Talk:Yann Martel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.
 
WikiProject Literature (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Canada (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

We Ate the Children Last[edit]

Despite being mentioned on Yann's webpage I can see no record of this book on Amazon which is strange, any ideas ?

GrahamHardy (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I also see no mention of "Self". Hardly a minor work. Commo1 (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, why is there no mention in the article of the plagiarism issues concerning Life of Pi? Martel has publicly acknowledged borrowing very heavily from a Brazilian novel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.44.88 (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

“The greater good and the greater profit are not compatible aims.” Yann Martel — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsAngelnPunkin (talkcontribs) 13:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

There's a line "From 2007 to 12345678910, Martel worked on a project ..." in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.193.237 (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

old link[edit]

the link for ' Official Beatrice and Virgil website (U.S.)' is inaccurate is goes to a placeholder page to sell the domain.. the one link before it.. works well.. maybe someone can edit that link.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.129.108 (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tidied it up. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism Charges[edit]

I agree with the above comment that noted the absence of information about plagiarism charges against Martel. Whether the charges are valid or not, they have been made and have been discussed in major media outlets. See for instance:

--Skb8721 (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It's covered in the last couple of sentences of the first paragraph under Career, and in more detail at Life of Pi. I think that's appropriate weight, given how short this article is. WP:BLP is also relevant here, so the description sticks to the facts.--Trystan (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

GA nomination[edit]

i'm nominating for GA since the revscore indicates GA. https://ores.wmflabs.org/scores/enwiki/wp10/711593525/ -- Duckduckstop (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 12:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


Nice to meet you, Duckduckstop, I'll be reviewing this article. It looks (at face value) very close to GA status however I will have to have a look in more detail over the next week or two. It looks like a lot of effort has gone into preparing this high-quality article. 140barb01 may want to contribute as they seem to be doing most of the editing, and as a not it doesn't seem like you have actually edited this article at all - which is not ideal, but if you're happy to respond to my comments during the review not a big problem. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

yes, thanks for pinging, and i will respond. Duckduckstop (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I will be reviewing against the GA criteria below:

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Well-written
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Yet to verify and check for plagiarism
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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. Yet to verify
2c. it contains no original research. Yet to verify
2d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism. Yet to verify
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Yet to verify
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Stays on topic
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. See comments
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. See comments
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. Yet to verify
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

At the present moment, I think we should hold the review for 1-2 weeks while the article stabilises, after which I'll continue the review. I'd love also to hear from the main editor at large, 140barb01. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Am failing this review based on the neutral and stability criteria. Article is still being extensively edited by an editor who I assume to be Yann Martell, his wife Alice Kuipers, or family or a close friend, based on their extensive edits to those two articles alone. I also can't find any record of edits by the nominator in the last year, which is unusual for a GA review. I suggest renomination in 1-3 months after editing has slowed down and other editors have had a look. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)