Talk:Halldór Laxness/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 06:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is a long way from GA standard, and I am quickfailing the nomination. Dktrfz, I'm sorry you had to wait two months only to see the nomination fall short so quickly; hopefully the following comments will provide ways to improve the article. I think the most helpful thing to do, however, would be to read other good or featured articles on authors, and see how they approach their subjects.

The article's main flaws are that it lacks both cohesion and breadth, and that it gives equal emphasis to the most important and most trivial aspects of Laxness's life and work. The article is largely fine through the first half of "1920s", but then becomes essentially a series of one- to two-sentence bullet points that, like chronological trivia, jump from one subject to another. We are told that Sjálfstætt fólk has been described as "… one of the best books of the twentieth century.", yet this centurial masterpiece is given a single sentence. Similarly, Heimsljós has been "… consistently regarded by many critics as his most important work.", yet it gets a mere two sentences. (Not to mention, these are sweeping declarations without context or explanation.) In the 1950s, meanwhile, three "[m]ajor works" are glossed in a sentence; Laxness's 1957 vacation is given more detail. All in all, it is as if the article on J. K. Rowling relegated Harry Potter to a sentence.

There are other issues—for example, uncited paragraphs, a difficult-to-navigate references section, and the suspicion that other relevant sources exist—but, ultimately, the article needs to be substantially reworked in order to get into GA shape. That's certainly possible—and Dktrfz, I hope this review wasn't too dispiriting!—it just will take time and effort. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Usernameunique,

Here is a Wikipedia guide I used for assessing good article nominations:

   The article should be clearly written, in good prose, with correct spelling and grammar. Check for coherent formatting, good organization of the article into sections, appropriate use of wikilinks, and other aspects of the Manual of Style referred to in the Good article criteria. After you have read the article, check that the lead section is a good summary and introduction to the topic.
   The article should be factually accurate according to reliable sources, with inline citations (typically using footnotes) for the six types of material named in the GA criteria.[5] The article should not copy text from sources without quotation or in text attribution, and it should not contain any original synthesis of source material, or other forms of original research. Perfectly formatted citations are not required. Read the detailed guidance at WP:DEADREF before addressing any non-functional URLs.
   The article should broadly cover the topic without unnecessary digressions. The article may, and sometimes should, go into detail, but it is not required to be comprehensive.
   The article should be written from the neutral point of view: this viewpoint strives to represent all other views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Ensure that the article describes disputes without engaging in them.
   The article should be stable, with no ongoing edit wars: constructive article improvement and routine editing does not apply here.
   The article should comply with image use policy. Images are encouraged but not required. Any images used should be appropriate to the article, have captions and free licenses or valid fair use rationales.
   The article is free of obvious copyright violations. Reviewers can use several tools, as well as Google searches, to help establish whether material has been plagiarised or cut-and-paste from some of the electronic sources used; but this is not a trivial undertaking.

I didn't appreciate any of your objections and found some of them insulting.

It is evident that this process is beyond my understanding. Dktrfz (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are disappointed, Dktrfz; certainly, I was not trying to be insulting. If you have any particular points of concern, please feel free to let me know, and if you feel as if the review was inadequate, you are always welcome to post on the main discussion page. I would just add that bringing at article up to the good article standard is a learning process, not a "you get it or you don't" situation. Try taking a look at some of the articles in the "Writers, publishers, and critics" section of this page (or, better yet, look at some featured articles). Also, trying to bring an article on a Nobel laureate (or, for that matter, on someone like Frank Lloyd Wright) up to good article standard is a very ambitious task, even when one is already familiar with the criteria and has contributed to previous good articles; starting with a more minor subject would be an easier way to ease in. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)