Talk:Anne Rice/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) 22:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Nothing sticks out to me that would create much confusion, appears to be appropriately paraphrased as far as I can tell, and I have dealt with the wording issues I noticed that would pose problems.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
With the exception of some citation issues I noticed this seems to be a well-referenced article that doesn't stray into any original ideas.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Covers most the significant parts of her life and career in sufficient detail, but isn't drawn out. However, it lacks any real mention of how her work has been received save for noting that it is popular.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Deals with her personal issues in a respectful yet frank manner.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I have tagged the areas where I noticed a need for citations. Having a section or sub-section on critical reception of her writing and filling in those citations should make this article fit to pass. These can readily fixed I think and so I will put a final review on hold.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! I think I've now resolved all the referencing problems, and I'll try to have a "Critical reception" section done in the next few days. Thanks again! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the part about her auctioning off possessions, I was looking for a source on the preceding sentence as well, not just her auctioning off the books. I can see why you would be confused about that, though.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for clarifying. Today I'll be focused on going through sources for a "Critical reception" section, but tomorrow I'll definitely try to clear that up. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update -- I've added a "Critical reception and analysis" section, which covers the critical reception of her early works, and later literary analysis and commentary. Getting that section done took longer than I had planned (it's amazing how hard it is to find decent sources to work from for stuff like that), but I think it looks decent now. There is an uncited quote from a reviewer early in that section. The source I quoted it from was a little too primary for my tastes, so I'd like to find a better source that mentions it. Once I do that (tomorrow or Thursday, hopefully), I think the article will be ready to pass, but if you see any outstanding problems that need to be addressed, let me know. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I believe the article is now ready to pass. All referencing issues have been resolved, as far as I can tell, and the "Reception and analysis" gives a fair summary of the way her work has been received and interpreted, I believe. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to try to perform a final review later tonight or early tomorrow, but something more that still needs to be done is to have some more material in the lede. Something I just noticed is that the lede currently doesn't cover her early life and it does not note that there have been more adaptions of Rice's work other than the two movies. The subsequent renunciation of Christianity should probably be noted briefly as well now that I think about it, with due consideration to the nuances of that renunciation, i.e. that she was dropping the label but keeping the faith. Also, there should be a brief summary of the new material about reception included in the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the article another time, I feel safe saying that the additions to the lede are the only thing keeping me from passing this nomination.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! Thanks for giving it another look. I'll have it done tomorrow/later today for sure. Right now, I must sleep! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be ready now. Let me know if you think any further changes are needed. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans, gonna promote this now.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch for the promotion and all your suggestions! You were a big part of getting the article to where it needed to be, so your help is very much appreciated. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]