Reception") should be there to satisfy the good article criteria of main aspects (3a).

That will be all for now. You can take as long as you need if finding Dutch sources proves to be difficult. Thank you for this article. I remember reading this when I was younger (although I don't quite remember the content of the book) and it felt nostalgic. — The Most Comfortable Chair 05:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review The Most Comfortable Chair! I'll be going over what needs to be improved now (will focus on the sources first, so might take some time). Concerning the picture you suggested, I actually thought about using it, but wasn't sure if the gnome in the label would be visible enough. I'll be adding it, though. About the translation, I didn't understand what you meant with: Mention translation in brackets. I suppose it is "El libro secreto de los gnomos? Do you want me to translate that to English? Thanks again! Isabelle ^🔔 13:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Belato, I am sorry for the confusion. I must have copied from the wrong half of Google Translate. Yes, the English translation — "El libro secreto de los gnomos (The Secret Book of Gnomes)". Regards. — The Most Comfortable Chair 13:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Comfortable Chair: I'm not sure if this is the usual process of a GAN, but what do you think about making "Reception" a sub-header of "History" and splitting some of the information in "Publication" (specially about sales) into a "Legacy" sub-header? I've also found some sources, but mostly related to Poortvliet, but it did give some insight on the publishing deals. Isabelle ^🔔 17:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Reception" is usually a stand-alone header in articles; see these featured and good articles on books. It wouldn't work as a sub-header of "History" because the section generally covers details about a book's background, release, and events related to its publishing history. These topics are independent of commentary from critics, since the focus is primarily on the writing and releasing aspects. Although, you can move details about sales into "Reception" instead; there is plenty of precedence of that practice in featured and good articles. Commercial analysis can be covered either in "Publication" (like here) or "Reception". This is more of a stylistic choice and its for the editors of the article to decide.

Idea of a "Legacy" section is intriguing. "Adaptations" is frequently a sub-header of "Legacy"; for instance, The Hobbit. However that is because the book also discusses its cultural impact apart from its adaptations. If you were to have a "Legacy" section, you will need to discuss some cultural impacts the book has had in addition to its adaptations; a paragraph or two that mentions the book's cultural legacy could work, and then "Adaptions" could be included under it. — The Most Comfortable Chair 18:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Comfortable Chair: I believe I've done all the changes suggested. I've also expanded the "Themes" section with a new paragraph, and added some more information on current sales numbers worldwide. I've tried searching for reviews from Dutch sources, but I've only found one website of unknown reliability. I'll keep searching, but I imagine most sources will be from old Dutch newspapers. Isabelle ^🔔 21:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Belato, I hope you don't mind that I moved some details regarding publication history to "Publication" as it doesn't fall under the scope of "Reception". I will have one last look but everything seems all right! — The Most Comfortable Chair 03:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
The article is written nicely and covers specific details about a book which, in my opinion, is highly underrated. It is a good read and meets the criteria. Thank you for your work in writing this! — The Most Comfortable Chair 04:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.