Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sadads (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Hi, I am User:Sadads and I will be reviewing your article per the GA criteria. Below is an outline which I will use to check off criteria that are covered/completed. I and only I can check it off. Below the criteria section I will make comments about what I think is right/wrong with the article. I do not automatically fail GA articles unless they have too substantial gaps in content. Please be patient, the coming week I have several major things happening in my real life (including a camping trip and starting a new job), but I wanted to take this article, I read the books as a kid.

A little information on myself: I am a student of History and Literature, working on my BA in both subjects. I am also an active participant in WP:Novels and a coordinator for several task forces there. I have experience in Modern literature and History, though my focus is generally on modern African literature, Historical fiction and Early modern history. I hope I can bring this experience to my review. If at any time you wish to request another reviewer, I totally understand, however I do not foresee that need. If I am negligent for any reason please contact me on my talk page.

I noticed that this article failed review before. Did the reviewer leave comments anywhere? Nevermind, I realized that was in '07.

The primary reason given at the time was that the article didn't include inline citations. The reviewer was under the mistaken opinion that Harvard Style Citations were not inline. LloydSommerer (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Cool, right now the citations look pretty good, haven't finished the article yet. Sadads (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


Checklist[edit]

  1. Well-written:
(a) Donethe prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
(b)it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
  1. Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) Failit provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and
(c) Failit contains no original research.
  1. Broad in its coverage:
(a) Doneit addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
(b) Doneit stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  1.  DoneNeutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
  2.  DoneStable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  3. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) Doneimages are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
(b) Doneimages are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Lead[edit]

First thing first, please provide a lead considerably longer consistent with WP:Lead. This article is nearly 80,000 bytes, I would think it would have more than 2 short paragraphs as a lead. And please remember full summary style. Sadads (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I added a short summary each of the books in the lead. AirplanePro 22:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Book titles aren't bolded, but rather italicized. Airplaneman 23:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The added book summaries in the lede have been reverted (by user:WickerGuy, but I agree). There's no point in adding summaries of summaries. -- Elphion (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The Summary should discuss a little bit about each section. For the plot and books section, you can talk briefly about the setting and the publication history methinks. Try taking a look at WP:Summary Style and read WP:Lead. I did not mean "plot summary" but rather a summary of what is going on throughout the article, that fairly represents the breadth of the article. Sadads (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism"[edit]

The section titled "Criticism" should be renamed. It is a little too similar to the term "Literary Criticism" and implies the wrong meaning for the section. Perhaps "Negative response"? Sadads (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Done AirplanePro 22:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Images[edit]

This article could really use some more images. It won't stop this nomination, but definitely should be on the to do list. Sadads (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought about that, but I am wondering what type of images should be added. AirplanePro 22:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Including an image of Pullman in this article seems a bit bizarre? -- Elphion (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Pullman has a lot to do with the Negative reception. I was pulling images that we have rights to, to demonstrate how we can illustrate. It doesn't have to stay. Images should represent ideas discussed in the article. I included Pullman because his objections to the series are really important to its overall public image of the series. Sadads (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

For the infobox caption, does "first-edition" need the hyphen? Airplaneman 02:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure on that. Comment on the picture though: I don't know if any of the newer ones qualify under WP:Fair Use which many of them are loaded under. Sadads (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing[edit]

The whole article is really good source wise, until the other media part. Need sources, otherwise can't pass GA.Sadads (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I would also suggest that the citations need to be moved to one type of citation. We've been doing both references and notes for a while, and I don't think anyone would suggest that that is the best option. This is a fair amount of work, but only because it is time consuming. It should be pretty straight forward. LloydSommerer (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Llyod, hadn't thoroughly examined the notes yet. Sadads (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I started looking at the notes. Please verify the reliability of #42 "Crossroad, see also the Sayers biography, p. 419." That does not appear to be a reliable source, but rather an opinion piece by a blogger. We can't use those.Sadads (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It does appear to be a unreliable source. I will remove it. AirplanePro 22:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. 7 isn't a very good source, and is hardly used. #9, "Martindale, Wayne; Root, Jerry. The Quotable Lewis" needs more information, to be a proper citation or only last names if you are using chicago (this is still really confusing, following Llyod's point. The Sources just don't make sense. I understand doing the books with last name, page number. But the news articles, etc. can just be part of the note, instead of half one way half the other. And the citations all need publication dates and accessdates, for use by readers. Sadads (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Failing Review[edit]

This article has, unfortunately, failed its review due to a general unresponsiveness of the editor to requests for sourcing, esp. in the popular culture section, fixing poor sources, in the forms of blogs in some cases, and other comments made by the reviewer. The sources, really do need to be gone through with a fine-toothed comb for quality and consistency. This article has the potential for GA pass if those issues are fixed before the next review. Sadads (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)